[Post has been revised and re-organized since I first published it: and I hope with some re-visiting to make it more succinct.]
Chadbrooks over on flicker left a few comments on this page, as follow:
I am enjoying them, but I would make some changes.1. I am again moving away from the ESV…thinking about going (and sticking) to the NRSV.
2. Let Kinko’s cut the edges. My table saw isn’t nice enough to really get through the bindings and keep everything square.
3. Look for a bible with thicker paper.
But really I am satisfied, they are serving their purpose very well.
—————–
It’s more of an ecumenical translation. Also, for scholastic work the ESV is starting to be looked down upon because some say it has a specific theological bent in it’s translation. I know that this is at least the case in Revelation
My thoughts and questions, at least as far as what I know:
I’m conscious that the NRSV is portrayed as being academic, praised for being “gender neutral”, as well as for not “Christianizing” the OT, however the final editorial team effected drastic changes throughout, many involving those supposedly “scholarly” changes, which some of the translators (themselves ecumenical and not particular fundamentalist, conservative, or whatever) have spoken out against, even as arbitrary and unwelcome tampering by the final editorial committee never given such authority to do any such thing; it caused some angst; the team was only to slightly edit for consistent style–instead they mauled the work of the larger team, then presented what purported to be the majority’s efforts to the public. THAT is what I consider inadmirable bias. Furthermore, the NRSV is not “gender neutral”, just as the Bible itself is not “gender neutral”, it is “inclusive” beyond the Bible’s measure; as NRSV translators remarked:
To pretend that the ancient Near Eastern world of the Bible was not radically different from our own world would be to deprive Scripture of its historical context.
and
… the members of this editorial committee understood their task as involving a far greater authority to revise the translation than the full committee ever intended. According to Dentan [one of the five members of the committee], ‘This editorial committee was given power to determine the final form of the text before publication.’ Such a formulation is dangerously ambiguous. What the full committee understood and intended as the task of the editorial committee was actually quite limited; while respecting the basic work of the full committee, the editorial committee was expected to make the relatively minor changes to the finished product that were necessary for the sake of stylistic consistency. At least in the case of the Old Testament editorial subcommittee, that is not what happened. Some hint of the far more intensive reworking carried out by this small committee … can be seen in Dentan’s account of non-scholarly consideration that colored their work … the editorial committee made thousands of changes, some quite substantive, to the translation of the Old Testament made by the full committee, and when members of the full committee became aware of the extent of these changes, many were outraged, feeling that much of their own work on the translation over the years had been irresponsibly gutted.” J.J.M. Roberts
There are also “the remarks of [the liberal] Robert Jewett”, “supporter of the feminist cause”, “professor of New Testament at Garrett-Northwestern Theological Seminary”, but who “insists upon the obligation of liberal scholars to behave honestly in translating the Bible”,
We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul’s.” Against the specious arguments offered by apologists for these politically correct alterations, Jewett declares that a gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history in which every 10 years he’d change all the history textbooks.” These remarks were published in WORLD magazine, vol. 16, no. 6 (Feb. 13, 1998). [Source.]
A strange liberal claim these days is that our translations are guilty of “Christianizing” the OT, and the NRSV and other “liberal” translation operate under this assumption: the “Evangelical” NET Bible even operates under this assumption; yet the NT is a collection of JEWISH works, a pre developed-Rabbinical Judaism (4th century+), and one in which the commentary and exegesis has much in common, we now know, with Judaism not only of its time, but more ancient ideas: including such “Christian” ideas as the pre-existence of the Messiah, the meaning of “Shiloh” being an appellation to the Messiah, and so on, and it’s own handling and interpretations of the text aren’t inconsistent with Jewish methods (more on NT use of the OT here.)
Regarding “bias”, I’m amazed that it’s so successful in rhetoric to portray “bias” as a bad thing. Christians are biased towards Christ; I’m would be biased toward a gal I would want to marry! Everything has a bias…it’s the kind of bias, (whether dishonest, or fair, or good), that matters; one can have a bias, in translation, to eliminate features of the text at hand, and it’s bad: the RSV did this, for instance, systematically, in places where they seem to intentionally mistranslate things along evidently discernible principles (and I’m not alluding specifically to haalmah); that bias, which was considered dishonest and untoward regarding the handling of the Bible, is what killed the version amongst the conservative Christians. Marketers and polemicists spinned this resistance as fundamentalist backwardness. I don’t see that spin as bearing scrutiny when navigating the corpus of scholarly resources, and checking the original languages (though I’m only very slowly working on those so I don’t offer too much weight from that standpoint).
Furthermore, the NRSV’s own translators accuse the version of being more than bias, but not even the product they intended: a work mauled by arbitrary, unauthorized, tampering by an agenda’d committee, and one who’s agenda does not portray the text truthfully. Personally I love that honesty. Some of what has been spewed about the ESV as the “biased” labels amazes me: given the NRSV professes its bias openly. From the aforementioned review, I quote one of the NRSV translators, who was, in my view, betrayed by that final little committee:
“It is likely that Paul was using the Greek term “brothers” in an inclusive sense … Nonetheless, Paul did not highlight a concern for inclusivity by using the compound expression “brothers and sisters.” To articulate this concern in translation by expressing what Paul left unexpressed is to impose a twentieth century, western cultural agenda on a first century text. Such anachronistic glosses make sociological or cultural appraisal of the world of the original text more difficult and cast doubts on the reliability of such a translation for serious historical work. ” J.J.M. Roberts
So much for the version being “more scholarly”…from the mouths (and pens) of the translators.
What he’s referring to with “compound expression ‘brothers and sisters’” is that in Greek (perhaps to a lesser degree than he implies with the slight, “it is likely Paul was using the [...] term in an inclusive sense”), whenever you want to refer to both sexes (who’re part of your group else you don’t using sibling terminology!), you say “brothers” and “and” and “sisters”! The examples bear this out, and some heftily and highly technical, highly thought-provoking, but highly fighting-the-greek-corpus arguments have been made trying to contend with the evidences from which this conclusion is drawn; there are a few which you could say “this is inclusive”, but as far as I know this is of two actual siblings, not addressing crowds. (I say all this cautiously, though, as I have much to learn, and I’m no Greek expert!) Nevetheless, from these scholars’ statements, so much for the “Gender accurate Neutral/Inclusive” TNIV and NLT.
As to anyone saying that the Bible isn’t biased, they’re likely selling something, or jealous; if a Bible translation is rigorously scholarly, fair and honest to the text, and careful to obey the narratives’ own “burden”, then I probably accept it as useful and good; I don’t see this in the NRSV, although I don’t condemn everything therein, either, but its final edited form was manifestly produced with an agenda contrary to the original texts’ own intent, as also the RSV before it which, as F.F. Bruce gently put it, “blurred some of the finer distinctions in [RSV] New Testament wording which … have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text”; however, the RSV wasn’t unscholarly, and it obviously wasn’t useless. (On a note of other interests it was eager to adopt variants on the cutting-edge of text criticism, perhaps before more necessary evidence and investigation; hat doesn’t indicate to me much reverent caution; however it wasn’t wrong to adopt readings of the Bible manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scroll where the Massoretic was unclear.)
As to the NRSV, it even reads Genesis 1:2 as,
“while a wind from God”
footnoting the original, “while the spirit of God“, then that footnote returning to the novel idea of the main text, “while a mighty wind“.
Of this same interpretative meddling, Harry Olinski in his Notes on the New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia, 1969) observes that “there is no authority for this in any tradition” and “the word elohim does not have the meaning ‘mighty, tempestuous,’ or the like in a single one of the some 2,570 occurances of the word in the Bible.” (p. 55.)[Source.]
The ESV somewhat seems to have worked to restore the specificity eschewed by the RSV; it is openly Evangelical and believing rather than highly critical in its treatment (respectful, and not validly accusable on many points of “imposing an agenda”, although there ARE a few points that I believe were not as conservative as they were charismatic-evangelical, i.e. “agenda’d”, where it could use the direction of other translators, perhaps the NKJV/NASB teams); it does needs to restore certain notes of the RSV, such as at 1 Cor 7:21 (or better, put it into the main text). I’ve also heard it used “trump cards”, but I’ve never seen this claim actually explained: which I’d like to hear, (and then to examine).
The ESV is NOT perfect (and in those few places, honest handling demands revision; see review), but it has laid a Revised RSV–more RSV than the NRSV, I think–into the hands of a greater number of people: the RSV did some unacceptable things (taking overly critical attitudes against “conservative” views, never acknowledging them, and often doing so without enough substantiation; “creatively” repunctuating a text to deny Christ’s deity); it did, many believe, have good points: and those are now available to a wider audience for investigation.
In translations I value strict fidelity to the underlying texts over merely claiming value because of “ecumenical” participation; I’m not sectarian either, just trying to obey the Lord and be faithful with His Word. It should be said that having people of varying backgrounds can help keep one another accountable; but in our day too many groups have practice and doctrine hardly distinct: a bunch of liberally-minded translators with the same awkwardly [often unbiblical] ideologies, essentially being already the same anyways, coming together to make a version, is very un-ecumenical.
In many respects, besides outward forms, I see the mainlines as often in this vague and homogenized, but hardly differing mold, having “filing cabinet orthodoxy” as one man put it: seemingly presenting leftist social policy more than biblical theology; and you can predict the outcome of that wing’s scholarship and work based on this; if you check the National Council of Church’s finances you find the majority income is from contributors are non-Christian left-leaning groups; it’s hardly suitable for gospel preaching: and we read in the Bible that those who did not take anything from the “gentiles” (i.e. used in the sense of “unbelievers” or “heathen”) were commended; meanwhile that body and and those it represents it getting owned and used by the world towards its own purposes. (Note, many of these criticisms are increasingly applicable to the [neo] “evangelical” groups too.)
I do value honest scholarship which is evidential and unassailable based upon that evidence; anyone can convincingly polemicize against something without a truly valid claim!. I WANT a bias–toward rendering the text without imputing your views into it, that is, a bias of respecting it even if it’ll say things you don’t want it to! As far as avoiding “dishonest bias” I like to use what’s available to check, investigating the differences in translations. Comparing versions is useful, such as the KJV, Darby’s NT, English RV, JPS1917 (Proverbs 31: “woman of valor”, oh yeah!), ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, and a few others (other languages as well, and the NJPS–but that one with a grain, or better yet a clump, of salt). Notice these are, for the most part, fairly literal–this allows one to see differences with greater clarity, to investigate against such common-folk tools as Strong’s, Vines, Thayer’s; others such as Robertson’s Word Pictures of the NT, the commentary by Keil and Delitzsch, and even the old devotional one by Matthew Henry (“devotional” is key: you have to compare to other resources here–but he is edifying and not, as far as I can tell, heterodox). I don’t like to be uncritically accepting, we always have much to learn.
With the RSV and NRSV being dynamic equivalence translations (the former less because the ASV it was based on, which they wanted somewhat to preserve, was so strictly literal–to the point is left the RSV still considered a literal version by many), it’s difficult to compare them with other dynamic equivalent translations; and often comparing them to more literal ones may be more detrimental than helpful.
It’s important to heed the warnings for the Church: that there are indeed wolves, false prophets and teachers, other christs, many voices (and none without signification). Bibles today are seen as a way to push agendas, make statements, a way for translators to instruct, rather than letting careful teachers do the teaching; whole groups claiming Christ preach another; whole groups have their sights on the world’s problems rather than heavenly things; many admit to teaching against the word just because something in there is “unacceptable” by today’s standards.
We must be careful, fair, studious, on guard, and prayerful not to be deceived. That’s why it is always good to compare, check, and pray! [As for my experience with academia, anything illiberal (not towing the consensus opinions) is unacceptable, whether or not scholarly; and deviation from the public disapproval can have dire consequences for your academic health. I'm studying biology, for instance, and amongst biologists we talk freely...in public we're supposed to look steadfastly sure in certain untouchables; yet funnily there are something like 25 major definitions of species, often counter-intuitive and usually crafted to support a particular ego's own version of evolutionary theory. I kind of chuckle and avoid those controversies, warn whoever the intellectuals are trying to convert to their own positions, for now continuing to study, and hoping to work hard and glorify God in whatever I do, whether in the natural sciences, or otherwise.]
As for the ESV itself, it’s popularity is growing, and not just among conservatives. I have heard “not among the mainlines”, but the mainlines are shrinking, and I would like to know how they know who isn’t buying the version; there is actually some mainline-uptake of the version (a good way to figure this out is to walk-in, or ask, or check-out the pastors’ blogs, i.e. keeping in touch with the people vs. the critics). With some more refining to improve accuracy and by removing the couple places of outright unwelcome, ill-respresentative, revisions in the text, I think it could shape-up to become quite the useful version among many groups of readers.
But in the end, the oft-made claims of the N/RSV being more “scholarly” (how the ESV, being predominantly RSV, with minor editing, and being more precise in many places, is less so than the RSV, I wonder…) than the ESV, specifically the NRSV these days, I think is just posturing; liberalism vs. the stupid “conservatives”, I mean, “fundamentalists”; with the final form of the NRSV having the harshest critics among the translators who actually wrought the translation before the “style” committe botched it.
But…I’m REALLY interested in Mr. Chad’s take on Revelation; I’ve never heard any cautions on that portion of the ESV, and this could turn-out to be an example of why cross-communication between different backgrounds is so useful! And I think he’s a Greek speaker learner too, so I look forward to hearing his insight. So, Mr. Chad, I’m interested, what do you know? Seriously too! As for this post, it’s a quick run-on thought, and I hope you’ll respond so I might learn something from you. I see you’re in seminary so that’s leaves me all the more interested. I think I may re- and re-revise this post over time to try and make it more clear, succinct, and consistent with my thoughts, if that’s okay; I know that’s something often frowned upon online (in case someone tries to cover-up or hide something), but I’m kind of just a learner who’s enthusiastic about continuing my theological education and obedience to our Lord. : )
I do hope I’m not being imposing, either!
[Note: in the rare event I ever do get a visitor to this site, the kind Mr. Chad sent me an e-mail and is delighted to give me a reply; I don't know yet whether he wants me to post it: I'll have to ask; he also gave me some valuable little points on easing the acquisition of Greek (find help): and I've found a program nearby to get personal help, although trouble is, it conflicts with my University schedule in the fall: so I'll be waiting to see if other classes that I need open-up.]
References:
Source of Quotes Specific to the NRSV. This is one online resource I consider careful and respectful, as well as scholarly (while “popular” enough to be of use to common people); if you’ve clicked on any of the source links, you can tell I use it often.
To Readers:
A great book offering a counterpoint to modern, popular, opinion on translation is “Accuracy of Translation” by Robert P. Martin: slim, scholarly, and accessible at the same time too.
