Is there an ESV problem I don't know about?

[etexas]

Firstly, as a King James Dude I have not read the ESV "Genesis to Maps", but as far as what I HAVE read it seems OK (for a CT Bible), so guess my question is to the PB Seminarian and Pastors (though anyone can chime in) QUESTION: All these people I see who have endorsed the ESV or worked on a commitee, Sproul, Packer, Riddlebarger just to name a few people who have "plugged" the translation. I have noticed something, as many of you know I was in Alaska with RC, in the seminars he used his old "standby" the NKJV, (the ESV not once), I was listening to Riddlebarger on podcast, he despite being an early proponent of the ESV, used the NIV, Packer, I read something of his not long ago, he used a combination of the KJV and the NIV. These three men are just off the top of my head, I could think of more, but my question is this: Is the ESV weaker than it was promoted as being in Oct 2001? Love any feedback.

 

[JohnGill]

ESV Problems

The ESV is based on the NRSV, which is based on the RSV, which is based on the RV. Here is a good book dealing with the problems in the RV, many of which are included in its children: Internet Archive: Details: Notes on the amended English Bible, with special reference to certain texts in the revised version of the Old and New Testaments bearing upon the principles of Unitarian Christianity (Use the flip book for searching the book)

The book is written by a Unitarian supporting changes in the RV because many of those changes support Unitarianism. This shouldn't be a surprise as G. Vance Smith worked on the RV translation just as Thayer, another unitarian, worked on the ASV. I use Ierson's book to check every modern version.

You might also read the following article put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society dealing with the ESV: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf

Here's a link to the list of translators on the RV1881 and the ASV1901: History of the English Revised Version (1881)

 

[Grymir]

Hi Etexas! You said anybody, so here I am. I can't speak for Sproul, Riddlebarger, or Packer, but I have an insight. JohnGill's post above hits the technical stuff on the head, but let me give some anecdotal evidence that I have discovered. When I teach using the KJV and read it, it seems as if I'm speaking as one with authority. The people listen attentively, and it seems as if God is speaking through me. (That's why we call it the Word of God, I know) But that authority is lacking when I read modern translations. I tried early on in my teaching because people (mostly my Pastor at the time) said, nobody will understand because I'm using the KJV, but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.

Anything less would be uncivilized!

 

[TimV]

but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.

Did their reins verily rejoice?

 

[Grymir]

but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.

Did their reins verily rejoice?

Verily, Verily they did. Their bowels waxed with gladness. I didn't know it when I started, but I got the educated crowd. But the effect I noticed continued since then, even when I taught children.

 

[CharlieJ]

As far as I know, there has been no lapse of support for the ESV. I know lots of congregations who have switched over, and John Piper is supporting the ESV. I was reading some 2006-7 articles with James White where he uses the ESV, although he also likes the NASB. I think Leland Ryken is still using it, but my books by him are a few years old.

You have to remember that R.C. and J.I are some old guys. Just because they support the ESV doesn't mean they're going to throw away their old translations. They're probably encouraging the younger crowd to consider that version for their ministries.

That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.

 

[Grace Alone]

The ESV is based on the NRSV, which is based on the RSV, which is based on the RV. Here is a good book dealing with the problems in the RV, many of which are included in its children: Internet Archive: Details: Notes on the amended English Bible, with special reference to certain texts in the revised version of the Old and New Testaments bearing upon the principles of Unitarian Christianity (Use the flip book for searching the book)

The book is written by a Unitarian supporting changes in the RV because many of those changes support Unitarianism. This shouldn't be a surprise as G. Vance Smith worked on the RV translation just as Thayer, another unitarian, worked on the ASV. I use Ierson's book to check every modern version.

You might also read the following article put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society dealing with the ESV: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf

Here's a link to the list of translators on the RV1881 and the ASV1901: History of the English Revised Version (1881)

Chris, I believe that this is not correct. They started with the 1971 Revised Standard version, not the more liberal NRSV.

"The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text."

From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy

 

[JohnGill]

Index for TSB Article

That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.

That's not entirely accurate. Here is an index for the article:

Origins of the ESV - 1 (4 of 19)
Principles of Translation - 3 (6 of 19)
Changes made to the RSV text - 5
The Greek New Testament Text - 6
Textual Problems in the Old Testament - 8
Language Addressing God - 9
Gender Issues - 11
Other Problems in Translation - 12
Market for the ESV - 13
Conclusion - 14
Footnotes - 15

The underlying Greek Text only covers two pages.

 

[matthew11v25]

I find this discussion interesting. It was my impression that the ESV was picking up steam, but I may be wrong.

 

[JohnGill]

Chris, I believe that this is not correct. They started with the 1971 Revised Standard version, not the more liberal NRSV.

"The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text."

From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy

Thanks for pointing that out. I realized that after I reread the article from the TBS. I blame my lack of coffee and posting early in the morning.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.

 

[Ivan]

I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.

I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

I find merit in all translations for various uses. I like the ESV but I doubt that I ever use it to preach from again (I have a few times in the past). I "compromise" a bit by using the NKJV, although my church "fears" I may start preaching from the King James. Although every translation has it's problems I still feel that the King James in the best one, with the NKJV a fairly close second.

 

[matthew11v25]

To me the ESV sounds closer in phrasing and style to the KJV than any other modern CT version.

 

[Grace Alone]

To me the ESV sounds closer in phrasing and style to the KJV than any other modern CT version.

I like it, too, Matthew. For example, I was having my daughter memorize the 23rd Psalm from the ESV, and it was not hard at all for me to adjust to since it is so similar to the KJV.

It may not be perfect, but right now the ESV seems to be the most readable yet close to literal translation in modern language. Incidentally, they did do an update in 2007 that corrected some errors and made some other changes. I cannot find the changes on the ESV site at the moment, although I have seen them there before. I'll attach a link to a pastor's blog that gives the comparison of the original version to the 2007 version (I am not endorsing this whole blog as I have not read it). And I am fine with the footnotes about the verses that the KJV contains that were not in the manuscripts used by the ESV translators. That makes it clear that the verses exist in some manuscripts and not in others.

2007 ESV Changes: Genesis - Deuteronomy | Faith & Reason | THIS LAMP...and that's all I need

 

[etexas]

I find this discussion interesting. It was my impression that the ESV was picking up steam, but I may be wrong.

Well, it seem (if you look at sales data from CBA and such) the ESV sort of peaked, with the Holman gaining some ground (they came out around the same time), and GAINS in some "older" translations like the NKJV, NIV, and AV. Given that a number of Churches (including the PCA I attend) have made it the Pew Bible, one would expect stronger sales, however, in our Sunday school classes you see fewer ESV Bibles than NASB, NKJV, and some old school people like myself using the AV, what is interesting is that this is across all age ranges. The ESV has done good marketing, and has some good people endorse it (Piper as someone noted), I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)

 

[CharlieJ]

I think one of the secrets to the ESV's success is their really cool cover designs and Christian college marketing. My church has about 400 college students and most use the ESV. My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.

 

[Ivan]

My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.

Isn't that the tail waging the dog? I'm no ESV hater. It's a fine translation, as modern translations go. However, I don't care if every one of the members of my church was using the ESV, I'm not going to preach from it.

 

[etexas]

My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.

Isn't that the tail waging the dog? I'm no ESV hater. It's a fine translation, as modern translations go. However, I don't care if every one of the members of my church was using the ESV, I'm not going to preach from it.

EXACTLY. I felt the same way when everyone was getting The Message. I am NOT comparing the ESV to The Mess. But I am (as Ivan noted, questioning motive.)

 

[Grymir]

I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)

Sorry man, I left my super-secret batsproul phone at church, so I couldn't call him up and ask him. But I know he'd tell me that he wants to use the KJV, but pressure from outside sources prevents him from doing so.

 

[etexas]

I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)

Sorry man, I left my super-secret batsproul phone at church, so I couldn't call him up and ask him. But I know he'd tell me that he wants to use the KJV, but pressure from outside sources prevents him from doing so.

Yep! Due to his publishing contract he can use only the NKJV or ESV.

 

[CharlieJ]

My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.

Isn't that the tail waging the dog? I'm no ESV hater. It's a fine translation, as modern translations go. However, I don't care if every one of the members of my church was using the ESV, I'm not going to preach from it.

Well, I think some of the elders had been recommending it for some time, and the pastoral staff was looking to change to a modern version. We have 3 PhDs in our congregation who teach NT & Greek as well as a systematic theology professor, so the elders discussed it for a while and came to the conclusion that the ESV would be the best choice. It helped that there was already such a strong support base in the congregation.

 

[Ivan]

My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.

Isn't that the tail waging the dog? I'm no ESV hater. It's a fine translation, as modern translations go. However, I don't care if every one of the members of my church was using the ESV, I'm not going to preach from it.

Well, I think some of the elders had been recommending it for some time, and the pastoral staff was looking to change to a modern version. We have 3 PhDs in our congregation who teach NT & Greek as well as a systematic theology professor, so the elders discussed it for a while and came to the conclusion that the ESV would be the best choice. It helped that there was already such a strong support base in the congregation.

May God bless their choice!

 

[larryjf]

For a critical text translation i find the ESV to be a very good Bible with no more weaknesses than other translations have.

When i preach from it i don't see any authoritative problems or issues. Actually i find that the literary style gives a more authoritative tenor than the NIV (because of its too common style) and the NASB (because of its fairly strict literal translation).

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.

I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!!

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.

 

[Grymir]

I think that singing is a great choice of words!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JonathanHunt]

That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.

What more do we need to know?

Aye, there's the rub...

 

[bookslover]

I don't think there's any mystery as to while sales are flattening now. With the initial marketing push starting with its release in September, 2001, there were skyrocketing sales because people were curious. Now it's several years later, and the novelty has worn off, and sales are returning to a more "normal" level. The translation is just taking its place, saleswise, among the rest.

 

[etexas]

I don't think there's any mystery as to while sales are flattening now. With the initial marketing push starting with its release in September, 2001, there were skyrocketing sales because people were curious. Now it's several years later, and the novelty has worn off, and sales are returning to a more "normal" level. The translation is just taking its place, saleswise, among the rest.

Indeed. This is what I think. I think it (after the initial reception) had inertia as a "cleaned up" RSV, has now peaked, I think we WILL see it in the top 10 in sales, but I doubt it will surpass what have been the "Big Three" in sales, the KJV,NIV, and NKJV.

 

[Ivan]

I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.

I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!!

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.

I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too.

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our poeple to Jesus...always.

 

[etexas]

I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!!

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.

I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too.

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our poeple to Jesus...always.

Amen!