www.crossway.org
Which changes to the ESV are you most excited or concerned about, Alex?
I do not personally feel invested in the changes. I hold to the traditional text and translations based upon it, so the ESV is more of a point of curiosity for me. I do find it intriguing that each of the 2025 edition’s ‘updates’ are either nonconsequential, or revert back to earlier, traditional readings.
Well in some places maybe that is true, but in relation to Genesis 3.16 and 4:7 it is nothing to do with textual criticism, but in grappling with the translation and interpretation of the text. I think in general your comment about how textual criticism is moving back towards the "tradtional text" has some justificiation, but it is wrong to draw a parallel line between these proposed changes to the ESV globally and the movement of Textual Criticism theory. In some cases there is no relationship at all.
I have mixed feelings about this constant "fine tuning" there will never be a "perfect" translation. And even if there was there would still be gaps or differences of opinion in how to interpret texts. Take that Genesis 3:16 text...it was "against" and now is "for" but neither of them make it abundantly clear what the actual issue at hand is! And I'm not sure a translation ever can. There is often ambiguity in the text of Scripture and you can't get around it by changing the translation, as can be seen in such attempts such as The Message, the pursuit of "clarity" often only succeeds in forcing one interpretation upon the reader and excluding any others.
Thank you for the interaction, brother.
What evidence do you have to make you say that "an air of criticism or doubt" led to deviating from classic renderings (translations)? Specifically, how does Genesis 3:16 fit as an example of your claim?
The lack of coherence of the inverse possiblity. So sticking with modern English versions, if a translation committee is confident in a traditional rendering, they will not act to change it. Equivalent synonyms are perfectly understandable, and are often implemented for stylistic reasons. An opposite reading, however, as in 'to' versus 'contrary to', is a result of doubt, a lack of confidence, in the initial reading.
It is as a result of doubt, or a lack of confidence in the initial reading - but that doubt or lack of confidence, in the case of the Genesis text, has no correlation or relationship whatsoever with textual criticism, or text critical theory. There may be a discussion to be had about your hypotheses in connection with the progress and change in English translations in comparison to text criticial theory, but we must not conflate that issue with genuine struggles over how best to translate/interpret texts where there is no argument of a text critical nature at all. You seem to be conflating those two issues and while there may be occasional overlap - the two things are different.
Yes, if I remember from reading Recovering Bib. Manhood & Womanhood, this was a big part of the argument— that a woman's desiring to not submit to her husband is a result of the curse. And that his "harsh rule" over her was also part of the curse.
What about Hosea 7:15? There are other examples.
This is another example of "toward" or "in the direction of", not of "contrary to". You could also say "they devise evil for me" here as well, but you could hardly say "they devise evil contrary to me".
