The ESV Bible

Adrian Warnock has been doing a lot of blogging about the new ESV translation of the Bible.

He is gathering comments Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Blog: ESV around the blogosphere. I have not commented so far and I do have a bias having worked for 9 years for the United Bible Societies (UBS).

So what do I think of the ESV? Well I have not yet bought a copy so I cannot comment first hand but of course being a blogger that won't stop me ;-)

I am pleased to see that they have used the best manuscripts See (UBS Catalog of Scholarly Publications) although I am concerned by

with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

which implies this is not a new translation but a revision.

Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

I would like to see independant scholars comments on this, frequently in the past this signifies attempting to support particular doctrinal positions (the old hermaneutic circle).

I am extremely concerned that 50% of native English speakers are not represented in the oversight committee and in the list of translators (my apologies if I have failed to recognise the gender correctly when only initials are given or the names unfamiliar to me).

I am concerned that I cannot find anywhere on the ESV website the denominational and doctrinal views of the translation team and translation policy other than in the vaguest possible terms eg

This hundred-member team, which shares a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy, is international in scope and includes leaders in many denominations.

It is important to me that a translation be checked and approved by my own denomination and many others around the world. Ok there are a lot of endorsements, but no indication of much theological spread among them. I do want to see the official position of denominations on this.

This is especially important when a translation appears to be sponsored by a new organisation (at least to me) with no history not even a founding date on their website! They also do not seem to be a member of the International Forum of Bible Agencies which concerns me.

I am not intending to be entirely negative about this translation. I will certainly add one to my library as I find it helpful to compare multiple translations in my study and sermon preparation (currently I normally use the NRSV, NIV [and TNIV], GNB and CEV).

But I am unhappy with their views on other translations which seem to be more based on a personal distrust of the work of scholars such as Eugene Nida by a few scholars such as Leland Ryken and a mis-understanding/mis-representation of dynamic equiviance.

My main concern is that this is being used as a new way of dividing the Church, I can already predict claims that "Real Christians use the ESV" and implying (or even stating openly) that those who don't are not really Christian (don't laugh, it has happened before, I am writing from personal experience here).

My secondary concern is the accessibility of the text. Modern English is light years away from the KJV and RSV and of course even further from biblical Hebrew and Greek. If the form of the original language is followed too closely and the vocabulary is kept close to very old English translations then it is hard for people to understand.

This is not particularly in defence of the GNB, which while I grew up with it, was the first attempt at dynamic equivilance and got a little tangled into common language thus over simplifying and also losing the beauty of poetry too much. However, in that (and the CEV) great care was taken to ensure that they read well when read aloud in Church by ordinary English speakers. They make explicit who is speaking, they use shorter sentences.

For a good example see 2 Peter chapter 2. Start reading at verse 4 and stop at the first full-stop. Compare the ESV version where you reach a full stop at the end of verse 10 (the NIV is one better at verse 9) to the CEV which has 11 separate sentences. Ask someone to read this aloud to you and then try to summarise what you have heard, I suggest that you will discover part of the reason why the ESV cannot be your only translation. To test further try getting young teenagers to read almost anything from Romans in the ESV and CEV and tell you which they prefer.

When doing a Bible Study it is helpful to have a range of translations using different translation techniques and language levels. But a literal word for word translation is not suitable for all uses and particularly not among the less literate.

Let us now consider theological bias. I have not spent time with the ESV to see this (although the relatively narrow range of theology among its supporters is sounding warning bells). The NIV shows conservative bias clearly in its study notes (eg look at its confident claims about Pauls authorship of even the most disputed parts of the Pauline epistles). How does the ESV stand up in this light?

I have found a number of other sites while looking at this which are worth reading: Better Bibles Blog: Welcome, The Bible Archive - ESV Lovers Unite (and Answer Me or Wayne),  SansBlogue Is translation e/affected by doctrine? and Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Blog: ESV Interview: Is translation effected by doctrine?.

Comments

[Adrian]

Go David! What use is a debate where everyone is becomming almost breathy in their admiration. Have mentioned this post and also your staggering UK blogger rank over at my place and called you out to critique the ESV some more!

[Wayne Leman]

David, I have just linked to this important post from you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Wayne, at the Better Bibles Blog.

[uncle cleopas]

Have you tried doing a Bible study from the CEV?
Last year I took one on holiday where we were doing a study of Hebrews, since it was the only pocket bible I had to fit in my suitcase.
Never again! I haven't picked the CEV up since. Maybe good for children and young teens though, lest they find the Bible boring and unwieldy. (One man crusade to bring back the word lest in usage ;) :)

[DaveW]

Uncle Cleopas,

I do not use the CEV alone for Bible Study. I do use it when leading worship for all ages. I will quote from it in sermons when appproipriate. I use it as another check for myself that I have not missed something in the text.

On the other hand I would be happier with someone using the CEV for Bible Study than "The Message" or "The Living Bible" both excellent and useful but paraphrases rather than translations (note I believe the CEV to be a translation, but one into simple non religous language).

[DaveW]

Uncle Cleopas,

I have no objection to you trying to bring back the word "lest" as long as you have no problem that many people will not understand you.