Reading the Bible with our children should not be an opportunity for teaching them about varieties of English dialect. A phrase like “at table” draws attention to itself and breaks the flow of the text.

My response,

Here is where dynamic equivalent translation proponents deceive themselves. First, a young child is not likely to catch the “misprint” in the first place. The child is taking everything in, learning what is acceptable and what is not linguistically. Even if they do hesitate at this point, and bring it to your attention, use it as an opportunity for teaching about grammar!

The irony is that one of the men who started all this (my grandfather, Ken Taylor), raised a houseful of grammarians, but not one theologian. My family loves to discuss the grammar of the Bible, but could hardly explain the gospel of Christ.

I dare say, I am raising my children on the ESV because I want them to understand the gospel. The ESV is the best text I’ve found for accomplishing this purpose. By the way, we sometimes do our study at table, and other times on the couch.

Warmly,

Christopher Taylor

Doesn’t the ESV’s “essentially literal” translation philosophy justify the absence of the definite article?

Translating the scripture, even when attempting to be as literal as possible, is not like deciphering a ‘code’ letter by letter. Sometimes you have to phrase something in a way that is not literally the way it was in the original, otherwise you would not have a proper grammatical construct in the resulting translation. And getting a proper construct so that the contemporary reader can understand it, after all, is the whole point of doing the translation!

As for my two cents on the issue of ‘at table’ — I did not like it when I first saw it, and after discussing it with friends, and reading the comments here, I still don’t like it, and I agree with the original poster in the thought that this was a poor way to translate it. I don’t care if it was at one time a legitimate usage of the English language. There are lots of constructs that were valid in 1611 (think KJV) that we don’t see today. If we talked the same way now that we did in 1611, for example, there would be no need for the ESV now would there? As I stated before, the whole point of doing a translation is to get the thing into the language the people are using now

Some think that kind of thing is quaint, and I suppose things like that could possibly serve to broaden our horizons, but I hardly think that a version of the Bible is the place to be looking for that. If someone wants to tantalise himself with fancy literature, go to the library and borrow some classic.

Not ‘at table,’ but ‘at the table..’

;)

p.s. I suspect that some people try to come up with any defense of the usage ‘at table’ because they like the ESV so much. I would say that the ESV is a great translation - its pretty well the only English version I use now - but I still won’t stand by their decision to use that construct.

I think the problem is that “at table” doesn’t convey the meaning to a lot of people. Though I believe it is gramatically correct if you research it.

In addition, “at table” appears to be more than just sitting at a table (both the HCSB and NET capture this IMO). I think if the ESV had a footnote on what “at table” can actually mean it would help…most people aren’t going to know. It does appear that the HCSB used some variant of “reclined” quite a bit. I think this is actually a little more clear than “at table” though. At the very least, a Google search on “ESV at table” leads you in the right direction.

I happen to own (and use) print copies of the ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

AMDG