calvinism & the ESV

[greg]

(06-16-2012 11:56 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  I looked up another controversial passage and compared it with the three scriptures. It is my belief that the ESV reverts back into error in its translation when compared to the NIV.

I Timothy 3:13

KJV: For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NIV: Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

ESV: For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The word "deacon" is not really a translation, but a transliteration that has been used over the ages to add a strong element of ecclesiology to the text. We don't even know what a deacon really is, though some of our churches use the term. A literal translation of the verse reads much more closely to the NIV, because the NIV actually made an attempt to translate the words in the original. The ESV chooses the middle ground between the NIV and the KJV by using the term "serve" in the verse, but they keep the word "deacons" in. It's kind of a strange translation, because the word diaconos means "minister" or "servant". The ESV is kind of saying, "those who serve well as servants..."

Most translations of the Bible retain the word deacons. Standing with the NIV are the Geneva, Darby, and Phillips.

This was exactly the type of dialogue I was hoping for when I posted this thread.

I much prefer the NIV translation here, and feel it is closer in meaning to the idea which is attempting to be conveyed.

I really like the NET bible, so I checked it, unfortunately it also had "deacon." But deacon is as previously stated, a transliteration.

The NIV clearly the winner here and more clear, and most faithful to the "originals."

[That'sWhatItSays]

Sorry, greg, I should have looked at the verse in full context. The NIV also uses the term deacon in verses 8 and 12. The NIV footnotes explain that a deacon is a servant to the various elders and overseers in the church, though. I stand corrected. The Geneva and Phillips use "deacon" in verses 8 and 12 also. The Darby uses "minister".

An interesting thing is that Phebe is a diaconos in Romans 16:1, universally translated "servant" or "minister" in that verse.

The point still stands about the differences between the NIV and the ESV as it relates to verse 13. Most translations can't help themselves to affirm that there is something about a deacon involved in the verse, when a plain translation reads as the NIV.

[redbeardiam]

(06-17-2012 12:23 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Sorry, greg, I should have looked at the verse in full context. The NIV also uses the term deacon in verses 8 and 12. The NIV footnotes explain that a deacon is a servant to the various elders and overseers in the church, though. I stand corrected. The Geneva and Phillips use "deacon" in verses 8 and 12 also. The Darby uses "minister".

An interesting thing is that Phebe is a diaconos in Romans 16:1, universally translated "servant" or "minister" in that verse.

The point still stands about the differences between the NIV and the ESV as it relates to verse 13. Most translations can't help themselves to affirm that there is something about a deacon involved in the verse, when a plain translation reads as the NIV.

I had a long comment mostly typed out about this earlier, but got interrupted. The reason most translations insert the word 'deacon' in verse 13 seems to br to preserve the train of thought - this verse is referring to the "deacons" or minsters/servants referred to in the previous 4 verses. (And those verses are pretty obviously setting out qualifications for a specific role/office in the church. Which is why I don't mind using the transliteration 'deacon.') There's something also to the fact that the author uses the verb form of the same root - after talking about the qualifications of deacons, he essentially says that 'those who deacon well...' That nuance is hard to capture with more 'literal' translation, which makes me wonder why the NIV (usually a more dynamic translation) goes with it.

[Ricardo]

(06-17-2012 07:52 AM)greg Wrote:  The NIV clearly the winner here and more clear, and most faithful to the "originals."

Thanks for putting quotes around "originals."

The reason I love paraphrases is because they don't claim to be exact, which is not really possible with ANY translation.

For years now, every year I try to use a different translation. And with every one I remind myself that we are dealing with approximations only.

This year, so far so good. I'm using the Watchtower's Nuevo Mundo translation. No Calvinist problem there...

P.S.: Greg, I hope you, like me, do not stick to one version exclusively. We learn new things when we check out the different versions. Even the versions we have little confidence in.)

[esvcalvin]

I think you're on to something, Greg. Notice that the ESV translates Jesus's famous words, "If you love me, you 'will' keep my commands" instead of "If you love me, 'keep' my commands." It is subtle, for sure, but the translators changed the imperative "keep" to the indicative, "will keep." For Calvinists, once the person is regenerated, he has no reason to try (through free will) to remain in God's love because he can never lose his salvation. So, for Christ to command someone (especially a believer) to "do" something would undermine this Calvinistic ideology. Again, I think you're on to something.

(06-11-2012 04:51 PM)greg Wrote:  I have noted that calvinists have been flocking to the ESV with great abandon, and have wondered why. I have only scratched the surface of this subject, but thought I would post a thread and maybe learn a few things myself.

First I know that the oversight committee of the ESV was loaded with calvinists: Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, D. John Collins, Thomas R. Schreiner, Justin Taylor. Of course these are some very fine men, and I would hope they wouldn't have written their eisegesis of the Greek into the text of the ESV.

Many of the contributors were exclusively calvinistic, although the site I was trying to get their names was shut down at this time. So I should actually say that they are reported to be so, however this was stated by a refomed baptist, so I took it to be true.

It seems that the publisher "Crossway" was and is a major publisher of all things reformed and (also publishes the ESV) and may have "flooded" the market with ESV's. (a good marketing strategy)

From what I can gather the ESV study bible clearly leans in the reformed direction, several internet sources said that.

Of course the current Pope of calvinism (Piper) supposedly uses the ESV, and for sure that would signal the "followers" of him and John Calvin to do likewise.

I for the most part relied on internet sources, and did not look at any "source" material myself, if I have erred in any of this please tell me where and add the correction.

I am mostly interested in whether or not the ESV is a solid translation, does it stick closesy to the extant source documents that it uses.

[cstover1989]

This thread is about as ridiculous as the KJV debate.

"Cause so and so helped with that translation its of the devil."

I use the ESV and I'm leaning towards open theism.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

No one has mentioned yet that the ESV is not a new translation but a revision of the RSV where about 6% of the text was revised. It is essentially the RSV with a strong conservative evangelical bias - the RSV for conservative folk, if you will. I prefer the RSV, and even more the NRSV.