The History of the English Standard version ( ESV)

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Very well done!

 

[Halbhh]

I had experienced after reading at least 20 books (or 66 for the NIV and KJV) of the Bible in each in these various translations -- NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV and NRSV (including reading all the 4 Gospels for each, and I think also Romans and Genesis for each) -- that the ESV stood out as the best compared to these others. And additionally for certain crucial verses I continued to find that when I read another dozen translations at Biblehub, the ESV is usually the best or next to best, better than any one other translation. Now, having listened to some of the methods and goals in how they translated, I understand more on why this is so.

 

[Solomon Smith]

My Church uses the ESV.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Good post. Thank you!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I had experienced after reading at least 20 books (or 66 for the NIV and KJV) of the Bible in each in these various translations -- NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV and NRSV (including reading all the 4 Gospels for each, and I think also Romans and Genesis for each) -- that the ESV stood out as the best compared to these others. And additionally for certain crucial verses I continued to find that when I read another dozen translations at Biblehub, the ESV is usually the best or next to best, better than any one other translation. Now, having listened to some of the methods and goals in how they translated, I understand more on why this is so.

The esv became well known as being the "Calvinist Bible"

 

[Dave-W]

that the ESV stood out as the best compared to these others.

"Best" in what way - conveying the meaning in the original texts? Or just reading more smoothly in English?

 

[Tree of Life]

"Best" in what way - conveying the meaning in the original texts? Or just reading more smoothly in English?

I think that the ESV is basically the best English translation because it is essentially literal and yet readable. NASB is, strictly speaking, more literal than the ESV but it presents problems for readability.

 

[Halbhh]

"Best" in what way - conveying the meaning in the original texts? Or just reading more smoothly in English?

Helping me to get exactly that is meant more fully (more aspects) sooner, at times. Of course the crucial first things are full reading and real listening, so that all the context is there. That's like 95% of what one needs. Without the ESV, we'd still be fine, but getting more of the connections which clarify sooner is better for some passages. I don't have anything to add to what the translators said in the video on that.

 

[Dave-W]

NASB is, strictly speaking, more literal than the ESV but it presents problems for readability.

I first encountered the NASB as a freshman in college. I have never understood that "problem." It has always read just fine for me.

In the OT, I do not think ANY translation (outside of another Semitic language) can fully capture the meaning in the Hebrew. That is for several reasons.

One: Hebrew has at least 4 different levels of meaning that are all simultaneously true. (I think Arabic has 7)

Two: (related to one) Hebrew has much fewer words than English so each word has a wide variety of meanings (even in the different levels)

Three: Hebrew has no vowels so each meaning is very dependent on the surrounding words to get which word is even being used.

Four: It is read right to left rather than left to right, and that affects how the brain assimilates the meanings. (see video from Rabbi Sacks on "the world we make with words")

 

[Tree of Life]

"Best" in what way - conveying the meaning in the original texts? Or just reading more smoothly in English?

John 8:12 is an example where the NIV captures the sense of the Greek better than the ESV or the NASB does.

 

[Dave-W]

John 8:12 is an example where the NIV captures the sense of the Greek better than the ESV or the NASB does.

(NIV)
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

(ESV)
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

(NASB)
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

The main difference I see is the word "never" rather than "not." That indicates a certain doctrinal slant of the translator(s).

While the double negative indicates a very strong statement (not not) in the underlying Aramaic; there is no time element, meaning that if one stops following, the person can drift off back into darkness.
IMO "never" is not a good choice.

 

[Concord1968]

My church uses the ESV (it's the translation the Missouri Synod recommends). Interestingly enough, my wife has an easier time reading the ESV than she does more "readable" translations.

 

[Concord1968]

Double post. Delete please.

 

[Tree of Life]

(NIV)
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

(ESV)
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

(NASB)
12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

The main difference I see is the word "never" rather than "not." That indicates a certain doctrinal slant of the translator(s).

While the double negative indicates a very strong statement (not not) in the underlying Aramaic; there is no time element, meaning that if one stops following, the person can drift off back into darkness.
IMO "never" is not a good choice.

It's not only a double negative. It's a double negative with a subjunctive. In the Greek, there is no stronger way to negate something. A good translation would be something like:

"he will by no means walk in the darkness"
"he will certainly not walk in the darkness"

or, as the NIV puts it, "he will never walk in darkness".

 

[Dave-W]

or, as the NIV puts it, "he will never walk in darkness".

"Never" has a time constraint on it. The other versions do not.

"Never" assumes OSAS, a concept many reject out of hand.

 

[Tree of Life]

"Never" has a time constraint on it. The other versions do not.

"Never" assumes OSAS, a concept many reject out of hand.

I think you're seeing theological boogey men. I'm not concerned about the theological implications. I'm merely concerned about the grammar. The NIV captures the sense better from a grammatical standpoint.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm not concerned about the theological implications. I'm merely concerned about the grammar.

Theological implications should be first and foremost in any effort to translate scripture.

 

[Tree of Life]

Theological implications should be first and foremost in any effort to translate scripture.

I totally disagree. We should strive to accurately convey the syntax, grammar, and meaning of the original text no matter what the theological implications are. We get our theology from the Bible. That's the essence of exegesis. We don't import our theology into Scripture. That would be eisegesis.

 

[Dave-W]

We don't import our theology into Scripture. That would be eisegesis.

Which IMO putting "never" with its implications of not being able to depart does. The original has no hint of that one way or the other. It is writing OSAS into the text.

 

[Tree of Life]

Which IMO putting "never" with its implications of not being able to depart does. The original has no hint of that one way or the other. It is writing OSAS into the text.

Nope. It's a good way to translate the ou mh subjunctive or the Subjunctive of Emphatic Negation. I don't think that this instance necessarily teaches the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Plenty of other Scripture establishes that doctrine.