English Standard Version (ESV) to be issued with Apocrypha

[SummaScriptura]

Thank you for that excellent information! I preordered it from Amazon.com. I didn't know there would be an ESV with the Apocrypha!

Yeah, very cool.

If it turns out Oxford binds it with the same dimensions as New English Translation of the Septuagint, which I'm also referring to a lot now, I'm toying with the idea of rebinding the two together!

 

[SummaScriptura]

From: OUP Customer Service
Date: Mon 24 Nov 2008 08:18 AM
To: Bob Burns
Subject: RE: English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha
Hi,

You are correct and both of these titles are 6 ¼ x 9. Our staff is aware that the website is not displaying information correctly and they are currently working on it. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Please let me know if you need further assistance.

Thanks,
Senior Customer Service Rep
Oxford University Press, USA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Bob Burns
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:26 PM
Subject: English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha

Hello OUP!

ChristianBook.com is reporting the upcoming "English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha" from OUP will have the following dimensions:
9.00 X 6.25 X 1.19 (inches)

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=89105

Is this information correct? I don't see anything on your website to corroborate this.

If this is true, it would seem to be the same dimensions as the NETS which OUP put out in 2007. That would be handy as I'm considering binding them together if they are indeed the same dimensions, since I seem to always be carrying around both the ESV and NETS anyway.

Thank you,
Bob Burns

 

[SummaScriptura]

To: OUP Customer Support
From: Bob Burns
Date: 11/24/2008 08:57AM
Subject: RE: English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha

Thank you Tongee!

I know it will be some time before the ESV w/Apocrypha will be offered in other editions, but let me take a moment to suggest Oxford release an edition of the ESV and NETS in parallel. I realize this would mean only the Old Testament would be in parallel and in the Old Testament the Psalms of Solomon would be without parallel. However, I think such an edition would fill a sizable niche in the market. I do not know of any time ever in the English language when modern translations of the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament were available in print in parallel columns!

Also, another product to consider... pocket sized editions of the ESV w/Apocrypha would be nice.

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration!

Have a wonderful day!

Thank you,
Bob Burns

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Excellent news! So it will be by Oxford (IMO a much better publisher in terms of physical quality than Crossways) and it will be a real ESV translation. I look forward to owning one.

I'm still looking forward to the release of the ESV with Apocrypha. However, I want to take back my slam at Crossways. Since I wrote that, I've acquired their new ESV Study Bible, and there's nothing wrong with the physical quality. Crossways seems to be learning to do it right, and I'm glad.

 

[DD2008]

I'm still looking forward to the release of the ESV with Apocrypha. However, I want to take back my slam at Crossways. Since I wrote that, I've acquired their new ESV Study Bible, and there's nothing wrong with the physical quality. Crossways seems to be learning to do it right, and I'm glad.

I like Crossway. The ESV Study Bible is supurb. I bought the hardcover for my Grandmother and the Leather one for my Mother. I have a pocket sized ESV in soft leather from Crossway for myself. I think they do good work.

 

[DD2008]

OK.

I think there might be a flaw in the text of the ESV translation.

1 Timothy 3:15 uses "a" instead of "the".

All other major english translations KJV, NIV, RSV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, Douay Rheims all use "the" THe ESV is the only one to use "a". This changes the entire meaning of the verse.

Do you think this is actually what the original manuscripts say and the the translators of the ESV are the first to figure it out after all this time, or do you think the translators of the ESV used "a" because they didn't like the verse being used as a position against sola scriptura? Thus, undermining scripture and twisting the words to mean what they wish it meant?

I like the ESV. Their translation of 1 Tim 3:15 undermines it's authority for me. Now, I will always have to check it for accuracy against the time tested versions because I have lost a degree of faith in it. I doubt it will be the great ecumenical Bible we were hoping for.

Back to the drawing board......

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

OK.

I think there might be a flaw in the text of the ESV translation.

1 Timothy 3:15 uses "a" instead of "the".

All other major english translations KJV, NIV, RSV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, Douay Rheims all use "the" THe ESV is the only one to use "a". This changes the entire meaning of the verse.

Do you think this is actually what the original manuscripts say and the the translators of the ESV are the first to figure it out after all this time, or do you think the translators of the ESV used "a" because they didn't like the verse being used as a position against sola scriptura? Thus, undermining scripture and twisting the words to mean what they wish it meant?

I like the ESV. Their translation of 1 Tim 3:15 undermines it's authority for me. Now, I will always have to check it for accuracy against the time tested versions because I have lost a degree of faith in it. I doubt it will be the great ecumenical Bible we were hoping for.

Back to the drawing board......

I'm not sure about the I Tim 3:15 issue, I'll have to look into it. But this much I know for sure: there is no such thing as a flawless translation. If you insist on having one, good luck!

This one? --

1 Timothy 3:15 (English Standard Version)

15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Compare with --

1 Timothy 3:15 (Young's Literal Translation)

15and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- a pillar and foundation of the truth,

And with --

1 Timothy 3:15 (Wycliffe New Testament)

15 but if I tarry, that thou knowest, how it behooveth thee to live in the house of God, that is the church of living God, a pillar and firmness of truth.

That's two early translations that render it the same way as the ESV does. I think we'd better look at the original Greek... but I'm not equipped to do that right now.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I'm not sure about the I Tim 3:15 issue, I'll have to look into it. But this much I know for sure: there is no such thing as a flawless translation. If you insist on having one, good luck!

This one? --

1 Timothy 3:15 (English Standard Version)

15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

Compare with --

1 Timothy 3:15 (Young's Literal Translation)

15and if I delay, that thou mayest know how it behoveth [thee] to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is an assembly of the living God -- a pillar and foundation of the truth,

And with --

1 Timothy 3:15 (Wycliffe New Testament)

15 but if I tarry, that thou knowest, how it behooveth thee to live in the house of God, that is the church of living God, a pillar and firmness of truth.

That's two early translations that render it the same way as the ESV does. I think we'd better look at the original Greek... but I'm not equipped to do that right now.

Hmmm...innerestin'.

I looked at the Greek for this verse. There is no definite article "the." The absence of a definite article means one of two things.

1. Since Greek has no indefinite article ("a") it may be that the indefinite article should be supplied ala ESV, Young's and Wycliffe.

2. Or, it may mean that the definite article ("the") should be assumed. This is the case when there is something unique about the anarthous noun (i.e. the noun without the article). For example, in Greek, Jesus is often called "Son of God" without the article, but it is translated "the Son of God" since this is uniquely his status.

In the case of "pillar and buttress" whether to assume the definite article, or to supply the indefinite article is a matter of exegesis. Either way, the effect on the meaning of the verse is scant.

I will confess that I am not a fan of the ESV. Still, I find that it is a solid translation. In the case of this particular verse, the ESV committee has not done badly.

 

[calluna]

Hmmm...innerestin'.

I looked at the Greek for this verse. There is no definite article "the." The absence of a definite article means one of two things.

1. Since Greek has no indefinite article ("a") it may be that the indefinite article should be supplied ala ESV, Young's and Wycliffe.

2. Or, it may mean that the definite article ("the") should be assumed. This is the case when there is something unique about the anarthous noun (i.e. the noun without the article). For example, in Greek, Jesus is often called "Son of God" without the article, but it is translated "the Son of God" since this is uniquely his status.

In the case of "pillar and buttress" whether to assume the definite article, or to supply the indefinite article is a matter of exegesis. Either way, the effect on the meaning of the verse is scant.

Is it scant because there is not an alternative pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[DD2008]

Is it scant because there is not an alternative pillar and foundation of truth?

I agree. Is it The Pillar or A Pillar? The meaning is totally different. If it is the that means the Church is the Pillar and butress that upholds the truth of the Gospel. If it is a then what are the other pillars and butresses that uphold the truth?

I would simply like to know for sure what this says.

So I found this link: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B54C003.htm#V15

It can be found at www.salvationhistory.com (St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology)

We are also discussing this on the Catholic Board and I have an older greek friend from Athens who is schooled in ancient greek that I can ask about this as well. I'll see if I can get in touch with him today.

Interesting....very interesting. I feel like the character in East of Eden looking for the meaning of the word Timshel in Genesis 4:7

 

[SummaScriptura]

I agree. Is it The Pillar or A Pillar? The meaning is totally different. If it is the that means the Church is the Pillar and butress that upholds the truth of the Gospel. If it is a then what are the other pillars and butresses that uphold the truth?<snip>

In Psalm 19, there are two who testify to the truth about God. The one is the word of God, which at the time was borne witness to by the testimony of the nation of Israel. The other is the creation of God; Saint Paul later expounding that what can be known about God is plain to people, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So, there have always been at least two pillars of the truth, special and general revelation. The Church bears testimony to the word, creation bears testimony to their hearts.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Is it scant because there is not an alternative pillar and foundation of truth?

It is scant because it is an analogy, and no analogy should be pressed too far.

But, pressing the analogy a bit too far, pillars come in sets. (A single pillar is a pedastel). So it makes little sense to speak of "the" pillar.

Still the question, and it is really one in which interpretation would have to inform translation, is "Does the Church (or a church--this noun is also lacks the article) alone fulfill the function of the pillar upholding the truth?" And the answer is that it doesn't matter. Whether there are other pillars or not, the Church upholds the truth.

If I get a chance, I'll get back to this topic later. (Time is short just now). 1 Tim 3:15 is an interesting verse. It contains 7 nouns, and only one has the article....

 

[calluna]

It is scant because it is an analogy, and no analogy should be pressed too far.

We'd better throw out the whole scant Bible, then.

But, pressing the analogy a bit too far, pillars come in sets. (A single pillar is a pedastel). So it makes little sense to speak of "the" pillar.

Agreed, pressing the analogy too far. Paul's point may be that, in this case, there is only one pillar to God's house, which is indeed the house itself.

What other pillars and foundations would Paul have considered, beside the church? If none will dare to suggest another, as now seems rather likely, the definite article is indicated for translators, and it is incompetent or mischievous to fail to use it.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

We'd better throw out the whole scant Bible, then.

Of course, the entire Bible is not an analogy. Other than that, your baby and bathwater argument is a false dichotomy.

Agreed, pressing the analogy too far. Paul's point may be that, in this case, there is only one pillar to God's house, which is indeed the house itself.

And this is exactly why analogies should not be pressed too far.

What other pillars and foundations would Paul have considered, beside the church? If none will dare to suggest another, as now seems rather likely, the definite article is indicated for translators, and it is incompetent or mischievous to fail to use it.

SummaScriptura has already dared to suggest a second pillar. And may I ask whether you consider the ESV translators to be mischeivous or incompetent? Or is it both?

 

[calluna]

Of course, the entire Bible is not an analogy.

It is, in effect.

 

[calluna]

In Psalm 19, there are two who testify to the truth about God. The one is the word of God, which at the time was borne witness to by the testimony of the nation of Israel.

At the time, yes.

The other is the creation of God; Saint Paul later expounding that what can be known about God is plain to people, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So there are two pillars. Still not very stable for a house. To say nothing of two foundations.

 

[DD2008]

Ok. I spoke at length with my Greek friend. He said the following in reference to the relevant part of 1 Timothy 3:15.

The best translation of this into English is:

"The Church of the Living God, Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

There is neither an a nor a the, both of which change the meaning.

He also said that he doesn't have this kind of problem because he reads the Septuagint ...etc

So, ALL English translations are wrong about 1 Tim 3:15.

I don't feel so bad now.

 

[calluna]

Ok. I spoke at length with my Greek friend. He said the following in reference to the relevant part of 1 Timothy 3:15.

The best translation of this into English is:

"The Church of the Living God, Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

That implies the definite article. Particularly with all those capitals! It is the 'a' that is very suspect.

He also said that he doesn't have this kind of problem because he reads the Septuagint ...etc

He's got so many others, though.

 

[DD2008]

That implies the definite article. Particularly with all those capitals! It is the 'a' that is very suspect.

He's got so many others, though.

He's a great guy Mid 50's about 6'4 long grey hair and a long gray beard. He is Orthodox, so he brought up the filioque and told me that the Western Church is in schism, as usual.

He's a piece of work. Very interesting individual.

However, he has recently been diagnosed with diabetes and had a kidney removed in July because of a tumor. But he is doing better. Great guy.

 

[calluna]

He's a great guy Mid 50's about 6'4 long grey hair and a long gray beard. He is Orthodox, so he brought up the filioque and told me that the Western Church is in schism, as usual.

He's a piece of work. Very interesting individual.

However, he has recently been diagnosed with diabetes and had a kidney removed in July because of a tumor. But he is doing better. Great guy.

He does sound interesting. If he watches his diet he could go on a long time yet.