The ESV and Calvinists

[Osage Bluestem]

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?

 

[torstar]

Probably got a few truckloads of the ESV for free.

That would be a good incentive.

 

[fredtgreco]

Actually, a good many of the contributors are Calvinistic. This the Oversight Committee:

Wayne Grudem
J. I. Packer
C. John Collins
Thomas R. Schreiner
Justin Taylor

Many of the contributors are explicitly Calvinistic:

http://www.esvonline.org/resources/esvsb/article-contributors/

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Actually, a good many of the contributors are Calvinistic. This the Oversight Committee:

Wayne Grudem
J. I. Packer
C. John Collins
Thomas R. Schreiner
Justin Taylor

Many of the contributors are explicitly Calvinistic:

http://www.esvonline.org/resources/esvsb/article-contributors/

Interesting. You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek? The allegation on the other forum was that the translators had written their eisegesis of the greek into the text of the ESV.

 

[Grillsy]

You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek?

What is the difference?

 

[Rom]

Interesting. You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek? The allegation on the other forum was that the translators had written their eisegesis of the greek into the text of the ESV.

That's a bold allegation. How exactly do they back it up?

 

[JM]

A Calvinist translation is a faithful translation.

 

[nicnap]

Well, the ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV ... so, would they make that accusation of the RSV? If not, then I guess it's not. It did catch on quickly among Calvinistic folk ... I would say there are a few reasons. 1) The number of Calvinists involved with the revision; 2) there were a lot of Calvinistic folk who had been NIVers & wanted a more literal translation (NASB & NKJV have never 'caught on' as much as others ... I don't know why); 3) Crossway's marketing genius ... flood the market with ESV's while producing more & more Calvinistic literature. At least that's how I've seen it.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

What is the difference?

Good point

That's a bold allegation. How exactly do they back it up?

The guy didn't. He's not a fan of calvinists and because he had seen so many use the ESV he thought it had to be biased toward us.

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

A Calvinist translation is a faithful translation.

Indeed brother.

 

[DMcFadden]

Well, the ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV ... so, would they make that accusation of the RSV? If not, then I guess it's not. It did catch on quickly among Calvinistic folk ... I would say there are a few reasons. 1) The number of Calvinists involved with the revision; 2) there were a lot of Calvinistic folk who had been NIVers & wanted a more literal translation (NASB & NKJV have never 'caught on' as much as others ... I don't know why); 3) Crossway's marketing genius ... flood the market with ESV's while producing more & more Calvinistic literature. At least that's how I've seen it.

What a masterpiece of concision, Nicholas! Very succinct.

In seminary Bill LaSor was once asked why the NIV? He opined, "so that evangelicals have a Bible that is not the RSV." With growing frustration and dissatisfaction with the dynamic equivalent translational philosophy behind the NIV combined with the fact that it had grown a little stale in the three decades of its existence, the market was ripe for a formal correspondence translation without the baggage of liberalism (e.g., the RSV) or woodenness (e.g., NASB).

Without getting into the textual critical debate AGAIN, it would be safe to say that most seminarians who take Greek are indoctrinated into the superiority of the Critical Text. That would be sufficient reason why the NKJV would not receive the attention it probably deserves.

But, secular marketing and timing are undoubtedly key factors. Crossway was establishing itself as a Reformed leaning publisher at the same time that Reformed folks were becoming alienated from some of the Grand Rapids publishers such as Zondervan. A very good translation that also carves out its niche among the more literal translations, the Holman Christian Standard, might have given the ESV more of a run for their money had it not been produced by an insular denominational publisher (SBC) and missed the marketing window captured by Crossway.

 

[HoldFast]

My Arminian friend calls the ESV Study Bible the Calvinist Study Bible. It is always good for a laugh.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I don't think that the ESV itself has a calvinist slant, maybe some of the notes in the ESV study bible do. Regardless, I think the popularity of the ESV amongst Calvinists has more to do with who was behind the translation than the translation itself. It is not a bad version, certainly better than the NIV (no intelligence version) and a marked improvement over its predecessor the RSV. Still, like all version based on the critical text, it fails in that the translators put more faith in their precious methods of textual criticism than in the Word of God itself. The result is a number of inconsistencies such as Jesus misquoting the Old Testament. I personally prefer the NKJV, but I would like to see an all new translation done in the Calvinist tradition. As for popularity of the various bible versions, here is the latest list from the Christian Booksellers Association. It is from 2009 because they only release it every three years. It will be interesting to see if the ESV moves up any in the next one.

The Christian Booksellers Association has just published its list of best selling bible translations for 2009 based on both dollar and unit sales. Here are the lists, but keep in mind that the ranking is based only on sales in US Christian retail stores.

2009 - Based on Dollar Sales

1.New International Version
2.New King James Version
3.King James Version
4.New Living Translation
5.English Standard Version
6.Holman Christian Standard Bible
7.New American Standard Bible updated
8.The Message
9.New International Readers Version
10.Today’s New International Version

2009 - Based on Unit Sales

1.New International Version
2.King James Version
3.New King James Version
4.New Living Translation
5.English Standard Version
6.Holman Christian Standard Bible
7.The Message
8.New International Readers Version
9.New American Standard Bible updated
10.Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)

 

[Andres]

2009 - Based on Dollar Sales

1.New International Version
2.New King James Version
3.King James Version
4.New Living Translation
5.English Standard Version
6.Holman Christian Standard Bible
7.New American Standard Bible updated
8.The Message
9.New International Readers Version
10.Today’s New International Version

2009 - Based on Unit Sales

1.New International Version
2.King James Version
3.New King James Version
4.New Living Translation
5.English Standard Version
6.Holman Christian Standard Bible
7.The Message
8.New International Readers Version
9.New American Standard Bible updated
10.Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)

So the NKJV costs more?

 

[Michael]

Marketing, marketing, marketing.

 

[Philip]

So the NKJV costs more?

It's copyrighted, so yes. Anyone can print an edition of the KJV because it's public domain in the US.

 

[JM]

CBA updates it's lists every month.

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bibles.pdf

 

[puritanpilgrim]

I think it's because the NASB made themselves very inaccessible, by not allowing others to use their text. I don't know of many commentaries that use the NASB. By doing this the made themselves like Macintosh did in the 80's and 90's. I used the NASB, but then I looked around and realized that no one else was using it. I think it is a very solid translation, but I now use the ESV because more other people use it. I don't think the ESV would have been very successful, if the NASB had been more accessible.

 

[Jack K]

But, secular marketing and timing are undoubtedly key factors. Crossway was establishing itself as a Reformed leaning publisher at the same time that Reformed folks were becoming alienated from some of the Grand Rapids publishers such as Zondervan. A very good translation that also carves out its niche among the more literal translations, the Holman Christian Standard, might have given the ESV more of a run for their money had it not been produced by an insular denominational publisher (SBC) and missed the marketing window captured by Crossway.

This would be my assessment, too. We were ready to give up the NIV, and we trusted Crossway, which did a fabulous marketing job.

 

[Grillsy]

What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.

 

[E Nomine]

Amen to DMcFadden's post, above!

There is a rapidly growing number of ESV options as the variety of NKJV editions appears to be contracting.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.

 

[torstar]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.

It was the first to stand up to the KJVO crowd and boldly went into the jungle of fundamentalism.

As such it was attacked with all the venom that certain elements in those groupings could muster.

My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....

If I have any squeamishness about it then I can ask myself what my credentials are compared to the advisory board of that translation.

And I know if verses from the most popular solid translations were presented to me in a pop quiz that I could not tell them apart.

 

[Curt]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality

This should be interesting.

 

[Jack K]

What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.

You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.

 

[discipulo]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.

Joseph, I don't like the NIV, with all due respect, it seems to me like it is a Bible diluted in water, like a paraphrase, I can’t sense that nourishment and substance I get from other versions.

Maybe it’s me, but that's exactly my beef with it, the absence of a sense of meat.

I am so used to my favourite version, the Portuguese Translation of the XVII Century João Ferreira de Almeida, a refugee to Holland who became a Minister in the Netherlands Reformed Church and a Missionary to Indonesia.

But concerning English Versions I like KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV.

I find the NASB pretty good, I don’t know why so few people use it.

 

[E Nomine]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.

My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....

I don't know what this could tell you other than that someone brought a different translation to your study. With due respect, be cautious about making assumptions.

 

[torstar]

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.

My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....

I don't know what this could tell you other than that someone brought a different translation to your study. With due respect, be cautious about making assumptions.

They think they are smarter than others...

Once can be an honest mistake, twice and more is a mousy rebellion.

Especially if there are 25 copies of the NIV sitting there on the table in front of you.

And again there may be the exception that proves the rule.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.

You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.

And the NIV was the first to hit good conservative Christians with those notes at the bottom of the page, some suggesting that portions of Scripture don't really belong there.

Still not sure this was and is the best thing to do to non-scholars, but it is what it is.

 

[E Nomine]

Obviously I can't speak for your group, Torstar, but I bring a different version than my church's standard translation to Bible study and worship merely because I'm comfortable with my version and I like seeing the differences between the two. It is absolutely not an act of rebellion or a symbol of superiority.

I've never been directed by an elder to use the church standard version but, if I was, I would submit to his direction.

 

[torstar]

Obviously I can't speak for your group, Torstar, but I bring a different version than my church's standard translation to Bible study and worship merely because I'm comfortable with my version and I like seeing the differences between the two. It is absolutely not an act of rebellion or a symbol of superiority.

I've never been directed by an elder to use the church standard version but, if I was, I would submit to his direction.

I see membership and putting myself under the leadership of my church as accepting the version they use in teaching and in reading in unison, even without any coercion.

If I have a different translation with me on a given day, for whatever reason, I would not loudly quote from it as to disturb others.

If I am in a study and know everyone else is using the same translation, I would not show up with answers that are based on the wording of other translations.

And I don't understand the big deal about the NIV, unless I was credentialed. My personal choosiness over certain words is not grounds to attack a translation publicly.

At the same time, my personal convictions are my own and free and everyone's mileage will vary.

[E... I don't really think we are in disagreement here...]

 

[Grillsy]

You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.

Good point Jack. I am guilty of judging a situation out of its context.
The point about a version being ingrained is also a great reminder that the NIV remains the standard in many churches in out tradition and familiarity.

If I am not mistaken, the NIV was criticized in its time for its translation philosophy correct? Was it simply the most conservative of the new translations at the time? If so, did that lead to the NIV's wide acceptance?