According to Amazon.com and Christianbook.com, the English Standard Version (ESV) with Apocrypha edition will be published by Oxford University Press on February 1, 2009:
The English Standard Version Bible captures as far as possible the precise wording of the original biblical text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. The ESV thus provides an accurate rendering of the original texts that is in readable, high quality English prose and poetry. This Bible has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations.
Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes. More Evangelicals are also beginning to be interested in the Apocrypha, even though they don’t consider it God’s Word. The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha. This will be the only ESV with Apocrypha available anywhere, and it includes all of the books and parts of books in the Protestant Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, and the Old Testament as used in Orthodox Christian churches. It will have a lovely pre-printed case binding, and will include a full-color map section, a table of weights and measures used in the Bible, and many other attractive features.
The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books.
Presumably “the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV” means that Oxford is revising the RSV Apocrypha texts, just as the ESV’s OT and NT were revised from the 1971 RSV texts. This edition is being produced as an Oxford hardback, hopefully with the superior bindings and typography that we expect from this publisher.
One wonders if the Oxford commission might signal a possible future shift from the aging and financially orphaned NRSV to the ESV as a broader academic text. Perhaps a Fourth Edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible using the ESV to complement the much ballyhooed ESV Study Bible?
Regardless of what one thinks of the ESV in general or specifically, it is good to see another Bible translation make itself available to the broader Christian community. As I noted last year in my posts on a common Bible, the textual differences between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions eliminate many deserving translations from consideration for common use. The ESV’s undeniable popularity in some circles may now make it a new candidate for the title “Most Likely to be the Common Bible”.
81 Comments
Thanks CD. I actually do own the New Interpreter’s, and in most places I find it good, in some places very good, but there are a few places the notes are a bit too liberal for my taste.
The one that comes to mind was either a special note, or excursus on John 14:6, which seemed to me, at least the way I read it, to rate Jesus on a par with the icons of all other world religions, by saying that Jesus was only saying he was the only way to the Father for the particular community he was speaking to. I realize this is a critical bible, but that one smacked of secular humanism rather than Christianity.
This being said, I concur with you that it does do an excellent job in most places, and actually compared to the HC, it seems to reference OT passages to NT passages and themes much more often. The HC seems to hardly ever do this, so this is one point the NISB wins out on. I have recently taken it back off the shelf and begun to use it for the majority of places I do like, while ignoring the few places I don’t. I suppose when I think about it, this is what I’ve always ended up doing with study bibles of any kind.
As for the latest versions of the NOAB, I don’t know much about it, as mine is from I think 1977, when May and Metzger were still the editors.
I have no experience at all with the NEB, is that the one ElShaddai uses? Or is that the REB? The REB is one I’ve considered purchasing for quite some time now.
Hmmm a conservative NRSV study bible. I’m at a loss. McReynolds is conservative but that is a bit specialized.
Oxford and Harpers are both liberal, but
1) less do than the NISB
2) since they are interpretive for a lower percentage of the material it matters less
Between the two of them:
Harper collins is a bit more historical
Oxford is more focused on translation.
But they are going to be real close. The HC will feel the most like the ESVSB would have. Also you can get it used for like $10.
Since you like formal and already own a study bible. One suggestion that includes the NRSV along with an even more formal but very well done translation is Brown & Comfort. That is my favorite literal bible.
OK I’m out of advice someone else has to take over.
As for the NEB/REB. NEB = 1970, REB = 1989 version
NEB a great 2nd bible in many ways it is better than the REB. It can be a bit too playful and radical for a primary bible. The REB is more liturgical and more conservative in its translation choices. The REB is the ElShaddai likes (though he also like the NEB). I love them both.
And if you are considering other bibles, and are really concerned with translational accuracy, have you considered the NET?
The disadvantage to the NRSV is this: you are funding the NCC.
Scott –
Actually no. Harper holds the copyright. The NCC has sold it, they don’t make a nickel NRSV sales. You can use the NRSV in peace knowing that none of your money will go to feeding or educating children in poor countries or working to create communication between different faith communities.
“Hmmm a conservative NRSV study bible. I’m at a loss. McReynolds is conservative but that is a bit specialized.”
CD, it seems I have misrepresented myself inadvertently. I don’t really consider myself conservative or liberal, but truly moderate, which I suppose is why I have problems with both types of study bibles, commentaries, etc. from time to time.
To me, moderate means being open minded yes, but also it means being perhaps, conservative on one issue, yet liberal on another. While I do enjoy a refreshing “faith based” devotional type bible sometimes, I typically, well daily, use critical bibles and commentaries as my mainstay.
As odd as it may seem to some, more conservative Christians, higher biblical criticism is probably what saved my faith some time back. Nothing helped me more than reading the articles in The Interpreter’s Bible (George A. Buttrick, editor), the twelve volume commentary set from the 1950’s. I came up in a church background that taught a pretty strict form of biblical literalness. Once I discovered that it was obvious, for example, there were two different creation stories, two different flood accounts, etc., and that for me there was no denying that the bible contained a few historical discrepancies and things of the like, my faith was shaken.
Some time later I cracked open the books that conservatives in my past had wanted me to avoid(such as the aforementioned Interpreter’s Bible), and discovered through this that all the history, science, etc. didn’t have to be perfect for the theology to be correct(in fact, it is possible for divinely inspired truth to be taught through myth, allegory, parable, etc., e.g. the book of Jonah).
Whatever label it may carry(1950’s liberal theology?), it revived my faith, and it has grown ever stronger due to the view of scripture afforded me by way of higher criticism. Where I would be conservative is that I hold firmly to the articles of the creeds which the Church is predicated upon. So you can see where conservative works would frustrate me in their assertion of the impeccability of scripture(as opposed to the inspiration of scripture, which I do accept)as being absolutely necessary, and where some critical works would frustrate me when they deny(or perhaps ignore) Orthodox beliefs. To be succint, I suppose I am just difficult to please. (LOL)
I have in recent months become intrigued with Karl Barth, and while I have not broke down and purchased the whole Church Dogmatics set, I have begun reading his Dogmatics in Outline(a series of lectures based upon the Apostle’s Creed), and have not been disappointed thus far. Does anyone here have much experience with Barth’s works?
Anyway, I hope this cleared up my position somewhat. BTW, thanks again for your opinions and advice CD. My apologies to all for this long digression.
Trouble with the REB is that it isn’t found on any Bible software.
Trouble with the REB is that it isn’t found on any Bible software.
Not quite: it is available as an add-on module for the Mac-only Accordance software. That’s almost enough to make me consider switching to a Mac…
FINALLY!
Finally we have a modern translation that offers an alternative to the dynamic equivelant and/or politically correct (read politically manipulated) versions which have dominated the market since the RSV.
I was extraordinarily dissapointed when the publishers decided not to translate the deuterocanonical books on the basis of ideology, but I am so glad that Oxford can rectify the problem.
The translation, for all it’s noted flaws, is still much more handy to a Scripture scholar for its faithfulness to the wording of the original languages.
For those flaming on the ‘traditional’ nature of this translation, you have your translations. Go read the NRSV already.
Pete
CD
Your desire for a theologically neutral translation is rather asinine. All translators will make an interpretive move. There is no possible way around that. One should consider, then, the translators notes and the vast amount of ink spilled over said “controversial” translations. Frankly the ESV is by far and away better than the NRSV and (less so) the RSV in its Christocentric approach to translating (as the aforementioned predecessors went out of their way to remove Christological references in their translations). But hey, if the Feminist Semipagan Translation (NRSV) floats your boat… fine you already have it. as Peter points out.
Peter and MDL –
The issue on the ESV is not that it is tradition it is that it fundamentally dishonest. That is mistranslates to support idealogical positions while broadly claims about itself. The evangelical reaction to the New World (Jehovah Witness) translation is instructive here. The New World is a well done translation with 2 issues:
1) The various names for God are all collapsed to Jehovah and then this term is used in the NT
2) In several places the translators overrode the Greek for theological reasons.
However the JWs publish a version of the bible called the Kingdom Interlinear Translation that makes these changes obvious. That is they assert a right to engage in theological overrides of the text but don’t misrepresent their translational position as the original text.
Contrast that with the ESV.
First off the ESV claim they don’t engage in theological overrides at all. So first criticisms are that they most certainly do override the Greek and the Hebrew to support their pet theologies. I’ve written about what MDL calls Christocentric translation (Isaiah 7:14 artjc,e). The NLT does the same thing, however the NLT faithfully footnotes when they do it. That is they think it is extremely important the reader be notified when they have engaged in a theological override of the text or even when the text’s meaning can be disputed. The ESV simply conflates their commentary on the text with the text itself. What is key about the ESV unlike the NWT is that the ESV translators claim not to have the authority to engage in this sort of theological override of the text that is they claim they are not doing what they are in fact doing. And that in my opinion is an attempt to falsify the evidence. I think people who lie deserve to have their lies exposed and I make no apology for that. It is a question of basic honesty. The NWT is borderline the ESV is well over the border.
Secondly, the ESV translators write about and support a theory of bible translation they in fact don’t employ (see Is the ESV essentially literal). Other translations do employ that philosophy, and again this sort of lie deserves to be discussed. Incidentally in that article you see a second example of theological override and harmonization both ideas they oppose in their translation discussions.
Third, the ESV translators have made factually incorrect claims about other translations as part of their marketing efforts, most notably the TNIV. The claims about “political manipulation” and “feminist” are good examples of this. There are feminist translation, like the Inclusive Bible, the NRSV was done by a mainstream balanced organization. Honesty would dictate that if one objects to a balanced organization they should say that rather than misrepresent it. The TNIV by an evangelical organization their claims are even more dishonest.
What the ESV is a minor update of the RSV with some theological overrides to support reformed and anti-women positions of the translation committee. It is not some great break through in the bible translation and in virtually every area where it disagrees with the NRSV the Greek/Hebrew supports the NRSV’s reading. I’ll note that in both of your responses we don’t actually see any details about how it does handle things better than the NRSV.
I don’t find the “your translation has cooties” argument very convincing.
I don’t find the “your translation has cooties” argument very convincing.
Neither do I. Just as well it’s just a straw man argument then isn’t it? This particular straw man argument is among the less sophisticated of those put up to avoid the real issues with so called ‘inclusive’ translations.
An essay by Rev Dr Paul Mankowski SJ titled “The Necessary Failure of Inclusive Language” sinks that boat convincingly. My own problems with the NRSV began when I noticed the translators deliberately change voice (active to passive) and even whole grammatical structures to avoid using a masculine pronoun where one is clearly indicated by the original text.
As some earlier commenters say, all translations are an interpretation and influenced by the beliefs of the translators. The ESV has some flaws, some of them serious flaws. To twist word and gramma to impose an ideology on the text throughout the Scriptures is serious indeed. But the translators of the NRSV are hardly wearing halos in this regard. The ESV will have to prove fairly shocking to present as serious problems as the problems presented by the NRSV.
Peter –
First Mankowski addresses a straw man. There is no claim that “man eating tiger” is not understood. Where there can be problems (and I should say I most certainly have encountered them) is in areas where the word “men” could validly mean just males. Something like “the men at this meeting are invited to a barbecue at Jake’s house” is not necessarily inclusive of women. If you wish to include women you must say, “the people at this meeting…”.
Moreover he is right the biggest problem with “the men at this meeting are invited to a barbecue at Jake’s house” is that it is offensive. I’ll grant that. We generally avoid deliberately using offensive terms. For example most of the time the bible uses “behold” we could translate as say “listen the fuck up” and it would be accurate, but we don’t consider that that translation because it is needlessly offensive. I think you may be offended I used it on a blog, then how much less should we be offensive in a bible translation? So even we grant that nothing has changed other than mores that is still good reason to justify the change.
He is also quite right that this more can develop in English because most of English is neuter. If our language were sprinkled with sexual terms then this more wouldn’t have developed. So what? Our langauge is mostly neuter and that is how the more did develop. Lets take the last sentence and make it non neuter: “Her language is mostly neuter and that is how she developed”. She the problem you think I’m talking about an individual woman, pretty quickly you would adjust the but the whole thing sounds odd. That is what people not used to hear biblish hear when they you use masculine pronouns for neuter terms.
That being said, I don’t object to the use of man in translations that preserve word rather than meaning (say like Brown & Comfort). And these reason is those translations do preserve number and tense and structure. Neither the ESV nor the NRSV does that kind of preservation. You would be hard pressed to find 2 verses in a row where they don’t blow tense or number in either one. Neither translation attempts to preserve Greek grammatical structure at all. Heck the ESV interlinear uses English word order, for two main reasons:
1) It makes word studies much easier
2) It doesn’t force to come to terms with the fact that the ESV is not essentially literal and the entire grammatical structure in the ESV is a fabrication of the translators
So in summary, if you want to object to changing voice and changing verbs from active to passive that is a reasonable position. But both the NRSV and the ESV do that all over the place. So its not an argument for the superiority of the ESV rather it is an argument for much literal translations than either one of them. I’d strongly recommend Brown & Comfort as a bible that is readable and where those sorts of changes don’t occur. In other words you are making a valid complaint about the NRSV but it applies equally to the ESV.
In other words you are making a valid complaint about the NRSV but it applies equally to the ESV.
I never claimed the ESV is perfect, in fact I specifically admitted there are problems there and that I haven’t yet fully investigated them to decide if they are bad enough to reject the translation. So far all the usual ‘buzz spots’ I go to to see where they are taking the text have checked out OK.
Your summary of Mankowski’s points is hard to respond to because it misses the main point about marked and unmarked forms. You assume that everyone takes an unmarked masculine pronoun as if it were marked these days, where Mankowski’s point is that only a feminist informed agenda would do so. Anyone with a dictionary knows that “man walked on the moon’ does not limit the walkers to the masculine. The same as “he who sings, prays twice” is not a comment about specifically male prayers but the simple regular unmarked form in action.
When the NRSV translators struggle to non-gender specific pronouns in theological texts they sometimes ride roughshod over the proper conventions for naming God, and certain themes concerning ‘Sonship’ and so on. Quite apart from this there is the change of voice in the texts which, when ‘divine passives’ and active voice are so important to the subtleties of interpretation, is misleading at best.
As I said in my previous post, the ESV will have to prove very bad indeed to present anywhere near the theological problems the NRSV is already well known to present.
Thank you for this discussion, I’ve found the comments to be very interesting. I still find the animosity directed toward the ESV, as well as the pronouncements generated by it to be somewhat bemusing. So the translators haven’t made decisions that everyone can live with–can you pick a bible that has? I am an Episcopal Priest with no concerns over women in ministry and I have served in two congregations where the ESV was the pew Bible and used for the lectionary readings. The ESV may fill a niche, but I think it is a much larger niche than people realize–one that has been papered over by the use of the NRSV or NIV because there was no suitable alternative in these communities. I believe the reputation the ESV has gotten as a staunchly Reformed translation is not necessaruly deserved. It is also the translation of choice in the new Hymnal of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, and the chair of the translation oversight committee was J.I. Packer–reformed to be sure, but hardly a baptist.
Thank you for the comments, Jody – I enjoyed browsing your blog and reading your further thoughts on the ESV.
<I> So the translators haven’t made decisions that everyone can live with–can you pick a bible that has? </I>
Jody I can think of lots of bibles that don’t intentionally mistranslate to bolster theological opinion. The only major bible I can think of that engages in this behavior in such a widespread way is the NWT, and as mentioned above the NWT accurately documents these theological overrides in other works. Further most evangelical translations in the decade are at least making sure to footnote disputed verses, that is making their readers aware of the disputed status so they can find additional information. The ESV removes footnotes.
Let’s not minimize what’s going on here by saying the problems are like those of any other translation. They are both qualitatively and quantitatively worse.
CD-Host, I’m afraid I have to disagree. The examples I’ve seen of the ESV supposedly mistranslating, such as man from *anthropos* rather than people are issues that are still debated (indeed, this very issue was a central discussion of the recently concluded Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and the discussion about women’s ordination). Instead, it seems to be a case of some scholars being convinced that anthropos refers, always, to humanity in the abstract while others think it can refer, in context, to males. Disagreements of this sort are just that–subjective opinion based upon evidence that must be interpreted. I’m not sure what other examples of mistranslation you might mention, since only recall two specific examples from Timothy and Ephesians. In the case of the translation of 2 Timothy 2:2, the ESV translates anthropos as the King James and Revised Standard Version translators did, they did not change anything–it would be wrong to label their percieved failure to follow the opinions of the NRSV translators as mistranslation.
In regards to Isaiah 7:14 being translated as Virgin, my preference would be “maiden” since I think that is an english word with sufficient nuance to match the meaning of almah–that is, a young woman of marriageable age who is assumed to be (though is not necessarily) a virgin. But it would probably be too archaic for some. Be that as it may, translating almah as virgin does highlight one of the possible meanings of the term that is possibly obscured by translating it simply as “young woman.” How is the decision to translate such a christological passage as something other than “virgin” not translating based upon theological opinion? It is interesting that the Jews who translated the Septuagint thought the weight of the term was toward virgin, choosing to use parthenos as the translation.
All that is to say that the decisions that seem to be most often used to critique the ESV are, from other perspectives just as damaging to the NRSV. If the ESV has attempted to be too theological in its reading of scripture, perhaps in a desire to be academically pure and dissacosiated from Christian tradition, the translators of the NRSV allowed other biases to creep in. I am not saying that the ESV is somehow pure, merely that it does not deserve to be scorned for its idiosyncracies than the NRSV does for its own. So, what is a mistranslation for you in the ESV is a mistranslation for someone else in the NRSV–you say tomato I say to-mah-to, and we both hold our own opinions. Can you give me an example of where the ESV has truly mistranslated? And by that I mean that they have chosen to translate a text as something that is not within the realm of scholarly dispute?
I’m also interested to see where the ESV removed footnotes. I have different versions of the ESV, as well as other translations (RSV, NRSV) and depending upon the edition, publisher and format, there are often different levels of notation.
ElShaddai, Thank you, I really have appreciated the discussion here, and I’ve enjoyed looking around your blog as well. Thank you also for the link.
Jody, you don’t have to look very far to see where the ESV removed footnotes. Try looking at Genesis 1:1.
I’ll agree with anthropos is being debated. But on issues where there is debate the modern convention is to footnote.
How is the decision to translate such a christological passage as something other than “virgin” not translating based upon theological opinion?
Because the translation is supposed to be from the Hebrew not from the Greek. The Hebrew word doesn’t mean virgin the Greek in the LXX does. The NT uses the Greek not the Hebrew. It is reasonable and appropriate for a translation of the Septuagint to use virgin. It is theological override to use virgin and not “young women” (or your suggestion of maiden) when supposedly translating from the Hebrew. When translators do that I think have a positive obligation to footnote it. To fail to do so is simply dishonest.
Do you think the ESV should be at least held to the same standards that Jehovah’s witnesses’ bible is when they engage in theological overrides?
If the ESV has attempted to be too theological in its reading of scripture, perhaps in a desire to be academically pure and dissacosiated from Christian tradition, the translators of the NRSV allowed other biases to creep in.
The problem is the NRSV does footnote the traditional translation. For example Isaiah 7:14 young woman is footnoted with “F18: Gk [the virgin]“. As for another example where they removed a footnote I’ve already linked to this but I wrote an article on their treatment of Mark 1:41.
I guess my question to you is you were dismissive of the NWT. What class of misconduct do you see the NWT engaging in that the ESV doesn’t do? How far does a protestant translation have to go before you are willing to say it is just bad the way you dismiss the NWT? Because where I sit the ESV is worse. The Arianist verses are subject to debate as well.
Because the translation is supposed to be from the Hebrew not from the Greek.
You actually might have the ESV on their own terms there. Almah does have the connotation of virginity, but with it not be explicit, I suppose you could challenge them on their own position of word for word translation.
But using that as a criterion to say it’s worse than the NWT? I don’t know about that. The changes in the NWT aren’t based on any inference in the text and they aren’t in continuity with earlier Christian and Jewish translations. I actually expect there to be some theological baggage involved in translation since I believe secular objectivity to be a myth. As I’ve said before, I’d expect any translation of the scriptures with a New Testament attached to it to lean in favor of Christian theological interpretations where it is otherwise open to debate. That’s one of the reasons I appreciate the Brazos Theological Commentary on Scripture: it assumes that the Church has interpreted scripture correctly in reference to Christ.
How far does a protestant translation have to go? I don’t know, making totally new and unfounded interpretations (unlike returning to a traditional one) or importing restorationist views that are anti-trinitarian are good places to start. I wouldn’t use the original Living Bible, but the NLT is very good. I also tend to stay away from translations made by individuals or based upon obscure texts. In your post on Mark 1:41 you say that the ESV translators remove a footnote from the NRSV. Was that a typo? They weren’t revising the NRSV. I only have my accordance software RSV here, and it doesn’t have the notes with it, so I have no way to see if the RSV had a note there or not.
”I only have my accordance software RSV here, and it doesn’t have the notes with it, so I have no way to see if the RSV had a note there or not.”
Greetings Jody from a fellow Anglican (ECUSA).
The RSV does not contain a footnote on this verse. In fact, looking through the translations on my shelf, only the NRSV does have it footnoted as far as I have seen. Personally, I feel in such situations it isn’t so much the direction the translators go in the text, I can live with it so long as they have the alternatives well footnoted. This is an area I think the NRSV is superior to most others. It is a translation I struggled to accept due to preconceived notions for a long time, but it generally proves itself to be superior or at the very least justifies itself well when compared with lexicons.
While over the past few months my zest for the ESV has waned considerably, and I have for the most part resigned myself to the RSV and NRSV, I still prefer the ESV to the other “new kid on the block” translations, probably because it used the RSV as its foundation. It is still a strong possibility that I will purchase a copy of the ESV with Apocrypha.
L. Wells, Greetings to you as well. I am also a ECUSA Anglican/Episcopalian, very happily serving in TN. I’ve been re-reading this thread and appreciate many of your comments. We probably have a similar perspective since I too had the experience of having my faith strengthened by modern biblical criticism when I was in College. Because of that I didn’t experience any of the “faith shattering” at seminary that some do.
In regards to issues with the ESV, I concede (and have conceded in a discussion on my blog) that there are issues with some of the male terms used in translating 1 & 2 Timothy especially. Many of the other criticisms however, seem to be based not on any singular interpretations thrust onto the text, but rather because the translators/redactors of the ESV didn’t make the same judgements as those who translated the NRSV, and in a few places where the ESV returned to an older translation than the RSV. It’s certainly OK to believe the translators were wrong, or that they were even wrongly motivated by gender-bias in some cases, but the level of hostility strikes me as equally ideologically driven.
I’ve never stopped using the NRSV, especially my New Oxford Annoted and New Interpreters (which, like you, I appreciate in many cases, but find too liberal in others. I especially like the fact that it includes a note on the Anglican stepped-canon), and I actually prefer the overall smoothness of the NRSV translation, with the exception of places where I think they went overboard and lost some poetic language, which the ESV does a better job of maintaining in many cases, as well as where they either didn’t maintain continuity between the Old Testament and the NT passages that cite them so that people can hear the scriptural echoes, or allowed their concern to be gender-inclusive render impossible messianic interpretations of some psalms. But we don’t use those in worship, having the BCP version instead.
But using that as a criterion to say it’s worse than the NWT? I don’t know about that. The changes in the NWT aren’t based on any inference in the text and they aren’t in continuity with earlier Christian and Jewish translations.
Well first off almah does not mean virgin. The word can be used for a prostitute based on chronological age. So what you are really saying is the ESV’s changes are in line with your theology while the NWT’s are not. Well yeah. But then is your claim against the NWT that your theology can do overrides and their’s can’t? The changes in the NWT are:
1) Reading the OT Jehovah back into the NT. Which does strike me as analogous though frankly weaker than reading the NT back into the OT.
2) Weakening verses which violate their Arian understanding of the text. Again that is similar to what you are defending with regard to the ESV where they have shading things in line with their theology (for example reformed).
3) Adding clarifying words in line with their theology like the change from Heb 9:27. Well the ESV does things like this. For example Gospel harmonization, that is they believe the gospels tell the same story and thus they freely harmonize the text.
And again the big difference is the Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the KIT which accurately indicates where they have made these changes. The ESV does not have that sort of material, they act as if their changes were the only possibilities since after all they are producing an “essentially literal” translation. So no I don’t see the difference unless it boils down to “when my team does it, it is OK but when the other team does it….”
CD-Host, In regards to Almah, context means a lot. As I’ve said before, a better English word to translate it would be neither “virgin” or “young woman” but maiden because the word carries the same connotation in English that I understand Almah to have in Hebrew, which is: a young woman of marriageable age who, if unmarried and it is not otherwise implied, is assumed to be a virgin. This is partly a cultural reality as well as a linguistic one, and is also why it is important that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint chose to translate it with parthenos, because it shows that those without a Christological bone to pick saw that as an accurate translation. This is not some radical view… a quick survey of the online archives of scholarly journals such as Biblioteca Sacra, or the Jounral of Biblical Literature will demonstate that.
Where does the ESV harmonize the text of the Gospel? Again, I’m looking for some singular interpretations that are not simply in continuity with the RSV or other previous translations. It still seems to me most of your concerns are based upon the fact that you simply disagree with choices they made–and that’s fine, but accepting your arguments seems to require assumptions that other people may not hold.
CD-Host, As far as number 1 goes, which you charge as reading the NT back into the OT, as a Christian I accept the premise that scripture interprets scripture. If nothing else, the interpretations of the OT in the New demonstrate understandings that were present at the time of the latter’s writing, and therefore provides a lens to see how our early Christian forebears read their own scripture (just as the Septuagint provides a similar lens to an earlier time). And as I’ve said before, where evidence is otherwise equal and subjective, I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with leaning in the direction of traditional interpretation.
Jody, one reason I have seen suggested for the LXX translation parthenos in Isaiah 7:14 is that at the time when that translation was made it had a similar meaning to Hebrew `alma, that is “young woman”, and that only later it came to have the specific meaning “virgin”. I am not sure how certain this interpretation is.
Jody it turns out I am your neighbor to the South down here in AL. I am a layman and am studying to become a Worship Leader, and am still in discernment about becoming a Pastoral Leader and Lay Preacher.OK, back to the topic. I tend to have roughly the same concerns as you Jody, about the ESV and the NRSV. Both have problems with the whole issue of gender relative pronouns. The ESV seems inconsistent about it’s choices at times, while as you mentioned, the NRSV sometimes skews the echo effect of messianic passages, so to the reader who wasn’t already aware of their messianic nature the link between OT and NT passages may never be picked up on. That being said, the NRSV seems to be highly accurate even in these situations, though I would prefer in this instance a more traditional rendering in the OT passages, so that the link is clarion(yes a theological override). I also agree the NRSV reads exceptionally well, and for the most part remains fairly stately for such a smooth reader. However, it does tend, as you stated, to lose some of it’s beauty in poetic passages on occasion for the sake, I assume, of readability. I also don’t like how it abandons traditional Church language, such as expiation, or propitiation in places. This is one reason I do like the ESV. I’m a little different than most I suppose, but I like the Bible to read in a stately English, that sounds different than the way we talk in everyday conversation. I know this sounds old fashioned and nostalgic, and perhaps it is, but particularly as a lay reader I tend to think a more stately English tends to almost command a certain degree of respect from the hearers of the reading, drawing them more effectively into the reading itself. There is a certain amount of theatrics(for lack of a better term) involved in liturgy, and the more dignified the text sounds, the better the result, else prayer books would not be written poetically, but rather in dry, languid prose. The rest depends upon the skill of the reader. One reason I’ve not went over to the NRSV totally is that I prefer the cadence and wording in many cases of the RSV.
L. Wells –
I would say you are the first person who has put together a list which matches the ESV. And I’m glad you are willing to admit what is going on is a theological override of the text and not translation. Stately, traditional (with overrides), high reading level and vocabulary. I’ll grant the ESV meets the criteria you’ve named. OK so that is one.
Now the question for you given your list: why not the KJV, NKJV?
Good evening CD. When I say theological override, I’m not sure I mean it exactly the way you do. What I mean by that still fits the realm of translation, but leaning more on the side of traditional rendering of word selection when it could go in more than one direction. Now concerning the Almah passage, I prefer ‘young woman’ or ‘maiden’ because I think that is simply a more accurate translation.All I’m really saying I guess is that on occasion the NRSV abandons terminology we in the Church are accustomed to, for the sake of readability I’d say. I don’t feel it is due to theological bias, or an attempt at pressing any sort of agenda, because the meaning is retained, as in the case of Romans 3.25, the NRSV has replaced the term ‘expiation’ from the RSV, with ’sacrifice of atonement’ which is the same thing, only expiation is a term long familiar in Church language, which is something I feel should be preserved in public reading. Here the ESV translators do show their theological flavor by rendering it ‘propitiation’ which has an added meaning of satisfying wrath, rather than simply covering over sin which is the implication of ‘expiation’. Still it is a plausible rendering, so it’s not incorrect per se, and could possibly be more accurate. Rendering it ‘expiation’ could also be charged with theological bias for that matter. I contend that it is impossible to translate without interpreting to a greater or lesser degree. The remedy, as I believe you might concur with, is footnotes.Concerning the KJV and NKJV, I do use both of these at times in private reading for the sake of their beauty and cadence, and because it gives me a comparison of a translation which relies more heavily on the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, which are in my estimation less reliable overall than the texts used in the RSV/NRSV/ESV tradition, but as I said, it is to compare over against these translations so that I get renderings from both schools of thought regarding the manuscripts. Paradoxically, this is also the reason I think the ESV is in one way superior to them, not so much in translation, but in the original manuscripts themselves. Had the NKJV used the NA manuscripts and the Septuagint more, who knows how good it could’ve been? One thing I will say in regard to the NKJV is that it is well footnoted. When I first became familiar with the ESV I thought it would be better than the NRSV. Because it was a conservative revision of the RSV, it would be based upon the best manuscripts, and would retain traditional terminology. True enough it does this, but it also has more problems than I thought it would. My problem for the longest time with the NRSV was that I anticipated to find a thoroughly liberal translation full of liberal bias. This is not what I have found over the long haul. The ESV has more renderings that could be considered conservative bias than the NRSV has that could be called liberal bias. I actually prefer the 2001 edition over the 2007 edition because I feel this bias is not seen as often in it. Another issue with the ESV is that I don’t feel it is footnoted very well, which is an area the NRSV seems to surpass all others. I do feel the NRSV to be the most accurate translation available, and it is my main one in my daily reading, I just wish it had retained more traditional terminology and a more stately English. My only real defense of the ESV here is that I feel it beats the other recent translations, and I probably wouldn’t have a big problem with it at all if it were only better footnoted, because the footnotes are every bit as much a part of the translation as the renderings in the text themselves.
In your post on Mark 1:41 you say that the ESV translators remove a footnote from the NRSV. Was that a typo? They weren’t revising the NRSV. I only have my accordance software RSV here, and it doesn’t have the notes with it, so I have no way to see if the RSV had a note there or not.
I forgot to reply to this. No it wasn’t a typo. Remember the ESV claims to be engaged in scholarship. They don’t claim to be doing a minor update and revision of the RSV in line with conservative principles totally ignoring the last 50 years of biblical scholarship. That being the case they are supposed to be aware of the scholarship, on their verses. But even if that wasn’t true any claim to scholarship would require knowledge within the RSV family which certainly include any changes made by the NRSV translation committee. But even if they didn’t intend to do any scholarship at all and do nothing more than use the RSV, the most authoritative and newest RSV based commentary is the Navarre bible translation (New Vulgate/RSV). And yes this has standard notes on this topic. So take your pick, were they dishonest in not having done any scholarship at all or were they dishonest in having removed a footnote to support their theology? I figure given the names associated and their behavior on other issues, the later.
L Wells –
OK that’s an odd list but I agree the ESV fits it.
1) Likes the NA27 over the TR but not liberal scholarship
2) Likes traditional wording a few places (as per the RSV) but not the kind of traditional language in the KJV/NKJV. Essentially liking what David Ker above calls “biblish”.
3) Doesn’t mind conservative bias even though aware of it
4) Understands the NRSV is generally more accurate but thinks the #2 outweighs that.
5) Acknowledges what the ESV actually is, and doesn’t support the Ryken approach to translation.
So you’ve created a set of criteria on which the ESV is actually the best fit. Can you understand though that this list is essentially unique to you? It is a very unusual set of weightings and cutoff points.
Afternoon CD.First of all I am not opposed to liberal or conservative scholarship, being a moderate I glean knowledge from each, and have disagreements with each, depending the issue.Biblish seems a term that works. Though I do not oppose translations that are more idiomatic for private use, I just don’t happen to use them a whole lot personally. My biggest issue with idiomatic word selection is that it loses a certain poetic presence in public reading. I’m not opposed to the language used in the KJV/NKJV either, though it isn’t a smooth reading English for common everyday usage. This is another reason the NRSV is my translation of choice, it seems the most balanced between stately English and smooth readability, though it is king of neither.Being aware of conservative and/or liberal bias is precisely why I don’t mind it. My concern would be for those who pick up a Bible and are not aware of a particular bias. This is where I get on my soapbox about being well footnoted where a clear choice has been made in translation and there could just as easily be another rendering just as, if not more accurate than the one chosen for the text itself.I do not think that traditional wording should ever trump correct translation. I simply feel that where a traditional term can be used that does not skew the meaning of the translation, it should be used rather than some idiomatic, or even colloquial term. As stated in my last post, I prefer the rendering of ‘young woman’ or ‘maiden’ over and above virgin in the Almah verse because it is clearly a better rendering. That is choosing accuracy over tradition.I don’t know why you’d say I don’t support the Ryken approach. Unless I am mistaken (if so I apologize), Ryken supports word for word translation as opposed to dynamic equivalence. I too prefer formal translation.
One Trackback
[...] This blogger is reporting that the ESV will soon be published with the Deuterocanon, or as you Protestants call it, the Apocrypha. I can hardly wait. (Note to wife, put the date on the calender) [...]