Ozoliņš: Observations on ESV Old Testament Translation Notes

The following is a guest post from Kaspars Ozoliņš who has a PhD from UCLA in Indo-European linguistics and currently works as a Research Associate at Tyndale House in Cambridge.

---

Translation notes are a time-honoured tradition in biblical translation. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the preface “To the Reader” of the 1611 KJV:

[I]t hath pleaſed God in his divine prouidence, heere and there to ſcatter wordes and ſentences of that difficultie and doubtfulneſſe, not in doctrinall points that concerne ſaluation, (for in ſuch it hath beene uouched that the ſcriptures are plaine) but in matters of leſſe moment…Now in ſuch a caſe, doth not a margine do well to admoniſh the Reader to ſeeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?…They that are wiſe, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.

Translation notes are in fact a very useful tool for expanding and clarifying particular words and passages, given the many complications involved in transferring the meaning of ancient texts written in languages generally unfamiliar to the reader. The NET version excels at this, containing no fewer than 60,932 translation notes. But such an abundance of information raises an important question. What are the intended audience(s) for such notes, and therefore, what kind of information ought to be included?

This question is especially germane to notes of a text-critical nature. Naturally, the academic or pastor will consult standard critical editions of the biblical text for information about variant readings for a given passage. So it would seem that text-critical notes in an English Bible are not aimed at such an individual, at least not directly. On the other hand, what purpose could be fulfilled by supplying a layperson with variant manuscript and versional readings?

Of course, the obvious answer is that some variants ultimately make a difference, especially when dealing with an inspired text. To that end, anyone engaging with the biblical text should take at least some interest in important variant readings. Text-critical notes in translated versions should be a kind of bare-bones apparatus presenting the most important variant readings which are exegetically significant and difficult to evaluate (i.e., valuable and viable).

Video from SIL Textual Criticism and Translation Webinar

Meade and I recently participated in a live webinar with Drew Maust of SIL on the importance and role of textual criticism for Bible translation. It was a good time with great questions from Drew and the participants. You can now watch the video on Vimeo here.

Ward: A Rising Tide Sinks All Boats: The Legacy Standard Bible and Stewarding the Church’s Trust

The following guest post is from Mark Ward (PhD, Bob Jones University), who serves the church as an academic editor at Lexham Press (though his opinions in this piece are solely his own). His most recent book is Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, and he produced a Faithlife infotainment documentary by the same title.

---

It’s time for someone to stand athwart American Christianity and yell “STOP!”—to anyone planning yet another “centrist” English Bible translation. By “centrist” I mean versions designed to be used by actual churches rather than for specialized study purposes.

Making a new “centrist” translation is precisely what a man I greatly respect and love, Dr. John MacArthur, is doing with his recently announced Legacy Standard Bible; and yet I must stick to my guns. Nerf guns. I am not shooting to kill or even to wound but to dissuade: faithful are the foam darts of a friend. And I don’t care to fire even these at Dr. MacArthur in particular; my words apply to all evangelical institutions who might now be planning their own centrist English Bibles. MacArthur is simply the most recent, so he has the privilege of occasioning this piece.

MacArthur has long used the 1995 New American Standard Bible in his world-famous teaching ministry. Its reputation fits his well: both are focused on a careful, literal approach to Bible interpretation. And of these things I have no complaint. But as the NASB branches into a 2020 revision (while promising to continue to print the 1995 edition), MacArthur is branching off in a different direction. One Bible translation (the NASB) is becoming three (NASB95, NASB20, and LSB) in a very short space. ETC has already announced this, but I’ve been invited to subject the LSB decision to some of my foam darts.

Different kinds of English Bible translations

I’m actually a big fan of English Bibles, plural. When someone asks me, “Which is the best Bible version?” I answer with sincerity, “All the good ones.”

I use multiple Bible translations all the time in Bible study, because the ones I use have staked out usefully different spots on the continuum between formal and functional. You’ve seen that continuum in the standard diagram:

The “centrist” translations are the ones that go from about the NASB on the left to the NIV on the right. These are the translations that in my unscientific experience actually get used as the main translation in doctrinally sound evangelical churches. (I could be generous and include the NLT, too.)

Any further toward the left than the NASB and you cross into translations that are designed to be Bible study tools for those who know the original languages (the NASB itself is also often used this way). My own employer’s Lexham English Bible, born as a set of interlinear glosses, is an example. I see room for more translations that are hyper-literal like the LEB, because no one sees them as competing with the centrist ones to be used in churches. They are tools for study.

NASB Now Being Revised

More translation news today. On their Facebook page, the Lockman Foundation announces a revision of the New American Standard Bible which is underway. I’m guessing they are feeling the heat from updates to the ESV, NIV, and CSB.

Update on the NASB revision:

The whole text is being reviewed with more emphasis in the Old Testament.

The primary goal is to maintain accuracy and modernize English.

As our base texts are the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) for the books available and the NA28 for the NT. We don’t always agree with the editors of those texts and choose alternate or variant readings when we feel they are more accurate.

Our current publication goal is to have a first release in early 2019.

The NASB was last updated in 1995 and has often been promoted for its literalness and accuracy. I tried adopting it at one point but the English was just too stilted. For example: “...and she [Eve] said, ‘I have gotten a manchild (!) with the help of the Lord’” (Gen 4.1). Hopefully they can improve some of that.

This is yet another English translation that will be working from the NA28. Note, however, that they explicitly say they do not always agree with the editors’ decisions. This is important because, in conversations about the CBGM and the NA28, some people assume that English translators simply adopt the NA/UBS text ipso facto. But I don’t know of any English translations that do this. Rather, they (rightly) diverge from that text when they feel it appropriate.

Translating the New Testament

Eerdmans has a new book out (HT: Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni):

Stanley E. Porter / Mark J. Boda (eds.), Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology (McMaster New Testament Studies), Eerdmans 2009. ISBN: 978-0-8028-6377-5.

You can order the book from Eisenbrauns here.

The contributions come from the 2005 Bingham Colloquium Lectures at McMaster Divinity School, with the same title “Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology.” I think it is great that this material has finally been published. In my monograph on Jude from 2006 (p. 256 n. 77) I actually referred to Robinson’s essay “Rule 9” as forthcoming 2007. I suppose the editors had to wait for a long time for one or more contributors to get their work done.

In any case, there is a lot of textual criticism in this book, several contributions by co-blogger Maurice Robinson, and Barbara Aland and Philip Comfort. I wish I had been there to listen to the debate between Robinson and Aland over NA27.

Barbara Aland, “New Testament textual research, its methods and its goals”, 13-26

Maurice A. Robinson, “Rule 9, isolated variants, and the “test-tube” nature of the NA27/UBS4 text : a Byzantine-priority perspective”, 27-61

Philip W. Comfort, “The significance of the papyri in revising the New Testament Greek text and English translations”, 62-89

Barbara Aland, “The text of Luke 16”, 93-95

Maurice A. Robinson, “The rich man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31 : text-critical notes”, 96-110

Philip W. Comfort, “Two illustrations of scribal gap filling in Luke 16:19”, 111-113

And the summary chapter: Richard N. Longenecker, “Quo vadis? : from whence to where in New Testament text criticism and translation”, 327-346

Hebrews 6:9: Future or Present?

This is a linguistic problem rather than text-critical problem. The text in Heb 6:9 reads:

Πεπείσμεθα δὲ περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀγαπητοί, τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, εἰ καὶ οὕτως λαλοῦμεν.

The NIV translates: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case–things that accompany salvation."

The NIV, as most translations, follow the same interpretation of ἐχόμενα as in BDAG, s.v. ἔχω 11a: "to be closely associated" of proper situation or placement where the "to" of belonging and the "with" of association are expressed by genitive (in this case σωτηρίας), where Heb 6:9 is listed among the examples.

The Swedish Bible translation, B2000, on the other hand, reads in retranslation to English: "But concerning you, my beloved, I am, in spite of these words, confident of the better and that you are close to salvation."

Disregard the awkward style since this is a retranslation. The thing that interests me here is the interpretation of τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας in a temporal (futuristic) sense as "the better things and coming (things) – salvation." Perhaps the focus on future salvation in 1:14; 10:25, etc. led the committee to this decision. However, salvation is also present to the author, e.g., 7:25.

The translation committee has apparently chosen to interpret ἐχόμενα according to BDAG s.v. ἔχω 11β, i.e., temporal, to be next, immediately following, hence "close," with σωτηρίας understood as an epexegetical genitive. I wonder whether this is possible, especially since there is no definite article with ἐχόμενα.

Perhaps it is needless to say that I will not follow the latter interpretation in the commentary I am working on.

Hebrews 10:39 offers an important parallell where the author, after a similar warning as in 6:4–8, associates the addressees with salvation, ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς.

Any insights and suggestions are welcome!