# ESV 2nd Update?



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 14, 2011)

Someone linked me to this - Get the latest version of the ESV. Anyone hear of this update? If so, what changes?


----------



## elnwood (Aug 15, 2011)

The 2007 ESV changes can be found here. They seem to be pretty minor. I imagine the 2011 updates will be more of the same.
2007 ESV Changes: Genesis - Deuteronomy | Faith & Reason | "CLASSIC" THIS LAMP (reset your bookmarks)


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 15, 2011)

My understanding is they did not release the specific changes for this update, and they are very minimal. I believe I saw that at bibledesignblog.com


----------



## reformedminister (Aug 15, 2011)

While I like and respect the ESV as an accurate modern translation, It bothers me that this is the second revision in the past decade. I will still look at mine from time to time, but this is one of the many reasons I stick with the KJV. I don't expect any revisions any time soon and it is public domain here in the U. S. A.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 15, 2011)

These minor changes look similar to the adjustments made in the first few decades following the first printing of the KJV. It's not at all like, say, the philosophy surrounding the NIV, which envisions regular and major reworkings. A few careful adjustments are a sign of responsible translation/publishing work.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Aug 15, 2011)

*2001 Deut 18:11*
or a charmer or a medium or a *wizard* or a *necromancer*,	

*2007 Deut 18:11*
or a charmer or a medium or a *necromancer* or *one who inquires of the dead*,


I could only think of Harry Potter when reading this.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 15, 2011)

Jack K said:


> These minor changes look similar to the adjustments made in the first few decades following the first printing of the KJV. It's not at all like, say, the philosophy surrounding the NIV, which envisions regular and major reworkings. A few careful adjustments are a sign of responsible translation/publishing work.



What he said. I've read differences between the early edition of the KJV, as well as Geneva. After all, this brings the ESV that much closer to being a perfect translation.  I would like to know where they tweaked, though.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 15, 2011)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> My understanding is they did not release the specific changes for this update, and they are very minimal. I believe I saw that at bibledesignblog.com



They didn't release the 2007 changes either, although they had previously said they would. 

I like the NKJV but apparently they've made slight changes over the years, without even copyrighting the changes. Then they won't release what the changes are. This is probably due to rabid KJVO's, but they're going to criticize it anyway.



reformedminister said:


> While I like and respect the ESV as an accurate modern translation, It bothers me that this is the second revision in the past decade. I will still look at mine from time to time, but this is one of the many reasons I stick with the KJV. I don't expect any revisions any time soon and it is public domain here in the U. S. A.



Some have surmised that the ESV was rushed to press and that's the reason why we're seeing these revisions so quickly. Usually, new translations are released in the NT and the OT follows a few years later. But the ESV is a light revision of the RSV which if memory serves was produced in about 3-4 years. They fixed the most glaring problems with the RSV, made it somewhat more literal in some places and put it out. I think they also accept suggestions on their website that the translation committee will take into account when warranted. 

The NASB, which required a lot more work up front, was revised several times between 1971 and 1977. I think those were probably fairly minor changes until the 1995 update. There has been a recent revision of the HCSB as well, a version that was published in full a few years after the ESV.

I understand your statement about the KJV. It has more reference material available for it, and whatever problems/controversies/mistakes there are with it are well known by now.


----------



## Quickened (Aug 25, 2011)

Jack K said:


> These minor changes look similar to the adjustments made in the first few decades following the first printing of the KJV. It's not at all like, say, the philosophy surrounding the NIV, which envisions regular and major reworkings. A few careful adjustments are a sign of responsible translation/publishing work.



Where could I read more about the NIV and what makes it different. I don't really use the NIV so i haven't noticed.


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 25, 2011)

This is a normal pattern with translations (including the KJV) nothing to get too excited about here.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2011)

Quickened said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > These minor changes look similar to the adjustments made in the first few decades following the first printing of the KJV. It's not at all like, say, the philosophy surrounding the NIV, which envisions regular and major reworkings. A few careful adjustments are a sign of responsible translation/publishing work.
> ...



From the 2011 translator notes: "The NIV was designed from the very start with a built-in mechanism to defy the attritional effects of time. Since 1978, the NIV translation team has continued to meet, year after year, reviewing developments in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage — revising the translation to ensure that it continues to offer its readers an experience that mirrors that of the original audience, and periodically releasing those revisions in updated editions of the text."

The full notes are here. They envision an English text that's constantly changing as the language evolves. One question is: Will the NIV also change in response to evolving religious sensibilities? Has it already?


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 25, 2011)

Someone on FB posted that they got rid of the ellipses (...) in 1 Sam 13:1, which was a holdover from the RSV. 

That's probably the first place that I would have looked to see if it had been changed. There have been previous threads about this verse and the ESV's translation of it, etc. 

Here is the before and after:



> *2001/2007* "Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel."
> 
> *2011* "Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel."




---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

When the ESV Study Bible goes through its next printing, I'm assuming that it will have this updated text. What about the MacArthur Study Bible, other Study Bibles and other resources that use the ESV like the concordance? How long will it be before they will have the 2011 text? Well, those that use the KJV (especially) as well as older modern versions that aren't being updated every 4-6 years don't have that problem.  Some will say it's not a big deal, and you may be right. But others will just have to have it and will buy a new copy every time an update is issued, however minor.

I think it was a good while before ESV text and reference versions became available with the 2007 text as the older edition had to sell out first, presumably. The person who posted about the change to 1 Sam 13:1 on FB said he had the New Classic Reference Bible with the 2011 text. I saw a hardcover copy of it shrinkwrapped in a store a couple of months ago. I didn't know it was a 2011 text edition, partly because I wasn't aware of a 2011 text edition at the time. The construction looks to be of better quality. The copy I saw had a sewn binding whereas my original in 2002 was glued and started coming apart within a couple of years.


----------

