Revised ESV

[larryjf]

You can now purchase the revised ESV in single column reference...
Westminster Bookstore

Also, the ESV Bible Online has the revised text

While it appears that the BibleGateway does not have the revised text.

Acts 1:3 is an example of a revised verse.

Unfortunately, 1 Sam 13:1 has not been revised.

 

[Michael]

Thanks Larry.

I noticed last week that the ESV Bible Online was updated when I went to look up 1Pet 3:15 and saw that the word "regard" was replaced with "honor".

The change in 1John 3:24 is also all about dynamic equivalence, something that the translators were supposed to be guarding against.

I'm with you on 1Sam 13:1. It needs some attention.

 

[larryjf]

Maybe they didn't change 1 Sam 13:1 so that they can put out another revision in a couple of years

 

[Pilgrim]

Although the wording is not exactly the same, the ESV follows its predecessor the RSV's lead in rendering 1 Sam. 13 the way it does.

 

[Tom Roach]

Does the revised version put back in all that the ESV omitted?

I only trust the KJV. Great translation on the best manuscripts.
I have found it difficult to read as quickly as I read modern English (I just thank God
we have the revised version. The Middle English in the 1611 version would take great
effort to become acquainted with).
My first approach to understanding the KJV was looking up the meaning
of the many odd forms of words in there, coupled with other translations
to help me understand verses I struggled on. But that took so much time
and it's not effective for reading straight through.
The Solution: I am reading a book titled [ame="http://www.amazon.com/History-English-Language-5th/dp/0130151661"]A History of The English Language[/ame]
by Albert C. Baugh and Thomas Cable. It will allow me to understand
the foundation and structure of the English language (hopefully without having
to learn German ) so I can better read the best English version of our Holy Bible

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Baugh and Cable is a good book on the subject. It was used as a textbook in my class on English language history, and I still have it! You should note, however, that the English language of the 1600's is called "Early Modern English" and not Middle English.

Old English is Germanic in nature and is the language of Beowulf. Middle English is Old English that has "evolved" with the introduction of Latin (from the Romans) and Frence (from the Norman Conquest). With a little training the modern ear can learn it. It is the language of Geoffrey Chaucer.

Early Modern English is the language of the Puritans, and, most notably, Shakespeare. It has few differences with Modern English - mostly unused words like "thy" and irregular spellings - and is easily understood to the modern ear.

Grace,

-CH

 

[jbergsing]

I only trust the KJV. Great translation on the best manuscripts.

I don't know that I'd ever "only trust" just one translation, regardless of which one it is.

Just my ...

 

[Michael]

I only trust the KJV. Great translation on the best manuscripts.
I have found it difficult to read as quickly as I read modern English (I just thank God
we have the revised version. The Middle English in the 1611 version would take great
effort to become acquainted with).
My first approach to understanding the KJV was looking up the meaning
of the many odd forms of words in there, coupled with other translations
to help me understand verses I struggled on. But that took so much time
and it's not effective for reading straight through.
The Solution: I am reading a book titled A History of The English Language
by Albert C. Baugh and Thomas Cable. It will allow me to understand
the foundation and structure of the English language (hopefully without having
to learn German ) so I can better read the best English version of our Holy Bible

As much as I love the KJV, this is actually the best argument I've heard yet on this board supporting the use of newer translations. As beautiful as it is (and yes, rolling around in joy on Byzantine manuscripts), the KJV simply is not the vulgar language of our day (WCF 1.8).

Now that I've probably derailed the next 80 responses of this thread, I'll be quiet again.

 

[KMK]

Revised the ESV?

Why didn't they just do it right the first time? Did they discover something they missed? Did a new set of Greek scholars come along and tell them God's Word has changed again? How long has the ESV been out? Has the 'vulgar' language of our society changed that much in such a short period of time that people could not understand the old ESV any longer?

If these weren't Christians I might assume that they were pulling a 'Stravinsky'. Later in his life, Stravinsky made insignificant changes to his Firebird Suite and republished it just so that he could continue collecting royalties.

 

[larryjf]

I have to think money is one of their goals otherwise why would they have promised to give folks a list of the revisions, and later changed their minds.

When they were talking about the 2007 revision of the ESV they said that they would give a list of the revisions to anyone who asked.
Then they told me personally that they would email me the list of revisions.
Well, then they informed me that at an executive management meeting they decided not to release such a list.

… let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (Jam 5:12)

… each tree is known by its own fruit…(Luk 6:44)

 

[KMK]

When they were talking about the 2007 revision of the ESV they said that they would give a list of the revisions to anyone who asked.
Then they told me personally that they would email me the list of revisions.
Well, then they informed me that at an executive management meeting they decided not to release such a list.

This is veeerrrry interesting.

 

[KMK]

The ESV was finished. After the initial publication, the critics came out (as they always do). After being battered over a few sub-par translation choices they decided that, yes, they did poorly translate in some places and this is an effort to make right.


Do not we have the motto, "Always Reforming". This means that if improvements can be made - even in translations - then these improvements are, indeed, efforts to glorify God.

So God's Word in English keeps getting better and better!

Or...we could intimidate bad motives and possibly slander those responsible....

I am not exactly sure what this means but if you are accusing Larry or myself, I don't think these accusations are warranted. I offered a few possibilities for the revision. Larry offered his own personal experience. You offered another possiblity. No one is accusing anybody of anything.

Perhaps someone on this board has the inside scoop. I don't understand why these publishers wouldn't just be up front about their reasons.

 

[KMK]

Ken:

It sounded like some were saying that it was all a matter of more royalties...i.e. this new ESV revision was merely a matter of greed. If anyone did state that, then this might be to impugn evil motives to this translation team or the publisher.

I really have no idea why they revised the ESV. Money could be one of the reasons. Just by stating that fact does not imply anything. Stavinsky was not sinning when he 'revised' the Firebird Suite. He composed a monumental work of art and there was nothing wrong with getting paid for it. I have no problem with the translators of the ESV being paid for their labors. The thing with Stravinsky was that everyone knew why he did it. It was and is public knowledge that when you perform the 'new' Firebird Suite you keep the same markings as the original because the new ones were made just to make sure Stravinsky kept getting paid. (He lived to be an old man) Is this what the ESVers are doing? Do they just want to make sure they keep getting paid? There is nothing wrong with that if that is the case, but like Stravinsky, just be honest.

Once again, I do not know why they revised the ESV. I am hoping that someone on the board can tell us.

 

[Pilgrim]

Revised the ESV?

Why didn't they just do it right the first time? Did they discover something they missed? Did a new set of Greek scholars come along and tell them God's Word has changed again? How long has the ESV been out? Has the 'vulgar' language of our society changed that much in such a short period of time that people could not understand the old ESV any longer?

If these weren't Christians I might assume that they were pulling a 'Stravinsky'. Later in his life, Stravinsky made insignificant changes to his Firebird Suite and republished it just so that he could continue collecting royalties.

Here are a few random thoughts, some pro, some con:

1. The ESV is a light revision of the RSV. They revised it in most of the places where the RSV was objectionable but left the vast majority of it alone. Examples of major changes are Isa. 7:14 and other verses that reflected an antisupernatural bias and retaining the word propitiation. If I'm not mistaken, something like 90% or more of the 2001 ESV is word for word the same as the RSV. John Piper said the ESV is the RSV with the theological problems fixed.

2. Did they perhaps rush it to press as soon as possible to capitalize on the furor over the TNIV (the "gender-neutral" controversy)? It is the only modern translation I can think of in which the complete Bible was released all at once instead of the NT being published first with the OT following several years later.

3. They have been more responsive to suggestions from the Christian public than have probably any other translation project. When the ESV was published they solicited suggestions for corrections. Crossway has also been very responsive to suggestions about different editions of the ESV. Some of the more recent ones, like the Journal edition and the single column edition where each verse begins a new paragraph were If I recall correctly the direct result of popular demand, with the single column edition being requested for pulpit use.

So, with the ESV being a light revision that was done rather quickly (1997-2001, If I recall correctly), perhaps the revision reflects the realization that more needed to be done, as well as responding to suggestions from readers, preachers, etc.

The NKJV allegedly has had minor changes made to it several times over the years, (what amount to unofficial revisions) but apparently you cannot get a list of them from Nelson.

 

[larryjf]

The NKJV allegedly has had minor changes made to it several times over the years, (what amount to unofficial revisions) but apparently you cannot get a list of them from Nelson.

But did Nelson promise such a list as the ESV publisher did? That is where the difference lies. It is simply unChristian to say that you will do something and promise to give somebody something...and then not do it, is it not?

 

[bookslover]

I really have no idea why they revised the ESV. Money could be one of the reasons. Just by stating that fact does not imply anything. Stavinsky was not sinning when he 'revised' the Firebird Suite. He composed a monumental work of art and there was nothing wrong with getting paid for it. I have no problem with the translators of the ESV being paid for their labors. The thing with Stravinsky was that everyone knew why he did it. It was and is public knowledge that when you perform the 'new' Firebird Suite you keep the same markings as the original because the new ones were made just to make sure Stravinsky kept getting paid. (He lived to be an old man) Is this what the ESVers are doing? Do they just want to make sure they keep getting paid? There is nothing wrong with that if that is the case, but like Stravinsky, just be honest.

Once again, I do not know why they revised the ESV. I am hoping that someone on the board can tell us.

I don't have any inside knowledge, but let's not be making mountains out of what are probably just molehills.

No English translation (or translation into any other language, for that matter) is perfect. So, it would be natural for the ESV guys to discover that the finished product needs tweaking here and there - not being omniscient or omnipotent, it would be impossible to catch all mistakes or cover all the places they missed the first time around. The RSV was tweaked at least twice, that I know of. Even the beloved KJV has been through many major and minor revisions, the biggest being in 1769.

As with all translations, there being minor revisions is just evidence that translating is an ongoing project. I'm sure there will be more revisions in the future. I'm optimistic enough to suggest that there are no ulterior motives involved; they're just trying to make a good translation better.

As for changing their minds about publishing a list of the revisions, the number of revisions is so few that it's probably not cost-effective to publish a list. There's another thread somewhere on the Board that shows the changes that have been made; I think there were only four or five places listed.

As for the money angle: well, yes, they'd like to bring in some bucks. Although Crossway Publishers is a non-profit outfit, translators and editors still need to be paid, and it costs money to print and distribute the physical books. I'm sure they would at least like to make enough money to cover their expenses. As the late British pastor John Marshall (a trustee of the Banner of Truth Trust) once observed, "Being non-profit means you're not allowed to make money, but you are allowed to lose money!"

I will say that they could probably be more communicative with the public about the whys and wherefores as to how and why they do things.

So, I don't think there's anything evil going on. Part of it is just the nature of translating work, and part of it is just the nature of the publishing business.

 

[Pilgrim]

But did Nelson promise such a list as the ESV publisher did? That is where the difference lies. It is simply unChristian to say that you will do something and promise to give somebody something...and then not do it, is it not?

I would be surprised if the list of revisions is not eventually released. My understanding is that they were not making that many changes. Did they say that they weren't going to provide the list, or that it is simply not available now?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Wcf 1.8

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them....

Translations are for the laity who cannot read the original languages. Ministers are to read the original languages and not rely on translations.

Translations are mutable necessarily. I doubt there is an extant translation, including the AV, that has not been changed.

Archaic English is not the "vulgar" tongue by definition. Thus we confess:

...the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come...

The divines did not rely on Wycliffe's translation from the Vulgate nor did they even rely on Tyndale's marvelous translation. Rather, they depended on the original languages and, if or when they read the Scriptures in translation, they used the Geneva (widely used until the 1640s) or perhaps the AV (which was a relatively new work in the mid '40s).

There is and should be no need to learn archaic English to have access to faithful Bible translations.

For more on translations see this essay.

rsc

 

[KMK]

Meanwhile there are many languages in the world that do not even have a translation in their own language.

 

[larryjf]

I would be surprised if the list of revisions is not eventually released. My understanding is that they were not making that many changes. Did they say that they weren't going to provide the list, or that it is simply not available now?

They said they would produce a list, even promised me personally to provide one to me (they gave me a date and everything)...then just decided not to.

One should not promise something and then not deliver it...that's just not appropriate. After confronting them on the issue i never even received an apology.

Not only that, but the individual that i was in correspondence with who told me i would receive the list passed it on to somebody else to tell me that they changed their mind...

Greetings from Crossway Books and Bibles. I am writing to you at the request of [name withheld] in our customer service department, with whom you have been in correspondence regarding a list of changes to the English Standard Version Bible.

At a recent meeting of our executive management team, it was decided that we will not be releasing such a list.

 

[larryjf]

Regarding the essay that Dr. Clark linked to...

In the Reformed tradition we have consistently affirmed the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture in the autographa (2 Tim 3:16).

I would like to see some proof that the Reformed tradition prior to the 19th century even used the word "inerrancy" in describing Scripture.

From what i have read the "inspiration" and "infallibility" was always given to the apographs prior to the 19th century...autographs were never really an issue until the 19th century as they didn't/don't exist.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Well, that's a little like asking for Nicene formulations ipsissima verba a century before Nicea.

Expressions are developed to face specific situations. The 19th century, because of the rise of the higher critical enterprise, required more technical expressions of the doctrine of Scripture than hitherto had been necessary.

The question is whether the orthodox Reformed prior to the 19th century intended the Reformed churches to think about autographa a certain way or about Scripture's truthfulness and reliability along a certain trajectory.

rsc

Regarding the essay that Dr. Clark linked to...


I would like to see some proof that the Reformed tradition prior to the 19th century even used the word "inerrancy" in describing Scripture.

From what i have read the "inspiration" and "infallibility" was always given to the apographs prior to the 19th century...autographs were never really an issue until the 19th century as they didn't/don't exist.

 

[larryjf]

Expressions are developed to face specific situations. The 19th century, because of the rise of the higher critical enterprise, required more technical expressions of the doctrine of Scripture than hitherto had been necessary.

Does that mean that you agree that "inerrancy" was not something consistently affirmed by the Reformed tradition, but rather was a concept invented in the 19th century?

The question is whether the orthodox Reformed prior to the 19th century intended the Reformed churches to think about autographa a certain way or about Scripture's truthfulness and reliability along a certain trajectory.

I have not seen any evidence that prior to the 19th century the autographa was something that Reformed churches took issue with at all. There efforts seem to be focused on the apographs.

It seems to me that the pre-19th century Reformed churches focused the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture along the apographic trajectory.

Even the WCOF 1.8, though it speaks of "immediate" inspiration, focuses in on the point of making our appeal to the original language texts in controversies, which would clearly not be the non-existent originals.

Most individuals that i have read from like Turretin speak of the apographs as being the inspired texts of Scripture. Even when they use the term "original" they seem to refer to the copies...Turretin said, "By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the
Holy Spirit."

 

[bookslover]

I don't remember the name of the book, unfortunately, but in 1982, Dr. Woodridge of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School published a very fine volume in which he basically takes apart a book published in 1979 by Rogers and McKim, in which they denied inerrancy and infallibility.

Woodridge's book contains, as I remember, a very fine history of the defense of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. Sure wish I could remember the name of his book...

 

[turmeric]

I love my 1611. I grew up on the King Jimmy and also like weird spellings, so it's fun to read. I looked at a grammar of Old English once, and it really is like German. I never really got the hang of German, so I didn't attempt it.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Inerrancy Lit

Not at all. Doctrine develops.

The conviction that God's Word is inerrant in the autographa is an ancient conviction.

Frankly only someone who has who has never translated something from one language to another would think that a translation could be immutable.

We've always confessed that faithful translations are the inerrant Word of God, but the divines did distinguish between the autographa (remember the confession was written before the Helvetic Consensus Formula and before Turretin published his Elenctics) and translations. This isn't some new fangled notion.

Warfield and co did not invent the substance of the doctrine of inerrancy. There is a considerable body of inerrantist literature responding to Rogers and McKim and to the critics of inerrancy generally.

Apographs? Well, as far as I know we believe that we have the autographa in our texts.

N. Geisler, ed. Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980)
G. Gordon and Bruce Demarest, ed. Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
J W Montgomery, ed. God's Inerrant Word (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1973)
R Nicole and J. R. Michaels, Inerrancy and Common Sense (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1980)
H Conn, ed., Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate (GR, 1988)
D A Carson and John D., Woodbridge, ed., Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (GR, 1986)

rsc

Does that mean that you agree that "inerrancy" was not something consistently affirmed by the Reformed tradition, but rather was a concept invented in the 19th century?

I have not seen any evidence that prior to the 19th century the autographa was something that Reformed churches took issue with at all. There efforts seem to be focused on the apographs.

It seems to me that the pre-19th century Reformed churches focused the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture along the apographic trajectory.

Even the WCOF 1.8, though it speaks of "immediate" inspiration, focuses in on the point of making our appeal to the original language texts in controversies, which would clearly not be the non-existent originals.

Most individuals that i have read from like Turretin speak of the apographs as being the inspired texts of Scripture. Even when they use the term "original" they seem to refer to the copies...Turretin said, "By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the
Holy Spirit."

 

[Tom Roach]

Greetings:

Baugh and Cable is a good book on the subject. It was used as a textbook in my class on English language history, and I still have it! You should note, however, that the English language of the 1600's is called "Early Modern English" and not Middle English.

Old English is Germanic in nature and is the language of Beowulf. Middle English is Old English that has "evolved" with the introduction of Latin (from the Romans) and Frence (from the Norman Conquest). With a little training the modern ear can learn it. It is the language of Geoffrey Chaucer.

Early Modern English is the language of the Puritans, and, most notably, Shakespeare. It has few differences with Modern English - mostly unused words like "thy" and irregular spellings - and is easily understood to the modern ear.

Grace,

-CH

Thank you for the information : ) I had just learned that Middle English faded by about AD 1500 when I made my reply to this post. That of course would make the 1611 KJV Early Modern English, which is still very tough for us accustomed to 20th/21st century writing.

 

[larryjf]

The conviction that God's Word is inerrant in the autographa is an ancient conviction.

Can you please site any document pre-19th century that speaks of inerrant autographa?

Frankly only someone who has who has never translated something from one language to another would think that a translation could be immutable.

I would not argue for an immutable translation. I think the ESV people were wrong in promising something that they ended up not providing, and then not even apologizing for it. I have no problem with the NASB 95 update or the NKJV revisions...but they didn't promise something and then not give it. It's a matter of being true to your word even if that means it will cause you harm. Since the ESV folks were not true to their word, that is a problem for me.

Warfield and co did not invent the substance of the doctrine of inerrancy. There is a considerable body of inerrantist literature responding to Rogers and McKim and to the critics of inerrancy generally.

This is what i was talking about. After reading some of Dr. Letis' material I thought that Warfield et al. did invent the idea of "inerrancy in the autographs." Is there any inerrant autograph literature pre-19th century??

Apographs? Well, as far as I know we believe that we have the autographa in our texts.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard Z,

The book is, Woodbridge, John D., Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Steve

 

[bookslover]

Richard Z,

The book is, Woodbridge, John D., Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Steve

That's the one. Thanks, Steve. I was still a fairly new Christian when it was published in 1982. I'm glad I read it at the time because it really strengthened my understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy - a good thing for a new Christian to get squared away right from the get-go.