Why ESV?

[camphigrades]

Hi! I don't ascribe to reformed theology, but I have a genuine question born out of pure curiosity that I hope you all will be willing to answer (or enlighten me on). I notice frequently that those who are reformed tend to use or prefer the ESV. Why is that?

Thanks in advance. I notice there's an "Ask a Calvinist" thread, but am not sure if this should go there, or here in the general reformed forum. I chose the general forum as to get a more likely response, but feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

 

[JM]

This is just my opinion…but Reformed folks are big on getting to the meaning of the biblical text with a focus on preaching/understanding the word of God from the original Hebrew and Greek. The ESV is a solid translation based on modern textual criticism and textual eclecticism. Most modern translations use dynamic equivalent and paraphrasing when translating instead of the more literal method used for the ESV.

I still use the AV but also peek at the ESV and NLT.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[camphigrades]

Thank you, JM. That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for answering my curiosity.

 

[camphigrades]

BTW, we've just gotten our first Bible that is ESV. My husband and I have always preferred the NIV, but we don't at all like the new updated version of the NIV. Reading the ESV is definitely very different from what we're used to. Thanks again.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

This is just my opinion…but Reformed folks are big on getting to the meaning of the biblical text with a focus on preaching/understanding the word of God from the original Hebrew and Greek. The ESV is a solid translation based on modern textual criticism and textual eclecticism. Most modern translations use dynamic equivalent and paraphrasing when translating instead of the more literal method used for the ESV.

I still use the AV but also peek at the ESV and NLT.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Not quite correct. The truth is that in some places ALL translations use dynamic equivalence. This is simply because many ideas or idioms do not translate well from donor language to recipient language. However, some translations and translators are more faithfully married to dynamic equivalence than they are to their spouses. i can think of passages in the NIV where a more literal translation would have provided a clearer understanding of the text.

i believe that you would find that the dominant translation theme is formal equivalence (assuming the 'bible' in question is not a paraphrase rather than a translation).

As for the ESV which i do not use: It was a translation in the style and tradition of the 1952 RSV. It does not have some of the baggage of the 1952 RSV.

As for text, most modern translations follow NA-27 or UBS-4 (identical texts, different apparatus). Disputed readings are usually given in the margins of these translations. For example, almost all bibles have the long version of Mark either in the text with a note, or in the margin.

 

[JM]

Of course, I was trying to give a very simple, general answer to a simple question.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Of course, I was trying to give a very simple, general answer to a simple question.

Of course. Personally i don't understand all of the enthusiasm over the ESV. i looked through it and did not find it to be anything special. On the other hand, i did enjoy the RSV and still have one (along with the denim cover that a high school girl friend made for me when she gave me the bible for my birthday).

Now rediscovering the 1599 Geneva Bible was a real joy. Even though i prefer the critical text, i did love the way that Geneva uses the English language, and was impressed that it and NOT the AV was the version that the Puritans read, and that Jonathan Edwards preached from. It became my favourite version.

 

[JM]

A quote I found on the net:

It was a "Reformed" project from the beginning. A lot of the people who worked on or served as an adviser is Reformed to a certain degree.

Among those on the Translation Oversight Committee: C. John Collins from Covenant Seminary, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes from College Church in Wheaton, Leland Ryken, and Vern Poythress.

Translation Oversight Committee

Among those on the Translation Review Committee:
Hans Bayer from Covenant Seminary, Reggie Kidd from RTS, William Barrick and Michael Grisanti from the Masters Seminary, Gordon Hugenberger from Park Street Church in Boston, Leon Morris, Ray Ortlund, Jr. from 1st Pres. in Augusta, GA, Tom Schreiner from SBTS, and three professors from TEDs.

Translation Team

Among those on the advisory council: Eric Alexander, Alistair Begg, Harold O. J. Brown from RTS, Bryan Chapell from Covenant Seminary, S. M. Baugh and Edmund Clowney from WTS-CA, Mark Dever, J. Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Timothy George, Carl F. H. Henry, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Erwin Lutzer, Al Mohler, Ray Ortlund Jr. and Sr., John Piper, Joe Ryan from Park Cities Pres. in Dallas, Tom Schreiner, R. C. Sproul, and Joni Eareckson Tada.

Advisory Council

In other words, just about everyone on the Who's Who in the Reformed Community list worked on the ESV.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

A quote I found on the net:

It was a "Reformed" project from the beginning. A lot of the people who worked on or served as an adviser is Reformed to a certain degree.

Among those on the Translation Oversight Committee: C. John Collins from Covenant Seminary, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes from College Church in Wheaton, Leland Ryken, and Vern Poythress.

Translation Oversight Committee

Among those on the Translation Review Committee:
Hans Bayer from Covenant Seminary, Reggie Kidd from RTS, William Barrick and Michael Grisanti from the Masters Seminary, Gordon Hugenberger from Park Street Church in Boston, Leon Morris, Ray Ortlund, Jr. from 1st Pres. in Augusta, GA, Tom Schreiner from SBTS, and three professors from TEDs.

Translation Team

Among those on the advisory council: Eric Alexander, Alistair Begg, Harold O. J. Brown from RTS, Bryan Chapell from Covenant Seminary, S. M. Baugh and Edmund Clowney from WTS-CA, Mark Dever, J. Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Timothy George, Carl F. H. Henry, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Erwin Lutzer, Al Mohler, Ray Ortlund Jr. and Sr., John Piper, Joe Ryan from Park Cities Pres. in Dallas, Tom Schreiner, R. C. Sproul, and Joni Eareckson Tada.

Advisory Council

In other words, just about everyone on the Who's Who in the Reformed Community list worked on the ESV.

If it displaces the NIV, i will be exceedingly happy. Even though i'm neutral on the ESV, i really don't like the NIV.

i am awaiting the Geneva Study version in ESV.

 

[JM]

If it displaces the NIV, i will be exceedingly happy. Even though i'm neutral on the ESV, i really don't like the NIV.

i am awaiting the Geneva Study version in ESV.

I’m tempted to buy a Reformation Heritage Bible but I have a rule about study Bibles…I never use them. But the new Bible from Sproul looks pretty good. Right now I’m using a Westminster Reference AV from TBS and just love it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Of course. Personally i don't understand all of the enthusiasm over the ESV. i looked through it and did not find it to be anything special. On the other hand, i did enjoy the RSV and still have one (along with the denim cover that a high school girl friend made for me when she gave me the bible for my birthday).

Now rediscovering the 1599 Geneva Bible was a real joy. Even though i prefer the critical text, i did love the way that Geneva uses the English language, and was impressed that it and NOT the AV was the version that the Puritans read, and that Jonathan Edwards preached from. It became my favourite version.

I've been wanting a hard copy of the Geneva Bible for some time. It is on my bloated wish list. The brief notes have also held up nicely.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi! I don't ascribe to reformed theology, but I have a genuine question born out of pure curiosity that I hope you all will be willing to answer (or enlighten me on). I notice frequently that those who are reformed tend to use or prefer the ESV. Why is that?

Thanks in advance. I notice there's an "Ask a Calvinist" thread, but am not sure if this should go there, or here in the general reformed forum. I chose the general forum as to get a more likely response, but feel free to move it if it needs to be moved.

Post #8 Explains nicely

 

[JM]

We Shouldn't Exclusively Use the ESV

 

[camphigrades]

Post #8 Explains nicely

Yes, very much so. Thanks to each of you for the enlightenment.

 

[hedrick]

The ESV is a modified RSV. I think many of its good features come from the RSV: It’s a formal equivalence translation based on a long lineage of scholarship going back to the KJV. The other current formal equivalence translations just don’t have that kind of background.

The ESV adds conservative preferences in a number of ways. My impression from the translators’ description is that it also has a bit more concern for preserving specifics of the original wording than the RSV did. When you believe that the original words were inspired, it’s understandable that you’d want as much of the original wording preserved as possible.

While conservative Reformed tend to like it, I don’t think it’s because of any actual Reformed bias. That’s been claimed by a few people but I’ve never seen it substantiated. I think it’s more because of the way Reformed folk approach exegesis.

 

[JM]

hedrick, we cannot deny the largely Reformed endorsement of it and the massive advertising campaigns by Crossway. All of this has to have an effect on the person in the pew.

jm

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

hedrick, we cannot deny the largely Reformed endorsement of it and the massive advertising campaigns by Crossway. All of this has to have an effect on the person in the pew.

jm

i don't necessarily see any difference between the points that you and hedrick are making. i believe that you are looking from 'different angles' and both have valid points.

The ESV does have strong Reformed endorsement, and we Reformed are known to perform exegesis differently --as a Reformed Christian i would say more consistently.

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe because, where more than one translation is possible, it gives the one most favourable to Reformed theology. Exodus 9.16, for example.

 

[Tangible]

If I might just jump in ... It seems to me that the ESV has gained in popularity due in large part to people rejecting the newer versions of the NIV. I know my own denomination formerly used NIV for didactic materials and printed bulletins but switched to ESV a few years ago because the continued use of NIV was problematic.

 

[JM]

The NIV is a horrible translation.