I Am Thoroughly Sturzian

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Now I am curious, what inconsistencies are you talking about?
A lot of it has to do with concordance. One big example—one that has theological significance—is the Hebrew word זֶרַע (seed). The NASB translates it sometimes as "seed," other times as "offspring," and still more times as "descendant(s)." The NASB 2020 is even worse (see Genesis 3:15 for an egregious example). The LSB chose to make their translation very concordant for this word and others, which helps the reader see the biblical-theological significance of the word. The ESV does this, too, but uses "offspring," since it too is an English word which can take the singular and plural without changing form. The CSB uses "offspring," as well, which is a major upgrade from the HCSB. (By the way, I know concordance can be taken too far; not every word needs to be translated the same way all the time. However, there are some instances where it really should, and זֶרַע, in my opinion, is one of them.)

Another thing the LSB has fixed is just weird translation inconsistencies in the NASB that just made no sense. An example that I can think of is 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2. Look at the difference (this maintains for the NASB77, as well):

"Grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure" (1 Peter 1:2).​
"Grace and peace be multiplied to you" (2 Peter 1:2).​

The Greek in both cases is the exact same: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη. The NASB even has a footnote for 1 Peter 1:2—"Lit be multiplied for you." So why in the world not just put the "literal" rendering in, like 2 Peter 1:2 (though, oddly, even the "literal" footnote is different than 2 Peter 1:2, using "for" instead of "to")? I cannot for the life of me figure it out. I know the meaning is virtually the same, but it makes me wonder where else this kind of thing occurs in the NASB.

The LSB, thankfully, fixed this and likely many other weird issues with the NASB.
 

John Yap

Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree Taylor. The NASB in the NT sometimes has 'not the ideal' (to me) renderings. And some cases the footnote has my preferred reading. I love the NASB in the OT though.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I do not agree that the same word should be translated consistently in the Bible. It might make for easier concordance work. It makes for lousy translation practice. The word level isn't the only one that counts. It is one reason I never became enamored of the NASB stream very much, even though it is certainly an accurate translation, and one of the five I would recommend. CSB is head and shoulders above the others, in my opinion.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
As someone who has done a fair amount of translation, I'll say I agree with Lane. Always translating a word the same way is just plain incorrect in many cases. The meanings of a word can be so different it's hard to see any connection between them (even if there was one historically). And sometimes senses are suppletive, and have no genuine connection. But on the other hand, I try not to multiply the senses or translations of a word. If its full range can be explained through two basic senses, then more should not be invented. Think of Ockham's Razor - the simplest explanation (the least number of meanings) is to be preferred.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
To repeat, I agree that it is not a good practice always to translate the same word the same way. I thought I was fairly clear about that in my previous post. But surely we can all agree that there are at least some instances where doing such is desirable. I’m sorry, but it does not seem acceptable to me to translate זֶרַע in Genesis 12-24 two or three different ways (sometimes within adjacent verses!). It has theological significance that is masked if not obscured by non-concordance.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
To repeat, I agree that it is not a good practice always to translate the same word the same way. I thought I was fairly clear about that in my previous post. But surely we can all agree that there are at least some instances where doing such is desirable. I’m sorry, but it does not seem acceptable to me to translate זֶרַע in Genesis 12-24 two or three different ways (sometimes within adjacent verses!). It has theological significance that is masked if not obscured by non-concordance.
Some of that could be driven by copyright issues.
 

Georgiadis

Puritan Board Freshman
the Byzantine readings are then shown by Sturz to be independent from the Western and the Alexandrian (contrary to WH's claim that they were completely dependent).
I just posted about “Equitable Eclecticism” in the forum and it sounds similar to Sturz’s view. The name was coined by a researcher named James Snapp Jr. and he posted part 2 of his 2010 essay titled, Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism (part 1 is equally interesting but more of a back story as to why scholars have become so dependent on WH - it’s also posted on his site).

I hope you find this essay encouraging and that it bolsters your enthusiasm for Sturz!

 

Santiago DO

Puritan Board Freshman
Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism
This may lead some readers to decline to investigate the text, deciding instead to hopefully adhere to whatever text (or texts) they already use. Such an expedient response is understandable, especially in light of the often-repeated (but false) claim that textual variants have no significant doctrinal impact. Nevertheless, for those few who are not content to place their confidence in textual critics, or to posit providential favor upon a particular set of variants on account of its popularity or for other reasons, the best option is to become textual critics.
Becoming acquainted with the contents of the manuscripts and other witnesses gives additional responsibility, but also additional confidence, somewhat like the confidence of a traveler who knows his maps, as opposed to one who does not and must trust his guides.
Knowing the message of the map that we have – and being aware of which parts are still questioned, and why, concerning how closely their form corresponds to the form of the original – makes one a confident traveler where one should be confident, and cautious where one should be cautious. But after we have done our best to conduct research with scientific detachment, it will do us little good if we only possess the map. Let us walk in the path that the Holy Spirit reveals to us through the Word.
This seems to me to be a paranoid approach which can do much harm to the Church.

I am a no-one to talk about this topic, but I think that if we are just partially confident about certain parts of the Word of God, we are lost. So wherever position we take, let's take it in faith (2 Tim 3:16)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top