@MAMoreno

3 weeks ago

While I do not deny that the Colorado Springs controversy was a motivating factor for many of the people involved, the simple fact is that the guidelines were issued two years after the release of the 1995 update of the NASB, and the ESV came out another four years after that. The NASBU was about as complementarian as the ESV and in full agreement with the subsequent guidelines; in fact, it went further than the ESV would later do and used the dubious "Junias" form of Junia's name in Romans 12.7. (The 2020 edition has since corrected that problem . . . but has also "corrected" the suggestion that Junia[s] was an apostle in any sense.) So the driving force behind the ESV was not simply complementarianism. If it were, the men who went on to translated the ESV could have simply endorsed the NASB instead. (One of the emails mentioned that the "American" part of the New American Standard's name was an issue, but we've already seen from the Legacy Standard Bible that it's easy enough to rebrand the NASB '95 without making many substantial changes to it.) Rather, the threat of inclusive language was the last straw for a group of people who already had plenty of other gripes against the NIV but who knew that the NASB was an inferior product to the RSV regardless of its conservative bias.

1 |