Power of Change: Hebrews 13:2 in the ESV

Here is a weird English grammar factoid that a friend of mine and I just ran across. Last Tuesday in meeting at the church, one our staff was leading a devotion in Hebrews 13:2 and said, hey there is a typo in the ESV. It reads:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

I thought, look er there – a typo. So...I had been in recent conversation with Crossway about the little review I wrote for the ESV journaling bible that they were putting up on the ESV blog – so I took the chance to bring up Hebrews 13:2 with them to maybe correct the old ESV.

They told me that the “unawares” dates back to the RSV which follows the KJV – I just thought – well that is stupid reason to have! Boy, was I wrong. In looking at the sentence construction it turns out that the word unaware would need to be an adverb which modifies the way “some” have entertained angels. It should be something like “unawarely” – but of course this is no word. So, my friend and I looked up “unawares” in old Websters and wouldn’t you know. There is a word that means “unawarely” – yep, you guessed it – unawares.

Main Entry: un·awares
Pronunciation: -'werz
Function: adverb
Etymology: un- + aware + -s, adverb suffix, from Middle English, from -s, genitivesingular ending of nouns -- more at -S
1 : without design, attention, preparation, or premeditation
2 : without warning : SUDDENLY, UNEXPECTEDLY

You can see the whole entry here.

So, if you are preaching Hebrews 13 in the English Standard Version – know that the ESV actually gets it right here and it isn’t a typo – who knew, I was piping off to Crossway confidently but unawares.

The ESV has proven to be very faithful and accurate again - and using proper English as well. And ain't it cool to use proper English?

Comments

Of course, what is "proper" English for one historical period of a language such as English can change to no longer be proper in another period. There are quite a number of words in the KJV which were used properly at the time it was produced but whose meaning has changed, so they are no longer accurate (therefore, not proper).

The ESV uses a a great deal of outdated and odd English which have been noted by various reviewers. Older English is one of the appeals of the ESV to some people, especially those who love the Tyndale-KJV literary tradition. It would not be appealing to those who are not familiar with that literary tradition.

Posted by: Wayne Leman | July 24, 2006 06:00 AM

Wayne,

Yeah dog, I feel you. I'm down with what you are trying to say.

I understand what you mean and orignially Crossway's answer made me think this is a KJVism. However it does seem to be a grammatical choice (translating λανθάνω) and one keeping with the philosphy of an essentially literal translation (I understand you ain't down with that)

You are right though, in this case the rendering that the NIV, NASB chooses is better - "without knowing it" - but it looses the adverbial construction.

I have not found very many archaisms in the ESV, though some would want to translate away the much of the actual idiom of the Bible, for the idiom of today, I think much is lost in the process.

A good article which hits some of this is available over at First Things

But obviously, you already know this debate well, and a leader on one side of it, so it is probably of no profit for us to banter it around.

Thanks for the link to this page, as it is helpful for any interested in these important discussions.

Blessings

Posted by: Reid | July 24, 2006 07:49 AM

Actually, the NIV, NASB rendering does not lose the adverbial construction because "without knowing it" acts as an adverbial phrase.

There's much to be commended in the ESV, but I've often felt that certain parts of it simply feel rushed, and Heb 13:2 is a perfect example. The fact that you and your staff member, both well-educated individuals, stumbled on the wording in the verse demonstrates that the usage of "unawares" is not standard English today. Hopefully this verse will be addressed in the upcoming revision of the ESV.

Posted by: R. Mansfield | July 24, 2006 08:46 AM

Rick,

Thanks - good point - I stand corrected. I agree this should be changed in the revision.

I appreciate you guys taking the time to comment and help me along in my understanding.

Posted by: Reid | July 24, 2006 09:59 AM