Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)

[Andrewn]

I've been using the Lutheran EHV (NT & Psalms). Recently, I was in a LCMS church and the reading were from ESV. Just wondering what the views here are regarding these translations.

 

[tampasteve]

ESV is pretty much the standard in many churches today, especially the LCMS AFLC, etc. in regards to Lutheran churches in the USA anyways. ESV is recognized as being fair and overall a very good translation, better than many out there.

EHV is to me....just not needed. The association with WELS and ELS inherently means it will have biases towards their views, which does not necessarily mean they are wrong, but it is needed to keep in mind.

I mainly use the RSV, ESV, KJV and Artscroll in my studies. Daily reading is in the RSV most of the time and that is what my parish uses on Sunday. IMO, a well rounded study needs several translations to really dig into the scripture. But daily devotions can be done with almost any English (assuming that is one's language) translation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I've been using the EHV (NT & Psalms). Recently, I was in a LCMS church and the reading were from ESV. Just wondering what the views here are regarding these translations.

I am astounded at how many translations there are. I teach the Bible. I tend to use the NAS and the amplified. The curriculum has links to Bible Hub embedded in the verses. It brings up most versions so you can see what those translations have to say. Then I pick what version suits my biases and preconceived notions. Oops, sorry, I mean, what best fits the point I am trying to make.

 

[Andrewn]

Do you know specific verses that show biased views?

 

[tampasteve]

Do you know specific verses that show biased views?

This might help:

Here is a link to my quoted portions below:
http://wartburgproject.org/sp_faq/30/

"We place a priority on prophecy, so our translation and notes strive to give clear indications of Messianic prophecy."​

The problem I see is that some passages that are often read as prophetic just are not, or were not seen as such by most of Christianity. I am not sure if that is the case here, but it gives me pause.

Also:

"The portable sanctuary built by Moses has traditionally been called the Tabernacle, but the only tabernacles around today are the Mormon one in Salt Lake City and the containers in which the host is reserved in Catholic churches. The Hebrew word mishkan means dwelling place, so EHV calls the movable sanctuary the Dwelling (mishkan) or the Tent (ohel) depending on which Hebrew word is used in the original. The term dwelling also helps the reader connect God’s presence in the Dwelling with the many New Testament references to God dwelling with us."​

IMO they are taking this to far. Tabernacle is the word, people can be educated to what it means, and honestly, most readers would not know about the LDS Tabernacle or Catholic Tabernacle. Further, this is not just a Catholic practice, some Lutheran churches use Tabernacles (as well as other denominations), so this is changing a word to sound less "Catholic" or "Mormon" when there is really no reason to, and making the change is a bias to the WELS/ELS beliefs. Again, that is OK if they believe that and want to esouse that, but the reader should be aware.

Because they drop "Tabernacle" here they also have to change Sukkot Feast of Tabernacles too, because apparently the reader would be confused.

Then they make a statement on why Ephod should not be used, but then use the opposite logic on why they keep Serens:

Ephod

Our names for the high priest’s garments are special vest or vest (with the footnote ephod); chest pouch or pouch; robe; tunic; sash around the waist; band on the vest; turban for the priest; small pointed turban for the regular priests unless we can come up with something better that is also accurate (caps does not do it); and medallion (tzitz) and crest (netzer) on the turban.

Most translations despair of finding any translation for ephod, so they just keep the Hebrew word ephod. But this term communicates nothing. The description of the ephod in Exodus makes it clear this was a vest-like garment (actually sort of like a scrimmage vest), so the EHV calls it a special vest.

Serens

Most translations call the rulers of the five Philistine city states the lords of the Philistines, but the word used in the original is not a Hebrew word meaning lord. Seren is a special word used only of the rulers of the five Philistine city states. It seems to be a Philistine term. It may be related to the Greek word tyrant, an autocratic ruler of a city state. (One Philistine inscription, in fact, spells it trn.) Seren is a title like pharaoh or czar, which is applied to one specific class of rulers. Since this is a unique title, the EHV uses the transliteration seren rather than the traditional rendering lord. The Bible uses a unique word here, so we do too.​

Honestly, their list of "Features that set the EHV apart" reads to me on why I personally would not use it. In conclusion though, these are not issues that interfere with one's salvation, or even mess up theology of the Church to any large extent, so if one finds this translation edifying and it helps one to actually read the scriptures frequently, they should use it.

 

[Andrewn]

Honestly, their list of "Features that set the EHV apart" reads to me on why I personally would not use it. In conclusion though, these are not issues that interfere with one's salvation, or even mess up theology of the Church to any large extent, so if one finds this translation edifying and it helps one to actually read the scriptures frequently, they should use it.

These examples seem like their guidelines for translating the OT, which is yet to be published. I noticed that in Psalms they use "tent" instead of "tabernacle" but I actually prefer "tent." Like other translations, they use the word "temple" in psalms by David, which is anachronistic.

Are there any issues with the NT?

 

[tampasteve]

These examples seem like their guidelines for translating the OT, which is yet to be published. I noticed that in Psalms they use "tent" instead of "tabernacle" but I actually prefer "tent."

Are there any issues with the NT?

IMO you can't understand the NT without knowing the OT intimitly. The early church did not have the NT and Jesus of course was basing the faith on Judaism and the scriptures they used, along with the Targums and some other manuscripts that were common.

That said, the Wartburg people state:

"The EHV approach to the text of the New Testament is to avoid a bias toward any one textual tradition or group of manuscripts. An objective approach considers all the witnesses to the text (Greek manuscripts, lectionaries, translations, and quotations in the church fathers) without showing favoritism for one or the other. "​

but then goes on to make the case in regards to John 3:13:

"Most modern translations omit the last phrase, “who is in heaven,” but it was included in the King James Version and the New King James Version. EHV includes the phrase and notes that a few witnesses to the text omit “who is in heaven.” The longer reading is a striking testimony to the union of the two natures in Christ. It is easy to see why some scribes might have omitted it. It is hard to see why some would have added it.​

So....they are "avoiding bias" but then note that most translations (and older manuscripts) omit the end of John 3:13 other than the KJV and NKJV (which really should not be separated for proof)? They say that "it is hard to see why some would have added it." when the reality is that it is VERY easy to see why it would be added, it cleans up the "two natures" nicely. I am not saying that it is necessarily added or not, but the reasoning is faulty here IMO.

Also:

"The EHV also includes Mark 16:9-20 in the text without raising doubt on its place in Scripture."​

Fine, I have not issue with it being in the text, but a footnote is appropriate since so many early manuscripts do not have it and we are talking about a pretty large passage.

There are more similar examples at the link, it is really worth reading through carefully to weigh what they think area important changes, and their reasoning behind them. In general I do not agree with their reasons for making these choices.

 

[Andrewn]

Fine, I have not issue with it being in the text, but a footnote is appropriate since so many early manuscripts do not have it and we are talking about a pretty large passage. There are more similar examples at the link, it is really worth reading through carefully to weigh what they think area important changes, and their reasoning behind them. In general I do not agree with their reasons for making these choices.

Thank you very much. This makes for an interesting read.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Do you know specific verses that show biased views?

Excellent question. "Biases and preconceived notions" is tongue in cheek. In Matthew 16, 25 & 26, Lord Jesus talks about losing life and losing soul. In the Greek, "life" and "soul" are the same word. The early NASB translated "psychen" as "soul-life". I am a believer in the truth of "Salvation of the soul" as a separate, subsequent and progressive experience in the life of the believer. I find the older NASB helpful when I teach this principle.
I prefer the word "wilderness" to "desert" in the NT. The NIV uses desert. The NIV is easy to read but it rather glosses over some important (to me) distinctions. NASB is harder to read but more precise. It's hard to give concrete examples as I'm inclined to dismiss unsatisfying interpretations and remember the translation I prefer.
The classic and ubiquitous problem word is "Baptise". It is simply an anglicised Greek word. It literally means "immerse". You'd have to ask the translators why they continue to ignore the real meaning.
What we really need is the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning to us. That's why I prefer the NASB and similar translations. They are more accurate. A committee of experts is still no match for the Holy Spirit!

 

[Andrewn]

In Matthew 16, 25 & 26, Lord Jesus talks about losing life and losing soul. In the Greek, "life" and "soul" are the same word. The early NASB translated "psychen" as "soul-life".

OT nefesh and NT psyche are rendered soul-life in the old classic "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee. I think this is excellent but inconvenient translation.

I am a believer in the truth of "Salvation of the soul" as a separate, subsequent and progressive experience in the life of the believer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The NIV uses desert. The NIV is easy to read but it rather glosses over some important (to me) distinctions.

This is absolutely true. It's not suitable for NT study.

 

[Andrewn]

NASB is harder to read but more precise.

It's not my favorite translation. I made some observations about NASB in the following thread:
NASB & CSB

The classic and ubiquitous problem word is "Baptise". It is simply an anglicised Greek word. It literally means "immerse". You'd have to ask the translators why they continue to ignore the real meaning.

I agree but can understand that, to gain popular acceptance, some traditional terms cannot be changed.

What we really need is the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning to us. That's why I prefer the NASB and similar translations. They are more accurate. A committee of experts is still no match for the Holy Spirit!

This is pivotal regardless of the translation one uses.

 

[Aussie Pete]

OT nefesh and NT psyche are rendered soul-life in the old classic "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee. I think this is excellent but inconvenient translation.


I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It is called "progressive sanctification" by some (Baptists, if I remember correctly as well as others). Since the Bible refers to "Salvation of the Soul" I prefer that terminology.

The spirit of man is the part of us that is born again. It is instantaneous. Once we are born again, we have two problems remaining. One is the lack spiritual knowledge. We are like newborn babes and we have great need of instruction and edification. Hence the many exhortations to meditate on God's word and seek spiritual knowledge.

The other issue is the soul-life that remains after we are born again. This is what we need to deny. This is what needs to be "put to death". The soul-life is the principle by which we live before we are born again. It has to be resisted and denied, otherwise our spiritual life suffers. For example, some desires are not wrong but are not in God's will for us. Watchman Nee quotes the instance of a new convert on the verge of getting his doctorate. The Lord told him not to take the exam. It was very hard for him to give up all the hard work that he had done. There is also a lot of prestige attached to a doctorate. So he wrestled with God on the issue. He did capitulate and was greatly blessed as a result of his obedience. We can be like the rich ruler that could not give up all his wealth. Lord Jesus made it clear that there was a great personal cost to become a Kingdom disciple. If we will give up our own desires and ambitions, there is great reward - spiritually, not necessarily materially.

This is absolutely true. It's not suitable for NT study.

 

[Andrewn]

The spirit of man is the part of us that is born again. It is instantaneous. Once we are born again, we have two problems remaining. One is the lack spiritual knowledge. We are like newborn babes and we have great need of instruction and edification. Hence the many exhortations to meditate on God's word and seek spiritual knowledge. The other issue is the soul-life that remains after we are born again. This is what we need to deny. This is what needs to be "put to death". The soul-life is the principle by which we live before we are born again. It has to be resisted and denied, otherwise our spiritual life suffers.

Thank you for the beautiful and concise description. I was teaching about holiness / sanctification last Spring.

 

[actionsub]

This might help:

"The portable sanctuary built by Moses has traditionally been called the Tabernacle, but the only tabernacles around today are the Mormon one in Salt Lake City and the containers in which the host is reserved in Catholic churches. The Hebrew word mishkan means dwelling place, so EHV calls the movable sanctuary the Dwelling (mishkan) or the Tent (ohel) depending on which Hebrew word is used in the original. The term dwelling also helps the reader connect God’s presence in the Dwelling with the many New Testament references to God dwelling with us."​

IMO they are taking this to far. Tabernacle is the word, people can be educated to what it means, and honestly, most readers would not know about the LDS Tabernacle or Catholic Tabernacle. Further, this is not just a Catholic practice, some Lutheran churches use Tabernacles (as well as other denominations), so this is changing a word to sound less "Catholic" or "Mormon" when there is really no reason to, and making the change is a bias to the WELS/ELS beliefs. Again, that is OK if they believe that and want to esouse that, but the reader should be aware.

Because they drop "Tabernacle" here they also have to change Sukkot Feast of Tabernacles too, because apparently the reader would be confused.

And then there are all those Pentecostal churches with names like "Calvary Tabernacle Church of God" (to use a local example)...