Skip to content

Hash for 12/14/2007

December 14, 2007

You can still order gifts from Westminster Theological Bookstore and have them arrive before Christmas, and they are currently running a sale of 45% off ESV Bibles.

Mike Aquilina at Way of the Fathers blog has recently highlighted a tool for looking up patristic homilies based on Scripture text and a resource that has several works of the church fathers in their original language and translation side-by-side.

If you missed (it was all over the blog world a couple weeks ago), Mark Dever had some helpful points on offering criticism. It’d be nice if someone would tell me now how to accept it!

I found John Piper’s response on this recent installment of the “Ask Pastor John” podcast (MP3) helpful and convicting.

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. jphansen permalink
    December 14, 2007 2:26 pm

    Since you’re recommending (sort of), what’s your quick list of pros and cons you see on the ESV?

    Joe

  2. December 15, 2007 9:32 pm

    I can try a quick list of ESV pros and cons, Mr Hansen.

    Pros:
    1) The ESV is a fairly literal translation (more literal than the NIV, NLT, etc.).
    2) The translation of the ESV is not too literal (the NASB is famous for being called ‘wooden’ because it is too literal).
    3) The language of the ESV follows in the tradition of the KJV/RSV (so often the language and cadence is familiar).
    4) The translations are often conservative evangelical (or at least confessional and orthodox; e.g., Isa 7:14 still reads “virgin.” This is also an asset with respect to the gender debates, etc.)
    5) The ESV translation committee had no problem using the evidence from earliest (i.e., best, in my opinion) manuscripts for their readings (in contrast with the NKJV).
    6) The ESV was translated by committee, which is always an asset to a translation.

    Cons:
    1) Every once in a while I disagree with translations, but this is not usually the case. I have not yet disagreed on a translation where the significance the difference was that great.
    2) The ESV does not seem to have the widespread popularity other versions have, which may end up being a liability.
    3) There is a part of me that still wishes (though I am far from being KJV only) that all English-speaking Christendom had a single translation of the Bible that was cited and used. And I miss the language and beauty of the AV. But it seems like those days are over. Using the ESV jettisons the step of having to reexplain the English the KJV.
    4) I can’t think of any others, though I am sure there are some.

  3. December 17, 2007 7:08 am

    Thanks, Ryan.

    I’m presently reading/reviewing the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which has some good points.

    I just haven’t gotten around to doing the same on the ESV.

    Joe

  4. December 17, 2007 11:59 am

    I have not looked at the HCSB much at all. I do get a kick out of the fact that when Baptists finally got to make “their own translation” of the Bible, they still translated βαπτιζω, “baptize,” and not “immerse”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: