I’m going out on a limb today, but I have to say it, though I know of
several people who won’t agree with me and won’t like that I’m saying
it. All I can say is "even among misfits you’re a misfit" (misfit not
meaning the critique group but a broader definition).
Here goes.
I just don’t get all the to-do over the ESV Bible translation. I’m not saying it’s a bad translation, but what’s all the hype about?
It’s
tauted as a brand new version! solves all translation problems! but
it’s an update on the RSV. It’s only about 5% different from the RSV,
and most of that is thees and thous. Oh, yes, everyone points to the
passage in Isaiah that changes "young woman" into "virgin," but even
that isn’t a big deal. After all, the Hebrew term means both and in the
immediate context, it did mean young woman even if Matthew used the
nuance "virgin."
Also, from what I’ve read, it seems that the
translators take a verbal inspiration view of the Bible. Verbal
inspiration means God inspired every word of the Bible. I
take a dynamic inspiration view of the text, which means that God
inspired the message, the ideas, the story, and the human authors put
it in their own words.
Sometimes, when you try to stick too closely
to "word by word" translation, you not only have a wooden translation,
you lose some of the message because idioms aren’t understood.
Now,
I do like the literary study esv bible, but that doesn’t have anything
to do with the translation itself, just how it’s packaged.
After
all, I did my thesis on story structure in the Bible. That’s what draws
me to these rich Old Testament stories. That’s what makes me look at
each gospel on its own merit, its own structure and plot, it’s own
message, rather than try and synchronize the events.
The other
amusing thing: some of the translators that ate the TNIV for lunch for
using gender inclusive language then used gender inclusive language for
the ESV.
Don’t get me wrong–I think gender inclusive is good. It’s
the original intention, kind of like how we saw "man" sometimes to mean
humanity. (Now, there are times that the masculine should be kept, like
"son of man" in Daniel and Ezekiel instead of "son of mortal" or
something because Jesus later picked up the term for Himself and it was
loaded with meaning. Well, I guess son of mankind would work for both,
but you get my point–I like when it’s translated "brothers and
sisters" when Jesus addresses a mixed audience kind of thing.)
Let me reiterate that I don’t think the ESV is a bad translation. I just wonder if the big deal is more because of the names tauting it. Celebraty-ism now intruding in translations?
Well, I so-and-so said I should use this Bible, or I use the same Bible that this person uses.
Of
course, we can only have these discussions because of the plethora of
translations in English. Guess you can’t have these discussions with
Swahili bibles.
Jefe, what is a plethora?
Why, El Guapo?
Well,
you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you
know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would
tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has
*no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Forgive me, El Guapo. I
know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education.
But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and
are looking to take it out on me?
