Evangelical Heritage Version

[Jake]

Has anyone read the Evangelical Heritage Version? It is a new translation (so far NT/Psalms published) by some conservative Lutheran bodies (WELS/ELS). It's meant to fill to gap by the NIV1984 no longer being published. It mostly reads like a light revision of the NIV1984.

You can read it on Biblegateway and read more about it here: http://wartburgproject.org/

As a fan of the NIV1984 (especially for the Old Testament and reading larger portions of Scripture at a time), so far the EHV looks good from what I've read. It is about as gender neutral as the ESV (so slightly more than the NIV1984). It is also about as literal as the NIV1984, but probably a little bit more so. For example, it seems to be more careful in translating verb tenses. It mostly is fairly traditional, but occasionally it makes some good improvements on traditional readings (but not as much as the CSB for example). It also is not quite as beholden to the CT as the ESV and NIV, and for example looks more favorably on the longer ending of Mark than the ESV/NIV. Apparently they often follow the majority text, but they consult the CT as well. It also has outline style headings in the Psalms which seem very useful.

So far to me, the EHV is what the NIV2011 should have been. It is very similar to the NIV1984 (many verses are the same word-for-word) but makes some welcome changes.

You can read the NT and Psalms on BibleGateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 1&version=EHV&fbclid=IwAR25z06izjFPZMmEJ6lTWYLi4D_9Xm7tFeTIv0mdTEWvqB9mWJbUqEPYq5s They have completed the OT and are working on geting it published.

See FAQ #30 for most of the information: http://wartburgproject.org/faqs/faqs-numeric/

 

[SolaScriptura]

Until the OP I had never even heard of it.

 

[arapahoepark]

Until the OP I had never even heard of it.

Likewise. So many new versions, I can't keep up.

 

[bookslover]

I took a look at the site and read this: ". . .it introduces new terms in those places where the traditional terms no longer communicate clearly." Hmmm. That might possibly raise a red flag.

Yeah, it kinda looks like the translation will be marketed primarily to the Lutheran Church.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I'm not sure I get the need for more and more translations, unless the people making the ones now available have some sort of agenda to teach their views and the new committees are trying to break from that. But we have just about every kind of translation already it seems.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, it kinda looks like the translation will be marketed primarily to the Lutheran Church.

It looks like the translation committee is entirely Lutheran, too.

I'm not sure I get the need for more and more translations, unless the people making the ones now available have some sort of agenda to teach their views and the new committees are trying to break from that. But we have just about every kind of translation already it seems.

I agree. This is frankly getting to be a little ridiculous. What unmet need does this translation possibly satisfy?

 

[Dachaser]

I took a look at the site and read this: ". . .it introduces new terms in those places where the traditional terms no longer communicate clearly." Hmmm. That might possibly raise a red flag.

Yeah, it kinda looks like the translation will be marketed primarily to the Lutheran Church.

I just hope that they did not decide to go with the Nlt and drop terms such as Justification and Propitiation.

 

[Jake]

I just hope that they did not decide to go with the Nlt and drop terms such as Justification and Propitiation.

Justification is used; propitiation is not used.

I will note that propitiation is not used by most newer translations. The EHV follows the CSB, NIV, NRSV, etc. here. I personally think "atoning sacrifice" is an acceptable translation of ἱλασμός from what I've read and it or something very similar is used by a lot of translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 2:2 I'm also not aware of any translations before the KJV that used propitiation (e.g., Tyndale, Geneva, etc. don't use it) besides maybe the Douay-Rheims version.

Also, the term ἱλαστήριον is translated as "the atonement seat" in EHV in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, where ESV/NASB/KJV use "propitiation" in the former and "mercy seat" in the latter.

 

[Dachaser]

Justification is used; propitiation is not used.

I will note that propitiation is not used by most newer translations. The EHV follows the CSB, NIV, NRSV, etc. here. I personally think "atoning sacrifice" is an acceptable translation of ἱλασμός from what I've read and it or something very similar is used by a lot of translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 2:2 I'm also not aware of any translations before the KJV that used propitiation (e.g., Tyndale, Geneva, etc. don't use it) besides maybe the Douay-Rheims version.

Also, the term ἱλαστήριον is translated as "the atonement seat" in EHV in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, where ESV/NASB/KJV use "propitiation" in the former and "mercy seat" in the latter.

I just tend to see this as the direct result of many Christians holding to a watered down theology as it concerns the main doctrines of the faith.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Also, the term ἱλαστήριον is translated as "the atonement seat" in EHV in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, where ESV/NASB/KJV use "propitiation" in the former and "mercy seat" in the latter.

Just out of interest, I noticed recently that, in several places, John Owen argues that the word should be translated as "mercy seat", which, If I recall correctly, is how William Tyndale translated it.