ESV Translation

[Haasrecht]

Hello! I was hoping the folks here could point me towards a good resource that discusses the benefits of the ESV translation as well as addresses some of the criticisms of it? The reason I am asking here is that I seem to notice it used often by Calvinists and it is mentioned on the website of John Piper's ministry.

Thanks!

 

[JM]

From TBS: http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/139-1.pdf

 

[TaylorSexton]

Here is a very good critique from a proponent of the "Critical Text." This article changed my mind regarding the ESV.
http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf

 

[hedrick]

What this article does is show yet again that translating involves just not translating individual words but making sure that the thought is clearly expressed. It gives lots of examples where the ESV's literal philosophy leads to unnatural and at times even misleading English. The ESV introduction says that the goal is to give the best insight into the original. The review assumes that the goal is to produce the most accurate translation. These two goals may not be entirely compatible.

Christians who grow up with the AV develop an understanding of "Biblish." This involves appreciation for Hebrew idioms as they show through the AV, and to other odd syntax and word choice. Should we translate into that kind of Biblish? There's a sense in which it does indeed show more about the original wording. I think the ESV translation assumes that it is desirable for Christians to develop this kind of skill. The review, on the contrary, assumes that it is the job of a translation to produce English that is natural. That is, they say you should be able to look at a sentence and ask "would anyone actually say this?" But it seems to me that the ESV philosophy does not actually accept that goal. There is an implication -- not so much in the official introduction to the ESV as in some of the publicity -- that if the original words are inspired, we should want to get as close as possible them, and perhaps make some tradeoffs in naturalness of the language.

Personally I think the proper goal is to produce a natural translation, and to use tools such as interlinears to get more information about the exact form of the original. I'm afraid that not many of our people today will get the full meaning from a translation into Biblish (if indeed they ever did). (1) Many Christians today didn't grow up hearing Biblish, (2) those that did may be used to hearing it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually know what it means -- even if they think they do.

The paper also points to inconsistencies in handling gender. Phrases that are gender-neutral in Greek may be translated either into neutral or masculine English references with no obvious consistency, sometimes varying even in the same verse.

I don't like some of the neutral renderings in NRSV, but at least I know that whether the English is gendered or not reflects the original. Similarly in a traditional translation I know that masculine language may well correspond to neutral originals. But a translation that is half gender-neutral means you can't really tell what's going on.

 

[AMR]

http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/

Check out the permanent change to Genesis 3:16.

 

[hedrick]

http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/

Check out the permanent change to Genesis 3:16.

The link is broken. This seems to list the changes: ESV 2016 Changes

 

[Radagast]

What this article does is show yet again that translating involves just not translating individual words but making sure that the thought is clearly expressed. It gives lots of examples where the ESV's literal philosophy leads to unnatural and at times even misleading English.

The ESV is considered the most accurate translation in conservative circles (assuming that you accept the critical text), but you're right, it can be a bit clunky in places. However, this is something that is also true of the RSV and NRSV (the ESV is quite similar to those, which is why it is sometimes called the Extremely Similar Version).

A number of conservatives are arguing for the CSB (formerly HCSB) as a more readable alternative to the ESV.

Conservatives are generally opposed to changes that have been made to the NIV since 1984.

A lot depends on what the Bible is being used for. For example, many conservative pastors like to preach from the ESV, as the closest thing to the original, and explain everything that needs explaining as they go.

 

[Radagast]

Here is a very good critique from a proponent of the "Critical Text." This article changed my mind regarding the ESV.
http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf

I think he's wrong on some of those "mistakes." In Proverbs 30:25-26, it absolutely should say "people," for example. The proverb loses its force, otherwise (it is anthropomorphising the ants, hyraxes, locusts, and lizards to encourage people to learn from them).

The CSB has: Four things on earth are small,
yet they are extremely wise:
ants are not a strong people,
yet they store up their food in the summer;
hyraxes are not a mighty people,
yet they make their homes in the cliffs;
locusts have no king,
yet all of them march in ranks;
a lizard can be caught in your hands,
yet it lives in kings’ palaces.

 

[Radagast]

http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/

Check out the permanent change to Genesis 3:16.

That's a case where they had one possible reading in the main text, and another in the footnote, and they switched the two.

 

[JM]

I'm currently using the NKJV and listening to 2 Chronicles dramatized in the "Bible Experience." Not bad. When it comes to study I use the AV.