# Dare I question the ESV?



## Levi Mattheus (Jul 18, 2011)

I understand that the English Standard Version seems to be the Bible translation currently in vogue amongst Evangelicals. My children each have the ESV Children's Bible and I intend procuring a copy of the ESV Study Bible as it looks quite useful and interesting. However, I have come across a serious flaw in this translation. 

In Psalm 104:4 it translates the text as "Who makes his *messengers* *winds*, and his ministers a flame of fire" as opposed to the KJV / AV which reads: "Who makes his *angels spirits*; his ministers a flame of fire". 

This is an important text as it is quoted in Hebrews 1:7 "Of the angels He says 'He makes His *angels winds*, and his minsters a flame of fire." Clearly this text in Hebrews is comparing the nature of the Son to that of angels. It is therefore a *doctrinal *text and hence of primary importance. Hebrews 1:14 elaborates on the angels thus "Are they not all ministering *spirits* sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" ESV.

Why doesn't the ESV just translate the Psalm using the words "angels" and "spirits" instead of "messengers" and "winds"?. I feel that this translation is robbing the text of Psalm 104:4 of it's doctrinal value by attempting to be clever. I am aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew *Ruach* and the Greek *Pneuma* and of the fact that angels are messengers. Yet this is no reason to cause confusion and inconsistency in translating the text. In the light of Hebrews 1 it should be translated "angels" and "spirits". Hebrews 1 is clearly not speaking of human messengers. Neither is the nature of angels "wind" but they are spirits as borne out by verse 14! 

After all, we do refer to "Angelogy" not "Messengology" !

If one retains the translation of the AV in both these passages one arrrives at the clear doctrinal teaching regarding the nature of angels in relation to the Deity. This demonstrates the superiority and reliability of the AV as a translation. I am not a KJV only advocate, rather a Byzantine MSS advocate. Indeed, there is an urgent need for a reverent, Godly updating of the KJV into modern English without the arbitrary changes alluded to above. I do not think that the NKJV has achieved this satisfactorily, yet it faithfully translates the passages mentioned in supra. 

Ido not think I am being trivial about this and I appreciate your comments on this matter.


----------



## he beholds (Jul 18, 2011)

I don't know Hebrew or Greek, so I can't speak to the "winds" part, but I personally like remembering that the word angel means messenger in English.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jul 18, 2011)

I am not sure of two things:
1. What's the difference between angel and messenger in the text?
2. What is the theological problem or implications in choosing one over another?


----------



## Quatchu (Jul 18, 2011)

The Hebrew word malek means both messenger or angel.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 18, 2011)

First, I don't understand your complaint about confusion and inconsistency. Like you said, it's clear in the passage in Hebrews that it's talking about angels. The particular translation of the passage in Psalms has no impact on the context of Hebrews.

Second, "wind" makes perfect sense because it's _poetry_. It's not speaking directly to the nature of the angels, but using metaphors to paint a word picture. That particular word fits much better with the language in the surrounding verses than "spirit".


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 18, 2011)

Jonathan,

Please report to Dr. Piper at headquarters for reprogramming. Something has clearly gone wrong during your indoctrination process.


----------



## Philip (Jul 18, 2011)

> Second, "wind" makes perfect sense because it's poetry. It's not speaking directly to the nature of the angels, but using metaphors to paint a word picture. That particular word fits much better with the language in the surrounding verses than "spirit".



This was my thought. The parallelism (the mark of Hebrew poetry) makes "winds" the more likely translation.


----------



## Levi Mattheus (Jul 18, 2011)

Thanks for your observations. My point is that the passage in Hebrews makes it clear that Psalm 104:4 should be translated as *"angels"* and _"spirits"_ as in the AV / NKJV. This is important in that I believe this O.T. passage is speaking of not just messengers or mere natural phenomena (other translations read "who makes winds his messengers" NIV and "who uses winds as his messengers" Good News Bible. 

The Psalm is speaking of angelic beings, supernatural beings that are created spirits. Shining, burning spirits but nevertheless created spirits. The AV translators recognised this and maintained the integrity of the translation, which is vindicated by Hebrews 1.

I also aver that "winds" in Hebrews 1:7 should rightly be translated "spirits" as indicated by Hebrews 1:14. That is being more consistent to the original text as well as respecting the doctrine of Angelology - that firstly there are supernatural messengers rightly described in English as "angels" and secondly, that these angels are spirit beings.

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

Dr Piper? Help me out here....


----------



## Skyler (Jul 18, 2011)

> The Psalm is speaking of angelic beings, supernatural beings that are created spirits. Shining, burning spirits but nevertheless created spirits.



Translating the word as "messenger" does not negate that fact. It places the emphasis on a different point--the function rather than the nature. That fits the parallel with "minister."

Also, if we must take this as a literal doctrinal statement on angelology rather than poetry, then I'm curious to know what ministers you think the Psalmist refers to that are made of fire.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 18, 2011)

> Dare I question the ESV?



Not if the basis of your questioning is a single word.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 18, 2011)

I don't think that we should be using NT references to decide how to _translate_ OT passages. Certainly the NT gives us legitimate _interpretations_ of the passages they quote, but the NT authors do not always appeal to the straightforward historical-grammatical meaning of the text. They offer interpretations that often are comprehensible only from their more advanced place in redemptive history. So, the passage in Hebrews does not necessarily give us the one, indisputable _meaning_ of the Psalms text in its original context (if such a unitary meaning exists, which I doubt).


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 18, 2011)

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

[/COLOR]Dr Piper? Help me out here....[/QUOTE]

I was referring to John Piper, who is a big proponent of the ESV. Seriously though, the ESV is a good version and you shouldn't let this convince you otherwise. We often find that the writers of the New Testament interpret the Old Testament in ways that are not always obvious. I would say that this is because they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit and they had superior understanding, and not because they were poor exegetes. For a better understanding of this, I would recommend D.A. Carson's Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament.


----------



## jambo (Jul 18, 2011)

By all means you should question the ESV as you should any translation. There is none perfect and whilst the ESV is a good translation it does have some odd renderings.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 19, 2011)

Hi:

The Hebrew word for "wind" is the same word used for "spirit": ח֑וֹת The word can be variously translated, "breath, wind, or spirit." The responsible translator will use the context in order to determine the correct translation. Apparently, the ESV is not very responsible in this particular translation. However, as someone noted before, there is no perfect translation, and one must look for the best possible translation.

As you noted there is a doctrinal problem with the ESV translation - a spirit is not the physical wind. Using the term "wind" in these passages lends one to think that the work of the messengers is not relevant.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jul 19, 2011)

> without the arbitrary changes alluded to above.



I don't think the ability to use a Greek lexicon gives one the right to accuse the translators of either the AV or ESV of being either arbitrary or clever.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 19, 2011)

Rob,

The context (poetry) indicates that the intended sense is poetic, not literal. Further, it is paralleled with "fire," another natural element. Therefore, in this context, "wind" makes more sense than "spirit."



> As you noted there is a doctrinal problem with the ESV translation - a spirit is not the physical wind. Using the term "wind" in these passages lends one to think that the work of the messengers is not relevant.



I didn't understand this part. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 19, 2011)

Question away! I think this question has been answered though. The ESV isn't perfect but it is one of the better translations out there.


----------



## athanatos (Jul 19, 2011)

Levi Mattheus said:


> After all, we do refer to "Angelogy" not "Messengology" !



Right! So, we should never translate harmartia to "sin", but rather to harmartia. We do refer to "harmartiology", not "sinology"!

Really, though, this fails to understand how words have been imported into English and whether we ought to translate or transliterate. My quote I am picking on is particularly absurd.


----------



## Todd King (Jul 20, 2011)

I think the real question being referred to by the original poster, forgive me if I speak out of turn, is that by changing the translation, that a very valuable cross-reference has been destroyed. As such, it makes it more difficult to find support for this theology regarding angels, which is an issue with several other doctrines that are similarly weakened in newer translations.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 20, 2011)

I have a question on another passage in the E.S.V. from Micah 5:2. In this verse they translate strongs #5769 as ancient. The same Hebrew word is translated everlasting in other verses like Dan. 12:2; everlasting life, everlasting contempt. Is the E.S.V. translation of Micah 5:2 justifiable. We know that the Messiah is from everlasting and the word ancient does not support this. Please advise.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 20, 2011)

Hi:

Skyler: I would accept your point, but the word translated "Spirit" (πνεύματα) in Hebrews 1:7 is translated everywhere else as "Spirit" as well. Consider, for example, Hebrews 1:14: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister..." Other passages that use the same Greek noun can be found here: Matthew 8:16, Mark 3:11, Luke 10:20, 1 Cor. 14:32, 1 John 4:1, Revelation 3:1. Though this list is not comprehensive a simple check of the NT use of the Greek phrase "πνεύματα" indicates that it is universally translated as "spirits."

As I mentioned: It is not wrong to translate the word as "wind" it just does not seem to me to do justice to what Paul is writing in Hebrews as well as the way the whole New Testament uses the noun. I would then use the New Testament use of the passage to interpret the Old Testament.

"To make his angels winds..." seems to indicate that the message of the angels is not relevant - simply blows around without substance. A spirit has substance.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Skyler (Jul 20, 2011)

When you say "everywhere else," does that mean this is the one instance in the whole ESV where it is translated differently?

When I think of winds, I don't think of something blowing around without substance; especially when proximate to fire, I picture a powerful force, like a hurricane or tornado. That sense of power also seems to fit with the sense the Psalmist is trying to convey. But I can certainly see why you'd have a different image spring to mind. I feel a lot the same way about translating it "spirits"--it seems to me to rob a lot of the power from the passage, as compared with "winds". I guess, in that vein, it's hard to come up with a particular translation that will have the same connotations across a wide audience.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jul 21, 2011)

Hi:

I can see your point, Skyler, and I am now convinced that the translation is not as bad as I originally thought - thanks. One can think, for example, of Acts where the Spirit of God is referred to as a "mighty rushing wind." Good point. The majority of the passages that use this noun requires the use of the term "spirits" rather than "winds":

Matthew 8:16, "and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all ther were sick."

Mark 3:11, "and unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him,"

Luke 10:20, "Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you,"

1 Corinthians 14:32, "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

Here is a list of all of the passages that use the noun in the New Testament. You will see that in all of them the correct translation is "spirits." I would also want to point out that in Hebrews 1:14 the translation of the word is invariably "spirits," and this is in the same chapter as the passage we are considering:

Matthew 8:16, 12:45
Mark 3:11, 5:13
Luke 10:20, 11:26
Acts 8:7, 19:12,13
1 Cor 14:32
Hebrews 1:7,14
1 John 4:1
Revelation 3:1, 4:5, 5:6, 16:13,14

This is the exhaustive list. When you look at each of the translations you will find that "spirits" is a better fit than "winds."

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Skyler (Jul 21, 2011)

I see what you're saying, Rob.

It's certainly true that we should take a word's usage in other passages into account when translating it. Because the translation of this word is really an inconsequential issue--it doesn't have anything to do with Paul's argument--I'm fine with going either way, although my personal preference as I've said would be "wind," simply because I would tend to weight the immediate context of a word heavier than I would its usage in other cases. But I'm not violently attached to it or anything. =)


----------

