Falling in love with the ESV

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I'm a curmudgeon and a spoiled sport, but everytime an ESV thread comes up, if I have the energy, I have to point out 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 word is εἰρήνης (irenes)--peace, not "friendly." It doesn't matter which Greek text you use, it's the same.

Every other translation uses some variation of "received with peace." Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?

Nit-picky, yes, but I just bugs me to see someone's (dare I say joking or playful?) fingerprints on the text.
 
victorbravo said:
OK, I'm a curmudgeon and a spoiled sport, but everytime an ESV thread comes up, if I have the energy, I have to point out 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 word is εἰρήνης (irenes)--peace, not "friendly." It doesn't matter which Greek text you use, it's the same.

Every other translation uses some variation of "received with peace." Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?

Nit-picky, yes, but I just bugs me to see someone's (dare I say joking or playful?) fingerprints on the text.
Click to expand...

The ESV follows its parent the RSV in this verse. The ESV is, as Piper said, the RSV with the theological problems fixed. I haven't read the ESV a whole lot, but I've found that when it departs significantly from the translations done by evangelicals, it is usually following its liberal parent, the RSV.

Crossway bought the rights to the last revision of the RSV (Not the NRSV) and then the translators made what are generally light revisions except for the more objectionable passages in the RSV that were the reason that it never gained widespread acceptance among evangelicals and fundamentalists. Most of them had to do with an antisupernatural bias in messianic OT passages like Isa 7:14 and several of the Psalms If I recall correctly but there were some issues in the NT too with the use of expiation instead of propitiation, etc. Some like O.T. Allis, one of the original Westminster Seminary faculty, also objected to the RSV being less literal than the KJV and ASV. (The ASV is a translation of the Critical Text, but it is even more literal in its method than is the KJV, one reason why it and the English RV never really caught on with the general public.) But now the ESV, which overall is barely more literal than the RSV, is now hailed as the new standard for "essentially literal" translation.

The flood of subsequent modern versions that came after the RSV, specifically the NASB, NIV and NKJV, were due to the problems and the RSV that caused it to be rejected by many. The impetus behind the ESV was a stated desire to have a translation based on the Critical Text that is more literal than the NIV but more readable than the NASB. The gender neutral controversy over what became the TNIV was a factor as well.

As for defection from the AV, the vast majority of ESV users likely switched from modern versions, predominately the NIV or maybe the NASB or NKJV.
 
Last edited:
My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
 
Whitefield said:
My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
Click to expand...

It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page.

The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.
 
Martin Marsh said:
So basically what you want to do with this thread is to admit that you have been unfaithful to your first-love
You know what the bible says about that, and what is more frightening os that I can read that you a incouraged by some people here to just give in :think:

No, just kidding as long as you read the Bible you have my blessing, if that is what you were looking fore, with your confession.
Click to expand...


Hmmm....good observations. If I've been unfaithful to my first love and some here are encouraging such behavior how come their has been no outright KJV-only rebuke? Perhaps the KJV'ers are secretly wishing they could, themselves, finally admit they love the ESV or another translation.

The first step is to admit you have a problem. To the KJV'ers it's a problem, but to the ESV'ers it's a blessing. Who then do I concede to? I'll happily defer to the more pleasant feedback!!!

No, really, I was curious if there were many others here on the PB who have had a similar experience with the ESV being previously grounded fully in the KJV. Crossing over can be uncomfortable, scary, and lonely...so I needed to know I was not alone.

Do I want a blessing? Sure. Thanks!

victorbravo - I have seen you post this same concern in other ESV threads. It is quiet funny. I'd always wished we could set the bible in the Old West and maybe throw in John Wayne for grit.

Pilgrim Based on your comments I'm left wondering if there was a large reformed following with the RSV. I don't see why they 'fixed' it if there wasn't a huge demand from the reformed community when they could have simply fell back on the KJV or made a completely new translation.

Can anyone share a little more insight on the precedent of the translation? Or simply link me to where it's already been covered?
 
Pilgrim said:
Whitefield said:
My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
Click to expand...

It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page.

The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.
Click to expand...

You're right. I just read this on the copyright page:

The Holy bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

I wonder with "adapted" and the "all rights reserved" does the NCC receive any form of royalties from the sale of the ESV? Guess you've covered that question too. Thanks.
 
GMcClain20 said:
Martin Marsh said:
So basically what you want to do with this thread is to admit that you have been unfaithful to your first-love
You know what the bible says about that, and what is more frightening os that I can read that you a incouraged by some people here to just give in :think:

No, just kidding as long as you read the Bible you have my blessing, if that is what you were looking fore, with your confession.
Click to expand...


Hmmm....good observations. If I've been unfaithful to my first love and some here are encouraging such behavior how come their has been no outright KJV-only rebuke? Perhaps the KJV'ers are secretly wishing they could, themselves, finally admit they love the ESV or another translation.

The first step is to admit you have a problem. To the KJV'ers it's a problem, but to the ESV'ers it's a blessing. Who then do I concede to? I'll happily defer to the more pleasant feedback!!!

No, really, I was curious if there were many others here on the PB who have had a similar experience with the ESV being previously grounded fully in the KJV. Crossing over can be uncomfortable, scary, and lonely...so I needed to know I was not alone.

Do I want a blessing? Sure. Thanks!

victorbravo - I have seen you post this same concern in other ESV threads. It is quiet funny. I'd always wished we could set the bible in the Old West and maybe throw in John Wayne for grit.

Pilgrim Based on your comments I'm left wondering if there was a large reformed following with the RSV. I don't see why they 'fixed' it if there wasn't a huge demand from the reformed community when they could have simply fell back on the KJV or made a completely new translation.

Can anyone share a little more insight on the precedent of the translation? Or simply link me to where it's already been covered?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent site that has information on all English translations of note. Some will disagree with the owner's strong advocacy for the Critical Text. But the site is the best of its kind that I am aware of.

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article where Piper, Grudem, or someone else who was very involved said that he had been a a "closet" RSV reader for years. When it was first issued Grudem's Systematic Theology used the RSV; I don't know if this has been changed to the ESV in subsequent editions or not. Evidently they liked the style of the RSV and the fact that it was more literal than the NIV but of course couldn't uncritically embrace it due to the theological problems. There are a good many interviews with Piper especially on the ESV. He's probably been the most outspoken advocate. There was a lengthy Packer interview early on that was on the ESV site as well. Whether they are still on the ESV site, I don't know. There may be something on the Desiring God site too.

No attempt was made to hide the fact that it is a revision of the RSV. I think some of the hard core KJV advocates asserted that the National Council of Churches still had the rights to the text i.e. that purchases of the ESV were supporting the NCC financially, but I've seen no credible evidence of that.
 
There are probably dozens of posts in the archives where I have posted what I have here about the ESV and noted that I didn't have quite the same enthusiasm for it that others do. The textual issue aside, I think the NKJV and the NASB are both better for study purposes since they italicize words that are not in the original but supplied by the translators for clarity. (The abandonment of this practice by the RSV was another one of Allis' criticisms.) I also like how they set off OT quotations in oblique (NKJV) or bold (NASB). The ESV Classic Reference Bible does have very good cross references however, much better than the NKJV's.

Some of my not jumping on the bandwagon is that I am a little contrarian by nature. I do think the ESV is overall one of the better translations (be aware that I am a layman with no skill in the original languages) but I am hard pressed to say that it is the best out there. If someone loves it I'm not going to argue over it except to clear up misunderstandings about its origin.

My three favorites are the NKJV, KJV and the NASB, probably in that order. I cut my teeth on the NASB (admittedly after using the Living Bible quite a bit in the early days) but have been using the NKJV and the KJV more and more recently. I never really got into the NIV, perhaps because none of the churches I attended early on used it.
 
This is very good information for me. I was thinking that the ESV was the result of a board of scholars pouring over the Hebrew and Greek. If I understand it correctly, it is the new and improved RSV ... was there any checking of the translation of the RSV to the Hebrew and Greek?
 
I love the ESV, because like Travis, it made me fall in love with the Scriptures all over again. I wander back to the KJV all the time, and I consider myself blessed to be able to have so many translations available to me. Even so, I spend most of my reading time in the ESV because it flows well. For serious study, I use ESV, KJK, NASB, etc.
 
Whitefield said:
Pilgrim said:
Whitefield said:
My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
Click to expand...

It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page.

The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.
Click to expand...

You're right. I just read this on the copyright page:

The Holy bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

I wonder with "adapted" and the "all rights reserved" does the NCC receive any form of royalties from the sale of the ESV? Guess you've covered that question too. Thanks.
Click to expand...

All I've seen is some KJV onlyists railing on Sermon Audio but not producing any hard evidence. Theodore Letis had spoken and written about it too prior to his death, but strictly speaking he wasn't quite KJVO. I don't remember if he addressed the royalty issue or not. Crossway has repeatedly stated that they own the rights to the text.
 
Whitefield said:
This is very good information for me. I was thinking that the ESV was the result of a board of scholars pouring over the Hebrew and Greek. If I understand it correctly, it is the new and improved RSV ... was there any checking of the translation of the RSV to the Hebrew and Greek?
Click to expand...

They checked it against the original languages, but much of it evidently was found to be unobjectionable. There was a slight revision in 2007, but I don't know if they ever released a list of the changes they made. Newer copies will say "2007 Text Edition."
 
Here is a passage I struggle with in the AV. It is only my opinion, but I believe the word orphaned give a greater emphasis than does comfortless. Please have a look too at the fact that the Greek uses the word orphaned whereas the KJV does not. I am looking for some guidance as to which in this case would be the superior translation using the better Greek text.

ESV John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

KJV John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

NIV John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

BGT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

BNT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

Thanks and Happy New Year.
 
The ESV and all of the modern translations get Matthew 24:30 wrong.

For a great explanation as to the inner-workings of how that verse should be translated and read, see J. Marcellus Kik's book "An Eschatology of Victory." P and R Publishing. 1971

Here is a caption from Kik's book regarding Matthew 24:30...

""This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.. Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression "coming in the clouds" refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation." (An Eschatology of Victory, p, 140-141, cf. 142-143)

"The judgment upon Jerusalem was the sign of the fact that the Son of man was reigning in heaven. There has been misunderstanding due to the reading of this verse, as some have thought it to be ‘a sign in heaven.’ But this is not what the verse says; it says the sign of the son of Man in heaven. The phrase ‘in heaven’ defines the locality of the Son of Man and not of the sign. A sign was not to appear in the heavens, but the destruction of Jerusalem was to indicate the rule of the Son of Man in heaven."

"The apostle Paul states in the eleventh chapter of Romans that the fall of the Jews was a blessing to the rest of the world. He speaks of it as the enriching of the Gentiles and the reconciling of the world. The catastrophe of Jerusalem really signalized the beginning of a new and world-wide kingdom, marking the full separation of the Christian Church from legalistic Judaism. The whole system of worship, so closely associated with Jerusalem and the Temple, received, as it were, a death blow from God himself. God was now through with the Old Covenant made at Sinai: holding full sway was the sign of the New Covenant." (ibid., pp. 137-138)""

What Kik describes as an incorrect "reading" of the verse, is in fact now the actually translation of the verse in all of the current modern translations that are out there.
 
Last edited:
jawyman said:
Here is a passage I struggle with in the AV. It is only my opinion, but I believe the word orphaned give a greater emphasis than does comfortless. Please have a look too at the fact that the Greek uses the word orphaned whereas the KJV does not. I am looking for some guidance as to which in this case would be the superior translation using the better Greek text.

ESV John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

KJV John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

NIV John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

BGT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

BNT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

Thanks and Happy New Year.
Click to expand...

The word "orphanos" certainly can mean to be an orphan...without parents or without a father. But it can also mean to be bereft of a leader or teacher.
 
It has been great to follow your posts!
One particular Bible verse that the Authorized Version or KJV
and NKJV deeply disappoint me for its theological implications is Hosea 6:7

But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me KJV (=NKJV)

But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. ESV

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant. There they have dealt treacherously against Me NASB

I have a NASB, a NKJV, and a NIV (the NIV I don't really use, too paraphrased in my opinion)

Thank you so much for all your helpful insights. So I will look forward to buy an ESV.
(in spite of the Mae West detail, quite hilarious!)
 
discipulo said:
It has been great to follow your posts!
One particular Bible verse that the Authorized Version or KJV
and NKJV deeply disappoint me for its theological implications is Hosea 6:7

But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me KJV (=NKJV)

But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. ESV

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant. There they have dealt treacherously against Me NASB

I have a NASB, a NKJV, and a NIV (the NIV I don't really use, too paraphrased in my opinion)

Thank you so much for all your helpful insights. So I will look forward to buy an ESV.
(in spite of the Mae West detail, quite hilarious!)
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll be disappointed. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have!
 
You know you're a newbie when it takes you awhile to realize AV does not stand for Amplified Version.
scared0016.gif

:lol:
 
Okinawamama said:
You know you're a newbie when it takes you awhile to realize AV does not stand for Amplified Version.
scared0016.gif

:lol:
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

Don't feel bad. There was a time I didn't realize what AV meant either. Providence would have it that I bought a Cambridge copy of the KJV Apocrypha (the red copy) and it was titled "Authorized (King James) Version". Upon seeing the title I made the connection...A.V.
 
jawyman said:
GMcClain20 said:
What does "Reading Level 8" mean? 8th grade level?
Click to expand...

The KJV has a reading level of twelve, because of the difficulty of the English used. I ran across this note from a website called, sundayschoolresources.com, and the they state regarding the NASB, KJV, NRSV, and the NKJV:

The difficult reading level of these Bible translations prevents us from recommending these translations for children. While some may consider the NKJV to be written at a Medium Reading Level, we think it is too difficult for children to read...
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but that is hogwash! :lol:

I was memorizing the NKJV at age 7 (in AWANA, but we won't go there).

I do agree that the KJV is difficult to memorize, but children did memorize it at one time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
  • Locked
ESV with the Apocrypha
2
Replies
31
Views
10K
PointyHaired Calvinist
PointyHaired Calvinist
larryjf
  • Locked
Jude 5 in the ESV
Replies
5
Views
6K
larryjf
larryjf
S
  • Locked
The ESV?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
21K
bookslover
B
JimmyH
  • Locked
Luke 1:15 in the ESV ?
Replies
3
Views
2K
CharlieJ
CharlieJ
SeekerOfTruth
  • Locked
The Softening of Sin in the ESV?
Replies
7
Views
3K
aaronsk
aaronsk
Back
Top