The ESV and Calvinists

[DMcFadden]

One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.

A helpful exercise would be to read the translator's preface to the KJV.

Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

[emphasis mine]

NONE of the formal correspondence style translations is perfect. However, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB, despite their differences over which text to use or how to replicate into English the Hebrew and Greek originals, come mighty close to being "word for word" translations in a way that the NIV, TNIV, NLT, CEV, TEV, JB, LB, Message, etc. will NEVER be.

Now in a "downsizing" mode in preparation for an eventual move to Indiana to be near children and grandchildren, Jeanette and I have been eliminating clutter in our lives. Accordingly, it has been my goal to keep one exemplar in fine leather (R.L. Allan if possible) of each of the solid formal correspondence transations: KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB (NASB is soooo wooden to my ears that using it on the computer is good enough for me, can't imagine carrying it to church) and of my favorite study Bibles (ESV Study Bible, MacArthur ESV, and Reformation Study Bible). The rest of them were put back into "circulation" and saved me shelf space on my desk.

 

[au5t1n]

One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.

I don't think this is nearly as bad as replacing entire phrases with made-up phrases, but that's just my opinion. What the translators are describing in your quote is reasonable because, as it points out, the same word can be used differently, and so might be translated differently (or with a synonym). This is common in translation of books in general. Inserting entire phrases that have no basis in the text is entirely different, as the ESV frequently does.

I don't really have a beef with the ESV; I just personally prefer to use something more precise, and I think readers of the Bible should be aware of what they're getting. It seems to me that the ESV is marketed as being more literal than it really is. This is misleading. It is consistently interpretive in a way that the KJV, for example, is not. A good example is 1 Peter 1:13, where an entire clause was made up from scratch by the ESV translators.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

I didn't go looking for examples, by the way. They just seem to come to me. The Jeremiah problem mentioned above is one I noticed today while looking up verses for my friend. I don't see the point at all of totally destroying the imagery and removing words that the Holy Spirit inspired. It seems like a disrespectful handling of the Scripture to me. Almost a dozen times throughout Jeremiah, God told Jeremiah to tell the people that he rose up early and sent the prophets to call them to repentance, and folks reading the ESV like my friend does would never have known about this recurring theme. It's missing from the ESV, and yes, that does bother me a little. Just a little, but this kind of thing is why I stopped using the ESV as my main translation, though I still consult it and consider it a good translation in many ways. I do see your point, Mr. McFadden; I just think there is a qualitative difference between the kinds of imperfections of the two translations we are using as examples.

 

[Apologist4Him]

I post on the Baptist Board and there was a sentiment that the ESV was a "calvinist" translation. It was refuted, of course.

However, 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?

Personally and honestly, the endorsements from distinguished Reformed theologians (along with a few other tidbits of information) encouraged me to pick up a copy of the ESV Reformation Study Bible when it first came out. One of the reasons I like it is because of the translation philosophy, another reason is readability and flow. I wouldn't call it a "calvinist" translation any more than I would call the HCSB a "baptist" translation. I would say they are faithful to the texts behind them. I do not understand why some Protestants put more trust in tradition and a team of less than 50 Catholic scholars than teams of 100 or more Protestant scholars all affirming biblical inerrancy, especially when said translations are revisions of previous translations! Not to mention manuscript discoveries, advances in original languages, and access to manuscripts. Personally, I am now leaning more toward the HCSB as my favorite translation because it is not based on another translation, it is a very readable literal translation, and a team of 100 Protestant biblical scholars (from various denominations) all affirming biblical inerrancy translated it.

 

[Kiffin]

I don't remember where I read it, but someone referred to the ESV as the Elect Standard Version. Heh. Wish *I'd* thought of that...

lol. Not sure if it was original to him but at the Gospel Coalition, Driscoll before his seminar told us to "get your Elect Standard Version out."

I'm beginning to like the HCSB. We got free ones at the conference!

Look how they translate John 3:16 for example:
For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
Not sure if Arminians will like this one....lol

 

[nicnap]

I've asked 20 coworkers ....

Seriously?

 

[au5t1n]

I've asked 20 coworkers where anything about the private use of your preference for translation was mentioned, they saw nothing but public disturbance as being the issue raised.

Seriously?

No kidding.

 

[Grillsy]

I do not understand why some Protestants put more trust in tradition and a team of less than 50 Catholic scholars than teams of 100 or more Protestant scholars all affirming biblical inerrancy

Which translation was done by less than 50 Catholic scholars that Protestants put their trust in?

Personally, I am now leaning more toward the HCSB as my favorite translation because it is not based on another translation

Just as when reading the great theologians of the past, it is a good thing to learn and use what was good in those things that came before. Translation in a vacuum is not a good thing. I'm sure the HCSB translators consulted other translations even if they don't claim a direct lineage.

 

[E Nomine]

The whole problem was with the deliberate and public use of another translation just to mess things up for others.
+raised.

As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.

 

[Apologist4Him]

Which translation was done by less than 50 Catholic scholars that Protestants put their trust in?

Sorry, I was still waking up and distracted, I'm glad you caught my mistake, I should have stated it differently... based on Roman Catholic Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Catholic 'humanist' priest Erasmus' "textus receptus", and the Bishop's Bible, the 47 scholars were all from the Church of England, and included the apocrypha in the first 1611 edition.

Just as when reading the great theologians of the past, it is a good thing to learn and use what was good in those things that came before. Translation in a vacuum is not a good thing. I'm sure the HCSB translators consulted other translations even if they don't claim a direct lineage.

I believe the KJV was the best English translation for hundreds of years... I wouldn't say modern translations have been done in a vacuum... scholars today can compare alexandrian type mss with byzantine type mss ...according to Daniel Wallace "The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time." The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

 

[DMcFadden]

One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.

I don't think this is nearly as bad as replacing entire phrases with made-up phrases, but that's just my opinion. What the translators are describing in your quote is reasonable because, as it points out, the same word can be used differently, and so might be translated differently (or with a synonym). This is common in translation of books in general. Inserting entire phrases that have no basis in the text is entirely different, as the ESV frequently does.

That is not what I was referencing. Obviously a single word, hesed, for example, can be translated differently, depending upon the context. I seem to remember that the KJV handles it with 16 different English words.

My point is illustrated by Romans 5:2-11. Paul did not vary his vocabulary, using the same Greek word 3x in this text. The KJV translates it with different English words in each instance. This makes for a more attractive style; more attractive, indeed, than the original from which it was translated!

But, more to the point, when the Synoptics record the same incident using the SAME GREEK words, one might think that passages would be translated in the same way regardless of the Gospel involved. But, as McGrath observes,

“The evidence, however, suggests that the Second Oxford Company of translators, who were responsible for translating the gospels, did not see things in quite this light. We regularly find identical Greek passages in two or three gospels which are translated in quite different manners in the King James Bible."

Compare Mark 14:38 and Matthew 26:41 in the KJV and in the Greek:

Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν· τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής.
γρηγορειτε και προσευχεσθε ινα μη εισελθητε εις πειρασμον το μεν πνευμα προθυμον η δε σαρξ ασθενης

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Identical Greek words are translated rather differently in the Marcan and Matthean accounts.

My point was not to diss the KJV. Although my regular Bible is the ESV, I'm using the KJV for all my teaching and daily devotions in this year of the 400th Anniversary. However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well. Formal correspondence does NOT mean mechanical literalism. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB are ALL essentially literal. They are not, however, mechanically so.

 

[au5t1n]

However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well.

I was following you up until this point. I think we are fully agreed that many of the KJV's word choices -- especially in the Synoptics or when the same word is used in close proximity in a passage (this problem occurs in 1 Cor. 13 as well) -- could stand to be corrected, and translations like the ESV and NASB may handle those better. The problem is, my complaint concerning the ESV did not concern mere variation in how a single word is translated. It concerned replacement of entire phrases with phrases that have no underlying basis in the text. I agree that the ESV is "essentially literal," but I think it is significantly less literal. Unnecessary word variation in the KJV is unfortunate and could stand to be improved, but it is still a direct translation of a word that actually appears in the underlying text. That's all I'm saying.

 

[seajayrice]

Please, no translation compares to the AV. I enjoy the NKJV and the NASB but let’s be clear, they pale to the AV (manuscript family and tenor). The NIV, really? The ESV, just business folks, Calvinist love new books.

 

[MW]

However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well.

I was following you up until this point. I think we are fully agreed that many of the KJV's word choices -- especially in the Synoptics or when the same word is used in close proximity in a passage (this problem occurs in 1 Cor. 13 as well) -- could stand to be corrected, and translations like the ESV and NASB may handle those better. The problem is, my complaint concerning the ESV did not concern mere variation in how a single word is translated. It concerned replacement of entire phrases with phrases that have no underlying basis in the text. I agree that the ESV is "essentially literal," but I think it is significantly less literal. Unnecessary word variation in the KJV is unfortunate and could stand to be improved, but it is still a direct translation of a word that actually appears in the underlying text. That's all I'm saying.

I think Dennis is essentially correct. I would also add that a part of the beauty of the AV is its semantic sensitivity. If we look at the Romans 5 example, we see that the variation in wording is (1) not very different in English, and (2) conveys different nuances of the original Greek. It proves to be helpful to have the variety in order to fill out what the Greek means in English in different contexts. Given that the purpose of the translation is to facilitate those with little to no understanding of the Greek, this proves to be quite beneficial.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Please, no translation compares to the AV. I enjoy the NKJV and the NASB but let’s be clear, they pale to the AV (manuscript family and tenor). The NIV, really? The ESV, just business folks, Calvinist love new books.

The NKJV is from the same manuscript family as the AV. As for the ESV, it is mainly the product of great marketing. I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much. The ESV even has its own website where different leaders have videotaped messages extolling its virtues over all other translations. Based on some of their comments and the degree to which many reformed Christians seem to have accepted the ESV as the only translation they use, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years from now we are talking about ESV onlyists.

 

[Rufus]

If I buy a Kindle I'll download the ESV for it. I have a KJV Bible, a NIV New Testament (which I used the most), and a half million (7 or so) GNTs (military edition). While I use the NIV, I kinda feel dissatisfied with it.

 

[Scottish Lass]

If I buy a Kindle I'll download the ESV for it.

I have it on my nook--very handy.

 

[Zenas]

The NLT says nice things. It makes me smile.

 

[DMcFadden]

I just received an email charging me with "misrepresenting things,"putting out "misinformation," being "grossly mistaken," "utterly unfair," etc. The correspondent argues that the TNIV and HCSB are "practically kissing cousins." Evidently, my offending words were in post #61:

NONE of the formal correspondence style translations is perfect. However, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB, despite their differences over which text to use or how to replicate into English the Hebrew and Greek originals, come mighty close to being "word for word" translations in a way that the NIV, TNIV, NLT, CEV, TEV, JB, LB, Message, etc. will NEVER be.

Different scholars produce different scales with the various translations at different data points on the continuum. For example, a fairly popular one that has been widely published is as follows:

I stand by my claim that formal correspondence translations include the NJV, NKJV, ESV, and (most often) the HCSB. The commonly used phrase for this philosophy of translation is "word for word." No translation is really w-o-r-d f-o-r- w-o-r-d in a technical sense. But in colloquial English that is the phrase that usually accompanies "formal correspondence" translations. Similarly "thought for thought" renders the more technical term "dynamic equivalence." This does not mean that a "dynamic equivalence" translation ignores the words of the original.

While I do NOT consider an interlinear a true "translation," it stands at one end of the translation philosophy spectrum just as The Living Bible and The Message hang out at the other end.

My email correspondent and I are fighting over the middle. On most of the charts I have seen, the HCSB is in the more "formal correspondence" end of the chart with the NIV closer to dead center and The Living Bible and/or The Message on the far end. If you like the NIV, you will probably see the HCSB as closer to the NIV philosophy with what Holman calls "optimal equivalence" being a mediating approach. I like the ESV and see the HCSB as closer to it and agree with the charts that place the HCSB more in the formal correspondence section. But, obviously the NASB is MORE consistently formal correspondence in execution than the HCSB.

What we can probably all agree on is that translation is as much art as science. I do not hesitate to call any English translation the "Word of God." However, of the dozens of competing English translations, I generally PREFER a more formal correspondence type: KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB (although the word-for-word NASB does not appeal to me at all). The HCSB does some things that makes it look like a dynamic equivalent Bible. On the other hand, the care with the names of God is a very "literal" quality for a Bible.

The NIV is a mediating translation intended to strike a balance between loose paraphrase and woodenly strict formal correspondence. In this sense, it is a "serious" translation done by a team of competent scholars trying to increase understandability and is much like the NLT. Obviously gazillions of people love it, buy it, read it, preach from it, and treasure it. More power to them. Not me.

Frankly, since joining the Puritan Board, I have had a growing respect for the arguments of people like Jerusalem Blade and Matthew Winzer. Much of my cocky confidence in the CT has been beaten out of me by these good brethren. It is interesting to note that even the NIV differs from the CT in several hundred places. The latest critical text published by SBL treats the putative text underlying the NIV as one of the four exemplars (along with Wescott and Hort, Tregelles, and the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine textform). But even the NIV differs from the UBS/Aland CT in 231 places! A rational textual case can be made for the Byzantine text over against the Alexandrian. And a powerful practical case can be made for the negative effects of abandoning the KJV.

After reading Ryken (an ESV guy), extol the virtues of the AV in this anniversary year, I also lament some of the losses that came with our proliferation of translations. But, hey, we are where we are. There is probably no way to put the geni back in that bottle. So, you all can read what you want, but I'm reading the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB.

 

[nicnap]

I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much.

A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much.

A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV, I am simply saying that the amount of praise that is being heaped on the ESV is unwarranted and makes you question the motivation. If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org. I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language. Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.

 

[nicnap]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV

You sure didn't sound like it; you didn't give them the judgment of charity. Instead, you asserted that they had sold out.

If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org.

I've seen the videos.

I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language.

Crossway doesn't think you're stupid ... they have stated plainly, from the beginning, that it was a revision of the RSV, so they aren't trying to 'dupe' any one. The RSV was a fine translation of the CT. It did have a liberal slant to it and that has been corrected. All of this has been stated from the beginning; so no one is trying to 'outsmart' you.

Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.

Right, and that's the issue I took with your other post. Not that you don't care for the ESV, but that you would think a man uses it because he was paid to do so. The way you stated it made it sound as if he had given up his textual/translational understanding for a little cash. Something that is a hefty charge, in my estimation.

 

[Galatians220]

I don't know if the NKJV is from the same family as the KJV. This page would differ: The NKJV Examined.

I've done my own verse comparisons, but I'm no scholar.

Blessings,

Margaret

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV

You sure didn't sound like it; you didn't give them the judgment of charity. Instead, you asserted that they had sold out.

If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org.

I've seen the videos.

I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language.

Crossway doesn't think you're stupid ... they have stated plainly, from the beginning, that it was a revision of the RSV, so they aren't trying to 'dupe' any one. The RSV was a fine translation of the CT. It did have a liberal slant to it and that has been corrected. All of this has been stated from the beginning; so no one is trying to 'outsmart' you.

Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.

Right, and that's the issue I took with your other post. Not that you don't care for the ESV, but that you would think a man uses it because he was paid to do so. The way you stated it made it sound as if he had given up his textual/translational understanding for a little cash. Something that is a hefty charge, in my estimation.

You are correct that that is a hefty charge, and I do not really mean to imply that they were doing it for the money. If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize. I just feel that these fine people are having an inordinate amount of influence on the choice of bible translations for many people because they trust them. Most people today have totally forgotten about the RSV and what it is about, and so they blindly use the ESV mainly because of those who endorse it. That is my issue. Here is a good link about the ESV from a reformed source, stylos: Three Basic Challenges to the ESV

[]

 

[Pilgrim]

You are correct that that is a hefty charge, and I do not really mean to imply that they were doing it for the money. If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize. I just feel that these fine people are having an inordinate amount of influence on the choice of bible translations for many people because they trust them. Most people today have totally forgotten about the RSV and what it is about, and so they blindly use the ESV mainly because of those who endorse it. That is my issue. Here is a good link about the ESV from a reformed source, stylos: Three Basic Challenges to the ESV

I too have found that many have no clue or interest in the ESV's basis in the RSV, even though it is clearly stated in the preface and on the title (copyright) page. Piper has said that it is "The RSV with the theological problems fixed." I had one pastor tell me that he thought it was sort of an update of the NASB. Just goes to show that even many educated people don't bother to read prefaces and introductions.

Given my background in liberal churches where the RSV was used and especially in liberal college religion departments where the Oxford Annotated Bible (edited by Metzger and perhaps other members of the RSV/NRSV committee) with its higher critical book introductions and footnotes was a required text, admittedly I am a little more knowledgeable on the RSV issue compared with someone who either had no church background or who grew up in evangelical churches in which it wasn't used or mentioned.

Crossway did a bang-up job with marketing the ESV, especially in taking advantage of the internet. But the popularity of it with many Reformed today, especially the YRR's, which in large part is probably due to its endorsement by their heroes, is probably as apt an illustration of the problem with personalities that Carl Trueman recently noted than anything else.

 

[Apologist4Him]

As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.

I do not understand the double standard of questioning the motivations of modern translators and not questioning the motivations of earlier translators. It is difficult for me to imagine people devoting their entire lives to becoming equipped for the privilege and honor of translating the Scriptures to intentionally "mess things up". I found the following tad bit of info from Wikipedia interesting...

"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. They associated Calvinism with Presbyterianism, which sought to replace government of the church by bishops (Episcopalian) with government by lay elders. However, they were aware that the Great Bible of 1539 —which was the only version then legally authorized for use in Anglican worship—was severely deficient; in that much of the Old Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In an attempt to replace the objectionable Geneva translation, they circulated one of their own, which became known as the Bishops' Bible."

A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.

I have to firmly agree, and add, in giving endorsements, they put their reputation on the line. And surely considered the implications of making such an endorsement. I cannot imagine being a well known Christian leader, being very knowledgeable of the Greek, and recommending a Bible translation without careful study and consideration.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.

I do not understand the double standard of questioning the motivations of modern translators and not questioning the motivations of earlier translators. It is difficult for me to imagine people devoting their entire lives to becoming equipped for the privilege and honor of translating the Scriptures to intentionally "mess things up". I found the following tad bit of info from Wikipedia interesting...

"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. They associated Calvinism with Presbyterianism, which sought to replace government of the church by bishops (Episcopalian) with government by lay elders. However, they were aware that the Great Bible of 1539 —which was the only version then legally authorized for use in Anglican worship—was severely deficient; in that much of the Old Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In an attempt to replace the objectionable Geneva translation, they circulated one of their own, which became known as the Bishops' Bible."

A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.

I have to firmly agree, and add, in giving endorsements, they put their reputation on the line. And surely considered the implications of making such an endorsement. I cannot imagine being a well known Christian leader, being very knowledgeable of the Greek, and recommending a Bible translation without careful study and consideration.

Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, 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. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.

 

[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.

 

[Apologist4Him]

Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, 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. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.

Do you buy Reformed books from places that also sell books by non-Reformed authors? I do. Christianbook.com in one example. Were the KJV translated in modern times, it would also be copyrighted, in times past, unauthorized copying was nearly a non-issue (considering printing press relatively new invention and the costs of printing), however they did have laws...a translation could be legal or illegal. William Tyndale was burned to death for making an "illegal" translation of the Bible. I think copyrights are a wee bit more generous, than saying X translation is legal, and any illegal translations will be burned out of existence.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, 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. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.

Do you buy Reformed books from places that also sell books by non-Reformed authors? I do. Christianbook.com in one example. Were the KJV translated in modern times, it would also be copyrighted, in times past, unauthorized copying was nearly a non-issue (considering printing press relatively new invention and the costs of printing), however they did have laws...a translation could be legal or illegal. William Tyndale was burned to death for making an "illegal" translation of the Bible. I think copyrights are a wee bit more generous, than saying X translation is legal, and any illegal translations will be burned out of existence.

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. It makes me question their judgment a bit. If you enjoy the ESV, then by all means continue to use it. I am simply trying to inform my reformed brethren who may be unaware of these things, especially in the face of the almost monolithic support of the ESV in reformed circles.

 

[nicnap]

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.

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.