According to General Editor Wayne Grudem, a major motive that led to the first version of this “essentially literal” (word-for-word) translation was the “gender-neutral” language he found in other translations-specifically the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), but also found in other popular translations such as Today’s New International Version (TNIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). What also troubles me, however, are the changes that weren’t made in the new version. For helpful and insightful analyses of this change, read Sam Powell’s blog, “Genesis 3:16” and Scot McKnight’s “The New Stealth Translation: ESV.”
Scot McKnight calls it “not only mistaken but potentially dangerously wrong.” But now, in the ESV, it is set in stone. Others are weighing in on the serious implications of this translation change and the thinking behind it. ESV editors changed their earlier translation from “Your desire shall be foryour husband, and he shall rule over you,” to “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” The most controversial change is to words of curse in Genesis 3:16. “In making these final changes, the Crossway Board of Directors and the Translation Oversight Committee thus affirm that their highest responsibility is to ‘guard the deposit entrusted to you’ (1 Timothy 6:20)-to guard and preserve the very words of God as translated in the ESV Bible.” After edits to 29 out of more than 31,000 verses, they declared the 2016 version to be “the Permanent Text of the ESV Bible.” Their statement goes on to assert, Bible Translations Divided by a Common LanguageĬrossway recently released the 2016 and final edition of the English Standard Version (ESV). Language is dynamic.Įnter the world of Bible translations, and the linguistic stakes are even higher. If that important American document were being crafted today, a modern Thomas Jefferson would ignite a firestorm of protests if he chose the same outdated wording. Today, it sounds a little odd to our modern ears to hear our own Declaration of Independence remind us that “all men are created equal.” Never mind the fact that, despite the universal meaning of “men” in the English language back then, that revered statement actually didn’t ensure equality for Native Americans, slaves, women, or other males who didn’t own land. How many kids have rolled their eyes when their parents used some out-of-date expression?Įarlier generations were quite comfortable using the word “man” or “men” for all humanity.
If different meanings to the same words isn’t enough of a challenge, there is the fact that even within a single culture, words have a way of changing. Our friend had just asked her boss if it was permissible to wear underwear on the job! What Gets Lost in Translation? In Britishese, “pants” refers to underwear. After her interview for a new job and on hearing the good news that she was hired, she asked her proper English male employer, “Is it alright if I wear pants to work?” She was puzzled by his awkward reply and only later discovered to her chagrin what had been lost in translation.
No matter how astute we thought ourselves, there were always stumbles.Ī Canadian friend of ours won the prize for the most embarrassing gaffe. One of the first (and usually embarrassing) lessons we learned during our four years of living in England was the absolute truth of the statement that “England and America are two countries divided by a common language.”Īll of us North Americans made gaffes.