# ESV Permanent Text Edition (2016)



## hammondjones (Sep 8, 2016)

FYI



> Beginning in the summer of 2016, the text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway—in much the same way that the King James Version (KJV) has remained unchanged ever since the final KJV text was established almost 250 years ago (in 1769). This decision was made unanimously by the Crossway Board of Directors and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee. All future Crossway editions of the ESV, therefore, will contain the Permanent Text of the ESV Bible—unchanged throughout the life of the copyright, in perpetuity.



http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/

(Genesis 3:16)

Permanent Text Verses 
Your desire *shall be contrary *to your husband, *but *he shall rule over you. 

Previous Text Verses
Your desire *shall be for *your husband, *and *he shall rule over you. 




(Similar for Genesis 4:7)


----------



## Bad Organist (Sep 9, 2016)

hammondjones said:


> FYI
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 9, 2016)




----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 9, 2016)

Glad the church doesn't bind itself to error for economic reasons.


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 9, 2016)

Bad Organist said:


> (Genesis 3:16)
> 
> Permanent Text Verses
> Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.
> ...



The interpretative rendering is perhaps to strengthen the feminist argument that the husband's ruling over the wife is the result of God's curse, and not His intention from the beginning.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 9, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Glad the church doesn't bind itself to error for economic reasons.



Regardless of what folks may think of a particular translation choice, I suspect the decision to declare this a "permanent" translation has little to do with saving money. It's more about avoiding what has happened to the NIV with its constant new revisions that bow to cultural sensitivities, make memorization difficult, and require new purchases every few years to keep a reader up to date.

Zondervan used the 2011 NIV update to both position itself as more "culturally relevant" and get an immediate sales boost. I'm glad to see Crossway is having none of that. They are a publisher with integrity.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 9, 2016)

Jack K said:


> I suspect the decision to declare this a "permanent" translation has little to do with saving money.



Or making money. Look here's THE FINAL ESV. Marketing opportunity at its finest.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2016)

Jack K said:


> Zondervan used the 2011 NIV update to both position itself as more "culturally relevant" and get an immediate sales boost.



That's a rather serious accusation. Do you have any hard evidence to support this claim?


----------



## Jack K (Sep 9, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Zondervan used the 2011 NIV update to both position itself as more "culturally relevant" and get an immediate sales boost.
> ...



You're right. I was assuming the worst about Zondervan's motives and should not have spoken that strongly. I didn't appreciate their marketing moves in 2011, and I think the idea of an ever-changing translation that takes into account new language usage is a concept that can easily lead to cultural pandering. But it was wrong of me to accuse those behind the revision of harboring that motive. I let my distaste for the 2011 effort move me to say things I should not have said. Thanks for calling me out on that one. I spoke unfairly.

As for the ESV, I don't think a handful of tweaks (52 word changes total) is going to cause folks to run out and replace their ESV Bibles with new ones, nor have I seen any marketing from Crossway aimed at making replacement sales happen. It would be foolish to even attempt such marketing, if you ask me. I would think they're hoping generally to instill confidence in the translation. They will tout that as one of several benefits over other, less settled translations. But a significant sales spike seems unlikely. I doubt that's their motive.

Bible marketing is a crazy business. I was involved on the edges of it with a major Christian publisher several years ago, just close enough to overhear some of the internal struggles. You have people who truly love the Bible, are committed first of all to being good stewards of it, find it unseemly to play marketing games with God's Word, and yet believe in the translation they sell and use sales tactics to promote that translation—much as you or I might promote a translation we believe in when speaking with others, except for them it's also their business. That's a wacky mix. I respect those who manage to do it with integrity, but I can't see myself ever working as a Bible marketer; it would weigh on my soul. Just promoting my own Christian-market books feels dicey enough. It scares me sometimes.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 10, 2016)

Parakaleo said:


> Bad Organist said:
> 
> 
> > (Genesis 3:16)
> ...



Really? Most ESV people are hard-core complementarians; and, if anything, I suspect that an overemphasis on complementarianism has influenced this translation choice. They will interpret the text as saying that a woman must submit to her husband irrespective of her desires.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Sep 10, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Parakaleo said:
> 
> 
> > Bad Organist said:
> ...



Agreed. Several commentators have pointed out that the old phrasing that says the woman's desire will be for her husband sounds to modern ears like she is being cursed with sexual desires. The new phrasing suggests it's actually speaking of a woman's desire to supplant or refuse to submit to her husband, making her refusal to submit a result of the curse. This makes the new wording more clearly supportive of complementarian views. The "he shall rule over you" part of the verse is unchanged.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 10, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Parakaleo said:
> 
> 
> > Bad Organist said:
> ...



Indeed. Whether we favor this change or not, the egals are up in arms over it. 

They also made this change to Genesis 4:7: 

Permanent Text: 

Its desire is *contrary to* you, but you must rule over it.

Previous Text: 

Its desire is *for* you, but you must rule over it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 10, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> hard-core complimentarians



Yes, ESV users like to compliment people a lot.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2016)

Jack K said:


> You're right. I was assuming the worst about Zondervan's motives and should not have spoken that strongly. I didn't appreciate their marketing moves in 2011, and I think the idea of an ever-changing translation that takes into account new language usage is a concept that can easily lead to cultural pandering. But it was wrong of me to accuse those behind the revision of harboring that motive. I let my distaste for the 2011 effort move me to say things I should not have said. Thanks for calling me out on that one. I spoke unfairly.



No offense taken, brother. I had no intention of "calling you out." I completely understand your suspicions. The Bible translation market is a little ridiculous (to put it in the nicest way possible). But, because of that very fact, I wouldn't be too quick to exempt _anyone_ from these charges. For instance, I think it can be easily argued that the ESV pushed for an early completion date due to the looming presence of the HCSB, which led to the fact that they needed two revision within the next decade. I personally think, and have heard it from numerous people, that they wanted to beat the HCSB to the punch, and were willing to put out a half-baked edition to do it. Now, whether or not this is true, it probably cannot be proven. I merely say this to say that, in a real sense, no Bible publisher in today's world is totally free from suspicion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 12, 2016)

Both Daniel and Jack are spot on. 

The translators of the ESV are known for their complementarian, anti-feminist, views.

"Desire" ("teshuqah") can refer to romantic or sexual desire. However, it runs contrary to common sense to think that women are constitutionally wired for greater sexual desire than men. Due to the difficulty interpreting this text, Susan Foh wrote an influential article proposing a solution. And, since her journal article, "What Is the Woman's Desire?" in the Westminster Theological Journal back in 1975 (WTJ 37, 374-383), it has been popular to take "teshuqah" as a woman's desire to dominate and control her man instead of suggesting an inordinate sexual passion greater than the man. 

Foh looks at Gen 4:7 (just a few verses proximate to Gen 3:16) as buttressing her case. This represents the only other instance of the word in the Pentateuch, further supporting taking the two verses in a similar manner. The point would be that just as sin "desires" to control the man in Gen 4:7, the sinful woman will find that while she "desires" to dominate and control her husband, her equally sinful husband will use his generally greater physical strength to dominate her. God's original intention for marital harmony, cooperation,self-giving become the sad legacy of sin with heartache, competition, and self-seeking. This line of explanation has attracted a number of OT scholars (e.g., Waltke and Hamilton) who either follow her or arrived at the same view independently.

So, while one might see this as a case of being over-zealous in removing ambiguity from the text, I don't think that this would be your best illustration of avarice among Bible publishers. It does, however, freeze the translation in place with all of its great (and some very "not so great") renderings.


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2016)

The problem with Foh's argument is that it assumes the validity of modern translations on Gen. 4:7. The older translations recognised it was Abel whose desire would be towards Cain, not sin. That is, Abel, legitimately, would recognise the superior office of Cain as firstborn and priest of the family. It was not sin, illegitimately, seeking to bring Cain's destruction. Consequently, Foh argued the desire of the woman as being illegitimate, whereas the comparison of the two texts understood properly should lead to the conclusion that the woman's desire for the husband was a legitimate recognition of his superior office as head of the family.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 13, 2016)

Ironically, taking liberties with the original language to force a particular interpretation (whether the interpretation is legit or not) is what backers of the ESV (and literal translation in general) criticize the NIV for doing. 

The ESV is not worthy of being the English standard. I was never really sold on it, but this cinches it, in my opinion.


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 13, 2016)

Pilgrim said:


> Ironically, taking liberties with the original language to force a particular interpretation (whether the interpretation is legit or not) is what backers of the ESV (and literal translation in general) criticize the NIV for doing.
> 
> The ESV is not worthy of being the English standard. I was never really sold on it, but this cinches it, in my opinion.



I quite agree.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 13, 2016)

MW said:


> The older translations recognised it was Abel whose desire would be towards Cain, not sin.



Interesting. Is this because the masculine pronominal suffix on תְּשׁוּקָתוֺ ("_his_ desire"), since חַטָּאת ("sin") is feminine, cannot grammatically refer to "sin"?


----------



## MW (Sep 13, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > The older translations recognised it was Abel whose desire would be towards Cain, not sin.
> ...



That is the issue syntactically. Theologically it also fits within the larger generational themes of the book.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 14, 2016)

MW said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



It's not _quite_ that simple. In Genesis 4:7 you have a feminine subject ("sin" - the word never means a sin offering in Genesis) joined to a masculine verbal noun ("crouching"). This kind of grammatical disagreement between subject and verb isn't especially unusual in Hebrew. So then the question of the antecedent becomes "Is it a reference to some completely implicit antecedent (Abel has not been mentioned by the Lord in his speech to Cain) or is it the preceding masculine participle ("Sin is a croucher at the door: it's (i.e. the croucher's) desire is toward you..." Both are possible, whatever translation is adopted (see Poole's discussion, for example). Neither one rests on or resolves the grammatical issue. I suspect that Matthew is right that larger considerations of the themes of the book (and perhaps concern over a verse that may otherwise seem to support human ability to conquer sin) will push interpreters one way or the other. It is an interpretive rather than translational issue, however.

By the way, For what it's worth, in our discussions, the HCSB oversight committee retained the traditional translation in Genesis 3:16.


----------



## BGF (Sep 14, 2016)

MW said:


> The problem with Foh's argument is that it assumes the validity of modern translations on Gen. 4:7. The older translations recognised it was Abel whose desire would be towards Cain, not sin. That is, Abel, legitimately, would recognise the superior office of Cain as firstborn and priest of the family. It was not sin, illegitimately, seeking to bring Cain's destruction. Consequently, Foh argued the desire of the woman as being illegitimate, whereas the comparison of the two texts understood properly should lead to the conclusion that the woman's desire for the husband was a legitimate recognition of his superior office as head of the family.



Does this push the priestly role too far? How is Abel justified in offering up a sacrifice if it is not his place to do so?


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2016)

iainduguid said:


> It's not _quite_ that simple.



When an interpretation fits within the literal sense of the syntax then I think it is a simple matter of letting the words speak for themselves. If everyone chose exceptions to the rules simply because exceptions might be taken, there would be no rules.



iainduguid said:


> ("sin" - the word never means a sin offering in Genesis)



The word "sin," as far as I can see, is not used elsewhere in Genesis in the context of "offering." Hence this is an unique case. In other places where it is used in the context of "offering" it is accepted as referring to a "sin-offering." There is no reason why it should not be so taken in the context of Gen. 4.

The patriarchal narratives provide precedents for both the burnt offering and drink offering; and given that Genesis is well known for setting forth a kind of prologue for Israel's theocratic constitution, the interpretation of "sin-offering" in this place is well warranted.



iainduguid said:


> It is an interpretive rather than translational issue, however.



In this case the interpretation affects the translation; and as we see from the WTJ article, the acceptance of this translation has affected the interpretation and translation of Gen. 3:16 because of its linguistic similarity; and this has subsequently affected the translation of 3:16 in a well-known version of the Bible. Translation exercises an interpretative influence on the reader whether academics like to accept responsibility for it or not.


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2016)

BGF said:


> Does this push the priestly role too far? How is Abel justified in offering up a sacrifice if it is not his place to do so?



Genesis provides a whole range of redemptive-historical episodes which are meaningful for the national institutions to emerge in Exodus. Care must be taken to ensure the full blown institution is not read back into the Genesis narrative, but there should also be awareness that the institution has a pre-history.

The "seed" promise has a kind of contingency in it from the human perspective, as is apparent not only in Cain and Abel, but also Jacob and Esau. We see God's election in retrospect, but at the time there were genuine historical conditions by which God's election was being worked out in human lives and destinies. If we look closer at some of the familial tensions in the narratives of Genesis we will see this conditionality at work in relation to the "firstborn."


----------



## BGF (Sep 15, 2016)

MW said:


> Genesis provides a whole range of redemptive-historical episodes which are meaningful for the national institutions to emerge in Exodus. Care must be taken to ensure the full blown institution is not read back into the G



Very helpful. Thank you.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 16, 2016)

See latest CT article on the "permanent" edition:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...erses-bible-esv-english-standard-version.html

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See latest CT article on the "permanent" edition:
> 
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...erses-bible-esv-english-standard-version.html



I'm not sure I totally understand the tone intended to be communicated in the title of this article. It seems to be highly sarcastic and somewhat contemptuous.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 16, 2016)

"After Tweaking 29 Verses, Bible Translation Becomes Unchanging Word of God"

I really don't think that there is much of anything to understand. The CT editors have taken sarcasm and double entendre to new levels.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 16, 2016)

I believe they are communicating using an abundance of quote snippets from the Crossway original announcement, hence “permanent text” or “unchanged forever, in perpetuity” and so on.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Sep 16, 2016)

I genuinely appreciate that the editors and translators are seeking to honor their understanding of the sense of sacred Scripture; and I've been preaching from the ESV for the last several years. I am by no means a linguist or biblical scholar. That being said, I am not at all comfortable with the new wording for Gen 3.16, and their decision is giving me serious pause as to whether or not I'll continue with the ESV as my preaching text.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 28, 2016)

The publishers of the ESV have reversed their decision.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...ecision-esv-bible-text-permanent-mistake.html

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Sep 28, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The publishers of the ESV have reversed their decision.



But are they going to roll back those changes?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 28, 2016)

Well that didn't last long. Here is Crossway's official statement. https://www.crossway.org/blog/2016/09/crossway-statement-on-the-esv-bible-text/


----------



## hammondjones (Sep 28, 2016)

Edward said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > The publishers of the ESV have reversed their decision.
> ...




Not having any actual knowledge on the subject, I'll venture an "I doubt it" (at least for now! - it's a living, breathing document, as it were).

Here, for reference, are the earlier changes:


> In 2007 a slightly revised edition appeared, in which about 360 changes were made. In 2011 another 276 changes were made.


http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv2011changes.pdf
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv2007.html


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 28, 2016)

I don't know whether to be proud of them for having the humility to admit a mistake or ashamed of them for caving to market pressures.
Truth by committee has never been my cup of tea. But, part of me fears that a MBA with a green visor and a fast computer is not too far in the background.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Oct 4, 2016)

Here is a recent message I did regarding Crossway's reversal on the Permenant Text ESV...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdygQw4A6o


----------

