Wayne Leman recently asked “is the ESV written in beautiful English?” in response to an affirmative post by Tim Challies on the same topic. Both posts and the associated comments are well worth reading.
I’ve tried to take a closer look at both of these posts and dig out two approaches to Bible translation that struck me as I was reading.
- An accurate translation that faithfully renders the original phrases, words and metaphors that set one author apart from another. The beauty of the text is inherent from the rich syntax and lexical combinations found in the original sacred languages.
- An accurate translation that faithfully maintains the semantic and stylistic tension of the authors’ original linguistic choices. The beauty of the text is inherent from the rich syntax and lexical combinations of modern, natural English.
I’m curious which translation description resonates more with you? I purposely haven’t used words like formal, functional, dynamic or literal. Can you talk about your translation without them?
My answer would be “yes.”
I tend towards number 1, but I don’t throw away number 2. There are some obvious places where the ESV uses phrasing that is… well… bad, e.g. “at table” where option number 2 probably should have been used. But option number 2 does sometimes remove important syntactical issues found in the original languages.
Also, there is tension between making it accessible, and realizing that some of the things contained in scripture are just hard. I don’t think Wayne’s example of “bring[ing] someone’s head down with blood” is altogether that difficult. Blood being a keyword, as is reading the context. Is it out of ordinary use? Yes, but not altogether difficult. I was taught how to use context clues in order to help understand something that I might not understand at first look, and if I still can’t figure it out, look it up in a reference of some sort.
On the other hand, Bibles translated in option number 1 seem to stubbornly hang on to language that is unnecessary (Again, “at table” above, as well as inverted negatives).
I guess basically what I’m trying to say is 1) Don’t use archaic or unnecessarily hard english, and 2) Don’t be afraid to have to put an effort forth to understanding the Bible either. So I guess put me down for 1# or 2b, or 1.5, or something like that. There needs to be balance.
Bryan wrote:
I don’t think Wayne’s example of “bring[ing] someone’s head down with blood” is altogether that difficult.
Bryan, I agree with you if we are talking about a target audience which knows how to comb through the Bible to figure out what an unfamiliar phrase means, and also knows how to use Bible resource books. When I blogged as I did, I was particularly thinking of people who only have access to a Bible version and perhaps are not very familiar with the Bible.
I believe it is appropriate to translate Bibles for different audiences, for instance for people already familiar with Bible English, and people who are not familiar with that special dialect of English. I am concerned about advertising for Bibles that makes it sound like they are good for general English-speaking audiences when they really are not.
I see value in both approaches to translation, 1 and 2. For myself, even though I have been hearing (and often speaking) Bible English all my life (I’m nearing 60), today I prefer #2. I find that Bibles written in good English communicate more accurately and effectively to me. And I know from observations and testimonials that this is true of many who do not know Bible English nearly as well as I do.
But I recognize that there is a fairly high percentage of Bible users who prefer #1 to help them do Bible study. As a linguist and English editor, I cringe when they call the English in such translations “beautiful.” It’s not beautiful English. It may be a beautiful attempt to reflect the syntax and lexical combinations of the biblical languages, but I do not find beauty in English literature which does not sound like good English. Good English needs to follow the syntax and lexical rules of English.
Wayne:
“Bryan, I agree with you if we are talking about a target audience which knows how to comb through the Bible to figure out what an unfamiliar phrase means, and also knows how to use Bible resource books. When I blogged as I did, I was particularly thinking of people who only have access to a Bible version and perhaps are not very familiar with the Bible.”
Point taken and agreed. Although, I don’t think it’s as hard for people to use context in order to understand uncommon words or phrases, as some make it out to be, it still can be hard. (Let’s face it, there are things rendered in good, modern english in the Bible that I still don’t understand!) I agree that the best is to have translations available for different audiences, comprised of #1 and #2, and hopefully, somewhere in the middle.
I’ve been an NASB user for sometime now. It has a special place in my heart, but if I were to recommend either the NASB or the ESV, I would recommend the ESV. Here’s why:
The ESV is generally more readable than the NASB.
The ESV is more textually consistent than the NASB (I know many would find this hard to believe, but it is the case). For example, the NASB translate porneia three different ways in Matthew: “unchastity,” “immorality,” and “fornication.” The ESV has faithfully rendered the Greek “sexual immorality.”
This, however, doesn’t mean that the ESV is the all-purpose or absolute Bible to use. I find the HCSB to be a more consistent and readable version than the ESV. For example, the ESV renders chesed “mercy” in Ps 23:6 while everywhere else it is rendered “steadfast love” in the Psalter.
The HCSB renders chesed as “faithful love” throughout the Psalter, even at Ps 23:6.
I cannot understand why the ESV didn’t render the future passives as they should in Matt 16:19. The HCSB succeeds here.
But I do like the ESV at Acts 2:42, being faithful the the definite articles in each case. The HCSB fails here.
And yes, I love the ESV at 1 Tim 2:1-7, rendering anqrwpoi in its various inflections as “people” over the HCSB “everyone” (see also 4:10). ESV winners in 1 Timothy.
Both are good translations of the word of God, serving different purposes.
ElShaddai,
I am one of those people who doesn’t have years of formal language training, but I love reading the Bible. I was raised on the KJV and stuck with it until about age 50, then moved to the NASB. Now at age 55 I’m a HCSB reader and am loving it. I also have the ESV and love it’s literary beauty. However, with the HCSB I’m not constantly trying to ‘interpret’ some of the archaic words the ESV uses. Archaic words and phrases are why I switched from the KJV to begin with.
Now, understand, this is by no means a ‘throw-down’ of the ESV. I sometimes use it for more casual reading, or to have an alternate look into the translation. The labels, literal, dynamic, optimal, etc. are not as important to me as having a translation I can read and understand and still be faithful to the original languages as much as possible.
Both translations have their place in one’s study of the Holy Scriptures. To me, it’s not a matter of choosing the ‘best’ translation…it’s a matter of choosing the one that ‘speaks’ to you the clearest…for me that just happens to be the HCSB.
God Bless! Ron.