English Standard Version, good or bad ?
- Thread starter Croghanite
- Start date
- Status
BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks VH! I have NO IDEA why the Reformed movement is choking to death on the ESV. Sad.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I have read that booklet, and admittedly it is the best one they have produced.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Joe -- You may wish to add this to your reading list:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/ala...ions-acritical-assessment-niv-esv-NKJV-29964/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/ala...ions-acritical-assessment-niv-esv-NKJV-29964/
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think it will depend on who you ask. The AV folks are likely not going to argue as much with the method of translation but the selection of manuscripts.
I'm torn between agreeing with them on one principle and disagreeing with them on another hand.
On the one hand, I do find it troubling that committees of mostly secular scholars make the decisions on what manuscripts contain additions or subtractions from the Word of God. If this enterprise simply contained men who were self-professed Christians who believed in the Providence of God and prayed with the Church for the wisdom for the task I wouldn't be so uncomfortable. As it is, though, all the arguments (even from men I respect) are "...well you have to understand the science of this stuff and, look, science makes it plain that this manuscript has this addition and this one doesn't. We know that this is something a scribe added to make the Gospels match...."
In my estimation, the Scriptures are something that is recognized by the Church because she hears the voice of her Bridegroom. It ought to be the enterprise of the Church to select manuscripts and I simply am not comfortable with a pagan "scholar" telling us all what our Bridegroom said.
That said, I don't necessarily buy the idea either that the scholars that met to write the King James were under Divine Inspiration when they collected their manuscripts for the purpose of translation. The Textus Receptus is not a manuscript but those that they chose. I'm willing to grant the idea that the Church could gather together again and potentially choose manuscripts that might be different than those chosen.
In the end, though, the TR has going for it that it was the work of the Church. That can't be completely dismissed. I guess I'm of the opinion that the Church could theoretically meet and choose a different set of texts and profound injury wouldn't be done to the Body of Christ by their selection. I guess I've never bought completely into the doomsday scenarios that are sometimes painted.
Finally, I'm not a big fan of the English in the AV. I know, I know - what else has such a majestic style? Maybe I'll be persuaded otherwise someday but it's just too "foreign" for me. I know that's even sort of an argument that we should use it because it was sort of a "transcendent" style even in its own day. I'm still working through whether I buy into that completely and whether or not I even believe I should pray that way.
I'm usually sort of a hard nose on certain topics but I guess I'm being politically correct on this one.
Enjoy your can of worms.
Good thoughts Rich, and I agree with most of them. I have been reading the AV more than ever lately and have been using it in our daily devotions this year. Although I have heard it used from the pulpit periodically, I've never read it much on a regular basis other than for reference. I've found that that overall it is not difficult to follow but that there is the occasional archaic phrase or two.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
There are indeed some archaisms in the ESV that you won't find in the much maligned NASB. Typically these have been imported from the RSV. There are also a number of places where the ESV will have a rendering that differs from the NASB, NKJV, etc. In every case I've found, they've simply retained the RSV's rendering.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I had seen that book at the Reformation Heritage Books website and asked about it here.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Other objections to the ESV include:
1. The hefty payment the publisher made to the National Council of Churches (members include the UMC, PCUSA, UCC, ECUSA, etc.) to obtain the rights to the RSV. Some will argue that royalty payments are still ongoing, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.
2. The abandonment of the practice of italicizing words supplied by the translator in cases where a literal Greek reading would not make sense or would not be gramatically correct that is used in all other essentially literal translations going back to the Geneva Bible. This practice was not perfect, but in my opinion I prefer translations that utilize it.
3. Some will argue with the choice not to capitalize pronouns when referring to the deity, but the AV did not do this either.
Overall, I don't think there's anything the ESV does that the NKJV probably doesn't do better, something that would probably be agreed upon by all who don't insist on use of Critical Text translations.
1. The hefty payment the publisher made to the National Council of Churches (members include the UMC, PCUSA, UCC, ECUSA, etc.) to obtain the rights to the RSV. Some will argue that royalty payments are still ongoing, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.
2. The abandonment of the practice of italicizing words supplied by the translator in cases where a literal Greek reading would not make sense or would not be gramatically correct that is used in all other essentially literal translations going back to the Geneva Bible. This practice was not perfect, but in my opinion I prefer translations that utilize it.
3. Some will argue with the choice not to capitalize pronouns when referring to the deity, but the AV did not do this either.
Overall, I don't think there's anything the ESV does that the NKJV probably doesn't do better, something that would probably be agreed upon by all who don't insist on use of Critical Text translations.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Sorry, I don't follow. What I said (the NKJV being based on the TR) is a popular misconception?
Sorry, I don't follow. What I said (the NKJV being based on the TR) is a popular misconception?
That's what I was wondering. According to Bible Research the NKJV is based on the TR:
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I personally use the NASB as my everyday Bible. I just can't "get into" the ESV.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Sorry, I don't follow. What I said (the NKJV being based on the TR) is a popular misconception?
This is something asserted by those who practically speaking are King James Onlyists who see any deviation from the KJV as evidence that the NKJV is not based on the TR. It it based on the Scrivener text although it may not follow it every single time. See this post by a strong KJV advocate who maintains intellectual honesty in his defense of the KJV.
If the NKJV is wrong by all means say so, but don't claim it is based on Nestle-Aland when that is clearly not the case. Such claims may convince the credulous, but will do more than almost anything else to drive away those who have some modicum of knowledge about textual issues.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I've flip flopped on the textual issue for some time, but am now leaning strongly toward the Byzantine Text. But for a CT Bible I use the NASB as well. It is the translation I cut my teeth on. The translation I was never able to "get into" was the NIV. The ESV is clearly better than the NIV but it takes a back seat to the KJV, NKJV, NASB and probably the ASV (with which I'm not that familiar) in my opinion.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I would agree with that, I would also add that the NIV always seemed "clique" to me, which to be honest is what keeps me from buying an ESV.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
People do seem to hop on board the latest fad, and the fact that the ESV was strongly endorsed by many of the big names no doubt helped sales. I did buy one early on. I do think the formatting, etc. is generally good. I just don't think it's the be all and end all of translations. The hardcover Classic Reference Edition that I bought in 2002 started coming apart mere months after I bought it, and this was not after heavy use. I got rid of it when I moved recently and don't anticipate buying another one anytime soon.
I think the problem for me with the NIV was that it seemed designed to read like the newspaper and it has no phrases that seem to linger in the mind the way the KJV does, for example. I also didn't find the more literal translations like the NASB or NKJV to be hard to understand and so I used them.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Gil
What this list of comparisons proves is that the ESV (like the NASB, NIV, HCSB and the majority of 20th century English translations) is based on the Critical Text rather than the TR or the MT.
I think one of the factual contentions may be in error. Dr. Matto says:
"When you purchase an ESV, you are helping fund the NCC which is another enemy of Christ and true Christians."
Yet, on the ESV site, they aver:
"Does Crossway pay royalties to anyone for use of the ESV text?
No. Crossway owns the rights to the text."
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
In my church we have standardized on the English Standard Version. Apart from the issue regarding whether the Traditional text is better or the Critical text, it is a great translation.
The biggest problem I have with engaging in the textual criticism debate on the PB is that, as far as I can tell from past experience, all those who defend the Traditional Text here begin with the KJV and work backwards to prove from there why the KJVs particular reading is the correct one. If any of our Traditional Text defenders would like to disprove that, please show us one place where you believe the KJV used an incorrect reading from the original manuscripts? Um...do that in another thread however, as I don't mean to hijack this one.
The biggest problem I have with engaging in the textual criticism debate on the PB is that, as far as I can tell from past experience, all those who defend the Traditional Text here begin with the KJV and work backwards to prove from there why the KJVs particular reading is the correct one. If any of our Traditional Text defenders would like to disprove that, please show us one place where you believe the KJV used an incorrect reading from the original manuscripts? Um...do that in another thread however, as I don't mean to hijack this one.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is incontrovertible that Crossway/Good News paid the NCC up front for the rights to the RSV. It is often asserted that payments (royalties I suppose) are ongoing and as noted above, when you buy an ESV "you are helping fund the NCC". I left the UMC of my childhood years ago because I didn't want to fund the WCC and NCC so my ears perk up at this charge. However to my mind no credible evidence has been brought forward to substantiate this claim.
People of faith don't engage in the methodology of scepticism. Your challenge requires one to posit that there must be a mistake somewhere before we can proceed. On that basis I aver that there must be a mistake somewhere in your methodology and therefore reject it.
You are incorrect concerning the movement from the AV back to the TR. Your observation would be equally applicable to anyone who begins with a modern version and ends up with the Nestle-Aland text. It's usually the case that English speaking people come to faith through an English translation and then become aware of textual issues afterwards. You are manipulating this fact to your advantage. The TR stands on its own merits quite apart from the question of the AV translation. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, reformed theologians defended the TR against Romanist attacks on the preserved Word of God, and for the purpose of rebutting your challenge I add that they did so before the AV was conceived. If you consult a work like Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist translation you will discover that the Puritan divines rejected the Vulgate (Alexandrian) readings prior to the translation of the AV.
Last edited:
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Calvin said, in his commentary of the Gospel of John, regarding other Greek manuscripts:
"...in this almost all the Greek manuscripts, or at least those of them which are most approved, are found to agree..." (Calvin, Baker pub., p.30)
I think here Calvin is indicating that they were other Greek manuscripts that were not taken serious because they were found to be inferior compared to the approved Greek manuscripts.
I think such is stilled the case right now.
"...in this almost all the Greek manuscripts, or at least those of them which are most approved, are found to agree..." (Calvin, Baker pub., p.30)
I think here Calvin is indicating that they were other Greek manuscripts that were not taken serious because they were found to be inferior compared to the approved Greek manuscripts.
I think such is stilled the case right now.
Presbyterian Deacon
Puritan Board Graduate
That's an interesting quote.
And tell me, were those "most approved" Greek manuscripts in Calvin's comment TR or critical?
Last edited:
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
They were approved Greek manuscripts used for the TR.
- Status
Similar threads
