ASV errors

[Enoch]

The old ASV has been my favorite translation since 1961, as it tends towards wooden literalness. Thus I have used it a lot. In using the Accordance version of it, I am struck that the Accordance ASV text seems unusually plagued with errors in its text, more so than the text I downloaded years ago from the internet. Here is an example from Gal 2:20:

 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me." "liveth" has been changed to "living." I think that your ASV needs complete rechecking by someone who loveth that text and knoweth Elizabethan English.

[Enoch]

Here's another in Rev 22:14

 

"Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and my enter in by the gates into the city." not "my enter," but "may enter"

[Sean R.]

You'll want to email this error directly to Helen Brown.

[Sean R.]

You'll want to email this error directly to Helen Brown. She catalogs errors in modules for future updates.

[Enoch]

in Romans 2:1: Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another. "thou judges" is wrong for "thou judgest."

 

Perhaps a computer could compare different ASV texts to locate these problems. Years ago I had (& still have) an ASV with the BibleSoft program (DOS based, I think); I don't recall seeing such errors in its ASV. Also, there may be a number of ASV texts on-line freely downloadable, since the text is public domain.

[Helen Brown]

Enoch:

 

Please do not start a separate topic for each error. You can indeed email them to me, they do no good to others on the forum.

 

We have had this module out for 15 years. It's a little surprising that these "errors" have not been reported before. I wonder if you are comparing with a different edition of the ASV. According to About the Text, ours is the 1901, but I have no recollection of the source of this etext. It may be hard to decide on a correct authoritative version, since we do not have a print copy here.

[Joe Weaks]

We have had this module out for 15 years. It's a little surprising that these "errors" have not been reported before. I wonder if you are comparing with a different edition of the ASV. According to About the Text, ours is the 1901, but I have no recollection of the source of this etext. It may be hard to decide on a correct authoritative version, since we do not have a print copy here.

 

I'm pretty sure that the 1901 edition of the ASV is the only edition. There were other versions that started with the ASV as a guide, but they all took on new names, such as the RSV or the NASB.

[Lester P. Bagley]

I've consulted various copies of the ASV from my library and others and cannot find a single one that reads "liveth" at Galatians 2:20.

[Lester P. Bagley]

Likewise, Romans 2:1 "thou judges" is correct in all consulted copies of the ASV.

[Timothy Jenney]

I took some time this morning to investigate the ASV or, more properly, the Revised Version, American Standard Edition. There were a number of disagreements between the American and British translation teams. Some of these (but not all) related to the difference in word usage between America and British readers. Unfortunately, changes from the British to the American version could only be incorporated if 2/3 of the British team agreed. Over 300 suggestions American were relegated to the Appendix because the British team would not concur. By 1901, these suggestions were finally incorporated into the ASV, making the 1901 edition the "authoritative" edition.

 

Unfortunately, a number of unofficial editions surfaced in the meantime with a number of these suggestions incorporated. Apparently, even after 1901, other editions appeared with still more "emendations." These seem to have been American modifications of the British Revised Version, a copyright for which had never been filed in the U.S.A. (making such changes legally possible).

 

The copyright for the 1901 edition was acquired by Thomas Nelson. In turn, it was purchased by the precursor to the National Council of Churches in 1928. The latter's concern was the preservation of the "official" ASV text, as various unofficial editions continued to be published.

 

The bottom line? There are many copies of the ASV that were published by major publishing houses that sought to make the translation more accessible to the American reading public. The variations are the exact kinds of things Enoch has identified. These do not represent any "sloppiness" on the part of Accordance developers, but the nature of the various e-texts themselves (all of which, no doubt, claim to be "official" 1901 editions, since the variations are extremely minor and relatively unknown, even today). The same is true of surviving print editions, including the one with which Enoch has compared Accordance's ASV text" most claim to be 1901 editions but may well contain unofficial changes.

 

Those who are interested could make a life's work by compiling textual variants of various editions [print and electronic] of the ASV.

[rcdeacon]

Incredibly helpful information Dr. J. Thanks.

[Joel Brown]

Now, if you do find your way across an etext of the ASV that does have the wordings the way you like them, you can easily turn it into a User Bible and make it just as Accordance friendly as our ASV is. You can see a training video on how to do that at this link: http://www.accordancefiles2.com/training/data/OwnThing.html , then click the 'User Bibles' section. Its really quite powerful. You could even then post this version of the ASV to the Accordance Exchange for others to use in the future, if you wanted to.

[Enoch]

Enoch:

 

Please do not start a separate topic for each error. You can indeed email them to me, they do no good to others on the forum.

 

We have had this module out for 15 years. It's a little surprising that these "errors" have not been reported before. I wonder if you are comparing with a different edition of the ASV. According to About the Text, ours is the 1901, but I have no recollection of the source of this etext. It may be hard to decide on a correct authoritative version, since we do not have a print copy here.

 

The errors are not matters of "a different edition of the ASV." This has been my favorite translation since 1961; I have been reading it over & over since then. So far as I know, there are not "different editions" of the ASV (1901) so far as the text wording goes. There appear to be many typos in the Accordance ASV, typos probably created by someone who knoweth not Elizabethan English, typos where a similar modern English word has been substituted for the ASV word. I suppose that the reason why this has not been shown to you before is that I am a rare person who uses the ASV much. Unfortunately Accordance does not have the link system between the ASV and the Greek text which you have for some other translations.

 

Now, if you do find your way across an etext of the ASV that does have the wordings the way you like them, you can easily turn it into a User Bible and make it just as Accordance friendly as our ASV is. You can see a training video on how to do that at this link: http://www.accordancefiles2.com/training/data/OwnThing.html , then click the 'User Bibles' section. Its really quite powerful. You could even then post this version of the ASV to the Accordance Exchange for others to use in the future, if you wanted to.

 

thanks very much for your suggestion. However, I would think that Accordance would want to take the responsibility for having an accurate ASV upon themselves.

[Enoch]

As a life long user of the ASV, I can inform you that what you said is misleading; you apparently don't understand. You are apparently giving out information that led to the copyright of the ASV in 1901. Also I think you are confusing the variation in the (British) Revised Version of 1881 with the ASV of 1901, which was its daughter. I have never seen any variation between ASV's, aside from a very rare thing like where one letter did not print out (aside from the Accordance errored ASV). Thomas Nelson used to publish them along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who liked the use of Jehovah in the ASV. An obscure company in Fort Worth was still publishing the ASV the last I knew. I recommend that Accordance get themselves an ASV if they don't have it and fix their text.

 

I find that the errors in the Accordance ASV give no evidence of being the result of Accordance having used a different printing of the ASV from mine. I suggest downloading from the internet other sources of the ASV and comparing them by computer for variation, then opening up a printed copy & checking them where they differ. I think that the errors are too numerous for me to email them to you piece meal.

 

Warehouse:

1105 South Airport Circle Suite C

Euless, TX 76040

(817) 354-6004

 

Mailing address:

Star Bible Publications

P.O. Box 821220

Fort Worth, TX 76182

 

Fax ..........(817) 354-6006

Orders ......(800) 433-7507

Local: .......(817) 354-6004

 

1-800-433-7507.

 

PS, I probably own at least 20 copies of it, as I have been reading & highlighting subjects in it for many years.

[Enoch]

I checked with Star Bible & found that indeed they have in stock bonded leather ASV's for $29.95. 1-800-433-7507.

 

Here is another example of an error in the ASV from Mark 6:8

 

"and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, now money in their purse;"

 

"Now" appears to be a typo. This sort of error does not appear to be the result of alleged different editions, modified to suit preferences of publishers, but a simple typo, "now money" for "no money." (I am persuaded that the allegation of such differing editions of the ASV is an historical error.)

The errors in the Accordance ASV appear to the result of hiring one or more typists who were unfamiliar with the ASV or even the KJV.

 

Best wishes, and thanks for having made the ASV available in your program, even with its errors.

[Enoch]

nt

 

I would delete the title if I could. I find that the error detected was already reported.

[Enoch]

I've consulted various copies of the ASV from my library and others and cannot find a single one that reads "liveth" at Galatians 2:20.

 

I don't believe that you have checked the ASV at all, but have confused some other translation with it, possibly the NASB = New American Standard Bible.

[R. Mansfield]

Enoch,

 

I just compared this with the ASV in Logos, BibleReader, and Wordsearch, and all of them have living and not liveth.

 

I do have a hard copy of the ASV, but it's at home, so I'll have to check that later. Regardless, if, in fact, the ASV text is supposed to read liveth here, it could be that there's a common etext between all these platforms that was in error to begin with.

[R. Mansfield]

I have confirmed that the print edition of the ASV does have "liveth" in Gal 2:20. Again, five different electronic texts consulted (we can add BibleWorks to the list now, too) all had "living," so more than likely there was a common etext used years ago by all these different companies.

 

Whether or not there are actual variants in different printings, I do not know. It would, however, be possible since different publishers have printed the ASV. But the Thomas Nelson text seems to be the "official" one, and it does indeed have "liveth" in Gal 2:20.

 

Having said all that, Enoch, the others are right--it's best to email typos directly to Helen. A typo is not really the same as a bug, which is what this particular forum is for.

 

And--this is just my opinion--but my hunch is that Oak Tree is probably not going to go to the trouble to buy a hard copy and compare verse by verse with their etext. Like any company, they have many projects in the works and limited resources. The ASV, for better or worse is used by a very small number of people these days, and I can't imagine it would be worth their time to do that kind of analysis of it.

 

However, as I suggested above, email the typos you find to Helen, and I'm sure there will eventually be an updated and corrected text based on the errors you've found so far.

[Enoch]

As a reader & fan of the ASV since 1961, I don't believe that there is any significant variation between publishers of the ASV in the text (except an odd place where a letter failed to print out). The work had a copyright. It may be that there was a problem with the RV, the ASV's predecessor along those lines.

 

And well, it may be true that the ASV has fallen into non-use. But I myself don't know of a better scholar-committee-made translation to use when having a debate as a neutral source in English. Since the ASV seems to have followed the philosophy of rather wooden literalism & even studied ambiguity (when the original is ambiguous), it IMHO, is the best English translation still to use when checking a doctrinal claim made on a proof text. Also, it appears to me that when the English RV & its American variant, the ASV, were produced, Biblical scholars (on average) knew Greek a whole lot better than today, many having learned to read Greek in grade school if they were British. Today, how many NT scholars could say, "You know, Paul's construction in that Romans verse is remarkably like that of Menander Dyskolos, 4.8.35"?

 

But I don't accept the responsibility of correcting the ASV free for Accordance. Accordance (it appears to me) makes a decent profit on its operation. And Accordance sells its work (I do not begrudge Accordance a profit.) But don't expect me to spend a lot of time on such a project & then deliver it free to Accordance. Since Accordance is selling this product, IMHO, these errors now belong to Accordance, & Accordance should fix its own errors using its own time and expense. Also Accordance should feel some satisfaction in presenting God's word more accurately. IMHO, there should be a lot more concern about correcting the Accordance ASV, and a lot less concern about how I inform Accordance about errors.

 

The errors in Accordance's ASV are indeed bugs in the Accordance program.

[Joe Weaks]

As a reader & fan of the ASV since 1961, I don't believe that there is any significant variation between publishers of the ASV in the text.

It seems to me, as an observer of this thread, that you're not listening/trusting the good intentions of other helpful users who are trying help you and everyone understand the situation. These are just other users trying to be helpful. We're all on the same team.

But I myself don't know of a better scholar-committee-made translation to use when having a debate as a neutral source in English. Since the ASV seems to have followed the philosophy of rather wooden literalism & even studied ambiguity (when the original is ambiguous), it IMHO, is the best English translation still to use when checking a doctrinal claim made on a proof text.

This, IMHO, is not the best use of translation. Either checking the original language text or making use of a good scholarly contemporary translation are two better choices. You are, of course, free to prefer the ASV since it's what you're used to.

Also, it appears to me that when the English RV & its American variant, the ASV, were produced, Biblical scholars (on average) knew Greek a whole lot better than today

True, perhaps. But they were also ignorant of a lot, including new text discoveries, translation theory, etc.

But I don't accept the responsibility of correcting the ASV free for Accordance.

Reality is there's no commercial value for spending tremendous work on updating an ASV text to align with the published version you're familiar with. So, if you care about the text, email in errors you find. Nothing will change otherwise.

And, no, errors in the text are not bugs.

[Enoch]

It seems to me, as an observer of this thread, that you're not listening/trusting the good intentions of other helpful users who are trying help you and everyone understand the situation. These are just other users trying to be helpful. We're all on the same team.

 

This, IMHO, is not the best use of translation. Either checking the original language text or making use of a good scholarly contemporary translation are two better choices. You are, of course, free to prefer the ASV since it's what you're used to.

 

True, perhaps. But they were also ignorant of a lot, including new text discoveries, translation theory, etc.

 

Reality is there's no commercial value for spending tremendous work on updating an ASV text to align with the published version you're familiar with. So, if you care about the text, email in errors you find. Nothing will change otherwise.

And, no, errors in the text are not bugs.

[Enoch]

Thanks for the interaction. I never regarded this thread as "trying to help me." I am suggesting that the Accordance ASV should be corrected by those who sell it in the interests of integrity, not necessarily in order to make money at this point. I think the ASV module should be regarded as a recall by an auto manufacturer that sold a car that has manufacturing defects in it.

 

Recently I bought a trumpet from the Vincent Bach company. Its main tuning slide had a cork that did not align right with its water key, allowing a water leak from the trumpet. (Condensed vapor causes fluid to build up in a trumpet & has to be let out from time to time by a performer.) Bach sent me a new tuning slide at no cost, which is what I believe they should have done.

 

I believe that the ASV continues to be an important Bible tool which continues to help those preparing new translations or versions of the English Bible, even if the masses are now ignorant of it.

 

Of course Accordance is a great Bible study tool. Its ASV is a defect in its perfection. I suggest that Accordance buy an ASV from Star Publishing and use it. Also Accordance might obtain a copy of BibleSoft's ASV and compare it electronically. Is BibleSoft still in business? I used its ASV in its old DOS Bible program, and I don't recall finding errors in it.