Hi:
My reservations concerning the RSV/ESV are not primarily textual (though I have issues there as well), but whether or not it is the perorgative of a publishing company to produce a Bible.
The Scriptures are the particular treasure of the Church. Consequently, to place the translation of the Scriptures into a para-church organization, a publishing company, or a Bible Society is contrary to the Church's mission to be the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the responsibility of the Church to translate the Scriptures, and to abrogate that responsibility and turn it over to an organization outside of the church is irresponsible to say the least.
The RSV translation a brief history:
The International Council of Religious Education (ICRE) used the 17th edition of Nestle-Aland for its Greek Text. There are about 8,000 differences between Nestle-Aland and the Textus Receptus. For its Hebrew text ICRE used the standard Masoretic text supplemented by readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The ICRE would later merge with another group to form the National Council of Churches of Christ.
The RSV was accepted among liberal scholars as an excellent translation. It was almost universally rejected by conservatives and far right wing "KJO" radicals as corrupt. Because far right wing radicals were so pugnacious and vociferous in their condemnations legitimate criticisms of the RSV were essentially rebuffed.
In comparing the RSV to the Greek and Hebrew there is little doubt that the translators were on a liberalizing trend. The original RSV left out the last verses in Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:19b-20. These were the major redactions from the Greek text. What stirred conservatives and the radicals even more was an apparent trend on the part of the RSV to deny the Virgin Birth of Christ. Passages such as Genesis 22:18, Psalm 16:10, and, especially, Isaiah 7:14 were weakened by the RSV translators as support texts for the Virgin Birth. In 1971 the translation committee restored most of these verses, but they took out Luke 22:43,44 and placed it in a footnote.
The damage had been done, however, and the RSV is generally looked upon as a liberal translation. Among liberals it is considered "scholarly," and it is often referred to in such a manner. As far as the translation goes the RSV tends more towards Formal Equivalance than to the Dynamic theory. In many places it tends to be more literal than the KJV.
The NRSV was an attempt to satisfy the critics of the RSV, but it never really made much of an impact. The hyper-literal translation showed the inadequacies of Nestle-Aland Greek text in too stark a fashion.
The English Standard Version:
The ESV is a revision of the RSV - it is not directly derived from the Hebrew and Greek. The revision was done on a deeper level, and on more conservative grounds, than what was done before. Essentially, Crossway Books purchased the rights to the RSV from the NCCC for about $625,000. They then turned the text over to some conservative scholars in order to "fix" obvious errors in the text. Here is a section from the ESV website:
The Historic Legacy of the ESV
The ESV stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression.
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. Archaic language was brought to current usage and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the translators’ goal was to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries. From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy
This is not entirely true. The Nestle-Aland Greek text does not stand within the mainstream of Greek texts in the English translations of the Bible. Tyndale certainly would never have recognized it, and the King James translators never used it either. However, this first paragraph makes you feel nice and warm and cozy does it not?
They then tell you that the words and phrases of the ESV grew "out of the Tyndale-King James legacy." What they then say is that "archaic words" such as "thou" and "thee" were taken out. They did do this, but it makes their translation less specific to the Greek text. In Greek there is a second person singular as the object of the verb or preposition which is correctly translated into English as "thee." For example, "We beseech thee O Lord." The difference between using "thee" and "you" is admittedly slight, but there is a difference. "Thou" is also used in reference to the singular subject of a verb, and is specific in Greek.
To be less obtuse: "thee" and "thou" are in the singular, and are used in Early Modern English in the singular "Thou hast said so." The word "you" was understood in the plural, and would be correctly translated today in the Southern accent as "You all" or "Y'all"
Thus, if the author was using the singular it would be correctly translated as "thou" or "thee," and the plural would be "you." To now translate all the instances of the singular into "you" is to step away slightly from the Greek. The magnitude of the implications of this difference between the KJV and the ESV I leave in your hands. To me it is mild at best. However, I think we should be aware that there is a difference here, and that difference does not recommend the RV/ESV as being completely accurate.
As far as Letis is concerned - here are his comments on SermonAudio:
SermonAudio.com - The So-called English Standard Version
Personally, I find it very disturbing that Crossway Books purchased from the National Council of Churches of Christ the rights to the RV. The NCC is the most liberal Protestant group in the United States. They support the NSTA in promoting the teaching of Evolution in public schools, and the suppression of Creationism. They are openly committed to Gay rights. They are in the forefront of the Ecumenical movement. They promote feminism in its wrong application of "egalitarianism" and actively support female pastors. They are in the politically left, and refuse to criticize communist countries especially when such countries violate their own code of civil rights!
In everything the NCC teaches and promotes that which is contrary to the Scriptures in society today. I cannot in good conscience support such an organization, even indirectly, by purchasing the ESV. Here is a pro-NCC article describing the fact that Crossway Books actually helped the NCC to stay solvent:
New funds boost NCC | Christian Century | Find Articles at BNET
We do not need the ESV - there are better translations out there.
Blessings,
Rob
to Margaret.
