Symposium on Bible Translations (NIV, ESV, HCSB)

from Professor David Croteau:

I’ve been posting some things on Bible translations on my blog:

1) Doug Moo (NIV), Wayne Grudem (ESV), and Ray Clendenen (HCSB) video’s from Liberty University’s Biblical Studies Symposium on Bible Translations.

2) A 34-part blog series comparing six major Bible translations using a methodology of my mentor, Andreas Kostenberger, in The Challenge of Bible Translation.
Part 1
Part 2
– When part 34 is done (November 5th) I plan on posting the whole thing as a document.

Also, a book from B&H will come from this, with chapters from the three above plus Philip Comfort. Kostenberger and I are editing it.

Blessings!

David Croteau
Associate Professor of Biblical Studies
School of Religion, Liberty University

10 Comments

  1. Posted October 29, 2011 at 4:16 am | Permalink

    Thanks for pointing to these videos of the symposium. I was impressed by Moo’s presentation. He rightly pointed out the very different preconceptions of receptor audience that the NIV and the ESV translators seem to have. Actually both the ESV and HCSB assume an audience which is very keen to investigate any nuance of the text and has the resources, energy, time and willingness to do so. I don’t think that’s a correct assumption to make for the majority of English Bible readers.

    I thought that Grudem’s presentation showed a lack of understanding of some facets of Bible translation. Regarding gender language, he seems to see no difference in the semantic range of the grammatically singual specific referent adelphos and the grammatically singular generic referent adelphos. In my mind that makes the difference as to whether you add “and sisters” or not.

  2. Willis
    Posted October 29, 2011 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    I don’t if it’s appropriate to ask here, but I have a question about the HCSB.
    Any idea why the HCSB uses “indecisive” in James 1:8 & then “double-minded” in James 4:8?

  3. Posted October 29, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Willis asked:

    Any idea why the HCSB uses “indecisive” in James 1:8 & then “double-minded” in James 4:8?

    No. They are the same Greek word and the same author. I see no reason to translate them differently. This would be a good question to send to the HCSB team. I’ll do that now.

  4. Willis
    Posted October 29, 2011 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Thanks much!

  5. Posted November 1, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Donna:
    Regarding gender language, [Grudem] seems to see no difference in the semantic range of the grammatically singual specific referent adelphos and the grammatically singular generic referent adelphos. In my mind that makes the difference as to whether you add “and sisters” or not.”

    I have never heard the term “grammatically singual,” but I think I know what you’re talking about. I’ve never seen it used in a Bible translation, but the English language does have a word for a non-gender-specific same-generation relative of the first degree, and that is ‘sibling.’ So it’s totally unnecessary to add “and sisters.”

  6. Posted November 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    It would have been interesting to have someone such as Dan Wallace invited to the symposium to speak about the NET Bible. Wayne, do you think the NET will ever be widely used or in the discussion with the NIV, ESV, or HCSB?

  7. Posted November 1, 2011 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    I doubt it, Terry. And that’s unfortunate. It takes a lot of advertising dollars, promotion by spiritual gatekeepers, and adoption as church pew Bibles for an English Bible version to get prime billing. None of my favorite versions get top billing.

  8. Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    cterry —

    I’m going to disagree with Wayne here. I think the NET could get prime billing. The license on it is already much more friendly than the license on most bibles. A bit better licensing and it could easily become the standard computer bible.

    1) A standard well written evangelical text
    2) A very strong study bible notes, primarily focused on the text and not theology included
    3) Solid academic backing
    4) Experience with computer interfaces including full featured web enabled versions for full sized devices and readable interfaces for handheld devices.
    5) A sanctioned apocrypha (though they do keep it separate)

    There is no reason sites like “Blue Letter Bible” should be nearly so dominant. I think NET is about 90% of the way there.

    ESV, HCSB are too theological rigid.
    NIV2011 is being torn apart already by controversy. They are going to spend decades in rear guard action.
    CEB — a decade behind the evangelical bibles.
    NLT — The other likely winner.

  9. Adam
    Posted November 7, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    The 34 part analyzing of different translations is now complete: http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/11/analyzing-six-bible-translations-part_05.html

  10. Posted December 1, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    See also the new conclusion to the study, just in case anyone missed it:

    http://slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-conclusion-to-bible-translation.html


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 193 other followers

%d bloggers like this: