|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Has the ESV failed to meet its goals
|
| Yes |
|
| No |
|
Total Votes : 16
|
(last vote on : 9/2/2010 6:41:37 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:13:54 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
The preface of the ESV states that:
"The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original."
However, many times I have found that the ESV offers translations that are as dynamic (or sometimes even more dynamic) than the translations found in other versions of Scripture that make a much stronger acknowledgment of their use of dynamic/functional equivalence in their translation.
While I have no real problem with most of the translations given in the ESV (as far as a conveying the meaning of the text), I am troubled by its extensive use of functional equivalent language given its stated goal to "capture the precise wording of the original text;" I am personally far more comfortable with the use of functional equivalent langauge in other versions simply because they stated their intent to use functional equivalent langauge in the preface to their translation. I think the ESV stated goal leaves an impression about how the text would be translated on which the translators have repeatedly failed to deliver. It is kind of like going to the store to by a sports car and receiving a minivan in its place; there is nothing wrong with minivans, but it is disappointing to get one when you were promised a sports car.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 7/8/2010 4:48:47 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:22:40 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 3172
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be. I have found that later printings do differ from earlier printings, however. So, I do know they are making changes and they have been very welcome to taking into consideration those things you find disagreeable. I've heard John Piper talk about a list he has from the ESV that he submits. Others have done the same. I think the NIV is far worse in many of it's dynamic equivalence interpretations. Far far worse, at times. Overall, I find that the ESV is a very good translation and I have found little to complain about. Just don't get me started about some of the bad issues with the HCSB.
_____________________________
God uses our bad will to accomplish His good will. - R.C. Sproul
Blog|Facebook|Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:28:14 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
Here is an example one example that I came across today in my studies.
Here is a very literal (Greek word order preseved) translation of 1 Cor. 13:4-5
Love is patient, it does kindness love,
It is not envious, [love] not it boasts, not it is puffed up.
Not it acts disgracefully, not it seeks of itself, not it is provoked,
Not it accounts the evil.
* the [] text is because this is not present in many manuscripts.
Here is the text as translated in the NIV (a translation that acknowledges the use of dynamic langauge).
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
(1Co 13:4-5 NIV)
And here is the essentially literal ESV
Love is patient and kind;
love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude.
It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
(1Co 13:4-5 ESV)
Notes:
1) The word Love is repeated in the Greek text as it is in the NIV.
2) There is a significant amount of regrouping and reorganizing the thoughts presented in the ESV translation; they are not presented in a way that "captures the precise wording of the original text;"
3) While both the NIV and the ESV make the same interpretive choice for "rude", the ESV makes additional interpretive choices for "insist on its own way", "irritable", "resentful" that do not easily "capture the precise wording of the original text"
Note: I am not saying that the ESV translation is inaccurate, but that it does not meet the goals stated in its preface nearly as well as the (more dynamic) NIV translation does.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:32:14 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 3172
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
I see your point in that one. Maybe you can write them and express your concerns.
_____________________________
God uses our bad will to accomplish His good will. - R.C. Sproul
Blog|Facebook|Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:34:06 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be. I have found that later printings do differ from earlier printings, however. So, I do know they are making changes and they have been very welcome to taking into consideration those things you find disagreeable. I've heard John Piper talk about a list he has from the ESV that he submits. Others have done the same. I think the NIV is far worse in many of it's dynamic equivalence interpretations. Far far worse, at times. Overall, I find that the ESV is a very good translation and I have found little to complain about. Just don't get me started about some of the bad issues with the HCSB.
Actually, I find the NIV to often be a much more formal equivalent translation when compared to the ESV. And in many cases where the NIV is more functional, the ESV translators are equally as functional.
For example:
All the descendants of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in Egypt. (Exo 1:5 ESV)
The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt. (Exo 1:5 NIV)
All the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were seventy in number, but Joseph was already in Egypt. (Exo 1:5 NASB)
Of these three versions, only the NASB offers a truly formal translation of this text which literally says:
"And it was all the souls going out of the loins of Jacob"
< Message edited by benelchi -- 7/8/2010 4:42:03 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:40:39 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
I see your point in that one. Maybe you can write them and express your concerns.
I am not sure if that is worth it, correcting the ESV to meet it stated goals would require a very significant update.
While there are some verses for which I think much better translations could be made (and I can see good reasons to suggest these to the ESV team), this issue isn't really a question about how good or bad the ESV translation is, but rather about how well the translation meets its goal of being "essential literal." Too many churches are adopting the ESV BECAUSE they believe it to be formal equivalent translation, and do not understand that they are getting a translation that is often far more dynamic when compared to other versions of the bible that are rejected because they are dynamic equivalent translations. It is the misunderstanding of what has been delivered in the ESV translation that bothers me; not a question of its accuracy.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 4:41:55 PM
|
|
|
ninjaaron
Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
It has achieved the primary goal: making money. 
[edit] I probably shouldn't say that, since they are very lenient with their copy-write and often give permission for their text to be reproduced entirely for free (such as in the SWORD module, which I use regularly). Still, they have made a ton of money, and have managed to get some major names to back their product. All in all, I'd say the ESV has been an extremely profitable venture.
They have also succeeded in their goal of not translating masculine plurals and generic masculine nouns into the English idiom that accurately communicates the same idea... usually... they still slip and do it sometimes (but hey, who can blame them? even the KJV did it sometimes).
< Message edited by ninjaaron -- 7/8/2010 4:53:05 PM >
_____________________________
My Bible Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 8:10:52 PM
|
|
|
Intrepidus
Posts: 214
Joined: 10/7/2009
Status: offline
|
The ESV is "essentially" literal--not slavishly so. All translations of the Bible in English make us of dynamic equivalence (yes, even the NASB). This, the ESV translators readily admit.
"Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be 'as literal as possible' while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence... As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization." (emphasis added)
I think you misunderstand the goals of the ESV translators. They were not simply trying to produce the most literal, word-for-word translation. Instead, they sought literary excellence in an English translation that was guided primarily--though not exclusively--by formal equivalency. And this goal they most admirably achieved.
One of the reasons the NIV has enjoyed the success it has is that it is eminently readable. In contrast, the NASB is wooden, at times awkward, and is not well-received in public reading and preaching. But to achieve its lauded readability, the NIV was guided primarily by dynamic equivalency. It unashamedly departs the original wording and grammar to make the text easy to read.
The ESV represents the best of both worlds. It follows a word-for-word translation philosophy, yet not so rigidly that the text becomes wooden or ineloquent. Thus, if you want the most literal translation, I recommend the NASB. But if you want the best literal translation that can be read in public or used in devotion, the ESV is your Bible.
-Intrepidus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 8:56:02 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 3172
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
The ESV is "essentially" literal--not slavishly so. All translations of the Bible in English make us of dynamic equivalence (yes, even the NASB). This, the ESV translators readily admit.
"Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be 'as literal as possible' while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence... As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization." (emphasis added)
I think you misunderstand the goals of the ESV translators. They were not simply trying to produce the most literal, word-for-word translation. Instead, they sought literary excellence in an English translation that was guided primarily--though not exclusively--by formal equivalency. And this goal they most admirably achieved.
One of the reasons the NIV has enjoyed the success it has is that it is eminently readable. In contrast, the NASB is wooden, at times awkward, and is not well-received in public reading and preaching. But to achieve its lauded readability, the NIV was guided primarily by dynamic equivalency. It unashamedly departs the original wording and grammar to make the text easy to read.
The ESV represents the best of both worlds. It follows a word-for-word translation philosophy, yet not so rigidly that the text becomes wooden or ineloquent. Thus, if you want the most literal translation, I recommend the NASB. But if you want the best literal translation that can be read in public or used in devotion, the ESV is your Bible.
-Intrepidus
Well said. What I tell people is that the ESV is as if the NASB and the NIV married and had children. IOW, the ESV has the literalness of the NASB with the readability of the NIV.
_____________________________
God uses our bad will to accomplish His good will. - R.C. Sproul
Blog|Facebook|Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 9:26:07 PM
|
|
|
ninjaaron
Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
The ESV represents the best of both worlds.
Well, it certainly takes from both worlds... It's quite a stretch to say it's the best of either. I do like the English style... sounds good in the ear, at least. I like to read it because of the style.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
Well said. What I tell people is that the ESV is as if the NASB and the NIV married and had children. IOW, the ESV has the literalness of the NASB with the readability of the NIV.
It does not have the literalness of the NASB. It has a similar level of literalness as the HCSB, actually, and the HCSB has a much more contemporary style, rhythm, and vocabulary. They are both backed by pretty mediocre exegesis, however, which is the most important thing in a Bible translation. The only translations with reasonably good exegesis in my opinion are the TNIV, NET, NRSV (about as literal as the ESV with similar literary style), NJPS, and sometimes the KJV has a few exegetical jems if you bother look up the archaic meanings of the words. A translation is necessarily interpretation. It might as well be good interpretation.
_____________________________
My Bible Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 10:16:49 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
The ESV is "essentially" literal--not slavishly so. All translations of the Bible in English make us of dynamic equivalence (yes, even the NASB). This, the ESV translators readily admit.
"Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be 'as literal as possible' while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence... As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization." (emphasis added)
I think you misunderstand the goals of the ESV translators. They were not simply trying to produce the most literal, word-for-word translation. Instead, they sought literary excellence in an English translation that was guided primarily--though not exclusively--by formal equivalency. And this goal they most admirably achieved.
One of the reasons the NIV has enjoyed the success it has is that it is eminently readable. In contrast, the NASB is wooden, at times awkward, and is not well-received in public reading and preaching. But to achieve its lauded readability, the NIV was guided primarily by dynamic equivalency. It unashamedly departs the original wording and grammar to make the text easy to read.
The ESV represents the best of both worlds. It follows a word-for-word translation philosophy, yet not so rigidly that the text becomes wooden or ineloquent. Thus, if you want the most literal translation, I recommend the NASB. But if you want the best literal translation that can be read in public or used in devotion, the ESV is your Bible.
-Intrepidus
I do understand well the issues between formal equivilence vs functional equivilence. And the issue I raised was not simply rejection of functional equvilence; the issue is that versions, like the NIV which are supposedly enjoy a much greater freedom in their use of functional equivilent language are often in reality much more formal equivilent then the ESV. The changes made in the 1 Cor, 13 passage do not aid in the understanding of this verse and some of the choices are far more interprative than translative in nature. In this case the NIV did a much better job meeting the stated goal of the ESV than did the ESV itself.
P.S. the other issue is that the translation of different books and passages produced by different translators varies to a great degree on the use of functional vs formal langauge. Mark Stauss (on the TNIV translation team) has a long list of verses from the ESV that are more wooden literal than the NASB. In a nutshell, it is understandable based on the stated goals of the translation to find overly litteral translations, but it is not understandable based on the translations stated goals to find overly dynamic translations.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 10:43:49 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 3172
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ninjaaron
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
The ESV represents the best of both worlds.
Well, it certainly takes from both worlds... It's quite a stretch to say it's the best of either. I do like the English style... sounds good in the ear, at least. I like to read it because of the style.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
Well said. What I tell people is that the ESV is as if the NASB and the NIV married and had children. IOW, the ESV has the literalness of the NASB with the readability of the NIV.
It does not have the literalness of the NASB. It has a similar level of literalness as the HCSB, actually, and the HCSB has a much more contemporary style, rhythm, and vocabulary. They are both backed by pretty mediocre exegesis, however, which is the most important thing in a Bible translation. The only translations with reasonably good exegesis in my opinion are the TNIV, NET, NRSV (about as literal as the ESV with similar literary style), NJPS, and sometimes the KJV has a few exegetical jems if you bother look up the archaic meanings of the words. A translation is necessarily interpretation. It might as well be good interpretation.
TNIV and KJV actually have some horrible exegesis (the TNIV especially, even Zondervan is completely revamping it already), but that can be saved for another thread. As for the HCSB, I've found some horrible exegesis in it as well, though I prefer to call it the Holman Christian Southern Baptist Bible (wink, wink).
As for the OP, I'm with Intrepedus in saying that yes, the ESV has met it's goals.
_____________________________
God uses our bad will to accomplish His good will. - R.C. Sproul
Blog|Facebook|Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/8/2010 11:31:35 PM
|
|
|
Intrepidus
Posts: 214
Joined: 10/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The changes made in the 1 Cor, 13 passage do not aid in the understanding of this verse and some of the choices are far more interprative than translative in nature. In this case the NIV did a much better job meeting the stated goal of the ESV than did the ESV itself.
You state that the NIV is more formal in this instance because it repeats the word 'love' in verse 4a. Yet in the Greek, the word love actually appears three times. Here's what 1 Cor 13:4 looks like in the Nestle-Alland text (27th ed), roughly transliterated:
He agape makrothumei, chresteuetai he agape, ou zeloi, he agape ou perpepeuetai, ou phusioutai.
Thus, as you can see, the NIV did not do a "much better job" of translating this passage word-for-word. Like the ESV, it omits one instance of the word 'love'. At best, it is on par with the ESV in that regard.
-Intrepidus
< Message edited by Intrepidus -- 7/8/2010 11:38:44 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 2:57:47 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The changes made in the 1 Cor, 13 passage do not aid in the understanding of this verse and some of the choices are far more interprative than translative in nature. In this case the NIV did a much better job meeting the stated goal of the ESV than did the ESV itself.
You state that the NIV is more formal in this instance because it repeats the word 'love' in verse 4a. Yet in the Greek, the word love actually appears three times. Here's what 1 Cor 13:4 looks like in the Nestle-Alland text (27th ed), roughly transliterated:
He agape makrothumei, chresteuetai he agape, ou zeloi, he agape ou perpepeuetai, ou phusioutai.
Thus, as you can see, the NIV did not do a "much better job" of translating this passage word-for-word. Like the ESV, it omits one instance of the word 'love'. At best, it is on par with the ESV in that regard.
-Intrepidus
You might want to check the apparatus; you will see (as I noted in my post) that the 3rd instance of agape is absent in many greek manuscripts. The NIV left this out because they did not believe the Greek text you quoted to be the most reliable Greek text.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 8:52:06 AM
|
|
|
Intrepidus
Posts: 214
Joined: 10/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
You might want to check the apparatus; you will see (as I noted in my post) that the 3rd instance of agape is absent in many greek manuscripts. The NIV left this out because they did not believe the Greek text you quoted to be the most reliable Greek text.
Why check the apparatus? The wording in the text above is what the editors believed to be the most reliable. Otherwise, there would have been only two instances of agape in the text with a footnote pointing to a less-likely reading below. That's how the apparatus works.
While I don't have the NA in front of me this morning, I do have the UBS 4th ed. The text is identical (though I understand the apparatus differs). In other words, both the UBS and the NA agree on that reading. Are they certain of it? No. UBS gives it a 'C' rating, which means that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. Ultimately, however, both committees went with the 'three-loves' variant.
Textual criticism and Bible translation are two wholly separate fields. I am vastly more comfortable siding with the committees that produced the texts from which virtually all modern New Testaments are made than I am with the NIV translation committee on this matter. Apparently, so were the KJV, NKJV, YLT, and NASB translators (to name a few).
-Intrepidus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 9:58:15 AM
|
|
|
ninjaaron
Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
Why check the apparatus?
Were you sleeping in Greek or what? Read Metzger's or Alland's book.
quote:
While I don't have the NA in front of me this morning, I do have the UBS 4th ed. The text is identical (though I understand the apparatus differs). In other words, both the UBS and the NA agree on that reading. Are they certain of it? No. UBS gives it a 'C' rating, which means that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. Ultimately, however, both committees went with the 'three-loves' variant. This is a ridiculous argument, since both committees are pretty much the same guys with Metzger and Alland exchanging top seat. Plus, they made the decision to share same critical text from top to bottom. It's not like two different committees agreed here. Any text that has a 'C' rating is up for debate. It means that there must have been dissident voices on the committee itself. Really, superficial rating system aside, any variant is up for debate based on the strength in external evidence, scribal practice, and exegetical grounds. The committee behind the critical text picked one reading in a tough spot, the NIV committee picked another.
quote:
Textual criticism and Bible translation are two wholly separate fields. I am vastly more comfortable siding with the committees that produced the texts from which virtually all modern New Testaments are made than I am with the NIV translation committee on this matter. Apparently, so were the KJV, NKJV, YLT, and NASB translators (to name a few).
While I agree that picking the text and translating it are separate issues, it's not much of point. The scholarship behind most of the modern translations is pathetic in terms of textual Criticism. This is obvious when you go to the Old Testament for which there is no critical text, and you see that they all stick to the Westminster Leningrad Codex except in cases where the Hebrew is nonsense or is offensive to Christian doctrine. There are very few translations that actually do the textual leg-work to produce a better text of the OT. The NIV isn't particularly good in this, but it is better than most others (NRSV and NET are the main exceptions. The NEB also does it, but they are way too ready to adopt conjectural emendations and things like that... theyz crazy).
The scholars behind the NIV are well qualified for New Testament textual criticism. I may not agree with their decisions at times, but they have every right to make them. The only problem is that we don't have a textual commentary from the NIV people explaining the reasoning when they differed from the Critical text.
As you said, translation is different than textual criticism. I believe you were originally criticizing the translation for not being literal enough. However, they made a more literal translation of the Greek text they chose than the ESV made of its base text. Regardless of who made the better textual decision, the NIV has followed a more literal philosophy of translation on this verse.
< Message edited by ninjaaron -- 7/9/2010 10:05:39 AM >
_____________________________
My Bible Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 4:21:54 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ninjaaron
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intrepidus
Why check the apparatus?
Were you sleeping in Greek or what? Read Metzger's or Alland's book.
quote:
While I don't have the NA in front of me this morning, I do have the UBS 4th ed. The text is identical (though I understand the apparatus differs). In other words, both the UBS and the NA agree on that reading. Are they certain of it? No. UBS gives it a 'C' rating, which means that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. Ultimately, however, both committees went with the 'three-loves' variant. This is a ridiculous argument, since both committees are pretty much the same guys with Metzger and Alland exchanging top seat. Plus, they made the decision to share same critical text from top to bottom. It's not like two different committees agreed here. Any text that has a 'C' rating is up for debate. It means that there must have been dissident voices on the committee itself. Really, superficial rating system aside, any variant is up for debate based on the strength in external evidence, scribal practice, and exegetical grounds. The committee behind the critical text picked one reading in a tough spot, the NIV committee picked another.
quote:
Textual criticism and Bible translation are two wholly separate fields. I am vastly more comfortable siding with the committees that produced the texts from which virtually all modern New Testaments are made than I am with the NIV translation committee on this matter. Apparently, so were the KJV, NKJV, YLT, and NASB translators (to name a few).
While I agree that picking the text and translating it are separate issues, it's not much of point. The scholarship behind most of the modern translations is pathetic in terms of textual Criticism. This is obvious when you go to the Old Testament for which there is no critical text, and you see that they all stick to the Westminster Leningrad Codex except in cases where the Hebrew is nonsense or is offensive to Christian doctrine. There are very few translations that actually do the textual leg-work to produce a better text of the OT. The NIV isn't particularly good in this, but it is better than most others (NRSV and NET are the main exceptions. The NEB also does it, but they are way too ready to adopt conjectural emendations and things like that... theyz crazy).
The scholars behind the NIV are well qualified for New Testament textual criticism. I may not agree with their decisions at times, but they have every right to make them. The only problem is that we don't have a textual commentary from the NIV people explaining the reasoning when they differed from the Critical text.
As you said, translation is different than textual criticism. I believe you were originally criticizing the translation for not being literal enough. However, they made a more literal translation of the Greek text they chose than the ESV made of its base text. Regardless of who made the better textual decision, the NIV has followed a more literal philosophy of translation on this verse.
Well said!
I just have one comment related to the bolded statement above.
There are several critical texts of the Hebrew bible. The one most commonly used by biblical translators has been the Biblica Hebraica stuttgartensia. While the chosen text is simply a copy of the Leningrad Codex, the apparatus does a reasonable job of allowing one to reconstruct the significant variants. And there is the current on going work on a multi volume - Biblia Hebraica Quinta.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 4:26:50 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apparently, so were the KJV, NKJV, YLT, and NASB translators (to name a few).
I just wanted to point out the absurdity of this statement:
The KJV translators did not have access to a critical Greek text, the worked with only one variant i.e. the TR.
The NKJV's translation philosophy is to follow the same Greek texts that were used by the KJV translators i.e. they largely ignored the variants that were not accessible to the KJV translators.
The NASB, in this case, is the only example you provided that truly shows an alternate decision regarding the texts.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 6:26:00 PM
|
|
|
ninjaaron
Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Well said!
I just have one comment related to the bolded statement above.
There are several critical texts of the Hebrew bible. The one most commonly used by biblical translators has been the Biblica Hebraica stuttgartensia. While the chosen text is simply a copy of the Leningrad Codex, the apparatus does a reasonable job of allowing one to reconstruct the significant variants. And there is the current on going work on a multi volume - Biblia Hebraica Quinta.
Why thankee kindly! We should be on the same team more often.
I must however comment on your comment (as you might have expected). I'm well aware of BHS, BHQ, and the Hebrew University Bible Project (which is based on the Aleppo Codex). There is also the textual commentary from the middle ages by Rabbi Solomon Jedidiah, Minchat Shai, of various differences he encountered in the texts available to him (Pretty much all MT). There may be others. I don't really know of them. Anyway, a critical apparatus does not a critical text make. The text is a single manuscript and the apparatus actually recommends changes that are not in the printed text; ergo: not a critical text.
Many translators appear only to deal with those notes when forced. That's bad, since they very often have more likely readings that what Leningrad has, even readings that are supported by more/older copies of the MT. It's more of that, "why look at the apparatus?" mentality we've already seen in this thread. Soon were going to start seeing ESVO doctrines floating around with people who insist on the divine inspiration of Codex Leningrad and the critical text as represented in USB4/3 and NA27/26. Wonderful.
I recently read an article that Oxford is working on a true eclectic, critical text of the OT, but that sorta seems ridiculous, since then you start rebuilding Hebrew from Greek, and you bring in the DSS which has totally different orthographic conventions than the MT, and how do you vocalize it, and how does a normal person read it if they don't vocalize it, and, and, and... The project still embryonic... I think it will get scrapped.
Don't get me wrong, I like the ESV, but it's as full of flaws as any other translation.
< Message edited by ninjaaron -- 7/9/2010 6:37:44 PM >
_____________________________
My Bible Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 6:51:04 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3276
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ninjaaron
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Well said!
I just have one comment related to the bolded statement above.
There are several critical texts of the Hebrew bible. The one most commonly used by biblical translators has been the Biblica Hebraica stuttgartensia. While the chosen text is simply a copy of the Leningrad Codex, the apparatus does a reasonable job of allowing one to reconstruct the significant variants. And there is the current on going work on a multi volume - Biblia Hebraica Quinta.
Why thankee kindly! We should be on the same team more often.
I must however comment on your comment (as you might have expected). I'm well aware of BHS, BHQ, and the Hebrew University Bible Project (which is based on the Aleppo Codex). There is also the textual commentary from the middle ages by Rabbi Solomon Jedidiah, Minchat Shai, of various differences he encountered in the texts available to him (Pretty much all MT). There may be others. I don't really know of them. Anyway, a critical apparatus does not a critical text make. The text is a single manuscript and the apparatus actually recommends changes that are not in the printed text; ergo: not a critical text.
Many translators appear only to deal with those notes when forced. That's bad, since they very often have more likely readings that what Leningrad, even readings that are supported by more/older copies of the MT. It's more of that, "why look at the apparatus?" mentality we've already seen in this thread. Soon were going to start seeing ESVO doctrines floating around with people who insist on the divine inspiration of Codex Leningrad and the critical text as represented in USB4/3 and NA27/26. Wonderful.
I recently read an article that Oxford is working on a true eclectic, critical text of the OT, but that sorta seems ridiculous, since then you start rebuilding Hebrew from Greek, and you bring in the DSS which has totally different orthographic conventions than the MT, and how do you vocalize it, and how does a normal person read it if they don't vocalize it, and, and, and... The project still embryonic... I think it will get scrapped.
Don't get me wrong, I like the ESV, but it's as full of flaws as any other translation.
I do understand your position (and I kind of suspected that would be your response), but I don't know that I can entirely agree with it. In biblical Hebrew there is a much stronger reason to accept a single text then there is with Greek because the there are fewer manuscript variations (much less when we exclude the Greek LXX). Additionally, it is my understanding that the BHQ has adopted some of the well supported texts from the proto-MT texts of the DS that are not part of the Leningrad Codex i.e. things like the missing verse in Samuel, so it is not entirely a copy of a single manuscript, and a good critical text is not measured by how many textual variations are adopted, but by a willingness to include texts that offer the best witness to the original.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 7:01:58 PM
|
|
|
ninjaaron
Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Additionally, it is my understanding that the BHQ has adopted some of the well supported texts from the proto-MT texts of the DS that are not part of the Leningrad Codex i.e. things like the missing verse in Samuel, so it is not entirely a copy of a single manuscript.
I hadn't heard that. I'll have to check into it. Sound cool! Then again, how many translations have benefited from the Quinta to date?
I will admit that I've got quite the Septuagint fetish, both in terms of the value as a textual witness and in terms of the light it sheds on pre-Christian interpretations. It may have escalated to an unhealthy level. 
Anyway, perhaps another time. Back to the ESV.
_____________________________
My Bible Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 10:11:57 PM
|
|
|
Intrepidus
Posts: 214
Joined: 10/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ninjaaron
Were you sleeping in Greek or what?
Um... No.
quote:
This is a ridiculous argument, since both committees are pretty much the same guys with Metzger and Alland exchanging top seat.
A.) UBS 4th Committee
Kurt Aland
Barbara Aland
Matthew Black
Bruce M. Metzger
Allen Wikgren
Carlo M. Martini
Johannes Karavidopoulos
B.) Nestle-Aland 27th Ed
Erwin Nestle
Kurt Aland
Does A = B?
Um... No.
quote:
Plus, they made the decision to share same critical text from top to bottom. It's not like two different committees agreed here.
No, but it's more like peer review. Aland's peers on the UBS committee didn't simply roll-over and play dead. Aland submitted his work on the NA26 to the UBS for review. They reviewed it, and apparently agreed with his (and mainly the Nestles') textual/critical decisions. That's why they adopted it as their own base text. Yes, Aland was also a member of the UBS. But only an extremely cynical person would think that he controlled the other committee members.
quote:
Any text that has a 'C' rating is up for debate. It means that there must have been dissident voices on the committee itself. Really, superficial rating system aside, any variant is up for debate based on the strength in external evidence, scribal practice, and exegetical grounds. The committee behind the critical text picked one reading in a tough spot, the NIV committee picked another.
Um... Did you not read my post in its entirety? I explained the 'C' rating more or less as you did, minus the cynicism (viz "superficial rating system").
quote:
While I agree that picking the text and translating it are separate issues, it's not much of point.
Of course it's a relevant point. They are completely separate endeavors. For example, computer programming and system administration are two separate fields. Yes, there is some overlap, and I'm sure they could each carry-on an intelligent conversation with one another. But I don't know too many System Administrators to whom I would entrust application development. Conversely, there aren't many programmers I would rely on to maintain a server farm. Again, two very different fields of specialty. The same is true of textual criticism and Bible translation.
quote:
This is obvious when you go to the Old Testament for which there is no critical text, and you see that they all stick to the Westminster Leningrad Codex except in cases where the Hebrew is nonsense or is offensive to Christian doctrine. There are very few translations that actually do the textual leg-work to produce a better text of the OT.
I disagree, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.
quote:
The scholars behind the NIV are well qualified for New Testament textual criticism.
Really? On what basis do you make that claim? Did you know them all professionally? Personally? Casually? Did you attend university with them? Tell me how you are qualified to judge their individual skills as you do.
quote:
I believe you were originally criticizing the translation for not being literal enough.
Um... No.
Mine was a contrast, not a criticism. I merely pointed-out that the NIV's overarching translation philosophy was that of dynamic equivalence. As I said before, all translations employ both philosophies. One tends to win-out, however, as the guiding principle. The NIV translators were chiefly interested in conveying the meaning (often at the expense of the wording) of the original. Theirs is a thought-for-thought translation whereas others (e.g., the NASB and ESV) are more word-for-word. Yet even these use DE in many places.
quote:
Regardless of who made the better textual decision, the NIV has followed a more literal philosophy of translation on this verse.
Um... No.
As I pointed-out, the underlying text of the NIV is the NA27. The text of the NA27 has the variant with three 'loves' at 1 Cor 13:4. Since the NIV renders only two of the three--just as the ESV does--it (the NIV) cannot be said to be a more literal translation of the verse.
-Intrepidus
< Message edited by Intrepidus -- 7/10/2010 2:00:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has the ESV failed to meet its goals - 7/9/2010 10:40:32 PM
|
|
|
Intrepidus
Posts: 214
Joined: 10/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I just wanted to point out the absurdity of this statement:
The KJV translators did not have access to a critical Greek text, the worked with only one variant i.e. the TR.
Yes, that was a slip on my part. I began the sentence thinking "Bibles that rely on the critical text" but ended it thinking "Bibles that rendered the variant containing love (or 'charity' in the case of the AV 1611) three times." Thank you for your kind correction.
quote:
The NKJV's translation philosophy is to follow the same Greek texts that were used by the KJV translators i.e. they largely ignored the variants that were not accessible to the KJV translators.
How can you say this? The NKJV translators made extensive use of the critical text. One need only review the marginal notes across a few pages to see this. In the main text, they preferred the TR. But to say that the translators "largely ignored" the manuscript evidence post-1611 is simply not true.
-Intrepidus
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
