ESV/RSV & National Council of Churches

[ArminianOnceWas]

A question came to mind stemming from the response to a recent post regarding the license Crossway gave for an RCC version of the ESV.

Does it concern anyone that the ESV was created from and remains 94% the same as the RSV which was licensed by the National Council of Churches?

Modern translation history is not my specialty (I'm not KJV only) and I know many here know much more than me. So if my information from a brief survey is faulty please correct me.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Yes it does.

 

[Taylor]

There are two possible areas for concern. The first has to do with money, the second with the translation itself.

First, with regard to money, there was long a concern that the National Council of Churches benefited greatly from selling the license of the RSV to Crossway. I am still not sure how I feel about this, and I understand the concern. However, from my understanding, it was a lump sum, and so the NCC is not receiving royalties from sales of the ESV.

Second, with regard to the translation, there is also concern about the ESV being based upon the RSV, which is a translation with recognized liberal tendencies, not only in certain renderings, but even in the handling of the ancient texts and variants. However, to say that the ESV is therefore somehow tainted is a genetic fallacy. It also neglects the good aspects of the RSV. We have to remember that the RSV was translated by biblical scholars of a very high caliber and competency. Not all of their work was bad; most of it was very good. That's why, when the committee for the ESV was formed, they didn't want to do an entirely new translation, but one which is based largely on the RSV. The RSV is a fine translation, liberal renderings aside.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does it concern anyone that the ESV was created from and remains 94% the same as the RSV which was licensed by the National Council of Churches?

Not really. Criticizing something by its origins is the genetic fallacy.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Does it concern anyone that the ESV was created from and remains 94% the same as the RSV which was licensed by the National Council of Churches?

Given that the complaints about the RSV largely focused on its alleged liberal bias, and the ESV does not have a liberal bias, then the complaints that were levelled against the RSV may not with intellectual honesty be levelled against the ESV. Let me put it another way: Would the RSV have been acceptable without the alleged liberal bias? If the answer to that question is "yes" then you should have no serious problem with the ESV. As has been said before, to complain about its origins is a genetic fallacy.

For what it is worth, I have a copy of the RSV identical to the one that President Trump used at his inauguration. As providence would have it, I was actually reading through Jeremiah in it during the election. I have also prayed through its translation of the Psalms.

 

[RamistThomist]

The RSV on the Psalms is quite beautiful and much superior to the ESV. Most people get upset on Isaiah 7:14, which is liberal. Beyond that, most of the criticisms of the RSV are what internet guys throw at the Critical Text in general.

 

[Rom]

The RSV on the Psalms is quite beautiful and much superior to the ESV. Most people get upset on Isaiah 7:14, which is liberal. Beyond that, most of the criticisms of the RSV are what internet guys throw at the Critical Text in general.

Good to know re: RSV on the Psalms. I find the ESV very disappointing when it comes to the psalms. I'll have to check out the RSV sometime. Since the ESV used the RSV as a "baseline" of sorts, what do you think is the major difference between the two concerning their rendering of the Psalms?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Good to know re: RSV on the Psalms. I find the ESV very disappointing when it comes to the psalms. I'll have to check out the RSV sometime. Since the ESV used the RSV as a "baseline" of sorts, what do you think is the major difference between the two concerning their rendering of the Psalms?

I am not sure, but one source that might be helpful is Derek Kidner's work on the Psalms in the Tyndale O.T. commentary series. From what I remember, it used the RSV, so the introduction might give you some leads to follow if nothing else.

 

[Username3000]

I think I’m more concerned about the buying of the RSV rights. How could they justify giving money to such an organization?

 

[Edward]

and the ESV does not have a liberal bias

I'm not sure that I'd go that far. It's a bit more gender-neutral than is absolutely necessary.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'm not sure that I'd go that far. It's a bit more gender-neutral than is absolutely necessary.

Surely the ESV was translated by conservatives, whereas the RSV had more modernists/liberals involved with the translation. Would they not argue that the ESV is gender-neutral in certain places because the translators thought it was more faithful to the meaning of the original? Indeed, were not many of the translators/promoters of the ESV of the opinion that the TNIV was objectionable for being too egalitarian, whereas the ESV was not? I am only speaking from memory, however.

 

[RamistThomist]

Good to know re: RSV on the Psalms. I find the ESV very disappointing when it comes to the psalms. I'll have to check out the RSV sometime. Since the ESV used the RSV as a "baseline" of sorts, what do you think is the major difference between the two concerning their rendering of the Psalms?

RSV uses thee and thou when talking to God.

 

[bookslover]

There are two possible areas for concern. The first has to do with money, the second with the translation itself.

First, with regard to money, there was long a concern that the National Council of Churches benefited greatly from selling the license of the RSV to Crossway. I am still not sure how I feel about this, and I understand the concern. However, from my understanding, it was a lump sum, and so the NCC is not receiving royalties from sales of the ESV.

Second, with regard to the translation, there is also concern about the ESV being based upon the RSV, which is a translation with recognized liberal tendencies, not only in certain renderings, but even in the handling of the ancient texts and variants. However, to say that the ESV is therefore somehow tainted is a genetic fallacy. It also neglects the good aspects of the RSV. We have to remember that the RSV was translated by biblical scholars of a very high caliber and competency. Not all of their work was bad; most of it was very good. That's why, when the committee for the ESV was formed, they didn't want to do an entirely new translation, but one which is based largely on the RSV. The RSV is a fine translation, liberal renderings aside.

And, to be specific, Crossway licensed the 1971 version of the RSV, not the original version from the late 1940s. I don't know how much difference there is between the two versions, but it's the 1971 version that was transmogrified into the ESV. I've also heard that it wasn't a light once-over, but Crossway's scholars went through the RSV with a fine-tooth comb regarding the changes that were made.

 

[bookslover]

RSV uses thee and thou when talking to God.

Which, of course, was modernized for the ESV, fortunately.

 

[iainduguid]

And, to be specific, Crossway licensed the 1971 version of the RSV, not the original version from the late 1940s. I don't know how much difference there is between the two versions, but it's the 1971 version that was transmogrified into the ESV. I've also heard that it wasn't a light once-over, but Crossway's scholars went through the RSV with a fine-tooth comb regarding the changes that were made.

The extent of the changes varies, as one might expect. Psalm 1 is virtually identical between the ESV and RSV; the only change is a "that" for a "which" in verse 4. Psalm 2 shows a good sampling of the changes: "rage" for "conspire" in verse 1, which is slightly more accurate; "against the Lord and against his anointed" for "against the Lord and his anointed", which is a style preference; "apart" for "asunder" and "cast away" for "cast", presumably for stylistic reasons in v.3; an added "As for me" in v.6 for accuracy; a difference in sentence division in v.7; an additional "and rejoice" in v.11 which the RSV conjecturally emends and adds to the next verse, following the textually unsupported suggestion in BHS, making the start of v. 12 "kiss his feet" instead of ESV's "kiss the Son".

This sampling gives a good example of ESV's methodology. Where possible they leave the RSV unaltered; in some places, they make minor changes for stylistic or accuracy reasons; in others, where the RSV makes emendations either out of thin air (or based on the Septuagint, which the RSV was known for), the ESV generally adopts the more conservative reading. In part, that represents the scholarly consensus post-Dead Sea Scrolls (which were published after the RSV and before the ESV), which is much more reluctant than it used to be to assume the MT to be faulty without some textual support. The pursuit of greater accuracy and the stylistic preferences may make the text poetically a little more clumsy; you have to decide where on the translation scale you want your Bible to be. But there is no doubt that the ESV is distinctly more conservative and literal than its RSV predecessor.

 

[Username3000]

Where do the ESV’s 2016 changes to Genesis 3:16 fit in?

 

[RamistThomist]

Which, of course, was modernized for the ESV, fortunately.

Leland Ryken's expertise notwithstanding, the RSV was a superior English version.

 

[iainduguid]

Where do the ESV’s 2016 changes to Genesis 3:16 fit in?

This certainly wasn't a stylistic change; rather, it was a somewhat idiosyncratic translation of their own. Presumably, the committee felt it was a more accurate rendering. Not many people agreed.

 

[bookslover]

Leland Ryken's expertise notwithstanding, the RSV was a superior English version.

Nope. See Iain Duguid's post #15, above.

 

[RamistThomist]

Nope. See Iain Duguid's post #15, above.

Prof Duguid admitted the ESV was clunkier in sections.

 

[iainduguid]

Prof Duguid admitted the ESV was clunkier in sections.

That is true. And Jacob, I know that you can read Hebrew and track the differences. But I did note an example in Psalm 2 where the RSV is making up the text up out of thin air, which is concerning. I mean if it is beautiful smooth reading poetry but has no basis in the original text (beyond a speculation by an editor of BHS), then we are really into a different kind of difference between versions in the case of the RSV and ESV than, say, differences between the NASB and ESV, or even the KJV and the NLT.

Full disclosure: I had no part in the making or revisions of the ESV. (I did write a set of notes for the ESV Study Bible, which Wayne Grudem disliked sufficiently to hire someone else to rewrite them. It is an interesting exercise in Higher Criticism to see if you can disentangle the original source from the work of the redactor).

 

[RamistThomist]

That is true. And Jacob, I know that you can read Hebrew and track the differences. But I did note an example in Psalm 2 where the RSV is making up the text up out of thin air, which is concerning. I mean if it is beautiful smooth reading poetry but has no basis in the original text (beyond a speculation by an editor of BHS), then we are really into a different kind of difference between versions in the case of the RSV and ESV than, say, differences between the NASB and ESV, or even the KJV and the NLT.

Full disclosure: I had no part in the making or revisions of the ESV. (I did write a set of notes for the ESV Study Bible, which Wayne Grudem disliked sufficiently to hire someone else to rewrite them. It is an interesting exercise in Higher Criticism to see if you can disentangle the original source from the work of the redactor).

I read Psalm 2 in Hebrew a few weeks ago, but I didn't have the RSV with me. I'll look into that.

And thanks for pointing out the impact DSS had on translation theory, compared with earlier ones like RSV. I didn't know that.

 

[JimmyH]

Don't hate me .... I am using the NRSV for my 6th year of the M'Cheyne 1 Year BIble Reading Plan. Though it is a revision of the RSV, it was if I remember correctly, 14 years in the making, and Bruce Metzger was the editor in charge.

I think it was the first to incorporate 'gender neutral' language, and didn't change such controversial verses as Isaiah 7:14, but in terms of the gender aspect, it is now one of the many.

It has the reputation of being more accurate than most, if not all of the English translations sourced from the CT, and other ancient manuscripts. There are choices they made which rub me the wrong way, but it is a beautifully written rendering of the Scriptures in my humble opinion. I prefer it to the ESV, which when it was introduced was put together in only a few years ... if I remember correctly, in comparison with the 14 years for the NRSV.

 

[RamistThomist]

Don't hate me .... I am using the NRSV for my 6th year of the M'Cheyne 1 Year BIble Reading Plan. Though it is a revision of the RSV, it was if I remember correctly, 14 years in the making, and Bruce Metzger was the editor in charge.

I think it was the first to incorporate 'gender neutral' language, and didn't change such controversial verses as Isaiah 7:14, but in terms of the gender aspect, it is now one of the many.

It has the reputation of being more accurate than most, if not all of the English translations sourced from the CT, and other ancient manuscripts. There are choices they made which rub me the wrong way, but it is a beautifully written rendering of the Scriptures in my humble opinion. I prefer it to the ESV, which when it was introduced was put together in only a few years ... if I remember correctly, in comparison with the 14 years for the NRSV.

The NRSV's translation of Gen. 1:1 is very interesting.

 

[Jake]

Don't hate me .... I am using the NRSV for my 6th year of the M'Cheyne 1 Year BIble Reading Plan. Though it is a revision of the RSV, it was if I remember correctly, 14 years in the making, and Bruce Metzger was the editor in charge.

I think it was the first to incorporate 'gender neutral' language, and didn't change such controversial verses as Isaiah 7:14, but in terms of the gender aspect, it is now one of the many.

It has the reputation of being more accurate than most, if not all of the English translations sourced from the CT, and other ancient manuscripts. There are choices they made which rub me the wrong way, but it is a beautifully written rendering of the Scriptures in my humble opinion. I prefer it to the ESV, which when it was introduced was put together in only a few years ... if I remember correctly, in comparison with the 14 years for the NRSV.

I've noticed sometimes Michael Horton uses the NRSV as a better translation for certain texts in his systematic theology. I've never used it besides to look up a verse now and again on-line.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've noticed sometimes Michael Horton uses the NRSV as a better translation for certain texts in his systematic theology. I've never used it besides to look up a verse now and again on-line.

His 4 volume set was published by W/JK and they probably demanded that.

 

[iainduguid]

Don't hate me .... I am using the NRSV for my 6th year of the M'Cheyne 1 Year BIble Reading Plan. Though it is a revision of the RSV, it was if I remember correctly, 14 years in the making, and Bruce Metzger was the editor in charge.

I think it was the first to incorporate 'gender neutral' language, and didn't change such controversial verses as Isaiah 7:14, but in terms of the gender aspect, it is now one of the many.

It has the reputation of being more accurate than most, if not all of the English translations sourced from the CT, and other ancient manuscripts. There are choices they made which rub me the wrong way, but it is a beautifully written rendering of the Scriptures in my humble opinion. I prefer it to the ESV, which when it was introduced was put together in only a few years ... if I remember correctly, in comparison with the 14 years for the NRSV.

No reason for hate. You should just be aware that it has quite a few idiosyncratic translations, like the one at Psalm 2:12 (and Gen. 1:1, as Jacob noted). The note on the former claims that the Hebrew is uncertain, which even if true, hardly justifies relocating and emending a word from v.11 to create their rendition. Ps 2:12 has some unusual forms, and the versions go in different directions (though nothing like the RSV/NRSV), but there are plausible explanations for the Hebrew as it stands. Reader beware.

 

[David Taylor]

Where do the ESV’s 2016 changes to Genesis 3:16 fit in?

It falls within semantic permissibility of the passage and the understanding is correct if you link it with the same phrasal structure of chapter 4 with regard to Cain.

 

[Username3000]

It falls within semantic permissibility of the passage and the understanding is correct if you link it with the same phrasal structure of chapter 4 with regard to Cain.

Has any other translation ever rendered it that way?

 

[David Taylor]

Has any other translation ever rendered it that way?

No. It does have the traditional reading in the footnote. I personally don't like it, but it is not outside of acceptable translation and also better conveys the meaning overall.