Esv

[Big Drew]

What are your opinions on the English Standard Version of the Bible?

 

[OzSpen]

Big Drew,

What are your opinions on the English Standard Version of the Bible?

Following in the train of the RSV, it is a more literalistic translation than, say, the NIV. However, the NIV is an accurate translation when one understands dynamic equivalence as a valid method of translation according to meaning.

I am using the ESV in my regular reading of Scripture at the moment. I find it to be both accurate and the English language flows more freely than, say, the NASB. I used the NASB for many years but I find the ESV to be an all-round better translation.

I have not done a careful analysis of RSV, NRSV, NASB and ESV as the more literalistic translations that use the critical Greek NT, as opposed to the much later textus receptus.

Have you read these articles by Bible translator, Mark Strauss, about why the ESV should not become the standard English translation of the Bible?

For me, I rate the ESV at about 98/100.

In Christ, Spencer

 

[Big Drew]

Thanks Spencer...I had not read this article before. I cut my teeth on the KJV, and had been looking for a modern equivalent...I like the NIV, but there are certain places where it seems the translations were lacking, just seemed weak...and I like the NASB for it's more literal approach, but in some ways the translation is cumbersome...I had read several things on the ESV...how it's kind of a middle ground, keeping it literal, but also retaining the poetic flow...so I decided to give it a shot and picked up a copy the other day...so far I'm liking it...but I've only read a few Psalms and half the Gospel of Mark...it does seem to flow like the KJV thus far.

 

[OzSpen]

Drew,

Thanks Spencer...I had not read this article before. I cut my teeth on the KJV, and had been looking for a modern equivalent...I like the NIV, but there are certain places where it seems the translations were lacking, just seemed weak...and I like the NASB for it's more literal approach, but in some ways the translation is cumbersome...I had read several things on the ESV...how it's kind of a middle ground, keeping it literal, but also retaining the poetic flow...so I decided to give it a shot and picked up a copy the other day...so far I'm liking it...but I've only read a few Psalms and half the Gospel of Mark...it does seem to flow like the KJV thus far.

There is a weakness in the ESV that is not in the NRSV or the TNIV and that is the ESV is not egalitarian in its translations. Take the Greek anthropos. It means "man" as in "mankind", human beings both male and female. The better translation is "man and woman" or "human beings". The ESV is still back in the dim dark past of not understanding that "man" today does not seem to include women. This is where I like the TNIV. I would not go to the NRSV because of its theologically liberal leanings in some translations.

There are a few other places where the ESV has retained a very conservative translation when it could have a better understanding. However, overall it's a top-flight translation IMO.

In Christ, Spencer

 

[ebia]

I like its precision and style of its language, and its tendecy to consistency of translation so that links can be seen (but that comes at a price)

Dislike its lack of appropriate gender inclusivity

 

[red_panda]

The ESV often says "mankind" instead of "humankind" and "sons" instead of "children". That was most likely a decision to cater to conservatives who felt that the NRSV went too far.

Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man". That title should be maintained in modern translations, even in Old Testament verses that are quoted in the New Testament as prophecies about the Messiah. So I can understand the conservative point of view on gender pronouns in the Bible.

If I were to go to a book store and get a new Bible today, I'd probably look for an NET (New English Translation). I like their "open copyright" philosophy.

 

[ebia]

The ESV often says "mankind" instead of "humankind" and "sons" instead of "children". That was most likely a decision to cater to conservatives who felt that the NRSV went too far.

Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man". That title should be maintained in modern translations, even in Old Testament verses that are quoted in the New Testament as prophecies about the Messiah. So I can understand the conservative point of view on gender pronouns in the Bible.

If I were to go to a book store and get a new Bible today, I'd probably look for an NET (New English Translation). I like their "open copyright" philosophy.

I quite like NET on the whole, though it's very quirky at times and the limited range of backgrounds in the team doesn't inspire confidence.

It's also exorbitantly expensive here by the time you pay there massive shipping costs if you want a print copy.

The notes are great though.

 

[OzSpen]

ebia,

I like its precision and style of its language, and its tendecy to consistency of translation so that links can be seen (but that comes at a price)

Dislike its lack of appropriate gender inclusivity

I agree with you 100%.

 

[ebia]

I always have a sense, whether justified or not, that the ESV avoids translation that might rock the boat at all on some conservative-evangelical issues.

 

[OzSpen]

ebia,

I always have a sense, whether justified or not, that the ESV avoids translation that might rock the boat at all on some conservative-evangelical issues.

Here's a list of the translation committee and the advisory people for the ESV project. The emphasis is on supporters of evangelical Christianity, but that was also the case with the NIV.

Nonetheless, the scholars on the committee are outstanding in their chosen field and bring sound scholarship to the project.

I agree that there is a tendency to maintain the non-egalitarian status quo in the ESV translation, but this is challenged in the link below about the gender-inclusive language of the ESV when compared with the RSV. Perhaps this is to satisfy the conservative evangelicals, but I also think it is related to counteracting some of the liberal theological tendencies in translations such as the NRSV.

However, Dr. Don (D.A.) Carson,a staunch evangelical, Reformed scholar, comes up with a very positive assessment of the NRSV.

Here is D.A. Carson & Mark Strauss's assessment of the value or otherwise of gender-inclusive language in Bible translations.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[ebia]

ebia,

...

Thanks for the links

 

[camperdown9]

Hi

My church since I have been going there has used the NIV. Its the version that they have copies of sitting on the pews. However we had a change of rector and he likes to read and preach from the NASB. As I don't always find it easy to follow what he is saying in the NIV when he is reading from the NASB. I bought myself an NASB. With the NASB from time to time I feel that I have to read text more than once to get the meaning, but what I have found is that I prefer the NASB over the NIV.

My own church does not have much happening Monday to Friday so I have started to also attend another that has weekday services at lunch time. They use the ESV. This was the first time that I had ever really looked at it. In my view its maybe a bit easier to read than the NASB in that the words seams to flow better. The version of the ESV that I bought was just the standard low cost version and as I like the text I thought I would buy a slightly more expensive version and the study bible. My local Christian book shop does not have much choice so I went to Amazon and ordered online.

The study bible is great and it comes with a code with gives you access to the online version which has some useful features. For example you can have the text read to you or if there is a cross ref with another verse you can just click on it to see the text. The other version I bought I expected it would have the same layout and typeface as the standard low cost version. Unfortunately that was not the case, I bought what I think they call the personal reference trail version. The text size is smaller and also printed in grey rather than black so its not so easy to read. I have found myself not using it and going back to the low cost version.

One of the reasons I hate buying bibles is because I never just buy one. I always end up buying a few and then questioning what text I should be using.
So I end up downloading podcasts and listening and reading what I can on the subject of bible translations. Some people would nearly have you believe that the KJV was written by Christ and that nothing else is of any value. Just as some people would say that the KJV is old and useless. I think there is value in nearly all translations and that using a few is a good idea.

In the past month I have also bought a NKJV, which is another version I had never used before. I don't think I would use it as a study bible but I like some of the formality of the text. Example I like to read the Lords prayer in the words that I was taught as a four year old and not a modern version. I got a luxury high priced version on special at half price. So it feels nice to hold and I like using it.

I also bought a HCSB (well 2 standard and study). Like this as well, I think the translation is better in the ESV but the HCSB study bible has great pictures, drawings and they have used lots of colour and a nice clear typeface so it makes me feel that I want to read it.

There is no perfect bible translation but using a few to look at the same verses does make me think about what I have read a little more.

Alex

 

[ebia]

However we had a change of rector and he likes to read and preach from the NASB.

In the Church of England? Wierd! Is the NASB even authorised by your bishop? (Not that there is anything much wrong with it except it reads poorly, but I wouldn't have expected the demand to have existed in England for it to have made it onto the lists).

 

[camperdown9]

In the Church of England? Wierd! Is the NASB even authorised by your bishop? (Not that there is anything much wrong with it except it reads poorly, but I wouldn't have expected the demand to have existed in England for it to have made it onto the lists).

Can I just ask why you think its wierd, I'm simply asking because I don't know anything about church politics.

It seams to me that styles of service from one Church of England to another seem to vary wildly. I the church I go to on a Sunday, nearly no one wears a suit, we have a band, over head projectors and some people worship with their hands in the air (not me I would be too embarrassed). Kids are always running around, I have never seen the rector wear any form of clerical clothing, and its the worship team that lead the service. Come to think of it I don't think I have ever seen the bishop.

I went to a friends church a few months ago. The clegry were dressed in full costume complete with hats. The were lead into the church by the choir, they burnt insence. They used an order of service and the words before communion were sang by the minister.



Alex

 

[ebia]

Can I just ask why you think its wierd, I'm simply asking because I don't know anything about church politics.

Alex

Lots of stuff does vary, but NASB is pretty rare in England, and not well suited to public reading, and technically only versions authorized by the bishop may be used. That includes most of the mainstream versions in popular use across the traditions, but because NASB is both rare in England and such a poor choice for public worship...

 

[callmeMurph]

Dislike its lack of appropriate gender inclusivity

What do you mean? Personally I don't see what the point of making it gender inclusive. I'm not a sexist or anything but I don't feel like you should change the Bible to fit our culture.

Also I find it kind of annoying when you read some things that you can tell are specifically written to males but instead of saying something like sons it says children. I don't get it...

 

[camperdown9]

Lots of stuff does vary, but NASB is pretty rare in England, and not well suited to public reading, and technically only versions authorized by the bishop may be used. That includes most of the mainstream versions in popular use across the traditions, but because NASB is both rare in England and such a poor choice for public worship...

Thank you explanation.

I guess if its rare maybe that why they have never changed the pew bibles. I don't think I have ever seen a low cost version of the NASB for sale here.

I was reading (ok skimming) a book the other day that suggested that the ESV and the NASB had a similar background and maybe in some way were linked?

Alex

 

[OzSpen]

Murph,

What do you mean? Personally I don't see what the point of making it gender inclusive. I'm not a sexist or anything but I don't feel like you should change the Bible to fit our culture.

Also I find it kind of annoying when you read some things that you can tell are specifically written to males but instead of saying something like sons it says children. I don't get it...

Regarding gender inclusive: What are the correct translations of the Greek words anthropos and adelphos?

Regards, Spencer

 

[Exegetist]

I've used the NET Bible for some time and consider it excellent. I don't think I would bother with the ESV because they tend toward masculine language instead of heeding the literal meanings of some Greek words.

Ultimately one should make use of the original languages somehow.

Scripture4all.org is a good online place to view the Scriptures in original languages in interlinear form.

 

[Exegetist]

What are the correct translations of the Greek words anthropos and adelphos?

The meaning of anthropos is human or person. We get the word anthropology from it. Whether it is referring to a male person or people (men and women) in general is determined by context. It is used in a similar way we use person today. An example is Matt. 19:5 where we see that the context in that place determines it means a male person. Read it from the Greek interlinear at Scripture4all.org.

Check StudyLight.org for a definition.

Adelphos is more difficult, but in general is means a relative or Scripturally, a fellow believer. Most often it is used of a literal brother.