Hi there! Today I want to share with you a little project I've been working on
which was is inspired by the King James Version/Revised Version Interlinear
Bible which is published by Cambridge University Press.
Now in that Bible, you have the text of the King James Version and where it differs
from the Revised Version, both are the shown line over line. Now I thought I'd take
that concept, and I'd apply it to the Revised Standard Version and the English
Standard Version. Now the Revised Standard Version, originally published in
1952, was what many called at the time a liberal translation. But, in the late 20th
century a group of scholars got together and they decided to do a conservative
evangelical revision of the RSV and that became the English Standard Version.
Now the translators behind the English Standard Version they started with the RSV
text and where they felt that it was translated incorrectly or could be
translated better, they noted down the changes, they presented those changes to
the committee, and from there what was approved by the committee became the ESV
text as we now have it. There been several revisions of the ESV since 2001
when it was first published, but in terms the book of Obadiah there have been no
changes, so what we're seeing here is the ESV text for Obadiah as it's always
been. Let's take a look so Obadiah verse 1: "The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the
Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard"..."tidings" in the RSV or "a report" in the
ESV..."from the Lord and a messenger has been sent among the nations." As you can
see, that's a pretty straightforward translational change. Tidings is not a
word we use very often today. A report is a better translation, a more contemporary
translation, but it's neither here nor there. Right let's
continue: "Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!" See the difference in case.
For the older grammatical style you would have a lower case after an exclamation
mark, in contemporary style we would have a capital letter after an exclamation
mark. I'll let you look at these changes and feel free to pause the video
and take a close look for yourself at the differences, and you can see that
they are not too great. Most of these are really quite small changes. Let's go to
verse 5: "If thieves came to you, if plunderers"..."came" in the ESV or blank in
the RSV..."by night - how you have been destroyed!" Here's an interesting
translation change in verse 7: "All your allies have deceived you, they have
driven you to the border; your confederates had prevailed against you;
your trusted friends have set a trap under you - there is no understanding of
it." In the RSV, while in the ESV they sought to rearrange a little bit didn't
they? "All your allies have driven you to your border; those at peace with you have
deceived you they have prevailed against you; those
who eat your bread have set a trap beneath you - you have no understanding."
It's arguably a more literal translation in the ESV: "those who eat your bread"
versus "trusted friends". I think the phrase those who eat your bread will
translate fairly well cross culturally, how people understand in general that
you share meals with those who you trust, and those who you enjoy spending time
with. The translation change from "your confederates" to "those at peace with you":
I think those at peace of you is perhaps a better translation. I don't use the
word confederate too much.
Now let's move down and we get to the really interesting ones. In verse 12 of
the RSV it reads: "But you should not have gloated over the day of your
brother in the day of his misfortune; you should not have rejoiced over the
people of Judah in the day of their ruin; you should not have boasted in the
day of distress." Now there is a post tense, sorry, past tense.
It is past tense and yet what do we have in the ESV? "But do not gloat over
the day of your brother...do not rejoice over the people of Judah...do not boast in
the day of distress..." Present tense. It's quite a change. Now, to help understand
why this change took place in the ESV, I highly recommend to you the New English
Translation version's notes. Now the NET translation itself as an OK translation,
but the real benefit of an NET Bible is the Full Notes Edition, one of
which Thomas Nelson is currently publishing. And, in those notes you see a
lot of the notes which the translators of the ESV in fact used to help create
the ESV. Wayne Grudem himself acknowledged that the notes were
invaluable. I believe that that quote is on the cover of one the earlier editions
of the NET Bible, and that helped these scholars as they wrestled with the text
and tried to understand it. When we consult the NET it says that for verse 12
to 14 the negative 'al and the jussive verb means an immediate urgency. Now that's
interesting that they stated that, because the RSV, the New King James, the
King James, and the NET, and the NRSV they all read past tense. Now
the NRSV does footnote the ESV rendering, so this is something which is perhaps up
for debate among scholars, but the ESV decided to stick a stake in the ground
and stand out from the crowd and translate it present tense.
I'm sure other translations do - I didn't investigate every translation, but
I was particularly interested in those who are from the lineage of the RSV and the
ESV. So let's continue. In verse 14 we have same thing: "you should not" verses "do not",
"parting of the ways" to "crossroads", again, very straightforward changes. And finally,
we get to the last paragraph, in verses 15 to 21, and as you'll see, the actual
translational changes in that are very small, they are very insignificant until we get
perhaps to verse 20. In the RSV we have: "The exiles in Halah who are of the people
of Israel shall possess Phoenicia as far as Zarephath;" and in the ESV we have: "The
exiles of this host of the people of Israel shall possess the land of the
Canaanites as far as Zarephath;" That's an interesting translation choice.
The ESV has gone for more literal rendering, and for the "of this host", the
RSV went to transliterate the Hebrew. Which, is... There is a city called Halah where
the exiles of the Israelites, the Northern Kingdom,
were sent, and we read about that and 2 Kings 17:6 and 18:11, and 2 Chronicles
5:26.
But it also means "of this host". The RSV admitted so much in their footnote saying:
Correction (Cn:) Hebrew "this army". And the word "Phoenicia or "the land of the
Canaanites". Again, this is interpretive call the RSV made. It is literally the
"land of the Canaanites" in the Hebrew but because the context of Zarephath, remember
that's near Tyre and Sidon, they thought it was particularly the coastal area. Now
this is where a question like the date of the book of Obadiah becomes important,
because many will hold that it is around the time of the first exile of Judah.
Some will hold that it is post-exilic. Others, such as Bishop Ussher will hold
that it, (in his chronology), will hold that it is at the time of Queen Athaliah.
So, in the middle of the first kingdom of Judah. Which is it?
I personally believe it is at the time of the first exile of Judah, but then
even taking that stance, it opens up interpretive questions. You know, the
exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad. There is a city called Sepharad where
Israelites were sent (or where they could have been sent) in Assyria. Sepharad also
stands for Spain. And we have Sephardic Jews that come from Spain, Morocco, around
that area...so the furthest reaches of the world. Which is it? Who are the exiles
being called back? Are they the Northern Kingdom? are they only the Judaic Kingdom?
These are the questions we wrestle with when we look at this text, and I guess my
hope behind this video has been to, sort of illuminate some these questions for
you. Raise them before you, especially in the context of
translational choices. I'd love for you to leave any comments and let me know what
you think. And, if you have any other comments on the RSV or ESV.
Are these good translations? Are there places they can be improved? Are there
better ones to compare these to? See you later!