ESV revisions: will the translational and theological problems be fixed?
won’t see any changes to the ESV in print--apart from the reverse interlinear--before 2007.It seems the changes will not be extensive:
The vast majority of these involve only minor changes in grammar, punctuation, and footnotes. We are still in process regarding the finalization and implementation of these changes, which we will probably begin to implement sometime next year (2007).So it seems as if the changes in the reverse interlinear are not in fact all of the changes which will be published in 2007. But it also seems unlikely that the changes will be extensive enough to meet my theological and translational objections to ESV.
My translational problems with ESV are largely matters of style, which have been discussed several times on this list. I also have problems with ESV's gender-related language, but I don't expect that to be corrected as the translation team seems to be ideologically committed to it.
As for my theological objections to ESV, for those of you who haven't been following the long and sometimes confused comment threads on recent postings, my most recent such objection concerns the ESV rendering of 1 Timothy 2:5:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.The problem is with "one mediator between God and men", which, according to current majority English usage, implies that there may be another mediator between God and women. Could this perhaps be the woman Mary, sometimes called "mediatrix" by Roman Catholics? I am sure the ESV translators didn't intend to promote that theology! Indeed, a 1997 article by Andreas Köstenberger (which Köstenberger has now repudiated, in a comment today on this blog pointing readers instead to another article of his) suggests that the ESV translators intended "men" to be understood gender generically in this verse. But their use here of "men" and "man", where the Greek twice has the gender generic anthrōpos, could well lead to this misunderstanding.
Will this theologically significant error be corrected in the new revised ESV? I rather doubt it, but we will see.
PS. I note the following from the updated Köstenberger article:
In his treatment of specific Biblical terms involving gender, [D. A.] Carson maintains that he term anthrōpos never means "man" (that is, a male human being), though it may refer to such a person, while the expression anēr, while having "male human being" as its default meaning, also occurs in a generic sense. Those who believe that "male human being" is part of the semantic range of anthrōpos are charged with confusing meaning and reference (though Carson seems to leave the door open just a bit when he refers to "human being" as "the primary meaning of anthrōpos," pp. 150–151 [italics mine [Köstenberger's]], calling this the "normal" or "default meaning," pp. 153, 160).So, Carson, in The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), made much the same point as I have made in comments here. I am glad of this more-or-less confirmation that I am correct!