2 Corinthians 8:21 ESV
Posted by BryanNov 28
Next week is finals week, so I’ve been spending my Thanksgiving “break” trudging through the Old Testament, Hebrew, the Greek of 2 Corinthians, and Systematic Theology (Note: actual amount of energy spent studying is minimal). I was reading through some select passages of 2 Corinthians, when I read:
προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων
Which I translated “For we attempt to do what is good, not only before the Lord, but also before people.” They want a rather literal translation on the final. As usual, I try to gauge my translation against several others, including the ESV, TNIV, NLT, etc, though this isn’t really a hard passage at all. I was a bit confused at why the ESV decided to render the two genitive phrases differently however. The ESV says in 21b: “not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man.” I think the translation “sight” renders the ideal well (see also the TNIV’s “in the eyes of”), but see how differently the two phrases are rendered? This seems to ruin the parallelism of the verse to me. In rendering the word “before” as “in the sight of,” the ESV correctly translates the first phrase as a subjective/possessive genitive “in the Lord’s sight,” but then switches to “in the sight of man.”
Now, this isn’t an ESV hate post. The translation is correct (well, there is that issue of people/men). Just wondering why they inconsistently translated the two phrases, seemingly breaking up the parallelism. It just seems a bit soppy, or perhaps they decided to go with stylistic variation? I know, this won’t mean anything to some others, and that’s fine; it’s just that this kind of stylistic things jump out at me.
8 comments
Comment by Damian on November 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Honestly, I kind of like the ESV translation here. It is a nice stylistic difference. Whilst I’m a fan of parallelism, it is kind of overused in bible translation. Although I doubt this is why it’s been done here, I think it kind of mixes it up a little, which I appreciate.
Comment by Bryan on November 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Granted
I just happen to lean more towards capturing the parallelism when it’s obvious in the Greek. Personal preferences.
Comment by Bret on November 28, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I have been puzzled lately, too, by some of the ESV’s inconsistencies with translating certain words or identical constructions within the same pericope differently. Perhaps it is just a matter of style—in some places surely it is interpretive—but it does not clearly communicate what is going on at times.
For example, this past week I noticed in John 1:16-17 two parallel hoti clauses occur that are providing grounds (“for” or “because”) for verse 14. The first hoti they translate “and” while the second they translate “for”. “And” is not even a translation option in BDAG for hoti.
I do agree that the ESV is a good translation overall, the first one I recommend people to purchase. Do you have any insight on the best way to handle translation issues like the ones we have raised in, say, a Bible study or sermon, and do so in a manner that does not discourage others in reading their ESV text the following morning? This is something I have been thinking through lately myself.
Comment by Bryan on November 28, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Bret
Thanks for stopping by- I love irruption and your brother. Not in that order. As with anything that is a “touchy” subject, I think it depends on audience- where are they at in their maturity level/doubt/etc. Obviously, the worst thing to do is ignore it completely.
Personally, I would start out by making it clear that no one translation is perfect, but also making it clear that, usually, the translation difficulties we come across do not affect major points of doctrine- the deity and humanity of Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, etc., nor do they radically alter the context of the passage. If possible, I would explain why a text is difficult to translate and give the alternative ways of translating it- and then explain why I choose the translation I do. I would also encourage them to have a main translation but to also have one or more translations to reference as well. This is particularly easy now that we have free programs such as e-sword/mac-sword, and sites such as Bible Gateway that allow us access to many translations for free.
For the most part, unless dealing with people relatively new to the faith or people from a tradition such as KJVonly, it shouldn’t be too much of an issue if clearly explained. If dealing with new Christians or those from a background such as KJVonly, they are going to come into contact with the issues soon enough (especially with footnotes stating such in our bibles)– what better place to introduce it to them than in the context of a faithful community?
It also underscores the importance of knowing textual criticism issues, as well as original languages as leaders. Not that we need to be experts in either, but an understanding of the subjects or knowledge of where to point others for information is recommended.
Not sure why the ESV translates hoti as “and” in John 1:16- though it is interesting that the Textus Receptus has kai instead of hoti there.
Comment by Nathan Stitt on November 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm
It is important to keep in mind that the ESV is merely a revision of the RSV. According to my copy of the RSV in Logos, the RSV and ESV are identical here, except for one word. The ESV changes “men” to “man.”
My main problem with the ESV is that they should have been more proactive with their changes to the RSV. Though in all fairness, I don’t really have a problem with the RSV-ESV on this passage.
Comment by Bryan on November 28, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Nathan
I agree. I have the same problem as you- they didn’t update the RSV enough… still a lot of archaic language, which people take as being “holy” when it’s really just Elizabethan every-day language.
Also, it feels a bit rushed… inconsistent. Some places uses Gender neutral language for mixed groups, but others (like this verse) doesn’t.
Comment by Bret on November 29, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Thanks Bryan. I appreciate your emphasis on such conversations happening within a community of believers.
Comment by Alex S. Leung on November 30, 2008 at 12:56 am
Hmmm, I surely can’t speculate why the ESV leaves out the parallelism in 2 Cor 8:21, but it is definitely left untouched from / the same as the RSV. Maybe Leeland Ryken (Literary Editor) decided to keep the style as is :S
Re: John 1:16-17, the TNIV for some reason omits that first “for”