Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim  Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen L Smith I think the ESV has specific strengths that lend itself well to the Reformed tradition: 1 It is a well rounded translation 2 It has made many fine translation choices – especially from a Reformed perspective 3 It is very readable (unlike the NASB) 4 It lends itself to good exegesis (something highly regarded in the Reformed tradition). I think this explains why the dynamic equivalence approach is not really endorsed by the Reformed churches. 5 Many leading Reformed theologians were involved in the translation project. If it were produced say 30 years ago when there was less Reformed influence in the evangelical scene, I doubt you would have had the same quality of Reformed translators. A good comparison would be the NKJV. 6 The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc. 7 In short, I converted from being a devout NKJV supporter to being a ESV supporter  | The question for me is, how much translation was actually done with the ESV? While there are certainly some impressive names involved with the ESV, I think it's important to recognize that at least 90% of the finished product is still the old RSV which was translated by liberals. Most of the revision seems to have consisted of cleaning up the RSV's antisupernatural bias and some other glaring issues, like reintroducing terms like propitiation in place of the RSV's expiation. John Piper said as much when he said that the ESV is the RSV with the theological problems fixed. It is certainly better than the NIV and is generally although not always more readable than the NASB.
I know that most of the NKJV translators were Baptists but there were some Presbyterians involved too. There were actually a good number of Reformed people (using Reformed broadly here) who were involved with the NIV, and it had its origins with the Christian Reformed Church, which was much sounder in the 1960's than now.
I prefer the NKJV to the ESV due to the textual issue, it being as readable and more literal. |
Chris, this is a VERY good point that has concerned many (the small % of changes done to the RSV), look at the timeframe, the idea for the ESV was conceived in Colorado in late 98, after some negotiation with the NCC RSV rights were obtained, after this Translation Teams were formed, work started and the ESV was on the shelves in 2001. There are a LOT of people who feel much of the work was rushed! Why? The Holman Bible and TNIV were on the way, Bible publishing is a business, a big one in North America. It is felt that there was a lot of haste to achieve "Market Penetration" before the debut of the Holman and TNIV. Crossway has had to backtrack and fix quite a few mistakes that were in the 2001 edition, some mistakes still linger. For a CT based translation I DO think the ESV is good, it is not my intent to bash it at all. I will say the NASB has had MUCH longer to evolve and be corrected.
