Apr 12, 2008
A few interesting details on the English Standard Translation of the Scriptures. First, Mark Driscoll gives a short description of the long...looooong awaited ESV Study Bible. It sounds like they took the time to do it right...really right. Looks to be a very important publication. Additionally, the translation is up to #4 in unit sales in data from February (see this pdf). I think the addition of a full study Bible will only continue to help the adoption of the ESV.
I came to the ESV dance back in 2003 - it is fun to see the translation continuing to gain traction. I was never able to switch from NIV to NASB...but the ESV was able to pry me from the translation I first read as a new Christian. I have enjoyed being an undercover ESV evangelist over the years. I introduced it to our two teaching pastors at Fellowship in 2004 and then witnessed the conversion of our church from NASB to ESV in early 2006.
My Bible Translation page has stuff on the ESV as well as the TNIV (me not like so much).
Comments
Knock it off, Reid. Would you come to the light already and purchase a NA27/NET diglot?
:)
Regarding translations... after a little Greek study, I've come to the place now where I think it is highly valuable to compare translations. Early on in my Christian walk, I used to compare translations merely to pick which version "I liked" the most. But now, comparing translations is a great exercise that serves to highlight decisions that were made in the translation of the original text by different versions. When we (especially the average lay person) choose a translation and don't look back, we miss a lot of the syntactical issues because the translators have already made the decision for you. Example: compare "in the flesh" in Eph. 2:14-15 in the NASB and the NIV. Or ask, using the same passage, what the proper referent should be for the "dividing wall" using the NASB and the NIV. Those are significant decisions that I would be oblivious to if I just looked at the NASB, NIV, or ESV alone.
We should compare translations today not to decided what we like the best, but to bring out issues with which we need to grapple from the original text (or, for many, this should lead us to seek the help of exegetical commentaries if Greek is not an option).
Anyway, these thoughts aren't in any way a response or a retort to your post - because at the end of the day, you're going to have to pick a translation to work with as your "starting point."
Just some general musings that were stirred up by your post...
Posted by: Jason Seville | April 14, 2008 01:17 PM
Good thoughts Seville. I think in studying there is always benefits to be closer to the original. Yet I tend to trust those who are more versed in this. It is amazing that seminary students with a few semesters (or years...I am not referring to you here) of Greek can start to think his exegesis is definitive on a certain passage. I tend to realize that unless I become a DA Carson or Daniel Wallace (and I do pray that we produce many of those) that I will be connected with the work/tools of others more knowledgeable when studying the languages.
I sometimes think that a guy like John Chysostom, a native Greek speaking exegete, probably knew the language much better than me and my tools...but I don't even think his exegesis is perfect...though his sermons are cool to read through.
Anyway, as vernacular preaching won the day long ago after the reformation, I have to choose a certain version to preach from with English speakers - for me...its ESV :)
Thanks Seville - keep becoming a Greek stud at DTS. You can be my tutor any day in those matters - I know it will not be my area of primary expertise. I do want to handle Scripture with insight, intelligence and great care...so I love the ridiculously powerful tools I have with Logos. Yet knowing it like Wallace seems much cooler :)
Thanks man - Long live the NET Bible!
Posted by: Reid | April 14, 2008 03:51 PM