There has been a sudden rush of interesting posts around the subject of Bible Translation, mostly focusing on the TNIV and ESV translations and moving beyond just the gender issue.
So here is a collection:
- Better Bibles Blog: J I Packer collection to date. 5 articles by Suzanne based on an interview with JJ Packer. This raises a number of significant issues about the ESV translation, particularly how much understanding of [Corrected]
NTClassical Greek was around. It also appears that JJ Packer is not as against the TNIV on gender issues as it may have appeared.
- Ben Witherington: The Problem with the ESV. This goes into a view of how the ESV came about.
- Better Bibles Blog: About the TNIV. Details Waynes translations of choice and why it is not the TNIV (or ESV).
- Better Bibles Blog: ESV translators are not misogynists. Wayne urges for love to be demonstrated towards all Bible Translators without making leaps of logic.
- ESV Bible Blog � Blog Archive � The Origin of the ESV. The ESV publisher gives their version of the origins of the ESV. They point out that their translation team did not have a single view on gender issues. They also demonstrate that they believe that the ESV is more gender inclusive than the RSV on which is it based. However, I do want to point out that the translation team still did not include any women at all.
- Better Bibles Blog: Ben Witherington: The Problem with the ESV. is where I found the link to the ESV blog post. It makes the point that it would be good to hear Wayne Grudem’s understanding of the origins of the ESV
- Parableman: Does the ESV Have an Agenda?. The above Better bible post lead me to this older article that I had not seen before. It makes good points about motivation and timing (or translation compared to marketing).
I suspect that the different views on the origins of the ESV are actually entirely compatible and it is just that different groups came together with different histories. One from the publisher and others from the churches and scholars.
It may be that we have heard far more from those assiciated with the ESV who hold a complementarian view (characterised by wanting to use male language in their translation work). It appears to me from the blog post that the publisher wishes to separate themselves a little from that position.