The ESV and Calvinists

[Bill The Baptist]

a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based.

This is ignoring the facts of what has been said over and over by the committee for the ESV. They paid a lump sum up front in order to procure the rights. No money goes to the NCC. This went around several times, ten years ago, and was denied several times and ways.

Regardless of how it is paid, the existence of the ESV has benefited the NCC

No offense to your friend, but: “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 Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.” Doesn't even imply that money goes to the NCC; a plain and honest reading of it states simply that the ESV is adapted from the RSV which is copyrighted by the NCC. It's like a citation; you give the information for what you are citing. There should be no question about this (though he attempts to build a case around this.)

Just fyi, my textual preference is stated and well known here on the PB; I am not making an uncritical plug for the ESV.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.

So, if something is to be translated, "the way, the truth, and the life", and it is translated that way by the KJV, the RSV, the ESV ... the ESV is less accurate because it is a revision of the RSV? What is at issue is the original text; is the translation a good translation of the original. Get over the RSV thing, that has been done away with, and the ESV does not 'take on the liberalism' of that translation. It is a fair translation of the CT.

Let me put it out there in a more practical way. Say a church calls you, and they are using the ESV; do you run ram-rod through and say, "I will not use the ESV!" In so doing, causing division? Or do you with patience and care teach the people, taking your time and saying, "In this text my own translation from the originals would read more like this ... " or "My preferred textual basis would read this way ..." This is more than let's be right in picking our translations; this is, let's be pastoral and teach and lead people along. If after you've been in the church five or so years and the pew Bibles are wearing out, and you want to address translations and take some time to teach on it ... by all means, lead them to the NKJV or whatever you prefer.

As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed. When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect. In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture. I would say that the ESV is a pretty good version, certainly preferable to the NIV, NLT, Message, etc. It just seems to me that there is a movement within reformed circles to only use the ESV and I don't think that is healthy. I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with. If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.

 

[nicnap]

As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed.

If the church has a stated translation (which is what I meant), your translation ought to be their translation. The church should at least have a uniform pew Bible so that the people can follow along, etc.

When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect.

When they endorse it, they are saying it is there preference ... as a pastor, you will influence people to where your preferences are, as well.

In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture.

I think you've missed the spirit of the Reformation on this one. The spirit of the Reformation was not libertarian. Also, these men are making recommendations, not demands. Don't give them power they don't have; don't make your brethren (laymen) out to be dumb, uncritical people.

I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with.

Again, if it says, "I am the way, the truth, and the light," in the original, is it bad that ESV says it, even if it came from the RSV? What matters is the original.

If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.

Not a good question at that. The NWT is explicitly non-Christian; apples & oranges.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed.

If the church has a stated translation (which is what I meant), your translation ought to be their translation. The church should at least have a uniform pew Bible so that the people can follow along, etc.

When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect.

When they endorse it, they are saying it is there preference ... as a pastor, you will influence people to where your preferences are, as well.

In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture.

I think you've missed the spirit of the Reformation on this one. The spirit of the Reformation was not libertarian. Also, these men are making recommendations, not demands. Don't give them power they don't have; don't make your brethren (laymen) out to be dumb, uncritical people.

I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with.

Again, if it says, "I am the way, the truth, and the light," in the original, is it bad that ESV says it, even if it came from the RSV? What matters is the original.

If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.

Not a good question at that. The NWT is explicitly non-Christian; apples & oranges.

I think we have spent enough time and caused enough division with this thread already. Obviously we are not going to agree on this, and that is often a good thing. I will concede that the ESV is a perfectly acceptable version of the bible, but one that I choose not to use or recommend for reasons already verbalized. In the spirit of Christian brotherhood, let us now move on to the things that unite us rather than those that divide us.

 

[JM]

I do not own an ESV but after reading this thread I believe I should have a hard copy to use as a reference.

Momentary lapse. I'll keep my AV.

 

[MW]

"The thorough Calvinism of the Geneva Bible (not so much displayed in the translation, which was acknowledged to be an excellent one, but in the marginal notes), offended the high-church party of the Church of England, to which almost all of its bishops subscribed.

What a load of rubbish!

Look back to the Lambeth Articles or look forward to the delegation to the Synod of Dort. Either way the Church demonstrates its commitment to Calvinism.

 

[Grimmson]

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to address a historical issue here. The Lambeth articles (written 1595) is actually an example of the Anglican Church not being united concerning Calvinism. Queen Elizabeth I was not known for being a supporter of Calvinism, and did not approve of the Lambeth Articles and ordered for their suppression. Also we do not want to confuse the historical context of the Bishop Bible (1568) with that of Dort (1618-9). Particularly something to keep in mind is the 1558 Act of Supremacy and also the Act of Uniformity in which many Calvinists, later to be known as puritans, rebelled against.

 

[MW]

My apologies to David Jolly. I thought I pressed reply but actually edited your post. I think I was able to recover the substance of your original. Please accept my apology and correct as needed.

 

[MW]

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to address a historical issue here. The Lambeth articles (written 1595) is actually an example of the Anglican Church not being united concerning Calvinism. Queen Elizabeth I was not known for being a supporter of Calvinism, and did not approve of the Lambeth Articles and ordered for their suppression. Also we do not want to confuse the historical context of the Bishop Bible (1568) with that of Dort (1618-9). Particularly something to keep in mind is the 1558 Act of Supremacy and also the Act of Uniformity in which many Calvinists, later to be known as puritans, rebelled against.

Robert Letham: "The Lambeth Articles (1595) are an unequivocally Calvinist document, approved and superintended by Archbishop Whitgift, although never formally adopted as official Anglican dogma... In 1618, the British delegation to Dort sent by James I, with the approval of Archbishop George Abbot, took the Lambeth Articles with them as evidence of the faith professed in England.... Calvinism continued to be the backbone of the Church of England for several generations after Hooker." (The Westminster Assembly, 53, 54.) The church was Calvinist. Queen Elizabeth loved her supremacy and her settlement. That doesn't affect the Calvinist commitment of the church.

 

[sevenzedek]

it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?

I am quite surprised to see that no one has commented on the Calvinistic resurgence one might call the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement. Heroes of this movement are guys like John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Wayne Grudem. I believe this resurgence is one reason for why so many in the reformed camp are flocking to the ESV. We look up to these guys--do we not?
Another reason that also seems plausible is the story I once heard that says that the reformed seminaries are biased in a big way toward the critical text. And let's face it. The ESV is the best translation of the critical text out there.
One more reason I believe the ESV is taking off so well is the fact that it was a dream come true for so many people. Again, let's face it. The ESV accomplishes what no other translation was able to do. It combined readability with accuracy. The ESV is much more readable than the NASB, NKJV, KJV, etc. It really is too bad we don't have an ESV equivalent from the Received Text. I would buy such a work if it existed. So, for those who don't mind the critical text, why would they not flock to the ESV?

 

[jayce475]

We look up to these guys--do we not?

Do we?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?

I am quite surprised to see that no one has commented on the Calvinistic resurgence one might call the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement. Heroes of this movement are guys like John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Wayne Grudem. I believe this resurgence is one reason for why so many in the reformed camp are flocking to the ESV. We look up to these guys--do we not?
Another reason that also seems plausible is the story I once heard that says that the reformed seminaries are biased in a big way toward the critical text. And let's face it. The ESV is the best translation of the critical text out there.
One more reason I believe the ESV is taking off so well is the fact that it was a dream come true for so many people. Again, let's face it. The ESV accomplishes what no other translation was able to do. It combined readability with accuracy. The ESV is much more readable than the NASB, NKJV, KJV, etc. It really is too bad we don't have an ESV equivalent from the Received Text. I would buy such a work if it existed. So, for those who don't mind the critical text, why would they not flock to the ESV?

I think that you are absolutely correct that one of the main reasons for the popularity of the ESV is the fact that so many "heroes" of the reformed community have endorsed it. As for seminaries and the critical text, I would say that all seminaries are biased towards the critical text, with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones. I would also agree that the ESV is much more readable than the NASB or NIV, but I would disagree regarding the KJV or NKJV. Both of those versions are much more poetic, and thus more readable and enjoyable to listen to. I think the problem with the KJV has more to do with having words that people are just not used to hearing anymore and so they have trouble understanding some of it, but it has nothing to do with readablility.

 

[Rom]

We look up to these guys--do we not?

I don't look up to men in general (though I have a lot of admiration for Grudem, and Piper to some extent). I get quite nervous when people sing the praises of men. I've seen time and time again people get let down by their 'heroes', after following them off some cliff. They are fallen men, saints for sure!, but fallen men nonetheless.

Frankly, I admire a lot of the mature saints on this board more than I do those in the YRR movement.

And yes, I use the ESV.

 

[py3ak]

with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones.

Bob Jones is not renowned for its opposition to the critical text.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones.

Bob Jones is not renowned for its opposition to the critical text.

You're right that they are not opposed to the critical text, but they are one of the few seminaries that still teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text. They are not KJV onlyists, however.

 

[py3ak]

teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text

Are you sure about that?

 

[nicnap]

I would say that all seminaries are biased towards the critical text

GPTS stands on more of a majority text position than a critical text one.

You're right that they are not opposed to the critical text, but they are one of the few seminaries that still teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text. They are not KJV onlyists, however.

They utilize the critical text. This is per two men I know who have their PhDs from BJU. They utilize the KJV in the class b/c of its familiarity and its availability. But they are by no means TR guys.

I think you are thinking of Pensacola, who is TR & KJV only.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text

Are you sure about that?

Below is their statement on bible translations from their website;

Home » Welcome to BJU » Who We Are » Statement about Bible Translations
Statement about Bible Translations
Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.

We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.



Obviously they wouldn't use the KJV if they didn't think it was superior to CT translations.

 

[nicnap]

we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version

It is used because of its availability and use by most of the churches that support them and because it can purchased relatively cheaply.

 

[Philip]

I understand your point, all of us are guilty of indirectly supporting many of the things we are actually against. I would not fault anyone for purchasing an ESV or any other version that they choose. My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.

Bill, the RSV is a fine translation, even if it does have a liberal slant. I first became aware of it as "the translation that Packer used in Knowing God," so the choice wasn't necessarily a bad one.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I understand your point, all of us are guilty of indirectly supporting many of the things we are actually against. I would not fault anyone for purchasing an ESV or any other version that they choose. My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.

Bill, the RSV is a fine translation, even if it does have a liberal slant. I first became aware of it as "the translation that Packer used in Knowing God," so the choice wasn't necessarily a bad one.

Knowing God is an excellent book, however J.I. Packer has also come out in support of theistic evolution, so I don;t know if that would make me feel better about the RSV.

 

[jayce475]

teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text

Are you sure about that?

Below is their statement on bible translations from their website;

Home » Welcome to BJU » Who We Are » Statement about Bible Translations
Statement about Bible Translations
Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.

We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.



Obviously they wouldn't use the KJV if they didn't think it was superior to CT translations.

BJU has actually published a few books attacking the TR/MT. Their position appears to have moved over the years, possibly explaining the confusion.

 

[tarrda]

I would be very interested in examples of the alligations against the ESV. I'm not saying your wrong but statements that you have made need to be backed up with examples to help those of us who are less informed understand why it is as you say.

 

[DMcFadden]

Looking at the available English translations, theological commitment is not as determinative as . . .
a. Choice of text
b. Translation philosophy

Rather than impugning the motives of evangelical and Reformed leaders, or speculating wildly, why not look at the simple and available information?

* Most Reformed and Evangelical scholars are in the CT not TR camp.
* Some Reformed and Evangelical scholars want a Bible that is more "formal correspondence" AND still in "readable" English style
* Some Reformed and Evangelical scholars want a Bible that is more "dynamic equivalent" in translation philosophy

So, why is anyone surprised that Reformed and Evangelical scholars end up in either a dynanic equivalent or formal correspondence direction (using a CT as the base)???.
-- Those who want a CT "dynamic equivalent" Bible promote the NIV (family) or NLT as the two "best" exemplars of the CT text in a "dynamic equivalent" style
-- Those who want a CT "formal correspondence" Bible promote the ESV as the best exemplar of the CT text in a "formal correspondence" style

--If your criteria select the CT (not the TR) . . . you eliminate the KJV and NKJV
--If your criteria eliminate the dynamic, thought for thought, or paraphrastic productions . . . you eliminate the NIV and NLT
--If your criteria also lays stress on "readability" or "understandability" or "contemporary English" . . . you have only one or two choices (depending on how you classify the HCSB). The ESV wins by default in such a decision tree.

Pretty simple, actually. Money is not the issue. Text + translation philosophy requires a limited range of choices.

 

[MW]

formal correspondence family - KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB (albeit more mediating in its "optimal equivalence")

This thread is still about the ESV, so let's concentrate on that. Oswald Allis made numerous criticisms of the RSV, which still apply to its lack of modification in the ESV. The first issue he dealt with was "translation or paraphrase." He pointed out the paraphrase involved in the RSV, and used three texts as an example -- 1 Cor. 3:4; 11:12; and Rom. 4:16. The ESV continues to paraphrase in all three examples. In two of them it uses the word choice of the RSV, and in one of them alters the RSV to a word choice of another paraphrase which Allis criticised. One of these texts, Rom. 4:16, is crucial to the apostle's argument relative to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. ESV follows RSV.

How evangelicalised and literalised is the ESV? If one compares Allis' overall criticisms with the revisions made in the ESV, it will be seen that the ESV has undergone only slight modification in a few obvious texts. The majority of the problems remain.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would be very interested in examples of the alligations against the ESV. I'm not saying your wrong but statements that you have made need to be backed up with examples to help those of us who are less informed understand why it is as you say.

I don't think there is a problem with ESV, it is certainly one of the better modern translations. The issue to me has more to do with the almost monolithic support that the ESV enjoys amongst reformed Christians, and whether or not that support is truly warranted. If you truly want to study this issue, you must begin with the RSV translation upon which the ESV is based. Do some research on who was behind that translation, the problems with that translation, and where that translation has moved today as it is now called the NRSV. Once you have done this, then ask yourself why would conservative, orthodox Christians want to have anything to do with the RSV or the National Council of Churches? Why did they not just do a new translation, as was done with the NIV and HCSB? If you like the ESV, then by all means use it. Just do it from a position of being informed instead of just blindly following what the reformed leaders are doing.

 

[nicnap]

If you truly want to study this issue, you must begin with the RSV translation upon which the ESV is based.

No, you begin by looking at the ESV itself; what are the conclusions it draws and makes; how does it translate key passages, etc.

Once you have done this, then ask yourself why would conservative, orthodox Christians want to have anything to do with the RSV or the National Council of Churches? Why did they not just do a new translation, as was done with the NIV and HCSB?

Why not take a standing translation and make it better; the KJV is not a 'new translation.' It is improvement upon previous work; no need to reinvent the wheel. Check the accuracy of what was translated before, and improve/modify as needed. They have not 'associated' with the NCC; you keep tossing that out there, but it has be repeatedly refuted.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The association charge comes from the fact that the translators of the ESV sought and received permission from the NCC (since they owned the copyright) to use the RSV as a basis for the ESV. Only 5%–10% of the RSV text is different in the ESV.

 

[nicnap]

The association charge comes from the fact that the translators of the ESV sought and received permission from the NCC (since they owned the copyright) to use the RSV as a basis for the ESV. Only 5%–10% of the RSV text is different in the ESV.

Right, but they are not associated with them as has been alleged ... aligning with the NCC. They are associated in that they paid, according to those who worked with/on ESV, a lump some; there is no further association in that sense. The Textual basis and the remaining similarities between the two are a different sort of association.

 

[TimV]

Bill, you are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that cause most educated people to look at KJVOnlies with suspicion. If you care that the NCOC had something to do with an ancestor of the ESV what do you do with the fact that Erasmus dedicated the Textus Receptus to the Pope who excommunicated Luther???? To me, the fact that the granddad of the KJV was a humanistic Catholic whom the Reformers called a snake is sad, but I still wouldn't throw out his work just because of that. The TR was a wonderful achievement regardless.

I recommend that you keep your passion! It's good. But I'd also consider reading up on this subject.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Bill, you are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that cause most educated people to look at KJVOnlies with suspicion. If you care that the NCOC had something to do with an ancestor of the ESV what do you do with the fact that Erasmus dedicated the Textus Receptus to the Pope who excommunicated Luther???? To me, the fact that the granddad of the KJV was a humanistic Catholic whom the Reformers called a snake is sad, but I still wouldn't throw out his work just because of that. The TR was a wonderful achievement regardless.

I recommend that you keep your passion! It's good. But I'd also consider reading up on this subject.

This is the absolute last post I am going to put on this thread because I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. Let me just say that I am not a KJV onlyist and I really don't think the debate up to this point has been about the CT vs. the TR as much as it has been about the RSV. The reason for my passion is not because of any particular disdain for the CT or even the ESV itself, but because of the rising tide of ESV onlyism that I see in the reformed community. I personally prefer the NKJV for two reasons; 1. It retains much of the poetic beauty of the KJV while at the same time being easier to understand. 2. although it uses the TR as its textual base, it is the ONLY version that footnotes any time there is a different reading in either the CT or the majority text, thereby allowing me to consider all the different readings of a particular passage when I am studying. I personally own 8 different versions of the bible and frequently compare them, and I think that everyone should do the same. I also believe that God has supernaturally preserved His Word. Not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts themselves. The manuscripts that we have available may differ in many ways, but the core message of the gospel has been miraculously preserved for over 2000 years. For that we can all be thankful, regardless of which version we use.