A Bible without constant updates

[Joy4Him]

Sorry if I'm bombarding the forum with silly translation questions. I'm rapidly narrowing my list to which translation I will use as my main text but I did have another question.

The ESV is a translation I'm seriously considering but I ran across this last night on the ESV.org website and it has me concerned.

In addition to the original translation work completed and published in 2001, the ESV Bible text is carefully reviewed every five years. The result of these five-year reviews is to make minor changes as may be needed and to take into account recent scholarship.

esv.org/esv/scholarship/trusted-scholarship

I don't know if I'm overreacting but I don't like the idea of a translation being updated so often. Obviously if there was something glaring that needed to be fixed than an update would be warranted. And this talk of recent scholarship seems like bunk to me. If the Bible is the Bible then what does all this recent scholarship actually change? The ESV was released in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2011. From the above quote it sounds like there is a good chance there will be another update In a few years and then again and again.

I want to choose a bible that I don't have to worry about it being constantly updated, I want a Bible that will stay constant and I can grow with. Based on that what are some versions that I wouldn't have to worry about constant updates.

Even the NIV has this constant update language in their charter so I doubt I'll choose it as well.

Thanks!

 

[Keachian]

One of the projects that may affect this update cycle is the editio critica maior, which is weighing, evaluating and adding newly found manuscripts of the New Testament as well as others which haven't been seen before in critical texts.

As well as this in 1778 a discovery about Ancient Greek Grammar strengthened the case for the Divinity of Christ, I wouldn't want to have a translation that couldn't be updated to reflect this sort of discovery whether it was to further support doctrines of the faith, or to throw a spanner in the works, we are removed from the original audience by language and culture if our understanding of said language and culture increases then shouldn't we reflect that in our translation of Scripture?

Of course there are things that I don't see either the NIV or the ESV updating to reflect, such as New Perspectivism, which imo flattens out how 2nd Temple of Judaism views soteriology and even theology in general.

 

[Allectus]

I don't want to dismiss your concerns. Most of those changes are likely so minor though. I know I will be reading this edition of the ESV for years if not decades. Besides, speaking for myself, so often we muddle about with bible studies and notes when we overlook even regular reading of the Word.

From what I can tell, the people working on the ESV are conservative Christian individuals who are doing a really good job and will hopefully only work to strengthen the clarity of our translations.

All the best with finding a translation. If in doubt, you can always grab a good old KJV.

 

[Joy4Him]

I don't want to dismiss your concerns. Most of those changes are likely so minor though. I know I will be reading this edition of the ESV for years if not decades. Besides, speaking for myself, so often we muddle about with bible studies and notes when we overlook even regular reading of the Word.

From what I can tell, the people working on the ESV are conservative Christian individuals who are doing a really good job and will hopefully only work to strengthen the clarity of our translations.

All the best with finding a translation. If in doubt, you can always grab a good old KJV.

Ah, ok....I think I have a clearer picture about bible updates. I had a feeling I was being reactionary and emotional about it. I'm not very educated in these sort of things, thanks for the clarification.

Right now I have my choices narrowed between the ESV and NKJV.

 

[cyberlizard]

My personal favourite is the NKJV (all the KJV arguments aside) it is consistent, formal, generally avoidant of paraphrasing. Of course it has issues but so does every bible.


Steve

 

[Joy4Him]

My personal favourite is the NKJV (all the KJV arguments aside) it is consistent, formal, generally avoidant of paraphrasing. Of course it has issues but so does every bible.


Steve

What issues does it have?

 

[Unix]

The NKJV has way too many issues to list, and the ESV has Reformed/Calvinistic bias. I make no use whatsoever of those. ESV is not any improvement over the RSV. Even the NRSV is better but too mainstream and not very formal equivalent. And the RSV is better than all those.

I recommend You the REB, ESV didn't have as broad range of scholars with the right expertise.

Keep in mind also that the ESV revisers are not trying to put the theology right, only make it Calvinistic and update it with manuscript finds.

I have resources that I can utilize to update any English Bible version with the latest manuscript finds, and I also follow recent scholarship by purchasing as recent, good, books as possible + use very good little older detailed technical books.

It's quite simple to update with manuscript evidence. To access the difference between the latest Greek New Testament Edition and the previous, is free.

The new Edition of the Hebrew OT is not done.

I also have the major Septuagint/LXX (Greek OT) Edition.

Ancient language skills is not required for each of this procedures, only some.

IF You want to purchase the REB, look quickly at: $24.95 Search & read the Deuterocanonicals (English Bible version You might not have):

What issues does it have?

 

[mathetes123]

Ah, ok....I think I have a clearer picture about bible updates. I had a feeling I was being reactionary and emotional about it. I'm not very educated in these sort of things, thanks for the clarification.

Right now I have my choices narrowed between the ESV and NKJV.

I use the NKJV

 

[childofdust]

I don't know if I'm overreacting but I don't like the idea of a translation being updated so often. Obviously if there was something glaring that needed to be fixed than an update would be warranted. And this talk of recent scholarship seems like bunk to me. If the Bible is the Bible then what does all this recent scholarship actually change?

It changes our understanding and interpretation. Since our understanding and interpretation is never perfect, it's always going to need to be refined.

Plus, we're always finding more documents or more manuscripts...or documents and manuscripts we already had are finally being published (like this papyrus from Oxyrhynchus, which was recently published and contains what may be the oldest version of Psalms from the Septuagint that we have). Sometimes discoveries shed new light on the text and cause us to think about it in a new way. Sometimes not.

Part of it may also be simple legal-speak. The creators of the ESV maintain the right to alter their own work if and when they want. It doesn't mean they will, it just means they can.

Part of it is the English language. The English language is always changing. Why shouldn't their translation reflect the English language as it is used by the common people of the day?

I want to choose a bible that I don't have to worry about it being constantly updated, I want a Bible that will stay constant and I can grow with. Based on that what are some versions that I wouldn't have to worry about constant updates.

It's a good desire to have. Nothing wrong with that.

My recommendation for an Old Testament is the Stone Edition Tanach by Artscroll or the New JPS Tanakh. These are unlikely to change any time soon. The Stone Edition Tanach is a conservative translation influenced by past Rabbinic tradition. Past Rabbinic tradition isn't going to change. The New JPS Tanakh is a complete overhaul of the original JPS from 1917. It was published in 1985 (that's about 70 years between updates) and hasn't been updated since. An entire commentary series is being published based on individual books of the translation. Maybe in another 70 years, it'll be updated again...once all the commentaries are done and it's been around a good while.

 

[Unix]

Great to see You, old friend! How are You?

And what do You think of the REB, have You had a chance to look at it (it's not offered for free on the internet)? Btw there was a Jew on the OT translation team of it, which is very rare for Christian OT versions.

 

[childofdust]

Hi, Unix. Doing good. Busy as always.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to spend time with the REB. But I did look here briefly: The Revised English Bible. The first two verses of Genesis there are:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water."

The translation "vast waste" is very good. Many old translations--and some new ones--miss the fact that this part of the verse is using a literary defvice called hendiadys. Even though it says two things, they are not meant to be understood as two different things. Kind of like "holy of holies." Yes, that's literally what it says, but it means "the holiest place." My translation of that part of Genesis is "At first, Elohim created the sky and the earth. Now, the earth was entirely empty..."

 

[Joy4Him]

Ah, ok....I think I have a clearer picture about bible updates. I had a feeling I was being reactionary and emotional about it. I'm not very educated in these sort of things, thanks for the clarification.

Right now I have my choices narrowed between the ESV and NKJV.

Well I'm throwing the NIV back in for consideration. There is just something I like about the ease of reading and understanding. If I had the money I would just buy all three but I don't have that kind of money...so deciding on one is tough!

 

[ViaCrucis]

What issues does it have?

All translations have issues because there's no such thing as a perfect translation. There's an Italian saying, rendered in English, "The translator is a traitor", that is, all acts of translation inevitably fail to capture the depth and full meaning of the original language.

Translation most of the time involves approximations. While sometimes there are direct translation, for example the Latin catus and the English cat both describe a household feline. But that is the exception rather than the rule.

Without being fluent in 1st century Koine Greek, or ancient biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and having the original autographs in your hands, you are going to have to rely on the work of copyists and translators who have kept Scripture as a living tradition passed on from generation to generation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Unix]

It was possible for me to get the 2011 NIV in a Bible study software for free, and I didn't take it, it's that bad!:

Well I'm throwing the NIV back in for consideration.

 

[Unix]

The REB is exactly as easy to read as the NIV and much easier to read than the NKJV and noticeably easier to read than the ESV. If You like the NKJV You really might want to consider the REB which is a fully modern version but has a few verses here and there from the Textus Receptus in the NT, so it's a good compromise. There are very few compromise Bible versions like the REB and none of them are as well known or widely used or even nearly as good as the REB.
I've been interested in different English Bible versions for 9 years.
Just wanted to point out once more that the British English in the REB is not at a bothersome level at all, for an American.
Since You don't want the Apocrypha, there are printed REBs with just the 66 books.
There are also REB Study Bibles: Oxford Annotated:

Well I'm throwing the NIV back in for consideration. There is just something I like about the ease of reading and understanding.

My personal favourite is the NKJV ... it is consistent, formal, generally avoidant of paraphrasing.

Right now I have my choices narrowed between the ESV and NKJV.

 

[Lovely Jar]

What is the Revised English Bible (REB)?



I'll have to check into this. Currently I go with the KJV or the NKJV. If online I may browse references from the ESV.

I appreciate insight into translations. It's so hard to discern which is the closest to giving the full credit to all the scriptures that apply.

 

[Unix]

Another site with information about it, is: The Revised English Bible:

What is the Revised English Bible (REB)?

I'll have to check into this.

There is also an older thread here on Christianforums that deals to some extent with both the NEB and REB and a few other versions: OT exegetical versions compared to 1995 Contemporary English Version.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Sorry if I'm bombarding the forum with silly translation questions. I'm rapidly narrowing my list to which translation I will use as my main text but I did have another question.

The ESV is a translation I'm seriously considering but I ran across this last night on the ESV.org website and it has me concerned.

esv.org/esv/scholarship/trusted-scholarship

I don't know if I'm overreacting but I don't like the idea of a translation being updated so often. Obviously if there was something glaring that needed to be fixed than an update would be warranted. And this talk of recent scholarship seems like bunk to me. If the Bible is the Bible then what does all this recent scholarship actually change? The ESV was released in 2001 and updated in 2007 and 2011. From the above quote it sounds like there is a good chance there will be another update In a few years and then again and again.

I want to choose a bible that I don't have to worry about it being constantly updated, I want a Bible that will stay constant and I can grow with. Based on that what are some versions that I wouldn't have to worry about constant updates.

Even the NIV has this constant update language in their charter so I doubt I'll choose it as well.

Thanks!

Many people believe that the Bible, in the original languages and in the original copies of the books of which the Bible is composed, is the word of God. Therefore, many people who can read English but cannot read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek desire a Bible that is translated as accurately as possible from the most reliable Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Knowing this, Bible translators are continually attempting to provide these people with the most accurate translation possible.

The Bible is the most studied book that has ever been written and it is not at all surprising that our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts is continuously improving. Moreover, we do not have the original copies of the books of which the Bible is composed—instead, we have thousands of ancient manuscripts that include tens of thousands of variorum readings (approximately 15,320 just in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans). Moreover, the vocabulary and grammar of the English language is rapidly changing and thus making it necessary that English translations of the Bible either change with the English language, or become less accurate.

If you just want a “Bible” that does not change, and if you do not care about the accuracy of the translation, you can simply buy a “Bible” that you like for what ever reason you like it—and not concern yourself with the new editions when they are published.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well I'm throwing the NIV back in for consideration. There is just something I like about the ease of reading and understanding. If I had the money I would just buy all three but I don't have that kind of money...so deciding on one is tough!

The NIV is a simplified, non-literal, almost paraphrastic translation of the Bible prepared at the 7th grade reading level. It is easy for most English-speaking adults to read, but unfortunately what they are understanding is the NIV rather than an accurate translation of the Bible.

The New Testament in the NKJV is translated from a Greek text that is nearly identical to the corrupted Greek text from which the New Testament in the KJV was translated. If the results of 500 years of Biblical scholarship are not important to you, it may be a good choice.

 

[Unix]

Like I've been explaining, the ESV team is adding bias, not precision. And most people understand older English very well and should be aware when the Bible version they have was made, so a few a slightly dated words shouldn't bother.
Besides, the Bible versions with more modern English such as the CEB (Common English Bible) are mainly being done for a new, even younger, generation, it wouldn't be more accurate for me. The English I've learned has come from older people (started learning English back in 1988), more recent teachers that I've had have been much older than myself, and the people I've been talking to on the internet have been older than me all of them some much older, so I would guess my English grammar and vocabulary has got stuck at a 80's level and I don't think it's going to evolve at all, as the books I read nowadays are written by old professors in an academic language.
That has however not been a criteria for which Bible version I recommend, I solely based my recommendations on which English Bible version is the best:

Moreover, the vocabulary and grammar of the English language is rapidly changing and thus making it necessary that English translations of the Bible either change with the English language, or become less accurate.

If you just want a “Bible” that does not change, and if you do not care about the accuracy of the translation, you can simply buy a “Bible” that you like for what ever reason you like it—and not concern yourself with the new editions when they are published.

Some people are unaware of that practically all English Bible versions are copyrighted and what the consequences are for that! It means that Bible versions can't resemble each other too much, so each new Bible translation team has to invent new expressions. This is going to continue infinitely, because experience has proved that it's the only possible way to do things. The options are limited for new Bible version. The ESV resembles the RSV, but what they actually did was to buy the rights! The NRSV doesn't resemble the RSV too much because they didn't have the rights! The CEB is among the very newest Bible versions, that team had to re-invent everything so they chose a expressions which are not found in most Bible versions, that's why it's best suitable for a younger generation, they really had no choice, if they would have "imitated", deliberately or not, some other English Bible version, they would have been sued and would not have been allowed to distribute it.

A problem with the ESV, a reason why the changes don't affect the type of language, is that they are stuck at resembling the RSV. They have to keep resembling the RSV because that's the only right they've bought. I highly doubt people are aware of these things, they think the ESV team has free hands to do any necessary changes! Yes they can make some necessary changes, but like I've been explaining many of those changes are not because of new manuscript finds, but to make it more Calvinistic. Theologically, the RSV was fine, they should have departed from it less in order for me to like the ESV better, but since practically everyone on the ESV translation team are Calvinistic, that wasn't probable.

Theologically, the Revised English Bible is much better than the RSV.

If You want more recent manuscript evidence than 1988 incorporated, I'm sorry, I don't have a more recent Bible version than the 1989 Revised English Bible to recommend. But I wouldn't say the newest manuscript evidence are an absolute must so that You should go to the ESV.

In the NT, the 2011 ESV incorporates very few of the newest manuscript evidence correctly, that's because the newest Edition of the Greek New Testament wasn't done until after the 2011 ESV was printed. I rather recommend to find out what the new manuscript evidence is and update a recommended English Bible versions by yourself, than go with the ESV or NIV or wait for the next Edition of the ESV.