American spellings tended to follow etymology standardizing on the Latin and Greek origins (like the text regarding “ize” in the OED) while the British spellings tended to be more showy and follow French (from which we have many loan words, though more Norman French than “French”, which is very different). Not in every case, and these statements are very general, yet I get smug satisfaction in that we dumb Americans also tend, often, to use the “English” spellings before French spellings became popular in Britain, such as with “program” vs. the British “programme”. hah!

That’s all in jest and fun…though not untrue, far as I know, either. Cheers to those across the “pond”. : )

Maybe next year Mark Strauss should offer a similar paper about NRSV to SBL, to an audience likely to use NRSV. I’m sure we would be willing to post such a paper also here at BBB.

I would like that, Peter. As you know, as part of the BBB blogging team, we don’t limit ourselves to discussion of just conservative evangelical Bible versions. All Bible translations can be improved.

But NRSV is not being strongly promoted among evangelicals, and so it would not be appropriate to give a paper about its deficiencies at ETS. Maybe next year Mark Strauss should offer a similar paper about NRSV to SBL, to an audience likely to use NRSV. I’m sure we would be willing to post such a paper also here at BBB.

When these posts first began with regard the ESV and the accusations of bad English in the ESV, I pointed out that the NRSV used those exact same wordings on many occasions. Now whilst BBB begins loudly declaiming that the ESV uses bad English, there’s a deafening silence despite the fact that the NRSV uses exactly the same wordings! That to me smacks of double-standards. And that is just one example, although I can think of a number of others.

If this is acceptable to you it is not acceptable to me, and I don’t think I’ll be coming back here, not that we’ll be missing each other I am sure.

How about this: “Ah wert kippin’ on’t serfa wi’ a fag in t’gerb.” Nice bit of dialect there, it’s actually Geordie, and it means “I fell asleep on the sofa with a cigarette in my mouth”. Just because a lot of people speak like that doesn’t make it ‘another’ standard.

But now this is going way off track and I will get back to my original comment which was basically this: there appears to be a distinct bias on BBB against ESV, with criticisms thrown against it that never appear with regard other translations despite the fact that such criticisms could be justified. This is completely unfair. Let’s see a few other versions with pages and pages devoted to taking them down then eh? Then people won’t accuse BBB of bias.

“That’s a confusion of dialect and style. Quality of English is a matter of style, American spelling is a matter of dialect.”

No, it isn’t. That’s being selective. Calling it a matter of dialect does not detract from the fact that Americans don’t spell it correctly. You call the language English. English is my native tongue, I should know, and do know, what my native tongue should look like when written down in a standard form. If we didn’t have a standard form then we’d have versions of the bible that were completely unintelligible except to a select few. And I’m thinking of broad dialects such as Mancunian, Geordie, Scots, West Country etc. But now I’m getting away from the point. If there are going to be demands for good English then those demands should be consistent, and across the board, but they aren’t.

I didn’t say anything about word “happy” I don’t think its a better translation either. But as to your next paragraph,

And if the talk is about the ESV not being good English, then let’s not stop at half measures but go the whole hog. You can’t say you only want good English but only up to a point. American spellings are bad English, therefore all American versions of the bible are bad English, and all bibles should be Anglicised. You can’t have it both ways.

That’s a confusion of dialect and style. Quality of English is a matter of style, American spelling is a matter of dialect. I don’t think Annie Dillard would appreciate you calling her English poor just because she’s American. She’s also written some of the most beautiful and powerful prose I’ve ever seen.

And re the word ‘happy’, it is defined in the OED as meaning “Feeling or showing pleasure or contentment.” Its secondary meaning is “Fortunate and convenient.” The implication is of a present condition, ‘whoopee I’m really happy!’ ‘Blessed’ on the other hand, is a reference to someone marked or consecrated, given divine favour. That would make more sense.

And if the talk is about the ESV not being good English, then let’s not stop at half measures but go the whole hog. You can’t say you only want good English but only up to a point. American spellings are bad English, therefore all American versions of the bible are bad English, and all bibles should be Anglicised. You can’t have it both ways.