# THE ESV and the Reformed.



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but from the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 31, 2007)

To be honest Max, with me it was one word "propitiation". When I saw that the translators had the nerve to put theological terms back in the text where they belonged, especially one like 'propitiation' which addresses the doctrine of the 'wrath' of God, I knew I wanted that translation for reading and studying.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 31, 2007)

BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Denying the origin of the English Standard Version and Bible marketing...


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> To be honest Max, with me it was one word "propitiation". When I saw that the translators had the nerve to put theological terms back in the text where they belonged, especially one like 'propitiation' which addresses the doctrine of the 'wrath' of God, I knew I wanted that translation for reading and studying.


Yes! I myself liked that as well as some other classical wording in regard to true Doctrine. I think I was just reflecting on how fast the acceptance was. It came out October 2001...and within the month different and sundry Reformed Blogs and sites were promoting it full throttle. As I said it is not as a "put down" of the ESV....it is more of a sense of amazement of how swiftly it took offf in our Reformed "camp".


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Denying the origin of the English Standard Version and Bible marketing...


Thank you Fred..that was helpful.......Anyone else? Weigh in my freinds!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2007)

etexas said:


> As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but fom the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?



Wouldn't it be good if the ESV translators did an edition based on the TR so people who prefer this could have the benefit of it?


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but fom the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?
> ...


......well my friend.....in my case yes.....I prefer the TR/MT stream...thats just me.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 31, 2007)

The ESV is nice, but there is one thing I just can't get past.

Hebrews 11:31:

ESV: By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a *friendly welcome *to the spies.

AV: By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 

The Greek, regardless of what manuscript you prefer, is the same. The sentence ends with "eirenes", which means peace.

The ESV's rendering always conjures up an image of Mae West to me. Why did they have to put that sort of imprint on it? 

I know, perhaps a small thing, but it just seems like someone was having a little too much fun.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> The ESV is nice, but there is one thing I just can't get past.
> 
> Hebrews 11:31:
> 
> ...


Mae West!.....Well......the ellipticals...cases where the ESV does not make clear in the text or the notes....where there is a movment away from the Greek and Hebrew has caused concern even for those who are full out for the CT.


----------



## heartoflesh (Oct 31, 2007)

I've been a NASB guy for years and I can't change now. 


Recently I was reading my ESV and was struck by their translation choice in 2 Thess. 2:13...

ESV
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as *the firstfruits to be saved,* through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.


I'm so used to the NASB, which is more predestinarian... 


NASB
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you *from the beginning for salvation* through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 

Also, in the margin of my NASB it reads _one early manuscript reads "first fruits"_. If this is true, why would the ESV base their rendering off of one manuscript?


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

Rick Larson said:


> I've been a NASB guy for years and I can't change now.
> 
> 
> Recently I was reading my ESV and was struck by their translation choice in 2 Thess. 2:13...
> ...


Good question.......???????


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 31, 2007)

etexas said:


> What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?



I think it was because they saw the errors of the NIV _et al_ and saw the ESV was both conservative but also "scholarly". As I understand it a number of conservative evangelicals and reformed folk had an input to it.

I will stick with my KJV 

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 31, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but fom the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?
> ...



I think the short answer is, there is no need to. It is called the New King James. The ESV (and the NKJV to an extent) exists to head off the gender neutral Bibles, give a better option than the NIV, and to cut down on Yoda's royalties for his English styling of the NASB, "Elect, you are, our Paul Apostle says."



Rick Larson said:


> I've been a NASB guy for years and I can't change now.
> 
> 
> Recently I was reading my ESV and was struck by their translation choice in 2 Thess. 2:13...
> ...



There is actually more than one manuscript that has this as its issue. I personally think the Byzantine reading "from the beginning" is correct, but the difference is basically whether the word at issue (avrch,) ends in a NU ("n") or a sigma ("s"). If the former, than the translation would be "firstfruits" (the very first part), if the latter, than it would be "from the beginning" (with the noun "time" supplied).

Here is the NET Bible note (which actually agrees with the NASB):


> Several MSS (B F G P 0278 33 81 323 1739 1881 al bo) read avparch,n (aparcheÒn, "as a first fruit"; i.e., as the first converts) instead of avpV avrch/j (ap' arch/j, "from the beginning," found in a D Y Û it sa), but this seems more likely to be a change by scribes who thought of the early churches in general in this way. But Paul would not be likely to call the Thessalonians "the first fruits" among his converts. Further, avparch, (aparch/j, "first fruit") is a well-worn term in Paul's letters, while avpV avrch/j occurs nowhere else in Paul. Scribes might be expected to change the text to the more familiar term. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult (see arguments for avparch,n in TCGNT 568), and avpV avrch/j must be preferred only slightly.


It appears that the NASB is guilty of an NIV like description of manuscripts.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

......Sorry.....everytime Fred calls the NASB the Yoda Bible.....I crack up! I mean..."Crack up do I...emmmm."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## clstamper (Oct 31, 2007)

The ESV is an update of the old RSV, which is several generations of updates away from the KJV. It was also Crossway's entrance into the Bible market. I think it is wonderful, but I have ulterior motives for saying that.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

clstamper said:


> The ESV is an update of the old RSV, which is several generations of updates away from the KJV. It was also Crossway's entrance into the Bible market. I think it is wonderful, but I have ulterior motives for saying that.


My understanding is that when Crossway bought the "old" RSV rights the changes amounted to about 4% of the text (they did a great job in removing some overt liberal elements) some people still feel that some of the literary quality is still better in the RSV. That being said......I read Job in the ESV and I feel it is about the best translation (in terms of the quality of English) of Job I have read!

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## elnwood (Oct 31, 2007)

etexas said:


> As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but from the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?



It was a "Reformed" project from the beginning. A lot of the people who worked on or served as an adviser is Reformed to a certain degree.

Among those on the Translation Oversight Committee: C. John Collins from Covenant Seminary, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes from College Church in Wheaton, Leland Ryken, and Vern Poythress.

Translation Oversight Committee

Among those on the Translation Review Committee:
Hans Bayer from Covenant Seminary, Reggie Kidd from RTS, William Barrick and Michael Grisanti from the Masters Seminary, Gordon Hugenberger from Park Street Church in Boston, Leon Morris, Ray Ortlund, Jr. from 1st Pres. in Augusta, GA, Tom Schreiner from SBTS, and three professors from TEDs.

Translation Team

Among those on the advisory council: Eric Alexander, Alistair Begg, Harold O. J. Brown from RTS, Bryan Chapell from Covenant Seminary, S. M. Baugh and Edmund Clowney from WTS-CA, Mark Dever, J. Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Timothy George, Carl F. H. Henry, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Erwin Lutzer, Al Mohler, Ray Ortlund Jr. and Sr., John Piper, Joe Ryan from Park Cities Pres. in Dallas, Tom Schreiner, R. C. Sproul, and Joni Eareckson Tada.

Advisory Council

In other words, just about everyone on the Who's Who in the Reformed Community list worked on the ESV.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

elnwood said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > As many of you know I am a King "Jimmy" buff....I am not hardcore and I use other translations including CT based Translations. My qustion is this, I like the ESV, but from the get-go it begame the "darling" of the reformd camp....this was prior to it being formated as a study Bible by Sproul......so whats the deal...I like the ESV...but when I use a CT based Bible....I often find the NASB a little better. What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?
> ...


True....but, the NKJV for example....had a lot of Reformed Baptist and Presbyterians on board.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 31, 2007)

etexas said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, just about everyone on the Who's Who in the Reformed Community list worked on the ESV.
> ...



Yeah, but the NKJV is about 20 years older. Many people on that committee are deceased. In many people's minds, the ESV replaced the NKJV as the Reformed community's bible of choice. There are even a few Reformed seniors (Van Gemeren, R. C. Sproul) who contributed to both.

In the pre-ESV days, many Reformed pastors grudgingly used the NKJV because the NIV wasn't literal enough, and the NASB was wooden, but would have liked a non-MT bible. All those pastors are now using the ESV.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

elnwood said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > elnwood said:
> ...


Good point.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 31, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > etexas said:
> ...



I've found a few "yoda" renderings in the ESV as well, especially in the OT. No doubt this is the vaunted "literary quality" of the RSV. 

The NKJV will never be acceptable for the CT enthusiasts who think a new translation has to come out every 5 years.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


No Yoda readings yet have I found. Example give.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 1, 2007)

*"In other words, just about everyone on the Who's Who in the Reformed Community list worked on the ESV"*

Well said, Don. I think it was a theological perfect storm situation. Many folks had tired of the "dynamic equivalent" philosophy of translation behind the NIV. The Gender-Neutral Bibles were threatening to make their appearance. The translation team reflected a "who's who" of conservative Reformed forlks in reliable seminaries such as WTS-CA, Covenant, and RTS. Finally, several of the translators or advisory members hold positions of great popularity due to their own writings and speaking ministrties (e.g., Sproul, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Piper, etc.).

Frankly, as a translation, I actually prefer the Holman CSB, an almost equally literal translation with an easier (i.e., less Yoda-esque) literary style. However, it is so good to have a Bible that is NOT Gender Neutral, NOT afraid to say "propitiation," and NOT based on dynamic equivalent philosophy. So, ESV OR HCSB, I'm happy either way.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 1, 2007)

etexas said:


> What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?



The short answer, as some have already said, is that the ESV provides a good alternative for those who are fed up with the NIV but don't like the NASB because it reads too woodenly. Personally, I think the ESV is a wonderful translation.


----------



## etexas (Nov 1, 2007)

bookslover said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to make the ESV "required" reading for those of us in the Reformed camp?
> ...


I would agree the ESV is a good translation.....as far as CT based Bibles go.......Really I think what amazes me is HOW swifrt the acceptance was.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 1, 2007)

etexas said:


> I would agree the ESV is a good translation.....as far as CT based Bibles go.......Really I think what amazes me is HOW swifrt the acceptance was.



They had really, really good publicity. Ligonier, R. C. Sproul's ministry, pushed it. John Piper very publicly endorsed it as well and tied that translation with a commitment to expositional preaching.

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I was attending a 2000 member church in Maryland around the time of the publication, and one Sunday the senior pastor publicly endorsed the ESV, as they were making it the bible of choice for Scripture reading. They sold hundreds from their bookstore that day.


----------



## etexas (Nov 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree the ESV is a good translation.....as far as CT based Bibles go.......Really I think what amazes me is HOW swifrt the acceptance was.
> ...


True enough I was in my Pastor's office when it was released in October and he held it up to me glowing as if he held the very future of Christendom in his hand.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 1, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Many folks had tired of the "dynamic equivalent" philosophy of translation behind the NIV. The Gender-Neutral Bibles were threatening to make their appearance.



I wonder if the reason many tired of dynamic equivalence was because it allowed for a gender-neutral translation much more readily than a more word for word translation.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 2, 2007)

Obi Wan Roper, 

Right you are think I. Evangelicals, most of whom were using the NIV, were so busy chasing after purpose driven short-cuts and emergent ambiguities that the impending gender neutral translations pushed more theologically precise folks into the handiest solution at hand: an essentially literal Bible with a pantheon of Reformed luminati backing it. If the people behind the NIV were OK with a gender neutral Bible, then those who were not, were not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 2, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...: Denying the origin of the English Standard Version and Bible marketing...



That was a really interesting article but seemed like a lot of effort to prove that the ESV was a reaction to gender-neutral variants. I don't understand why it's so important to the authors to justify this point but I might be missing something.

Assuming that it was an impetus for it, it's probably fair to assume that everyone attached to the effort didn't think that "...this is the reason for the ESV...." It reminds me of the people that are hard-core in saying that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Certainly, for some, it wasn't but you can't encapsulate the reasons for something in a monolithic way.

Beside the fact that the ESV may have had roots in this agenda, the article doesn't really address the issue of whether or not it's the reason why people have embraced it. Do you think the Reformed "luminaries" have promoted it for this reason?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 2, 2007)

> No Yoda readings yet have I found. Example give.



Reading the NASB on Romans at the minute I am, and to be truthful I will be glad when I finish. Much prefer I reading the ESV on Luke I do. Prefer I it or the Version New King James.


----------



## etexas (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > No Yoda readings yet have I found. Example give.
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the NASB on Romans at the minute I am, and to be truthful I will be glad when I finish. Much prefer I reading the ESV on Luke I do. Prefer I it or the Version New King James.


Agree I do, but the NKJV......know I Yoda readings not....hmmmmmm.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 2, 2007)

Yoda's the smartest of them all, so I'm going with him over the Luke Skywalker NIV, the Hahn Solo New Living Translation, the C3PO Authorized Version and the Obe Wan ESV.


----------



## etexas (Nov 2, 2007)

Rick Larson said:


> Yoda's the smartest of them all, so I'm going with him over the Luke Skywalker NIV, the Hahn Solo New Living Translation, the C3PO Authorized Version and the Obe Wan ESV.


 Hahn Solo NLT! I like that. I cant say that out loud. My wife likes the NLT....despite the fact I dislike it....I would much rather her read that than no scripture at all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 2, 2007)

Rick Larson said:


> Yoda's the smartest of them all, so I'm going with him over the Luke Skywalker NIV, the Hahn Solo New Living Translation, the C3PO Authorized Version and the Obe Wan ESV.



The NIV has outlasted the career of the man who played Luke Skywalker anyway.


----------



## etexas (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> > Yoda's the smartest of them all, so I'm going with him over the Luke Skywalker NIV, the Hahn Solo New Living Translation, the C3PO Authorized Version and the Obe Wan ESV.
> ...


What Star Wars Character wrote the NKJV????????


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel,

I see the mods have corrupted you!

soccer!!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 2, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I see the mods have corrupted you!
> 
> soccer!!



At times like this you have to turn the other cheek.  It was not me who used the word "soccer" one of the admins must have done it behind my back (that's a guess by the way).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 2, 2007)

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Rick Larson said:
> ...




Jabba the Hut


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Surely Jabba the *N*ut!


----------



## etexas (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


I always thought with him living out in the Dunes and all.....he was a Koran reader.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 2, 2007)

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Rick Larson said:
> ...




I'm not sure about that one, but I have heard that Jaba the Hutt speaks in tongues.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



As Isaiha said in verse 6:5: "Oy."


----------

