To the critiquing of English Bible translations there is really no end in sight, at least for me. Perhaps when you’re out shopping for your next Bible, you should think about its approach to footnoting.
A footnote often provides the reader with possible, legitimate alternatives to any given text. To some this might be an insignificant issue when choosing a translation.
But I really don’t think a translation’s approach to footnoting should be slighted. For example, consider the ESV against the HCSB from a text from Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
- In the ESV:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
- Now the HCSB:
21 But now, apart from the law, God’s righteousness has been revealed —attested by the Law and the Prophets [a] 22 —that is, God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, [b] to all who believe, since there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the [c] glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a propitiation [d] through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. 26 He presented Him to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and declare righteous [e] the one who has faith in Jesus.
There is absolutely no footnote in the ESV. Absolute none! Interpretation: to the ESV translation committee, of all the alternative renderings in this Romans text, none of them are worthy of a footnote.
- Now the HCSB:
Footnotes:
- Romans 3:21 When capitalized, the Law and the Prophets = OT
- Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ
- Romans 3:23 Or and lack the
- Romans 3:25 Or as a propitiatory sacrifice, or as an offering of atonement, or as a mercy seat; see [Heb 9:5]. The word propitiation has to do with the removal of divine wrath. Jesus’ death is the means that turns God’s wrath from the sinner; see [2 Co 5:21].
- Romans 3:26 Or and justify, or and acquit
So the next time you’re considering an English Bible translation, pay careful attention to its footnotes—for they tell you a whole lot about English Bible translations.
Please, shop wisely.
Good post. I tried switching to the ESV as my main Bible at some point, and it didn’t even last a day! Not that it’s evil- I just don’t like it.
I’m looking forward to seeing the new HCSB out in print.
Kevin,
These things interest me.
Yes, I’m looking forward to the update text, too – should first appear Spring 2010.
Footnote (b) is so crucial, and I’m glad the translators and editors of the HCSB had the courage to include it.
Will,
Some translations are so committed to a particular rendering that they don’t even want to consider an alternative rendering. Such slightly is, well, I don’t know how best to phrase it. But you get the point.
The HCSB is generally good in Romans but does some interesting things here and there. I hope they’re addressed in the update.
For example, kata sarka and sperma are not consistently approached. Just too much going on in Romans for translations not to be more exact.
Pingback: The Power of the Footnote « God Didn't Say That
I used an RSV as one of my main Bibles for over a year. I just see too much similarity with it’s ‘update’ to be comfortable with it. That, and downright FLAT language in some passages.
Victor,
Apart from some archaic expressions here and there, the NRSV is a better choice that the ESV.
I note even the KJV and Geneva 1560 have two notes about translation in these verses. And that in a day when such notes were quite rare.
Chuck,
Thanks for that. The ESV seems to be too reactionary here, the more I think about it.
TC
Am I the only one still using the KJV Authorized Version?
“I am the LORD that healeth thee.”
“Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.”
“He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.”
“The Lord maketh me to lie down in green pastures.”
“That whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.”
“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Tried some modern versions. Just don’t quite sound the same.
And after all, it is the Authorized Version that Paul used.
A.Amos,
For sure, some people like that KJV language. But it’s not for me.
I thought Paul used the TNIV.
My new ESV Single Column Reference has footnotes. Romans 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? There is a footnote by Jews (Greek Are we) and by any better off? (or at any disadvantage) There are about 4 footnotes per page on average in Romans.
Duane,
Check Romans 3:21-26.
I know there are no footnotes in 3:21-26, I thought you were saying there were no footnotes at all in the entire ESV. There too small for me to read without my reading glasses anyway.
Duane,
The ESV can be quite reactionary, at times, to the point of opposing alternative renderings to a Lutheran and traditional reading of Paul.