# Is the ESV "Side B"? - OPC's Ordained Servant Online (Mar, 2020)



## B.L. (Mar 1, 2020)

Greetings all,

Given the popularity of the English Standard Version (ESV) here on PB, as evidenced by the recent poll on which Bible translation everyone is using in 2020, I thought this article would be of interest to everyone.

The article is titled "_Is The ESV “Side B”? The Problematic Influence of the Notion that Homosexual Orientation Is a Legitimate Category of Identity_" and it appears in the March 2020 edition of the OPC's Ordained Servant Online.

The main argument being made by the author is that *the ESV shows signs of being influenced by the idea that homosexual orientation is a legitimate category of identity*.

The article hyperlinked above is a quick read if interested. My intent in posting this isn't to criticize the ESV...as a matter of fact I'm not entirely sure I agree with the thesis yet, but I thought everyone might enjoy this as its hot off the press (3/1/2020) and focused on what is arguably the most popular translation here on PB.

Have a joyful Lord's Day everyone!


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 1, 2020)

Might be a good idea to pause this topic until after the Lord’s Day

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 2, 2020)

Thread reopened.


----------



## Logan (Mar 2, 2020)

People will twist translations to suit their agenda. I don't know that it is the fault of the translation, even in this case.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## chuckd (Mar 2, 2020)

> Why not simply say “homosexuals”? After all, this is the term that is used in our culture to describe people who practice homosexuality.



I disagree. Our culture uses it to describe an identity. When I read the (ESV) verse, I get the sense that the translators were trying to guard against the idea that homosexuals are that from birth. "No, they are men who _practice_ homosexuality. There's no such thing as an identity category of homosexual." But I agree that (1) it's not in the Greek and (2) they should have been consistent with the other vices. v. 11 does say "and such were some of you." Drunkard is not an identity anymore than homosexual. You can change.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Nebrexan (Mar 2, 2020)

Checking other translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9:

(ASV) ...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
(CEV) ...behaves like a homosexual
(CSB) ...males who have sex with males,
(ESV) ...men who practice homosexuality,
(GNB) ...homosexual perverts
(GW) ...homosexuals,
(HCSB) ...anyone practicing homosexuality,
(ISV) ...male prostitutes, homosexuals,
(KJV) ...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(LEB) ...passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners,
(NAS77) ...effeminate, nor homosexuals,
(NASB) ...effeminate, nor homosexuals,
(NET) ...passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,
(NIrV) ...men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.
(NIV) ...men who have sex with men
(NKJV) ...homosexuals, nor sodomites,
(NLT) ...male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
(YLT) ...effeminate, nor sodomites,

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 2, 2020)

Nebrexan said:


> Checking other translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9:
> 
> (ASV) ...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
> (CEV) ...behaves like a homosexual
> ...


Very helpful and I agree with Logan.

Further, I was quite surprised to see that the OPC would have an article of this nature pointed at the ESV. The same reasoning in the article, which I disagree with, could be leveraged against more than just the ESV. I’m an NKJV guy myself, but this seems left field.

I’m still scratching my head and am asking “is this really on the OPC website?”.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 2, 2020)

The title is clickbait and the thesis reads like something of a _non-sequitur_. No fair-minded reader would conclude that the ESV's translation of the passages in question _really_ lends any weight to common arguments in favour of SSA not being sinful. That issue generally revolves around the erroneous notion of concupiscence espoused by those who think SSA is not a sin. I have known people who are KJV users espouse this view owing either to ignorance or misplaced compassion.

That said, the author of the article is not anti-ESV. He says in the concluding paragraph, 'The ESV’s popularity is well-deserved. Its “essentially literal” translation philosophy has produced a Bible in contemporary English that is highly readable and largely reflective of the wording of the original text. That being said, no Bible translation is beyond criticism.'

The most charitable conclusion seems to be that he was over-egging the pudding in order to make a point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 2, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...the author of the article is not anti-ESV.



Indeed, he even preaches from the ESV.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## wcf_linux (Mar 2, 2020)

Nebrexan said:


> Checking other translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9:
> 
> (ASV) ...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
> (CEV) ...behaves like a homosexual
> ...



I don't think the ESV is unique in being vulnerable to the kind of reading that the author suggests, especially if one fails to understand that the disposition towards a sinful act is itself sinful. In fact, ESV's use of "those who practice" seems better read as suggesting, "this entry is about people who act a certain way, leaving no excuses about 'identity' or 'orientation'."

In general, a behavior-focused translation, which mirrors the behavior-focused original language, would seem to do a lot better at saying that the Bible has no hint of there being such a thing as a "sexual orientation". The use of the word "homosexuals" on its own in fact would seem to do more to import the possibility of a "morally-neutral orientation" into the text.

This list shows that most renderings have a hard time excluding the "morally neutral orientation" interpretation despite the fact that the original text itself leaves no meaningful opening for it. I'm in fact bemused, given my biases among modern translations, that the NIV has one of the better renderings for that purpose.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 3, 2020)

I thought the article argued its case very well and I was also surprised- and very impressed- the OPC would be brave enough to publish this piece. The point about how the ESV renders all the categories as "types of people" but here focuses on the act itself was especially strong. The ESV translates two distinct categories as one and that is just wrong. Whatever the motivation behind it- and I'm not saying it was the deliberate intention of the translators to somehow excuse homosexual desire (though that is certainly a result of this translation)- but by joining these two separate categories of people into one an important distinction is lost.

Whether it is the distinction between the sinful desire on the one hand and the sinful act on the other; or the blurring of the distinctions between the sexes on the one hand and specifically homosexuality on the other, something is lost by translating it the way the ESV does.

I agree with @wcf_linux that the use of the term "homosexual" is itself problematic. That is a modern term and has a psychological character to it. The NIV translation is surprising in its bluntness. But the KJV remains the best translation as it translates the two distinct terms, distinctly; doesn't engage in psychoanalysis, and doesn't reduce the issue down to certain specific acts.


----------



## Logan (Mar 3, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> But the KJV remains the best translation as it translates the two distinct terms, distinctly; doesn't engage in psychoanalysis, and doesn't reduce the issue down to certain specific acts.



"Best" is debatable. Do you think "effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," conveys clear meaning to today's English speakers? I'm pretty confident that if I polled my office, most would be guessing and very few would be sure what it means.

I like Daniel's phrase "over-egging the pudding" here. I'm going to start using that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 3, 2020)

Logan said:


> "Best" is debatable. Do you think "effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," conveys clear meaning to today's English speakers? I'm pretty confident that if I polled my office, most would be guessing and very few would be sure what it means.
> 
> I like Daniel's phrase "over-egging the pudding" here. I'm going to start using that.



I think "effeminate" is very clear and a very good description of the issue and especially relevant in today's context. "Abusers of themselves with manking", granted, requires a little explanation (as do a few Biblical terms) but it is an apt description which avoids the potential pitfalls of the other translations.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 4, 2020)

Just to add some more context to the author, he and his congregation just recently left the PCA to join the OPC over the last year or so. I was at the presbytery meeting when we received him, and the revoice issue was one of the major concerns in his making the switch. I'm guessing this article is the fruit of some of those labors prior to leaving the PCA.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------

