So what happens when you put the ESV’s own translation philosophy into practice? You remember their translation philosophy, right? “Essentially Literal.” This is one of the key reasons some people have switched to the ESV.
Here’s their philosophy in their own words:
The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.
Now let’s take a test case, shall we? How about Matthew 6:27? Here’s how the ESV translates this text:
And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?
Now a literal translation of that last phrase would be something like this:
…add one cubit to his height/life.
Granted, the last word there could be stature/height or it could be life/age. But the other major word in that phrase has no such options. The word is, literally, “cubit” (or perhaps, more literally, “forearm,” but as a unit of measure, therefore, “cubit”). Since this is a word of physical measurement, it seems that a literal translation would go with the option, “…add a single cubit to his height.” Yet what we get from the “essentially literal” translation is a very non-literal interpretation.
It may be that Matthew meant for his readers to understand this as adding time to one’s life, but that’s not what he wrote. If you want to convey Matthew’s intent in your translation, fine, but don’t insist that your translation is then somehow literal.
Here’s the rub: I don’t actually have a problem with the ESV’s translation/interpretation in this case. The problem is that the Crossway bills the ESV as an “essentially literal” translation. This is why I say that the ESV will go down in history as a tribute to the marketing genius of Crossway. They have been able to convince throngs of devoted ESV followers that their translation is something that it clearly is not: essentially literal.
Again, I have nothing against the ESV really, other than my disdain for really awkward English syntax and using really outdated English words. The translation is a relatively fine translation. My beef is with the blind loyalty that many people give to the ESV, assuming that:
- It really is “essentially literal,” when in reality, that phrase is much more a marketing ploy than anything else; and
- That “essentially literal” is a good translation philosophy.
I think both assumptions deserve to be challenged.
And just for reference, here’s how the HCSB translates this text:
Can any of you add a single cubit to his height by worrying?
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
As one who is essentially height challenged, I really love that and I have never heard that translation OR interpretation. Thanks!
Interesting. In the original RSV (which the ESV updated) it had the word cubit. I wonder why the ESV translators changed it.
Very interesting, indeed!
Perhaps this textual note from the NET Bible may shed some light on the matter:
“37tn Or “a cubit to his height.” A cubit (?????, phcu”) can measure length (normally about 45 cm or 18 inches) or time (a small unit, “hour” is usually used [BDAG 812 s.v.] although “day” has been suggested [L&N 67.151]). The term ?????? (Jhlikia) is ambiguous in the same way as ????? (phcus). Most scholars take the term to describe age or length of life here, although a few refer it to bodily stature (see BDAG 436 s.v. 3 for discussion). Worry about length of life seems a more natural figure than worry about height. However, the point either way is clear: Worrying adds nothing to life span or height.”
The NET Bible reads like the ESV here.
I’m no ESV apologist, but the catch phrase is “essentially literal,” allowing for dynamic rendering when needed to achieve clarity and so on.
Thanks for the note, T.C. I certainly grant that the term can mean a unit of time. In fact, I actually prefer the ESV’s translation over the HCSB’s here. Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!
I may be overreaching on this point, but I’m convinced that “essentially literal” is exactly what you called it, a “catch phrase.” It’s a marketing term, just like B&H’s term “optimal equivalence.” Neither have any real meaning other than in the mind of the target audience for the translation. These are marketing devices to sell Bibles to a specific group. I happen to think that Crossway overplays their hand when they insist on this literal translation approach, because they deviate from it so much that the word “essentially” should probably be changed to “selectively” to be more honest.
Again, my beef with the ESV is not because it’s a bad translation–it’s not! I just prefer not to have outdated syntax and obsolete English words; and I don’t think “literal” translations are necessarily the best approach either.
But you’re probably right that I should cut them a little more slack in this instance. Thanks!
Not to make light of all those marketing geniuses out there (lawyers-lite) the essentially literal tag line is a defensible phrase that conjures up a solid body of translation scholarship.
Follow for a short trip:
The original languages essentially said xyz.
Yzx is essentially the equivalent English translation.
But it is essential to use zxy. Why?
It are essential to be grammatically not incorrect.
Called safe while still in the batters box. What a gig!
Will,
For example, the first time I heard of “essentially literal” was in reference to the NRSV. For the NRSV, it means “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.”
I think it’s the same for the ESV, so you’re right in giving them some slack. But the ESV has become what it is, partly because of marketing. You’re right.
By the way, I should also note that while the term may have the figurative meaning of a unit of time, that would definitely not be its literal or normal translation. The only other times it’s used in the NT it is a unit of distance, not time. So once again, the emphasis in translation philosophy here must be the “essentially” part, not the “literal” part.
Pre-Einsteinian clarity. Cubit is a unit of dimension (it can be length, width or height). Time is a dimension as well and God surely knows this before Einstein (though God is not Shirley). God is very efficient. All demensions are contained in the Cubit. No all dimesions are a cubit.
Asprin?
Tom, you’re cracking me up!