English Standard Version (ESV) to be issued with Apocrypha

[D.W.Washburn]

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.

There is a pun in Italian: Traduttore, traditore. It means "Translator, traitor." Different languages work differently. Translations are always imperfect.

One thing that students of New Testament Greek learn very early on is that the Koine Greek used articles very differently than modern English does. There was no indefinite article. The meaning that we express by the use of an indefinite article was conveyed in Koine Greek by the absence of a definite article. The definite article was also used differently than we use it in English. It is used in places that English readers do not expect, and omitted sometimes where English would require it.

To say that "The Church of the Living God, Pillar and Foundation of Truth" is the best translation of 1 Tim. 13:15 is a little misleading. This translation conveys the fact that there is no article attached to "pillar" and "foundation" in the Greek, but is not clear English (and therefore, arguably, not the "best" translation). Good English usage requires an article before "pillar" at least. (As an aside, the words rendered here as "Church" and "Living God" also lack articles in the Greek, but the word translated as "Truth" has an article!)

Cutting to the chase, because the Greek lacks articles in this verse and good English requires them, the translator must choose whether to supply the indefinite article or the definite article. There is no clear grammatical reason to prefer one over the other. The decision must be made on other grounds. Most English translations use the definite article. I suspect that this is for theological reasons. If I were translating this verse for publication, I, too, would supply the definite article. BUT--and this is important--on the basis of the grammar alone, to supply the indefinite article is equally, perhaps even more, valid. The ESV translation is not unreliable at this point. The ESV translators cannot be accused of either mischief or incompetence.

We should also note that the capitals which calluna likes so well do not occur in the original Greek text.

Peace.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, it does. It is the same "expanded" Apocrypha with the Greek Orthodox books and Psalm 151.

It also has an enhancement over the RSV w/Apocrypha of 1977.

In 1977 the shorter manuscript for Tobit was used to translate the RSV Tobit. The longer version of Tobit with its greater detail and emphasis on Jewish customs and practices in ancient times is very likely the more original version of the text and was used for the NRSV.

Not being a fan of the NRSV, I look forward to dropping it from my use after I get the ESV Tobit.

There is another enhancement the ESV version of the (books perjoritively referred to as) Apocrypha will have over the RSV versions of those books I neglected to mention above...

The 1977 RSV version of those books perpetuated an old tradition related to Greek Esther in translation. In the RSV, the additional chapters which appear only in the Greek are included but not the rest of the Greek version of Esther; one is thus left with a mish-mosh of translated parts of Greek Esther which make no sense when read by themselves.

Beginning with Oxford's 1989 edition of the NRSV, the entirety of Greek Esther was translated and included among the books. It is my expectation that Oxford will continue with this practice and the ESV Bible they release in the new year should include both the MT and LXX versions of Esther in their entirety.

So, for those two reasons, the inclusion of the older, longer text of Tobit, and the inclusion of the complete Greek Esther, fans of the RSV have reasons to consider upgrading their Bibles from the 1977 RSV to the 2009 ESV.

 

[DD2008]

There is another enhancement the ESV version of the (books perjoritively referred to as) Apocrypha will have over the RSV versions of those books I neglected to mention above...

The 1977 RSV version of those books perpetuated an old tradition related to Greek Esther in translation. In the RSV, the additional chapters which appear only in the Greek are included but not the rest of the Greek version of Esther; one is thus left with a mish-mosh of translated parts of Greek Esther which make no sense when read by themselves.

Beginning with Oxford's 1989 edition of the NRSV, the entirety of Greek Esther was translated and included among the books. It is my expectation that Oxford will continue with this practice and the ESV Bible they release in the new year should include both the MT and LXX versions of Esther in their entirety.

So, for those two reasons, the inclusion of the older, longer text of Tobit, and the inclusion of the complete Greek Esther, fans of the RSV have reasons to consider upgrading their Bibles from the 1977 RSV to the 2009 ESV.

I think I have made my peace with the ESV. The rule of using an indefinite article when there is no article in the original Greek will pass as an honorable attempt at translating the scripture. I don't think any foul play was involved.

However, I wish a version would translate this "church of the Living God, pillar and foundation of truth."

And use that style in other instances where this issue comes up.

I have pre-ordered the ESV with Apocrypha from Amazon and expect to have it in January.

I look forward to discussing it with you when it arrives.

I like the ESV. I have a small version I found at a used bookstore that I now carry with me in my coat pocket.

So, I hope that the Vatican reviews it and has a version generated for approved Catholic use. It is a good translation and has a potential at improving ecumenical relations.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think I have made my peace with the ESV. The rule of using an indefinite article when there is no article in the original Greek will pass as an honorable attempt at translating the scripture. I don't think any foul play was involved.However, I wish a version would translate this "church of the Living God, pillar and foundation of truth.I agree.And use that style in other instances where this issue comes up.

I agree.

I have pre-ordered the ESV with Apocrypha from Amazon and expect to have it in January.I look forward to discussing it with you when it arrives.

Absolutely.

I like the ESV. I have a small version I found at a used bookstore that I now carry with me in my coat pocket.So, I hope that the Vatican reviews it and has a version generated for approved Catholic use. It is a good translation and has a potential at improving ecumenical relations.

I agree. I gotta say the RCC has jumped highly in my ratings list for their unflagging support for the unborn and their support for Prop 8 in California. Also, not serving communion to Pelosi was a plus.

 

[Ave Maria]

Excellent! I can't wait till it becomes available for E-Sword!

 

[calluna]

We should also note that the capitals which calluna likes so well

What gives the impression that calluna likes capitals?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

What gives the impression that calluna likes capitals?

Your post at #38.

 

[calluna]

Your post at #38.

How does that indicate a predilection for capitals by other than DD2008?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

How does that indicate a predilection for capitals by other than DD2008?

Friend, it is Christmas Eve. I am rapt in contemplation of the incarnation. I am in no mood to pick nits. You seemed to like DD2008's capitals (which were, of course, no part of the original). If I misunderstood you, I ask your forgiveness.

I read Luke 2:1-20 in several translations this afternoon, including the ESV. I have a warm spot in my heart for the more formal prose of such versions as the ESV, NRSV and NKJV. But today I was particularly struck by the wording of the NLT which says:

And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger. Luke 2:12 (NLT)

Emphasis mine.

The word "snugly" is not in the Greek, but it does accurately describe the process of swaddling--a practice unfamiliar to most of us. I like it. It is, somehow, a humanizing touch to a narrative that so often, because of the words and cadences carried on from the KJV, seems otherworldly. Jesus was, after all, born into this world.

When Jesus was born, the angels sang of peace. I wish you peace, calluna. Merry Christmas.

 

[calluna]

Friend, it is Christmas Eve. I am rapt in contemplation of the incarnation.

No problem. I have had my reputation called into question since November 28th, I can wait a while longer.

I am in no mood to pick nits.

Is the implication that another poster either twists Scripture to his own view, or is ignorant of a most elementary fact of Greek koine to be considered a nit?

Perhaps, when you can spare the time to consider this nit, and when you have decided which accusation is intended, you will let me know.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

No problem. I have had my reputation called into question since November 28th, I can wait a while longer.


Is the implication that another poster either twists Scripture to his own view, or is ignorant of a most elementary fact of Greek koine to be considered a nit?

Perhaps, when you can spare the time to consider this nit, and when you have decided which accusation is intended, you will let me know.

I accuse you of nothing except liking DD2008's capitals. And, if that somehow wrongs you, I have apologized. If you do not wish to accept my apology, that is your prerogative.

 

[calluna]

I accuse you of nothing except liking DD2008's capitals.

Then delete the accusation made on Nov 28th.

I haven't even said I like them, anyway, so there's another deletion to make.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Go find someone else to fight with. I'm done here.

My point, that capitalization is not a part of the original Greek text, stands.

If you want to read more into it than that, it is your problem and none of mine.

 

[calluna]

Go find someone else to fight with. I'm done here.

You have to delete at least two false accusations.

My point, that capitalization is not a part of the original Greek text, stands.

Really? Then why mention calluna? To imply that he knows nothing about Greek? Or that he twists the text to his own heretical view? It can't be both, so that's a mercy.

Quite a compliment, either way, if personal comment is the only way to counter him.

 

[Kenzi]

What is this thread about again?

 

[SummaScriptura]

If you delve into the books erroneously called "Apocrypha" before long you will notice a confusing array of differences between translations of them. For instance, Roman Catholic bibles contain no 1 & 2 Esdras, the King James Bible contains a shorter version of 2 Esdras than others, the version of Ecclesiasticus in the New Revised Standard Version is longer than that found in most other Bibles.

I have created a table to compare these and other differences in order to track and evaluate the particulars of each Bible's "Apocrypha" in translation. I have also developed a non-scientific scale upon which the relative merits of each can be judged.

In the chart below, the various differences of the Apocrypha in 12 versions of the Bible is tracked and compared. More can be added as they come to my attention. If a version of the Bible containing these books contains a translation based upon the best text we now have for that book, they are given a score of "1", if it contains a translation based upon an inferior text of that book they get a score of "0.5". Lacking a translation of a certain book gets a score of "0".

At the bottom of the chart the scores are tabulated so you can see which bibles have the most complete and/or optimal collections of the biblical books under consideration.

Since the translators of the NRSV seem to have gone the extra mile to acquire the best texts to translate and since they translated more of these books than the others, the NRSV became the benchmark for this whole exercise.

[c]Which versions of which Bibles contain which books

[/c]

 

[calluna]

What is this thread about again?

Adding frippery to an unremarkable and unnecessary translation.

 

[Akathist]

Mod Hat Post

Please stick to the topic and keep personal comments about each other to the pm system.​

 

[SummaScriptura]

I am happy to report receiving my review copy of the ESV Bible with Apocrypha today! I will be sure to post more info in the days to come. Unfortunately, I have a huge disappointment with an editorial choice that was made in creating this edition.

The translation of the Book of Tobit, not being a new translation of that book but rather being a slight revision of the RSV Tobit, is of the shorter recension of that book.

I believe current scholarship is overwhelmingly on the side of the longer version of Tobit being closer to the original of the book. There was a time when translations of Tobit were usually based upon the shorter recension but in recent bible translation history the following versions of the Bible have resorted to the longer version of the text:

New English Bible
New American Bible
Today's English Version
New Jerusalem Bible
Revised English Bible
New Revised Standard Version
New English Translation of the Septuagint (which contians both)

That the ESV only contains a translation of the shorter Tobit is, I suppose, interesting from an historical perspective, but for me at least, its a disappointment.

- Its also too bad in my opinion that they've dropped the practice of translating and including the longer Hebrew version of Psalm 151
- Idealy I would like an Old Testament with these extra books integrated throughout, in lieu of that, I prefer their arrangment to be like it was in the 1977 RSV. I like the four Books of Maccabees together, instead the ESV has them sequenced the same as the NRSV, which is kind of a confusing jumble in my opinion.
- On a more positive note, I can report the ESV Bible with Apocrypha includes both the Hebrew and full Greek versions of the Book of Esther.

The following is the Preface to the Apocrypha from the ESV Bible with Apocrypha:

"This translation of the Apocryphal Books, which is included here along with the canonical books of the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible, is not completely new. It draws, in fact, on the mainstream of classic translations extending over the last five centuries; and, most recently, it takes the 1971 Revised Standard Version (RSV) Apocrypha as its starting point. The edition of the Apocrypha represented here also contains the books of the Expanded Apocrypha (1977), including the additional books of 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

"Except for these three additional books, the Apocryphal Books translated here are those books and portions of books which appear in the Latin Vulgate. With the exception of 2 Esdras, these books also appear as part of the Greek Septuagint, though they were never included in the Hebrew Canon of Holy Scripture. Because the Apocryphal Books were included in the Latin Vulgate, however, they were often read by the church throughout the medieval period along with the canonical books of Scripture.

"In Luther's German translation of the Bible (1534) the Apocrypha stands between the Old Testament and the New Testament, with the title: "Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read." Coverdale's English translation of the Bible (1535) gave the books of the Apocrypha the same position, with the title: "Apocrypha. The books and treatises which among the fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrew." The Apocrypha also had a place in all the sixteenth century English translations of the Bible, and in the King James Version (1611). As with the Expanded Apocrypha of the RSV, the following edition of the Apocrypha also includes those books from the Septuagint that are in use among Orthodox Christians.

"While the entire text published in this Oxford University Press edition was examined for faithfulness to the original languages, the main points of interaction included updating archaic language, clarifying obscure words, removing inaccuracies, and bringing punctuation up to current American English standards. Three scholars well versed in the ancient language worked through assigned portions of the Apocrypha, namely:

"• David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Ashland Theological Seminary

"• Dan McCartney, Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary

"• Bernard A. Taylor, Loma Linda University.

"The whole was then edited by David Aiken (Ada, Michigan) to achieve consistency throughout.

"The Gottingen Septuagint served as the textual base for all of the books except 4 Maccabees (which was translated from Rahlfs's Septuagint) and 2 Esdras (which was translated from the 1983 Vulgate published by the German Bible Society).

"We are pleased to offer this version of the Apocrypha to all those readers who wish to explore these ancient writings, which provide additional insight into the history and thought of the Jewish people during the centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

"The Translation Committee of the Apocryphal Books"

I've only done a little comparing between the RSV Apocrypha and the new ESV Apocrypha, but from what I can tell, this new edition of the Apocrypha seems to be a very light revision of the RSV. It seems to be a lighter revision of these books from the RSV than the 2001 ESV was a revision of the RSV.

These days I've been using the ESV pretty exclusively. For the rest of the Old Testament Greek books I've been using and RSV. I think the ESV is a great translation. I also think the RSV is an excellent translation. Now I have a revised copy of the RSV of the books incorrectly referred to as Apocrypha bound together with my ESV. Could it be better, yes, but at least now I don't have to carry around two books.

 

[calluna]

'Now as they proceeded on their way they came at evening to the Tigris river and camped there. Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man; and the angel said to him, "Catch the fish." So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land. Then the angel said to him, "Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely." So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish.

And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana. Then the young man said to the angel, "Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?" He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."' Tbt 6:1-8 RSV

'fanciful' ISBE

'Then the angel called the two of them privately and said to them.... Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting...

... almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin.' Tbt 12:6... 9 RSV

'The book was probably written as moral fiction toward the close of the third century B.C.' New Unger's Bible Dictionary

'several historical errors' ISBE

'A doctrinal feature of the book is the firm belief in a glorious restoration of the Jewish people. Tob. 14:5; 13:9-18. But the restoration contemplated is national, and not the work of a universal Saviour. In all there is not the slightest trace of the belief in a personal Messiah.' Smith's Bible Dictionary