Extremely Significant Variations? - 8 December 2010 |
|
I’ve noted previously that the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible introduced some changes in the second edition (published in 2007) which were not explicitly highlighted in the text.
I think the ESV is an excellent translation – that’s why we chose it for congregational use at Emmanuel, and I use it in my personal Bible reading too. But I’m afraid that some of the unmarked changes are really quite significant, and in my judgment the editors made a misjudgment in not drawing attention to them.
Here’s one example, from Isaiah 7:8 (on which I preached last Sunday):
2001 edition:
7 thus says the Lord GOD:
“‘ It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
(Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.)
2007 edition:
7 thus says the Lord GOD:
“‘ It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
And within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be shattered from being a people.
The point here is not whether one translation is “better” than another. I happen to think that the 2001 version is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase, and the 2007 version a good (more literal) rendering that preserves the likely poetic structure and also highlights a possible allusion to “shattering” in Isaiah 8:9 and 9:3. They are both defensible translations, but they are different translations. It is a mistake to introduce such a substantial change without telling the reader what is going on.
Think for a moment: if you were preparing to lead a Bible study for a group of mixed ESV-users, isn’t that the sort of thing you’d like to have been warned about beforehand?
One wonders, again, about the process by which the second edition of the ESV was released.
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Minister's Blog