# ESV variances



## N. Eshelman (Apr 9, 2008)

Tonight my wife brought something to my attention that I could not believe:

The ESV Reference Bible reads: 

Romans 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, *but fear*.

BUT, The ESV in the Reformation Study Bible (and Bibleworks' ESV) reads:
Romans 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, *but stand in awe*.

Has anyone else discovered any variations in the ESV?


----------



## raekwon (Apr 9, 2008)

There was a very small number of revisions made to the ESV's text after the translators met a couple of years ago. Looks like you found one.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 9, 2008)

Nathan, 

Check the title page. As Rae noted, there was a light revision done in 2007. On the title page it will read "2007 Text Edition" if it is the revision.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 9, 2008)

raekwon said:


> There was a very small number of revisions made to the ESV's text after the translators met a couple of years ago. Looks like you found one.



Looks like Nathan is the "Where's Waldo" of the PB. He found the ESV variance in the thicket of text!


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

raekwon said:


> There was a very small number of revisions made to the ESV's text after the translators met a couple of years ago. Looks like you found one.



There have been lots of changes in the ESV than just to say say "a very small number" and "light revision" according to this link;

Changes made in the 2007 edition of the English Standard Version


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

Here is one:

2001 ESV
1 Chron 7:9 And their enrollment ... was 22,200.	

2007 ESV
1 Chron. 7:9 And their enrollment ... was 20,200.

KJV
1 Chron. 7:9 And the number... was twenty thousand and two hundred.

You decide!

P.S. -As for me and my household, we will... read the KJV!


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Apr 10, 2008)

Brethren, almost every English Bible version goes through revisions if it is around long enough. I am disappointed that the ESV does this without issuing a clear statement as to why they have done this, but the NIV has done this as well. At least the NET bible gives reasons for their translation or word choices (as good or bad as they may be). I would like the ESV to follow suit. And I would love it if they would stop omitting conjunctions. One place of significance is Joshua 1:1 which begins with a Hebrew conjunction which shows continunity with the Pentateuch. I'm not sure why they ommitted that - I find that a tremendous mark of the unity of the OT text.

I have no desire to get into a bible version dispute respecting the KJV (I grew up on it and still love it), but I think it helps to be fair to the modern translations. There is a rather major difference between the original KJV of 1611 and the KJV of later generations. The 1611 AV included the uninspired text of the apocrypha and future versions did not. That was one massive editorial change with clear doctrinal implications, but there were some other less significant ones as well...


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Apr 10, 2008)

All bibles of that era had the apocrypha. The A.V. put them between the testaments and never regarded them as inspired like the papists. I personally wish todays printers would have left them between the testaments. There is some valuable reading in those books, especially 1rsr and 2nd Mac.


----------



## uberkermit (Apr 10, 2008)

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Romans 1:22-23 (Online Version)

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:22-23 (Calfskin Version)

Didn't bother me so much at the time as I figured it was a revision and that the website version was probably most up to date. The only thing is that I am memorizing Romans so I had to explain the revision thing to my wife when I got to that part as I had memorized the online version but while I recited to her my memory work, she would use my Bible.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 10, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > There was a very small number of revisions made to the ESV's text after the translators met a couple of years ago. Looks like you found one.
> ...



I'm fairly certain that the revisions made constitute less than 5% of the text (thus, "very small number").


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 10, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Tonight my wife brought something to my attention that I could not believe:
> 
> The ESV Reference Bible reads:
> 
> ...


 
Brother Nathan (and anyone else who's interested in variances in the ESV), I invite you to check out this sermon of Howard King's on "What's Wrong with the ESV?" - SermonAudio.com - What's Wrong with the ESV?.

Sums things up pretty nicely, I think.

Then compare just these other few verses: Colossians 1:14, 2 Corinthians 2:17, Luke 4:4, Isaiah 14:12-15 and Matthew 9:13 to a Textus Receptus-based version and see what you think. I, too, have no desire to get into a Bible versions dispute - but the KJV and the old Geneva Bibles are not Westcott-Hort progeny, and so... *No,* *I need to stop right here... 

 *

Margaret


----------



## joeholland (Apr 10, 2008)

I had emailed Crossway a few months ago requesting information on the ESV updates. Their official response was:



> The Translation Oversight Committee of the ESV has approved a limited number of changes, similar to what most other translations have done a few years after they were first released for publication. Our sense, however, is that the number of changes is quite a bit less than typically is the case. The vast majority of these involve only minor changes in grammar, punctuation, and footnotes. We have begun to incorporate these changes in new editions of the ESV and in recent printings of the editions that are already in print.
> 
> We have not published a list of the changes, but the most up to date text of the ESV is always available on our website at Browse (ESV Bible Online)


----------



## N. Eshelman (Apr 10, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Tonight my wife brought something to my attention that I could not believe:
> ...



Margaret,

I understand and respect the need for the Byzantine Text. I listened to some of the 'sermon' that you linked as well. I am sure that you know that my seminary training is from this textual tradition and that my congregation uses the AV and that I teach from the AV.

My issue is that the AV carries a lot of baggage that hinders ministry. Many people do not understand it and find it intimidating. The Word of God should be in the vulgar tongue and it should be accessible to the common man... this is a Reformation principle and confessional (WCF 1.7). 

I like the NKJV for some of these reasons, but I think that it is a clunky translation. The ESV is readable and literal- much like what the AV was in its time. I pray for the day that there is a readable and literal translation from the Byzantine tradition. 

When the Word of God is put in the words of the people- reformation happens. It has happened before, and could happen again. We must not make idols of the works of men. 

Humbly, 
Nate
PS- If I am ever invited to preach in your congregation, I will gladly use the AV- that is our practice on this side of the state as well!


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

The Reformation happen mainly when the people heard the Gospel being proclaimed by faithful Pastors or when they read it from the Reformers writings as it was EXPLAINED; "thus says the Lord..." = People this is what the Lords says...


----------



## k.seymore (Apr 10, 2008)

Here is, by far, the worst update they made:

In Gen 30:35 the new revision says, "Laban removed the male goats... and put them in *the charge of* his sons."

Whereas the old version was far far better which said, "Laban removed the male goats... and put them *in charge of* his sons."

The old version was far more interesting with its goats-reigning-over-men theology.

My guess is they aren't emphasizing that the text has been changed because they advertise the ESV as "Truth. Unchanged." Hehe.


----------

