The ESV in the Blogosphere

My British blogging alter-ego has noticed that everyone's going to the English Standard Version of the Bible in the blogosphere.  Well, not everyone, but lots of people are.  Check out this post for a list of people who are endorsing it and/or talking about it.  I think the reason that so many are liking the ESV is captured in this comment from Adrian Warnock, speaking of John Piper:

      Acording to Piper the ESV strikes the best balance between being excessively literal and being too much of a paraphrase.

You can add me to the list of the proponents of the ESV, with a few qualifiers.  I have been using it for a few months now and am enjoying it.  The qualifiers are these:

1. People like me who aren't experts in the original languages need to be careful about making strong statements about translations of the Bible.  Without a good deal of expertise in the original languages most folks aren't going to know why this translation is better than that translation on this particular verse.

2.  When non-experts endorse a particular version of the Bible its probably not the Bible they are endorsing so much as the theory of translation they are endorsing.  There is a great debate about the value of more literal translations vs. more dynamic translations.  Those who buy into the arguments of one or the other will gravitate to Bibles which use their particular theory. 

But the waters are muddy here - there is no such thing as a literal, word for word translation, contrary to those who advocate them.  As Jeremy Pierce shows, there are places where the NAS (which claims to be the most literal English translation) and the ESV (which claims to be a mostly literal translation) are more dynamic and the NIV (a more dynamic translation) is more literal.

3. Because of that, we really need to avoid these "my bible is better than yours" statements.  True, there are some which are inferior translations, but most of the more well known translations like the NAS, ESV, RSV, and NIV are good translations.  Different translation theories give a little different wording here and there, but they all faithfully render the text.

4. Having said all of that, I like the ESV translation theory and that is why I am on board with it.  By claiming to be "mostly literal" they are on the right track.  Such a statement acknowledges that they are doing their best to get it as close to word for word as you can, while realizing you just can't be completely literal. 

5. I still think the best approach to Bible study is not to pick one translation and stick with it.  You probably ought to pick one translation for memorization and stick with it, but for study its best to use a few different bibles.  Get one or two of the more literal translations and one or two of the more dynamic translations.  Where they diverge on a particular verse you can then pick up a few commentaries to try to figure out why they diverged and gain greater insight into the text.

 

Comments

[bezahlt]

I've come to like the New Living Translation (NLT). Haven't read the ESV yet. Will have to take a look. I usually read from either the KJV or RSV.

[Dee]

I've been using the ESV for a couple of years now. I'm far from being an expert in original languages, so I recommend the ESV to others because of how well it reads. I've enjoyed this translation from the first time I picked it up.

[DLE]

I grew up in the Lutheran Church in the '60s and '70s, so it was RSV all the way. I memorized large chunks of the Bible in RSV during that time.

But sadly, the RSV is now defunct, replaced by the barely sufficient (and gender neutral) NRSV. I understand the ESV is supposed to be a more conservative Evangelical approach to updating the RSV than the NRSV was, so that's great.

The problem is that someone turned me on to the Thompson Chain Reference study Bible in the early '80s. It was only KJV at that time, but when a NIV edition came out, that was it for me; my RSV Harper Study Bible went on the shelf.

So here's the problem...

* I memorized a lot of Scripture in RSV, but RSV is defunct. ESV is fairly close to the RSV, though.

* The Thompson Chain Reference is my daily Bible, and it's NIV.

* Our church uses NIV and KJV.

* My wife has used NASB for years and I would like us to have the same version. She's not devoted to NASB, though.

So now I'm looking at yet ANOTHER translation? Sure,I've got just about every translation known to man sitting on my shelf or available to me through e-Sword, but until I can get an ESV Thompson Chain there's really no need for me to get an ESV that I would use daily as my reading and study Bible. And the likelihood of seeing an ESV Thompson Chain is about zero (unless Kirkbride is over the last bad experience they had when they paired up with another publisher--Zondervan, in that case--to jointly release a Thompson Chain Bible.) Yes, I quote from the ESV on my blog, but that's because the Bible Gateway and e-Sword both make the ESV available AND I'd like to see the ESV get some traction.

Kind of a sticky problem, eh?

[Mike]

This shouldn't be an either-or situation. The more translations the better, I say!

When I'm studying or digging into a book, I try to read it in four or five translations. Why favor one over another? They all have their function and utility.

If you're going to probe the lexicons and dictionaries, the translation is of less importance anyway. If not, then just about any formal equivalence translation is fine.

Even if you read it in Greek, you still have all the variant readings to wade through, so a variety of perspectives is a tremendous help.

IMHO.

[Phil McAlmond]

I have made the switch to the ESV after 25 years of using the NIV. I have taken this switch very seriously as I see these things for me and those I serve as very important. I am so enjoying the ESV that I have shared it with most everyone I know. Some of those have switched over and others haven't, yet :). One of the best things I like about the ESV is that I can trust it and genuinely encourage others to do so as well. It isn't perfect and there isn't a perfect translation out there, but this one is very good. I have found moving from the NIV to ESV a lot easier than when I went from KJV to NIV. I enjoy the way it reads and how many of the key texts are handled in the translation. It is clean, refreshing and feels a lot like coming home after being gone a long time. Corny I know but real nonetheless. I also love the heart with which the translation was aproached; out of a genuine reverence for Gods Word, out of a respect for those important translations that have come before and out of a very real concern about where modern translations are taking us. I have also grown alarmed at this trend. Since I have made the break I haven't missed my old NIV at all.There is a lot more I could say, but enough is probably enough.
Blessings in Christ!

[rev-ed]

Just out of curiosity, what is the primary reason for switching from the NIV to the ESV. I haven't had a lot of time to study the two in comparison with the original languages. Is it that much a) more accurate or b)more readable than the NIV?

[Agent Tim]

"I still think the best approach to Bible study is not to pick one translation and stick with it. You probably ought to pick one translation for memorization and stick with it, but for study its best to use a few different bibles."

Exactly. I'll have to get a copy of the ESV.

[Terry]

Jeremy made me go out and buy an ESV. He pushed me over the edge. I'm loving it. (I think one of my big issues is that the print is bigger. I know that's a disappointment since I'm supposed to say something snappy about translation theory and readability.) It is a good translation.

[Warren]

I actually started using the ESV because it was the one available on eSword. Zondervan has made it clear that they're not interested in allowing eSword users to have access to the NIV (not even through payment of an unlock fee, the way the NASB is available), so that kind of soured me on them. I know that's a pretty lame way to pick or not pick a translation, but I really wonder what Zondervan is in it for. I question the HCSB for commercial reasons as well -- Lifeway wanted a way to have a fairly dynamic equivalent Bible and not have to pay royalties to Zondervan, so they did their own.

[Peter]

Of the newer translations I like the HCSB. It is an easy read without feeling like it is prepared for children. It's one draw back for me is that the poetic sections lack poetic beauty, but that seems to be common with alot of modern translations. I have the ESV and I trust it, but it feels a bit wooden sometimes and the language in places is archaic. The poetry of the Psalms here is just lovely.

[Peter Millist]

Inspite of all this slobbering over the ESV, the vast majority of the evangelicals here in the UK are still using the NIV (and I don't mean the TNIV either).

So what's changing? Not much as far as I can see here in the UK. The NIV still rules as far as I can see.