UPDATE II: McKnight on Translation Tribalism.
UPDATE: Why the LCMS choose the ESV. I doubt that it was the Piper endorsement.
I have this nagging feeling that the English Standard Version isn’t as good a translation as I’ve previously thought.
My experience with the NLT has me in major regrets that I’ve got my students using the ESV, that there isn’t a cheap textbook version of the NLT, etc.
I’m using the NLT in preaching most of the time, but when I read the ESV for personal study, sermon preps, classes, etc…..something just isn’t right. I’m wondering if I’ve been “marketed.” That is, I’ve bought the impressive ESV marketing version of itself, but the translation isn’t living up to its own press.
Is it really clunky….and awkward? Do people really have problems reading it? Is it stylistically difficult? Does it do all of the things it accuses other translations of NOT doing? Is it just not up to its own press clippings?
Scott Mcknight recently came right out and said it: We do translations by tribes:
“NRSV for liberals and Shane Claiborne lovers;
ESV for Reformed complementarian Baptists;
HCSB for LifeWay store buying Southern Baptists;
NIV for complementarian evangelicals;
TNIV for egalitarians;
NASB for those who want straight Bible, forget the English;
NLT for generic brand evangelicals;
Amplified for folks who have no idea what translation is but know that if you try enough words one of them will hit pay dirt;
NKJV and KJV for Byzantine manuscript-tree huggers;
The Message for evangelicals looking for a breath of fresh air and seeker sensitive, never-read-a-commentary evangelists who find Peterson’s prose so catchy.”
By that list, I’m an NLT guy. (I’ll complain about the NLT some other day. Basically- we need MORE EDITIONS GUYS. Way too few choices.) I don’t want to just play this game. I am honestly wondering if the ESV is more C+/B- than I’ve suspected.
So, this ISN’T a ” tell your favorite translation” discussion. Please, please don’t give your “translation testimony.” This is a “What’s your experience using the ESV?” discussion, with a special invite to the long unheard from critics- who have used it.
What’s your experience with the ESV?
The Internet Monk Archives 
Amen
LikeLike
Please describe to me what clunky means.
LikeLike
In my short time of preaching the Gospel for 10 years, I have been an advocate of the NASB. Upon reading the ESV, I have found it to be scary, nevertheless satisfying as well. It is scary because for me it is new. I have only been using it for a year now. I do trust the translation and prefer it over the NIV, but I still cling to NASB when preparing sermons. In preaching, our congregation has settled on NKJV. I often prepare messages and do my personal devotionals using my ESV Study Bible.
LikeLike
Whoa Jude! Let’s not start any accusations or name calling. I studied under Dr. Ray Van Neste and Dr. Mark Dubis and they are both terrific greek scholars and they used the term “wooden”. They are definitely not “pseudo-scholars”. I’m hurt that you would say that about them.
LikeLike
This excellent article on translation philosophies by Michael Marlowe explains why “clunkiness” may not be so bad: http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html
LikeLike
I don’t have a huge problem with any of the contemporary translations, with the possible exception of the NASB which stands head and shoulders above the rest in clunkiness and general unreadability. Typically when I’m looking up a passage online I’ll bounce between a couple different translations to ensure I’ve got the proper sense of the original. In no cases that I’ve encountered have I felt as though a particular translation was glaringly different from all the rest.
Given that I already own a couple bibles and all of them are online anyway, I can’t get behind laying out the cash for yet another one. Sorry ESV…
LikeLike
I used to be an NIV guy, until… I read one of my favorite theologian authors make a passing comment about how the NIV misinterprets Paul and through use of dynamic equivalence ended up making very little sense. This shook me up big time. I loved to read the bible. I studied every day, read it every spare moment I had. After I read this particular authors comment, and looked it up myself and saw that he was correct, I could no longer read the NIV. I was in limbo for the next year as I studied the making of translations.
So now, even though there are times when I am frustrated by the ESV’s rendering (especially in some of the Gospels), I feel alot more confidence, assured that the words I am reading is closer to what is actually written. Also, for the most part, the ESV does very fine for me. I never have trouble understanding what is read, it’s more frustration at the way it is said (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”).
LikeLike
I once read somewhere that the NRSV has as much liberal bias as the ESV has conservative bias.
I do agree the ESV is clunky. Compare it to the NRSV and this is obvious. The NRSV is really smooth. Ultimately, it boils down to what works for you, but I suspect that, as several posters mentioned, any single translation will get old over time. If you are the typical evangelical looking to the text for truth and illumination you are limited to the text at hand. Yes I know it’s “God’s Word” but it’s still a book, full of words. Any growing Christian is going to get to the point where the Bible moves from daily reading to reference manual. You find yourself reading books and looking up topics more and picking up the Bible for basic reading less. And that’s ok. Don’t blame the translation for _that_, and stop giving yourself grief over it. Here is a great article on “Quiet Time Guilt”:
http://www.gregscouch.homestead.com/files/quiet_time_guilt.htm
LikeLike
“I don’t understand the comments about it being hard to understand at all. If you’re reading and there’s a word you don’t understand, pull out a dictionary for pete’s sake. That’s much better than complaining that the translators didn’t bring the words down to your level. If you’re reading and the phrasing of a verse makes it hard to understand – maybe … just maybe that’s intentional.”
Whoa there. This is the exact same argument the King James Only people make. I would not go down this road. It is better to admit the imperfections of the ESV- you can still hold that it is superior _comparatively_ while acknowledging it has parts not as easily comprehended as would be preferred.
LikeLike
I’m really only familiar with two translations–the KJV, which I grew up with and my current church uses, and the ESV, which a PCA church I was part of used.
The ESV is definitely easier to understand.
LikeLike
Actually, I think the LCMS will eventually regret their decision which will unfortunately be very costly for them.
I’m always fascinated to read readers’ comments about Bible translations. Some are mildly supportable–I can at least imagine what “clunky” might sound like–but most opinions summarize the entire translation using terms such as “like” “love” “don’t like” “accurate” and so on. (You can see the same types opinions at Catholic blogs discussing the merits or demerits of the NAB versus Douay-Reims, and so on.) And I always wonder what the basis is for these comments. Is the best translation the one you “like”? hmmm. Does “liking” it really make it better somehow?
I recall when James Dobson went on a rampage after the TNIV came out and at the time wondered to myself, “What does this guy really know about Bible translation anyway? How much actual Bible translating has he done?” Is he (or Piper for that matter) really knowledgeable enough to endorse or reject entire translations? I’m pretty skeptical.
I think if we all spent as much time studying our Greek and Hebrew as we do blogging, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation.
LikeLike
I did not like the ESV, which I discovered after buying three brand new ESV’s after they did their big advertising thing in World Magazine, back in the day when I was an avid World reader. I figured it had to be good, so I got one for me and two for others. Yuck. And I’m a translation junkie who was predisposed (since at the time I leaned towards the Piper/Grudem crowd, big time) to love it. But I didn’t. It was clunky and often seemed forced.
Later, when I discovered some of the hoopla, primaraly the purposeful “male-ing” of the text to reflect CBMW complementarian interpretations (ahem, bias), I was just plain ticked. Don’t do that to me. Or, if you are, let me know up front, you know?
I love the NASB, having grown up with it… I find it very well done, on an intellectual level and appreciate how the footnotes often include an equally viable alternate translation of a specific word. I like how they respect the intellect of the reader by giving them a couple ways of looking at the passage (yes, yes, I know there are more than a couple, but, hey, I’ll take what I can get!). 🙂
I love The Message for rescuing me from Bible PTSD (after the Bible had been used as a tool by Gothard-esque “spiritual authority means doing everything I say with a smile” people, verses used to spiritually abuse me into submission to tyranny)…can’t thank Peterson enough. It was like a cool drink of water in a desert. Bless that man!
I like to change translations every year or two, just to keep the text fresh (and I appreciate the luxury of being able to do that, realizing that many don’t have such an opportunity).
I am currently reading out of The New Jerusalem bible (love that one for the Psalms…wowzers…).
I’m also a huge fan of the New English Bible, which is rarely seen outside of used bookstores, and is, I believe, or was, the Anglican text of choice. Aside from having that uber-cool cross on the cover, I think it does a fantastic job with the epistles.
LikeLike
Comment by Scott Seaman:
I find the ESV easy to read most of the time. Occasionally, it requires more effort in difficult passages than what I was used to with the NIV and the NET.
I’ve read one-half of the ESV NT with my 15 year old son and he doesn’t squeak about it being unduly hard to understand, although, he has learned some new words. I read Acts with my 22 year old son this summer and he thought the ESV was easier reading than his NIV.
When I occasionally run into a strangely worded or difficult passage, I realize that is the result of my preferred translation philosophy, and don’t feel anxious about it.
The ESV “marketing” caught my attention, but detailed discussion of translation philosophy by Ryken (see http://www.esv.org/translation/woge) and others, and the long history of appreciation for the RSV, convinced me it was worth the extra effort to use essentially literal Bibles and evaluate them as I go.
I’m thrilled that the ESV strives to be transparent to the metaphors originally given in scripture for our contemplation. Some translations too often don’t distinguish between idioms and metaphors, and replace easy to understand metaphors such as “walk” with “live”. These words are not entirely equailvent because “walk” carries the additional sense of moving toward a destination.
I feel motivated to use the ESV for memorization because it retains God’s metaphors and because the words and phrasing are similar with other non-paraphrased translations. I see this shared vocabulary as enhancing a sense of community between believers.
The ESV & NLT are good companions. The creators of the ESV and NLT had different goals and approaches to translation. Therefore, these translations bring different benefits to their use. Many people don’t realize that some key figures behind the ESV also recommend the NLT. This is even noted at ESV’s website. Refer to Packer’s interview http://www.esv.org/bounce/wm/interviews/openline.3.wma
Over the years, friends have mentioned how helpful the old Living Bible was in getting an initial grasp of the epistles. Personally, I found that good study bibles provide the necessary help, but I can see that in some circumstances, a paraphrase like the NLT, might be a good beginners Bible.
Regarding Strauss’ 2008 ETS presentation linked above: Strauss is a spokesman for Zondervan and cranks-out one-side critiques of the ESV and essentially literal translation philosophy. Mounce plans to reply at this year’s ETS meeting. http://www.koinoniablog.net/2008/11/ets-day-2-by-bill-mounce.html
Scott seaman
LikeLike
I come from a tradition where I think many people would be astounded to find out that any Bible translations exist other than the NIV, except those couple of old people that still carry their KJV. As a young adult I started exploring translations. NCV, HCSV, ESV, NKJV, NLT, Amplified etc.
I really enjoy the ESV for studying (with a mix of other translations for reference if possible), but I also have never used the RSV or NASV and don’t have much experience in the way of Formal Equivalence translations.
Last Sunday I determined that I really need to take my NLT or NIV to church though. I was reading scripture in our service (out of Phillipians) and I used my ESV. It’s the first time I’ve ever lost my place multiple times during a 15 verse scripture reading. When I read it out loud it felt cluncky comming out of my mouth and I had to make sure what I’d just said was right, even though I’d just read it through to myself 15 minutes before!
I have noticed in these comments that the negative comments have tended to center around the Pauline Epistles for the most part. Is it possible the ESV translation team just had trouble replicating Paul’s style while doing a decent job otherwise?
LikeLike
I love my NCV’s for youth/low education level adult reading, doesn’t get much better. But I’m not a huge fan of it for study or public reading. I lean towards ESV for studying and NLT for public reading.
LikeLike
Just a quick one. Proverbs 30:18-19
18 Three things are too wonderful for me;
four I do not understand:
19the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a virgin.
“Virgin” is an accurate translation. Can’t fault the ESV for that. However, what does the word “virgin” connote in people’s minds today? How well does this translation communicate the original meaning (which, I’m pretty sure, wasn’t a matter of mere gynecology) to the modern reader/hearer? Not very well.
NLT is much better, imo…
18 There are three things that amaze me—
no, four things that I don’t understand:
19 how an eagle glides through the sky,
how a snake slithers on a rock,
how a ship navigates the ocean,
how a man loves a woman.
The kids at the High School can understand this at once without being distracted by the strange (to their ears) way in which the word “virgin” is used.
LikeLike
For me I generally don’t have a massive preference for translation, I got into the habit of using the NIV because it was the preferred translation for my Theology degree (non-denominational, Evangelical college).
However, for me at least, the moment someone starts using KJV as their primary, outward facing translation (there’s no problem with viewing the KJV in the privacy of your own home) I instantly think “this person has no desire whatsoever to reach people outside the church unless they are time travellers from the 16th century” is that wrong of me?
On another note, I love Adrian Plass’ humorous definitions of the translations:
“KJV: form in which the Bible was originally written in 17th century English, latter translated into Hebrew and Greek for some obscure reason, and then translated back again into those ridiculous modern versions
Readers Digest Bible: the one where your name is actually mentioned in print throughout the New Testament and there is a chance to win your salvation in a draw just before the second coming.
NIV: ideal for those unhappy with the decrepit and very local versions of scripture.
Amplified Bible: Ideal for churches without a sound system”
Ahh got to love Adrian!
LikeLike
Over the course of my ministery as a Methodist pastor, I have used various English translations to read the Scripture lessons: the NRSV, ESV, RSV, ASV, and the KJV. My favorite is the RSV. The churches in my charge do not have pew bibles, so whichever version I read from is the one whereby they hear the Word of God proclaimed. I find I primarily read and preach from the ESV- it is readily obtainable if my parishioners wish a copy, and I feel it to be closer to the RSV than the NRSV is, for reading and proclamation for public worship. My experience has been quite favorable, and my litmus test for worship isn’t the pro’s and con’s of the readability of a particular Bible version, but rather how faithfully I relate the text to the congregation versus their comprehension of the message. For me, the ESV has proven most satisfactory in this endeavor.
LikeLike
The ESV, IMO, works best on the study desk. In this respect it is a lot like the NASB. For reading out loud in worship and for general use something like the NRSV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, or even the NAB works better. The NLT is great for general reading. My two cents.
LikeLike
Ah, sorry about that… it is “como se llama.” Got mixed up. But you see the point, still, right?
LikeLike
I once wrote a (not very good) Onion-esque satire on the TNIV/ESV debate that reported the news “Area Husband Caught Reading TNIV” as if it were pornography.
http://www.ochuk.com/?p=606
LikeLike
I was hoping someone would clear this up! 🙂
LikeLike
In addition to reading multiple English translations, if you speak some other language (doesn’t have to be Greek or Hebrew), reading parallel in that language can open up new windows on meaning as well. I love how the Spanish Reina-Valera 1960 revision states Hebrews 11:1: Es, pues, la fe la certeza de lo que se espera, la convicción de lo que no se ve. — It is, then, faith the certainty of what is hoped for, the conviction of what is not seen.
LikeLike
Adam wrote: For example “como esta usted†in Spanish literally means “how do you call your self?†The meaning, though, is “how are you?
Ummm, actually “¿Cómo está usted?” is literally “How are you?” (with the “estar” verb for “to be”, indicating a temporal condition or state, as opposed with the “ser” verb for “to be”, which is for more-or-less continual traits like “I am a man” or “I am a Christian”)
“¿Cómo se llama usted?” is translated taken to mean “What’s your name?” but literally is “How are you called?” or “How do you call yourself?” (llamarse can be taken to mean “call oneself” or the passive voice “to be called”).
LikeLike
I like the ESV, but, as with any translation, there are places where I have problems. As I have been preaching through Ephesians 1, I have come across several verses where I agree more with the NIV than with the ESV. Also, I have several copies of the ESV and I have found 3 or 4 places in Ephesians where the two copies are different by a word or two (e.g. Does 1:5 include “as sons” or not?). This makes me wonder which is the real ESV.
LikeLike
Come on! The listing of all those blessed translations are things many people in this world just don’t have. Those many people would also be willing to die for any copy of the Scriptures. I actually mean “die.”
That won’t register for many of us because we will be busy wagging our jaws (love to use another term but I would get censored) and strutting our infinite knowledge about bible translation. Who cares? Let’s move on and thank God we even have the translations to beef about. Get on you knees and thank Him. This will help you from getting off on some polemic or diatribe which will help none of us.
LikeLike
As an LCMS pastor, I use ESV as my primary translation for worship and for our church’s adult Bible study–mostly because it’s the translation the Synod adopted for the new hymnal and lectionary. Because of my appreciation for the RSV, I was really psyched when the ESV came out and got one right away. I like it well enough for personal use, but I have to say that, only a year into ministry, I’m not terribly wild about the ESV’s new status as the preferred translation in the LCMS. Don’t get me wrong; it’s OK. I just feel like it’s needlessly awkward much of the time (which makes for ungainly public reading). Also, the ESV’s awkwardness increasingly strikes me as somewhat dishonest–like the use of unnatural English word order makes the ESV feel more “accurate” than it really is, obscuring the fact that (like every other translation) it regularly irons out significant expressions and makes translation choices that are by no means obvious to every reader. In any case, I stopped using it with my youth (in favor of the NIV), because they were struggling to understand it.
P.S.: Michael, is your first update missing a hyperlink?
LikeLike
I read through the ESV when it firt came out, and found it really “clunky”. That impression has not changed with time. I remember a couple weeks ago reading a passage from my discipleship group’s study in the NRSV, the NIV, the NLT and the ESV (I was stuck in trying to understand it, and my NIV’s notes weren’t helping), and found the ESV of it (in case you’re curious, it was Ephesians 2:14-20) to be really awkward in reading. The experience reminded me of why I don’t read the ESV!
Part of the problem is that I grew up with the NRSV, and am a new reader to the NIV (I’ve used the TNIV, but my discipleship group doesn’t). Trying to compare the passage I mentioned in the different versions reminded me of this, and of the problems I had with the ESV when it first came out. Come to think of it, I see the problem even more plainly in the passage you mentioned, Adam O. Wow! That’s even clunkier than the Ephesians passage I was stumbling on. All in all, the translation frustrates, and I’d much rather use the KJV.
LikeLike
ditto here
When the Study Bible had first come out for a couple months, I kept trying to look for it in Christian bookstores. You had to really hunt for it, and the people working in the store could only refer you to the “Bibles” section.
Most of my Christian friends have never heard of it either, but I don’t move in very reformed circles.
LikeLike
Adam,
Wow. Let me first lay out my biasis. I’m a KJV man. Not a KJV only guy even though at one point I probably was, but now I’m a KJV man for some of those reasons but more for just a fairly closed minded and admittedly simple minded thought of “It has worked and been blessed for a long time, and I know a lot of sharecroppers with third grade educations like my grandparents who did quite well with it.”
With the relaization that 1. I’ll probably always be ministering to folks who are KJV folks and 2. the KJV is still widely recognized if not accepted I laid aside the whole which is best debate years ago and just made a choice and went forward
Now with all that said, I have very little exposure to other translations, but wow the ESV passage was a car wreck, teh TNIV made much more sense. I mean I’m not rhodes scholar but I had to read the ESV passage a couple of times to make it click.
LikeLike
I have nothing against the ESV for reading at a high level. I do not mind looking words up. What I do have a problem with is the use of archaic language. I love Shakespeare but I don’t speak it. The ESV is full of archaic English words left over from the RSV and they were archaic when the RSV came out! Even if you use the ESV and love it, does it communicate well to others? Try using the ESV to communicate God’s word an 80 year old who left school in the 8th grade. Try using the ESV at a middle school or high school weak of camp. The ESV is sloppy. You can tell that they did not bother to correct some of the sentence structure or clean up archaic language. I agree that some verses are meant to be complex, why make them more complex and difficult then they already are?
LikeLike
I bought into the ESV late in 2004. Over the years I have read completely through the NIV (twice), NASB (twice), ESV (3 or 4 times), and NLT (once). I have no bias from upbringing as I was raised with no spiritual heritage. I’ve done all of my memorizing in the ESV and have had some trouble with some sentences, but nothing that couldn’t be overcome with practice. I did find that the NLT read very smoothly and it is what I would recommend for someone who just wants to sit and read.
I’ve had a couple of years of Greek and a year of Hebrew, so I know a little bit about what goes into a translation. The thing that must be understood is that every translation has a theological bias. There is no way to be completely objective when making translation decisions. Therefore, apart from a mastery in the languages (and even that has bias as it depends on from whom you learn), you need to trust the folks who prepare the translation. I like the NLT for a formal equivalence translation becuase it reads well and I trust D.A. Carson. I know where they have made interpretive leaps, but I generally agree with them.
What I’ve found is that changing translations often makes the text come alive because I start reading the text in a new light. I would say that, apart from mastery in the languages, the best thing would be to use a variety of translations. Get some good commentaries from scholars you trust and, above all, spend time in prayer for the Holy Spirit to illuminate the text for you. I do know that the Lord has used the ESV Study Bible to bless me quite a bit as I read through the text and the notes in the Major Prophets.
LikeLike
I don’t care much for the ESV because it is awkward to read. I don’t think “essentially literal” necessarily entails “essentially accurate” which is the primary presupposition of the translation philosophy. There is an argument out there that says we should render old literature as literal as possible to preserve its literary form. In fact, we do this all the time with Shakespeare’s work. But the problem with this argument is that it presupposes that such a literary form can be preserved when translating from one language into another. It is not like preserving the idiom of Old English in spite of Modern sensibilities, in which case it is still “English to English.” Greek to English is much different, and as any translator of any literary work from any other language will tell you the literary features of the original are lost in translation. Nor is there any one-to-one correspondence between languages. For example “como esta usted” in Spanish literally means “how do you call your self?” The meaning, though, is “how are you?” The latter is much more accurate to the intent of the speaker than the former, yet the latter might be considered “dynamic equivalent.” The best approach is to use whatever translation philosophy available to achieve accuracy.
Here is an example from Phil 1:3-5 that illustrates the ESV’s chunkiness when it applies its commitment to being “essentially literal†compared to the TNIV (which takes a hybrid approach):
ESV: 3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now
If you had to read over the ESV several times to get the gist of what the TNIV plainly says, it should be obvious that the ESV’s translation philosophy is woefully weak in this passage.
LikeLike
I too fear I may have bought into the marketing. I have always been a NKJV guy till a few years ago. The problem is that my church uses the ESV now. I preach from it and give it to our new converts. But times it does feel clunky. I am no scholar but I like to think it is because it is a word for word translation but sometimes i fear that is just a coverup. My other issue is the obvious reformist in certain texts and especially the ESV study Bible (read the commentary on the parable of the vine for an almost laughable example).
LikeLike
“Like pirates”…that is great! 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for this complete & helpful reply. I’m going to check out the book you recommend!
LikeLike
Let me caution commenters that this is not a discussion of Greek manuscripts or the textual base of various translations.
LikeLike
The ESV at times is clunky for me (just like when I’m using my granddaddy’s old KJV). But it is worth the effort for use in personal study. I do like the elegance of the language amongst the formal equivalence translations (then again, I love the RSV courtesy of my granddaddy using that and KJV to preach from, but finding a copy of the RSV nowadays is near impossible here in Australia). I picked up my ESV Study Bible partly because of the marketing hype that was generated on the net. I picked up the original ESV translation when it was first released courtesy of me being in a rather Calvinist phase of theological understanding coupled with being starry-eyed at John Piper (to the point where he became a sort of unofficial pope in my own eyes).
Having said that, nowadays I flutter around using multiple translations whenever I’m assisting my pastor out as his wingman for our youth fellowship Bible studies. NRSV, ESV, KJV, RSV, NKJV, NLT2, TNIV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, NAB, NASB, GNB/TEV, NET Bible and NCV. But a lot of those translations I have are in study bible format (they’re purchased more for the study notes than the translation itself) rather than pure text/reference editions.
Surprisingly, out of all Bible translations available today, I really do love the Revised English Bible with Apocrypha over the ESV and other translations (it’s surprising that I mainly use the NRSV, T/NIV and ESV [in that order] for personal study). The REB may not be as “accurate” (I hate that word which is why I’m toughing it out learning NT Greek and Hebrew on my own now so I can read Scripture in the original languages), but it reads beautifully out loud whenever I am going through my lectionary readings in the daily office by myself (the REB is my devotional bible translation).
I only just wish I could find a travel edition in genuine leather binding so it could actually become the Bible I take around with me everywhere for use (though my Oxford NAB is filling that niche nicely atm).
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of my ESV, been reading it (almost) every day since January now, and it’s amazing. I do think that different translation styles are mostly a matter of personal taste. As long as it’s a literal translation, and not made up bilge like The Voice New Testaments, then I don’t see anything wrong with preferring the ESV or the NIV or the NLT or the NASB or the ol’ KJV.
I don’t understand the comments about it being hard to understand at all. If you’re reading and there’s a word you don’t understand, pull out a dictionary for pete’s sake. That’s much better than complaining that the translators didn’t bring the words down to your level. If you’re reading and the phrasing of a verse makes it hard to understand – maybe … just maybe that’s intentional. Wouldn’t you rather have the verse as accurately translated as possible than have it made simpler and thus glossing over something that wouldn’t be so simple in the Greek?
Seriously, what’s the deal – I think I have to be against this particular complaint philosophically no matter what version you’re talking about. It’s one thing if it’s hard to understand because the translators simply made a bad job of it (and I don’t think you could say this of the ESV). It’s another thing if it’s hard to understand because, in that particular passage, it’s actually really a concept that’s hard to understand. Where does this need come from to bring English translations down to the lowest common denominator in order for them to be really “modern day” English?
Some readers are complaining that the ESV isn’t modern day English??? How? Read a little Shakespeare for once … or Charles Dickens, or even some C.S. Lewis. Then you’ll stop worrying that the ESV isn’t modern enough.
The ESV is in modern day English, but it seems to have been put together at the same time, by translators who both loved and had an ear for the English language. I’ve grown up using mostly the old KJV and the NIV about equally in the past. The KJV always was much better for reading out loud. The NIV was usually better for giving to a brand new Christian. I always found it useful to read both. The ESV sort of combines the two, but again I admit this is my personal taste.
LikeLike
You’re asking for personal experiences with the ESV, right? Not reviews? Okay; I’ll let Michael Marlowe over at Bible Researcher handle the ESV-review job. Here’s a little insight from my experience with the ESV that involves one of my favorite research-subjects: the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The ESV is supposed to represent the best scholarship evangelicalism has to offer, right? Then why is the treatment of Mark 16:9-20 so sloppy? Walk through the footnote to Mark 16:9 with me, step by step, and I’ll show you what I mean. I hope this won’t sound too whiny.
“Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8.” That is technically true, but as far as continuous-text Greek manuscripts are concerned, exactly two (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) end the book with 16:8, and something like 1,500 include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8.
“A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14.” That is false! The only manuscript with additional material after verse 14 is Codex Washingtoniensis. Jerome mentioned copies with the extra material, but Jerome’s comments about manuscripts are not, themselves, manuscripts.
“one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following” —
The one Latin manuscript being referred to here is Codex Bobbiensis, and it does not just provide the paragraph known as the Intermediate Ending; Codex Bobbiensis also has an interpolation between Mark 16:3 and 16:4 (completely unmentioned) and does not have the final phrase of 16:8 (completely unmentioned!) and its text shows some affinities with the docetic “Gospel of Peter.”
“But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” That is not an accurate representation of what Codex Bobbiensis says; Codex Bobbiensis has the Latin equivalent of “appeared to them” after the reference to Jesus.
“Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20.” This is technically true, but the total number of Greek manuscripts that include this same wording is *six,* and none of them are particularly early.
The textual choices of the ESV’s text-compilers in Jude, especially in verse 5 (“Jesus” is used, not “the Lord”) and in verses 22-23 are interesting.
I didn’t find anything in the ESV, textually or stylistically, to convince me to use it, rather than the NKJV, as my primary translation of the New Testament. I haven’t read the OT in the ESV enough to offer an informed opinion.
And might I offer a timid suggestion that Dr. Mark Strauss, who endorsed the TNIV, and who is currently a member of the CBT that will be producing the new edition/revision of the NIV in 2011, might not be the most objective and disinterested reviewer of Bible translations?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
LikeLike
No other books written or translated today use the word “man†to mean “people.â€
That is simply untrue. Modern English still uses “man” or “men” or “mankind” in the gender-neutral sense both in regular on-the-street usage as well as in books. Some of the best writers today have refused to conform to or worry about refraining from so-called “sexist” language (William F. Buckley, Jr., Christopher Buckley, Dennis Lehane, Louis Markos, etc.) This isn’t a conservative thing, this is a love of the English language thing.
Personally, I’m finding the ESV to be incredibly well done, partly because it keeps some of the eloquence from the old KJV, except it’s all actually in modern day English.
LikeLike
I know a Baptist Greek professor who would not be happy with the description of the NRSV up there.
I’m a fan of my ESV, though I pulled my NIV off the shelf a few nights ago, and was shocked at how smoothly it read. It had probably been 4 years since I’d opened it.
I’ve got a RSV and a HSBC New Testament as well, and I think both of those are pretty fun to read from.
LikeLike
They REALLY have nice covers.
LikeLike
I bought my ESV because I thought it was pretty.
LikeLike
Wait? Whaddareya saying about the NASB? I like the NASB. I’ve been using it since college, and the first time I looked at the ESV I thought it was just the NASB released with a new name. Having said that, I do really like the NLT.
LikeLike
Thanks for the question. That is a good one. I will try to answer it to the best of my ability.
I say that because of what I have been taught by godly men and because of personal experience. When I took Intro to Bible Study and Interpretation in college one of the basic steps I was taught when studying the Bible was to start with a base translation – usually one that has a more word for word translation philosophy or you translation of choice and if possible the original languages. After doing some initial observation and some other things, you were to then compare what you were studying to other translations.
Like I mentioned earlier, translation is a lot different than what the majority of Christians think it is. They wonder what all the fuss is, and why can’t the translators just but the English equivalent of the Hebrew/Greek word and that’s it. That would be great if translators could do it like that but there is a lot more interpretation and elbow grease involved than people think. I only know a small amount of what it is like. It is even more complicated than I am describing because of my limited knowledge.
To continue, translation is done my human beings. Human beings each have a worldview and they operate by that worldview. It effects all they do. Most of all, it effects the translation choices that they make. Therefore, it is good to compare various translations to note the difference. These difference could lead one to do word studies to understand why one translation team chose one interpretation over another.
Lastly, translations can become outdated and must be revised or updated. Language is always changing and you Bible translation should reflect those changes while not loosing the original meaning of the text. Also, new discoveries are made in the world of biblical archeology. For instance, the latest edition of the KJV was updated in 1611 and uses older manuscripts (of the N.T. and O.T.) and does not reflect current biblical scholarship. Since 1611, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and contained more and even older manuscripts of the (O.T.) that helped biblical scholarship and newer translation reflect this study.
I don’t want you to think that I am saying that if you don’t own or use more than one translation than you are a bad Christian. That could not be more farther from the truth. If you have one translation that is your favorite and that you read, study, meditate on, etc then that is fine. At least you are reading the Bible. I guess what I am saying is that if you want to understand the Bible on a different level in your Bible study or quiet time it is best if you compare different translations. That does not mean that you have to give up your favorite one.
I hope I answered your question sufficiently; if not then you might want to read the book “How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions” by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss. I’ve hear great things about this book and it will do an even better job explaining things than I did.
LikeLike
I think even those of us who knew that everyone else was being ‘marketed’ were eventually ‘marketed’ ourselves. But I discovered just last night I haven’t been reading my ESV Study as closely as I thought I had, because it took me until last night to realize that II John, III John and all but the last chapter of Revelation are missing from my copy. And I’ve owned it for a year, now; and yes, I’ve used it extensively. Just not that extensively, it turns out.
LikeLike
I think that the ESV has just been ferociously marketed. It really isn’t different enough from the NASB to warrant switching, at least for me.
And while we’re on the subject, I think it’s amusing to see how many people call the NASB “wooden.” I think that they’ve picked up that word from other pseudo-scholar types who like to use the word “wooden.” Very strange…
LikeLike
It seems that the ESV and NIV are market driven translations. Are they the best? Or are they the best marketed translations? For me it is hard to go all in with the ESV because it seems to cater to the reformed crowd a little to much. Also I am uncomfortable with the ESV’s translation of Malachi 2:16.
Personally for preaching at churches I use the NASB and for preaching to soldiers I use the HCSB (because that is what has been donated to us).
LikeLike
When I was teen my friends and I enjoyed reading the KJV like pirates. It lent itself to that type of affectation. Years later, I find the ESV to be a nice readable alternative. From Genisis to Revelations I can draw from the myriad of narratives the same things I drew from the KJV, NIV, NLT and so on. The only difference from the majority of posters on this site is that I read the Bible as fiction, not being a believer in the deity of Christ etc. Why weigh in? Just to let you know that the ESV is, from my point of view, an excellent translation that is both accessible and easy on the eyes and tales the tale as well as the rest. Not as fun as the KJV but, the KJV isn’t as fun as a translation that would read like an old school southern preacher would preach. Anybody up for translating the book into texan?
LikeLike
In terms of accuracy, that is a pretty close rendering of “grace” from the Greek. But what does it mean to experience God’s favor or grace? That is something that is beyond translation and enters the realm or interpretation. What is still not communicated is the ethos behind the word, “grace”, which the original Greek maintained. Grace is not something God had to do, either out of pity or obligation. God gives his grace joyously and recklessly. That, I think , could be communicated better through the translation process.
There is a scene in the Movie, “Luther”, where Martin Luther is beginning to write his translation of the Bible, and he is enthralled by the tenderness and love of God expressed in the original bible texts. It’s just a movie, and perhaps that scene never occurred. But that is what I think is missing from Bible interpretation.
It’s like the movie, “The Fly”, where Jeff Goldblum’s character is struggling to understand why his machine cannot transport living creatures without turning them into hamburger. He discovers that the machine understands atoms and molecules, but it doesn’t comprehend “flesh”. So he begins to teach the machine from a human perspective what flesh is. I think the same is true in bible translation. The distance be between accuracy and readability isn’t that great. Translation can’t be merely finding the closest word in one language and matching it with the word in another, like solving an algebraic equation. It has to capture the weight and feeling carried by the original words. It’s retelling the same story with the same passion. I’m not convinced that such a translation can be achieved by publishers, who are ultimately driven by the need for profit and return-on-investment. It takes someone like Luther, who was personally captured by God’s goodness, or a John Wesley, whose heart was touched to the core through the words of Paul.
LikeLike
“Is it really clunky….and awkward? Do people really have problems reading it? Is it stylistically difficult?”
For me, no. I find it quite readable. I was raised on RSV (Classic, not New).
LikeLike
I’m one of the NKJV fans, but I am staying out of this conversation. My current Bible is New Jerusalem. GRIN.
LikeLike
I read an ESV now and find it ‘accurate’ but hard on the lips. The NLT was written to be read aloud so it doesn’t surprise me that it would be preferred for preaching. The only problem with the NLT is that it dropped some of the ‘big’ Bible words (like “grace”) for weak alternatives (like “God’s special favor”). If you have favorite verses, I’d suspect that seeing them rendered by the NLT will leave the favorer disappointed.
Since I’m no scholar I use a combination of NIV, NLT, ESV, NAS, and Amplified for study. I like McKnight’s description of the Amplified though–it’s pretty much me. 😉
LikeLike
I personally have no problem with the ESV as a Bible translation and probably one day will own one. At the present, I have pondered off and on about procuring a ESV hardback bible and always changed my mind at the last minute.
It seems when I go look up Bible verses and compare the ESV to other versions (using Internet sites and those greek/hebrew sites in conjunction), there is very minimal difference (to me in my personal opinion, but then again I am not a Bible translation expert) between the ESV and the old comfortable NKJV I already use and therefore would just see $35.00 sitting on my bookshelf.
However, what makes the ESV so appealing as a translation is two very important factors
(1): Endorsement by the big-wigs of Reformed theology such as Piper, Sproul, and others. I really believe that within the leaders of the Reformed movement that there has been a “subtle but definitely unintentional†manner of an “ESV Only” mindset that parallels the rigid mindset that the independent fundamentalist Baptists did with “KJV only” (and the sub-group with KJV1611 only”. It would be nice if someone within the Reformed mindset who is widely respected as a leader would address the issue.
(2): The fact that the publishers of the ESV has made the translation open to online avenues in what appears to be a generous manner where some other publishers of other translations wanted hefty annual copyright fees, or wanted an ‘pay-per-click’ licensing arrangement when Internet viewers chose to look at a Bible version in their version.
Look at the bibles you have to pay for if you wanted to have them within your E-Sword software
http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
—–
“Amplified for folks who have no idea what translation is but know that if you try enough words one of them will hit pay dirt;”
– you can add “Word of Faith / prosperity gospel movement” followers because every one of those people who were/are involved in that movement has read that Bible, studied from that Bible for their theological foundations, and quote scriptures from that version by heart when compared to people who quote KJV versions of scriptures. The additional words commonly found usually slanted towards the prosperity gospel.
LikeLike
Use both! 🙂 Really.
LikeLike
I really like my NCV. I came across it in a discount book store, and bought it just to have another version. But now I use it more than my TNIV. I have the ESV, but don’t really like it.
LikeLike
For me, the ESV is like a mix between the NASB and the NIV. Somewhere inbetween the two on both readability and acuracy. I like it for just that reason, but I would fall more under the category of the NASB you gave up there.
LikeLike
Clunky…wooden… hard to follow at times. I love the Psalms… but the rest of it I do not personally prefer. I have read it in small groups and have received the strangest looks!
LikeLike
I find the ESV not only hard to read, but confusing at times with very awkward English. Since it is a continued revision from the KJV line, I suppose that is to be expected. For myself, I prefer a modern English translation from the original languages. I tend to use the HCSB, NLT, NET and TNIV.
LikeLike
I own several copies of the ESV including the ESV Study Bible. I’ve been using the ESV for about a year in my daily practice and don’t find it clunky or difficult to read. I favor word-for-word translations and find it more readable than the NASB which I also own.
LikeLike
Wow, I say this with sincerity: I love my HCSB but I am a follower of Jesus (got a dash of evangelical, charismatic, monastic, mountain man, good ole boy in me). But I’ve never been put in the SoBap’s tribe. I’m kind of honored, although they would be appalled. I did read the NIV and the NASB for years, but I here I am Lord, a HCSB man…great and hilariously honest blog though. Live and Alive from the Mountains of West ‘by God’ Virginia
LikeLike
I wanted to like ESV. I tried to like ESV. It has so many cool packages and I wanted something easier to read than my old NASB. But every time I read it, the more i read it, especially out loud, it’s awful. I spend more time explaining what it said than I’d like. I like NLT so much more and it seems more accurate than NIV to me. I also like the reverse interlinear ESV, but I just can’t get past the clunked, awkward English.
LikeLike
Isn’t being critical of the ESV kind of like being critical of John Piper? 😉
Seriously, why so few NKJV fans? I started with the KJV, and so the NKJV just seems to flow more nicely with all those KJV passages stuck in my head. This sounds funny, but NIV just doesn’t “taste right” coming out of my mouth.
LikeLike
Thank You. You’ve brought up an issue that brings me blank stares when I bring it up.
I love hearing Shakespeare read well or attending a play or movie. But I can’t read it. I just can’t warp my brain into the cadences to make it work. But I can understand it when well read by someone else who can do a good job.
This also applies to bibles. I can listen to the KJV well read and get much from it. But to try and use it for my personal reading is almost a waste of time.
LikeLike
“I almost want to see how an honest atheist would translate the bible just to remove Christian theological preferences. Then you would get literal.”
I bet the footnotes would be a great read.
LikeLike
In selecting a bible translation, how do you weight the accuracy of the translation and the methodology used with the readability of the translation? I have found the NASB to be a more accurate translation compared to the NIV while the NIV is more readable. Many times, the NIV translationtors try to make things too easy for the reader. In John 3:16, for example, the NIV does not use the word “begotten” which is the correct word, not “one and only” which does not mean the same thing.
LikeLike
How about the New English Bible? A good version from the 60’s – I read it to the kids.
LikeLike
I started using the ESV because its so common in the AMiAs (perhaps it’s our unofficial official translation), and other than that knew I hated the NIV (for its anti-catholic bigotry) and was fine with the NRSV in grad school. The UK greek prof at St Pats (who often translates the readings himself, on the spot) really likes it, but I do find it very awkward to read aloud. I used it for a year for the Daily Office with my students, and was displeased.
LikeLike
I remember getting an ESV when it came out to see what the difference was between it and the RSV and the NIV. After a few days, I read Philippians 1 from it, and then read it again. And then I thought, ‘I can’t actually read this, nor can I understand it’. Despite having studied Ancient History to degree level in the UK and being used to reading awkward translations of ancient texts, I could not follow the translation, and went and read my old NIV.
Now, a few years later, I’ve translated Philippians from the Greek myself, and I think I could do a better update to the RSV than whoever translated the ESV. And then I found that the NRSV had done a much better job. What this proves is that no matter how bad a product actually is to use, good marketing (i.e., its the ‘reformed translation’) will always win in this society. It is frustrating to see a translation of the Bible actually ‘used’ to create schism in our church.
I can live with the gender-neutral language of the NRSV. The translator’s worked within a given agenda, and provided a terrifically readable word for word translation. The ESV has come up and turned the public text into a sectarian interpretation that is nigh on unreadable. I find that perhaps the NLT has the same bias’, but I find that if you want people (e ‘gender-neutral’ term, perhaps I should use ‘man’ here) from teenage up to not just ‘know’ scripture but understand it too, use a simple text, like the TEV or NLT.
If ever people care that much about the difference in a translation, bring it up in the sermon, but don’t make them disinterested by being unable to read it. If you do, this just becomes another power-play, where you are deciding who is ‘in’ your little group of the faithful, and who is ‘out’. Such use fo the translation wars is just disgusting.
LikeLike
As a PCA pastor, when the ESV came out, we bought copies for all of our staff, elders, deacons, and gave it a trial run.
It didn’t pass the readability test. Children who read the NIV smoothly could not get good comprehension from the ESV. I felt a a preacher it would put a barrier between me and the congregation. In the end, it made me appreciate the NIV more, and we have stuck with the NIV.
LikeLike
When I posted submit it took out the part I was quoting, but it was this:
I agree iMonk that we do need more translations. It is never good to just have one and favor it and only read that one. Rather, it is best to read many, and if blessed with the opportunity, to read and study the Bible in the original languages.
LikeLike
Why is the below statement true? What do you base that on? Just curious. I guess I don’t see that as a “given.” If a person does really just read one translation, likes it and feels comfortable with it, memorizes it, takes it to heart and applies it, who cares about other translations?
<<<>>>
LikeLike
My ESV choice is simple. I have been for the longest time an RSV man. I even bought RSVs off the used book section of Amazon. But it is going the way of all flesh. ESV stands in its place. An admirable job of keeping as close as possible to the word order, etc. of the original and yet giving it the best possible reading style with those constrictions in place. It also chooses to keep theological vocabulary intact. This has real value for me. When Christians are communicating about the things of God and have no common vocabulary, connecting gets harder and harder. The dynamic equivalence model uses four or so words for many single words in the original. Gets laborious. I also think the editorial team for the ESV is held in such high regard that Christians can afford to relax a bit and not cast a suspicious eye on translation choices. Of course, this translations debate is about at what point does translating Shakespeare into contemporary language cease to be Shakespeare and come to be commentary on Shakespeare.
LikeLike
Not published by the same group at all.
TEV is a good translation, imo.
LikeLike
I switched from NIV to ESV in 2004, long before the ESV hype machine took over….or at least before I became aware of it. I was still a new Christian and didn’t know much when it came to translation issues, but the NIV was inherently lacking “punch” for me. It wasn’t as gripping as I thought the bible should be. It was the English major in me being critical, I suppose.
I heard a friend read out loud from the ESV one day and was drawn in. I did some research and pulled the trigger, and I still love it. I’ve found the language to be very smooth, but also packs a punch.
I had to defend the ESV for awhile because nobody around me had heard of it when I first got it– welcome to the Northeast. But people seemed to be attracted to it just as I was when they would hear me read from it, and I would often get asked “What translation is that, it sounded good?”
So it seems to have some sort of quality that draws people in. But now that it’s become the tour de force that it is, I sort of miss my reputation as the guy with the cool bible that nobody ever heard of.
LikeLike
When it first came out, I got an ESV study bible for my wife. Many of the people in my circles (“Reformed complementarian Baptists” is a good label!) were cheerleaders, yet hadn’t read it yet. Tribalism to be sure. I was mildly excited about reading it, yet I also found it clunky and gave up in favor of my NASV.
To truly accept a translation, one must immerse one’s self in it. Read it, quote it, memorize it, teach it. My conversion from KJV to NAS took years, but I still remember all the KJV style. I just don’t have the energy for the ESV. When I’m 80 years old, I’ll still probably be reading my NASV… and bringing my glove to baseball games.
LikeLike
Just re-read Michael’s post and his request for “experience with the ESV” comments, and decided my comment above was a bit short on that.
Basically, I am a language chauvinist and I call myself a “catholic Evangelical” — meaning I am solidly evangelical in my doctrine, but I like liturgy and dislike the evangelical tendency to act as if the church came into being sometime after the Reformation. Also, in Europe it is quite common to find people who are conservative evangelicals theologically, while at the same time being politically liberal (I would consider myself moderately conservative, politically).
I like the KJV (the older English verb forms, as well as a separate second person singular pronoun are real easy for a German-speaker) but am aware of its flaws, as far as the manuscripts it’s based on, etc. I like the RSV, but dislike some of the translation choices it’s editorial board made (i.e. the standard evangelical criticisms of the RSV). I like the NASB (and used one for years) but find it’s English less than literary.
So I looked at the ESV specifically because it is designed by its initiators as a cleaned up, tidied up RSV, fixing the problems conservative evangelicals have with that translation.
I ended up buying it in hardcopy , electronically for my PDA, and as an audio Bible because the publishers make it available for free with e-Sword, and I find that a very laudable thing especially in view of how anal Zondervan and IBS were for a long time about making the NIV available (even for purchase) to users of that free Bible program.
I use the ESV as my primary translation for reading and studying, and I like that it is clearly in the KJV-RV-ASV-RSV line; for myself I see no need for Scripture to sound like today’s newspaper or a novel.
I always consult other translations, including the CJB which I don’t find “awful” although it is clearly a “version with an agenda” (which I happen to share). I also consult the NET Bible, being personally acquainted with some of the folks at Bible.org, even though I find some of their translation choices idiosyncratic.
For my devotions I use an electronic version of the R.C. Daily Office (the universalis.com mobile version on my iPhone), which uses the New Jerusalem Bible for all Scripture; I wish they used the older JB for the Psalms, as I always liked their rendition of the Hebrew poetry.
My Pastor uses the NIV to preach from, and so I have that on my PDA also (since it was finally made available, after lots of discussions and remonstrations with Zondervan and IBS), and in German the IBS-sponsored equivalent of the NLT has become pretty much the standard in evangelical congregations, so I have and use that as well.
So I find myself incredibly enriched by all of these translations, but still come back to the ESV for my “canonical text”.
LikeLike
Hmmm – so should they translate “Son of Man” as “Son of People”, seeing as how Jesus was the son of Mary but not of Joseph?
I don’t particularly mind using “Man” for “humankind, all people”; I’ve never had the objection that “Well, I’m a woman, and if you don’t specifically say ‘sister’ or ‘people’ , then you’re not including me!” .
Translation can be wibbly, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
I am not sure that that is accurate: the Good News Bible (GNB, also TEV – Today’s English Version) is a product of the American Bible Society, while the ESV is a product of Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
I think you are getting confused by the publisher’s name which sounds similar to the GNB’s name, but that is the only thing they have in common.
So far for the publishers; the two versions are also done by completely different translation and editorial teams: the GNB by a mainstream Protestant team, and the ESV by a conservative evangelical team (headed by J.I.Packer).
I would also endorse the comments of those who say that it is a good thing to use MULTIPLE translations, depending on the purpose. I bought my ESV without much awareness of the marketing (that’s one advantage of living in Austria) because of it’s declared intention to be a “cleaned up” (from a conservative Evangelical viewpoint) RSV; I also use the NIV in English and the German equivalent of NLT (Hoffnung fuer Alle, HFA). Then I use a PDA version of Universalis (a computerized Catholic Daily Office) for my daily devotions, which includes all scriptures in the Jerusalem Bible version — it is incredible how much more one sees in a text when reading it in different translations.
LikeLike
Personally, I love the ESV. There are some clunky sections (there are clunky sections in the Greek too though).
And I cannot stand the NIV or the NLT. I’m not opposed to them in general, just opposed to me reading them personally. I just am not a fan of them. They feel more awkward to me than the ESV does. That is just me though. I like ESV, totally personal preference how it reads though.
LikeLike
I got my first ESV three-or-four years ago because a friend had a particular edition of it, I loved the physical tactile feel of the cover, and that edition was on sale for $10. The celtic cross cover design would be the kind of thing I’d want for a tattoo if I ever got one.
I found I enjoyed the translation. And not too long after that, I heard Steve Brown (on whose site iMonk is a guest blogger) saying that he likes it but that it is an “old man translation.” I think I agree with him there. There’s something a bit archaic about it that I like. At our small fellowship, it’s the most common translation, partially because the liturgy uses it (what with me being the main editor of our liturgy) and partially because so many people in our fellowship stumbled across it and like it.
The ESV Study Bible has been one of my favorite Bible reading/study resources. The scholarship is very good (albeit leaning slightly to the conservative evangelical end). The maps and whatnot are amazing. I’ve been through the bible a LOT of times, but the commentaries still often give me something to think about.
As far as my experience with other translations, I cut my spiritual teeth primarily on the NIV, though as a young child I used a Catholic ASV or something. In my undergraduate years I mostly used the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), though I’ve since come to see that it’s a pretty awful translation. In the latter of those years i switched to NKJV. In my graduate years I mostly used the now-out-of-print MKJV(“M” for modern), until I switched to ESV. Before I got the ESVSB, I spent a little bit of time in the CSB, which is pretty good. But the ESVSB’s commentaries were what made the final decision for me. And of course I’ve got NASBs and KJVs for use in word-studies
LikeLike
Im not a big fan of the ESV simply because its by the same group that does the Good News Bible. Neither one, for me, really have a lot of meat. BTW Concordia is coming out with a Lutheran Study Bible using the ESV (see: http://www.cph.org/cphstore/pages/resources/tlsb/).
LikeLike
I have always found the ESV easy to read, and it sounds like what the Bible should sound like to me. Sometimes, however, I teach young adults (who lack a college education) with handouts, and I have found that they struggle with a lot of the vocabulary and sentence structure. In those situations, I wonder if I should be using the NIV or NLT.
LikeLike
Chad, I loved the New Century Version when it came out. Taught from it in youth Sunday School classes.
It’s hard to find anyone who’s even heard of it. I wish it had taken off a bit more. I like it a lot more than the NLT.
LikeLike
It’s really sad that gender language is driving this translation tribalism that you mentioned. Gender has had nothing to do with translation errors I have come across in various translations. These errors also were not a sacrifice of accuracy for the sake of readability. They were just plain errors. It almost sounds like accuracy and readability are not priorities of the publishers; they just want to sell more bibles to the largest demographic. Billions of people still have no bibles, and the publishers are trying to sell more bibles to people who already have dozens in their homes. To borrow a phase from David Letterman: “…and this is why the world hates us”.
The new Dr. Seuss bible will be coming out soon. All the real Christians will have “stars upon thars”.
LikeLike
I would agree that it doesn’t read well either, especially when reading it out loud. I do own and use an ESV Bible, but it doesn’t really seem like a ‘new’ translation, feels more like it’s 30 years old already.
LikeLike
As far as accuracy, “how the heck would I know?” I have to rely on other’s judgements there. The leaders in my “circle” all vouch for it. I like the use of the word “propitiation.”
The ESV is often awkward in the language — at my ripe old age of 43, I know what it means most of the times, and actually enjoy the unusual structured sentences, knowing they reflect a different and ancient language. I suppose it reminds the reader that the text is some thousands of years old — reminds them to think about the original context — which I think is good. That might even be relevant to one’s Bible interpretation philosophy. But this does make me wonder if NIV (of NLT — wasn’t familiar with that) may be better for my kids (11 and 10). Could make a case for both ways.
I’ve always figured there is a basic tradeoff between a translation that leans more towards “idea for idea” and one that leans more towards “word for word.”
I’m not too familiar with the ESV’s marketing. Our pastor gave a sermon a while back that gave it his own personal endorsement, and I mainly went by that.
I don’t feel like viewing the ESV and its supporters as “needing a comeuppance” or being too proud of their version. I mean, if somebody honestly thinks “this is a great translation!” and tells others about it, that’s not wrong. As with all these things, an atmosphere can arise where a position or opinion becomes “sacred”, and dissent is opposed when it shouldn’t be. But I think that reflects the maturity and wisdom of the people involved more than the fact that a position or opinion is held. I haven’t encountered much of that surrounding the ESV at my church, although most people are using it. I’ll have to admit that I did a mental double take when a Sunday school teacher at my church used the NIV, but I quickly forgot about it. I suppose that was my own spiritual immaturity coming out — judging this person’s spiritual state by the translation they use, or how they had not “taken the pastor’s advice” so to speak. Yikes! yuck! and funny all at the same time.
LikeLike
Other posts indicate that the ESV strips out the NRSV gender-neutral language. Sounds like it faults on the side of the conservative cultural warriors and their hang-ups. Sure sounds like we’ve been pwned by the marketeers.
LikeLike
what does anyone say about the New Century Version?
been reading it lately and found it quite refreshing…i guess i think you have to make choices about what you want and be realistic about what you get. if you want literal, get yo’self literal and realize it’s going to be “clunky” at times. if you want paraphrase, get a paraphrase and realize it ain’t perfect either…just be realistic.
LikeLike
The NET Rocks – the combo of the dead tree version plus the online – perfect
LikeLike
I grew up in a very KJV church, so I learned how to understand the weird words nobody uses anymore. I use the ESV now. I find it to be much more readable than the KJV (which I admit isn’t that hard) but it still flows and sounds good. I like it.
LikeLike
I have said it before in other places: The problem with the English Bible is an ecclesiological problem. The Bible should be the property of the Church, not of for-profit organizations or parachurch organizations. For all of its supposed defects, the NRSV has this property, as the copyright is held by the Committee for Christian Education of the National Council of Churches.
Evangelicals need to show a concomitant degree of ecumenism to establish a Church Bible, and to use it in reading and preaching.
LikeLike
I don’t find the ESV clunky, but the NASB was my preferred translation for years before I got my ESV Study Bible so just about every other translation will seem smooth after that. I do recognize that other people may find it cumbersome so I’m prone to recommend the NLT as a starting bible for most people. Nerds may prefer something more literal in time.
LikeLike
I am sorry to hear this controversy has disillusioned you. Please allow me to offer a few thoughts. Unlike Muslims, Christians believe that the scripture can be translated into other languages and remain the very word of God. The words of the preface to the King James Version state this so eloquently. The authors
“affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.â€
Although the politicization of the bible is lamentable, there is a positive side to the proliferation of translations. The bible is supremely worthy of effort. Again the words of the KJV preface:
“How many bookes of profane learning have bene gone over againe and againe, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same booke of Aristotles Ethikes, there are extant not so few as sixe or seven severall translations. Now if this cost may bee bestowed upon the goord, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to morrow is cut downe; what may we bestow, nay what ought we not to bestow upon the Vine, the fruite whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stemme whereof abideth for ever? And this is the word of God, which we translate.â€
Above all, our Christian hope and confidence rests in Jesus. The bible is his word; it is not the object of our worship. I would ask: what about Jesus? Is he, as he claimed and as Christians confess, a man unlike any other who died and rose again? Use Jesus as the standard to measure Christianity. Not all “Christianity†is real Jesus following. I appeal to you to look to Jesus as the watershed issue.
LikeLike
Let me say this, I’ve been in a study based upon the ESV since it was published, but whenever I set down to read from it, I get uncomfortable – confused, lost – within five or ten minutes and need to reach for another translation. The same thing happens with the NIV too. So maybe it’s just me.
LikeLike
Thanks! I didn’t know there was a paperback edtion. I just found a used copy on Amazon for around $5.00, including shipping.
LikeLike
“I’m wondering if I’ve been “marketed.†That is, I’ve bought the impressive ESV marketing version of itself, but the translation isn’t living up to its own press.”
I am right there with you. I did the same thing and found myself checking other translations constantly as I read through it. Of course, I HAD to have the most ‘literal translation’.
After reading Mark Strauss’ paper on the ESV, I realized why I had so much trouble with the translation. Much of it is awkward and some down right confusing.
Now, I am trying to buy a TNIV before they run out! I am ashamed I bought into the TNIV negative propaganda from the ESV supporters.
LikeLike
Mike! You and I are on the same wavelength. I’ve been doing the same thing with the NLT for the last several months, and never felt comfortable using the ESV, even from the time it came out in 2001. I wanted it, but every time I tried to use it, as you said, “something felt wrong” with the translation.
I just posted a two-part entry which I called “Translation Triumphalism”; I mention the ESV and some of my problems with it. Everyone can read about it here:
http://churchedunchurched.wordpress.com/
What I would say right now, is that I agree that people have been marketed; I might even expand on the passing comments I made about the ESV into a full-fledged “problems list”.
LikeLike
I think the ESV is incredibly clunky. It is difficult to read aloud, difficult to understand while listening to. And, yes, I hate that it translates “anthropos” as “man.” No other books written or translated today use the word “man” to mean “people.” So, why can’t the ESV just speak modern English?
LikeLike
Me too. I’m in the NKJV camp, but I really love to hear the KJV on CD.
LikeLike
For a thoughtful evaluation of the ESV, in several parts, see Mark Strauss’s articles at the Better Bibles blog :http://betterbibles.com/2008/11/21/why-the-english-standard-version-esv-should-not-become-the-standard-english-version-by-mark-strauss/
The posts on this topic brought a smile to my lips followed by a cry of dismay. The smile comes because I’ve spent twenty years working with indigenous communities in West Africa to translate the Bible for the very first time into their languages. In nearly every instance, the finished manuscript is greeted with cries of joy – followed within two years by cries of discontent. My current working hypothesis is that, because of the inevitable compromises inherent in translation, every language should have at least two translations – the first done with clarity, erring on the side of the receptor language (Like the NLT), and the second done with a more literal approach, erring on the side of the original languages (e.g. the ESV). It seems like the NLT and the ESV could fill these roles for American English speakers. I don’t understand why readers wouldn’t want to use both simultaneously – or substitute the CEV and the RSV, if that’s what your tribe prefers.
The cry of dismay arose at the suggestion that English speakers may need yet another translation. We have hundreds of perfectly adequate translations done with approaches that span the spectrum of approaches, along with countless study aids. Couldn’t we call a moratorium on new translations until the more than 2,000 languages that still don’t have a single verse get at least a gospel? Matt 28:19 and all that.
LikeLike
I should add this view is my own personal view and not that of those who participate on Vessels of Mercy.
Judson
LikeLike
You have to hit the “older comments” link at the bottom of the list. That gets you the rest
LikeLike
I don’t have a disdain for the ESV; however, I do feel it is the “iPod” of Bibles.
I do own 3 ESV’s. (ESV Study Bible – Free from the Gospel Coalition Conference; Pocket ESV – best/smallest FULL Bible to carry around; Regular ESV) I bought in to it because all the “cool” people were using the ESV (and because I collect translations).
Anyhow, I really tried to enjoy the ESV; yet, I just couldn’t “get into it”. I will have to say, I really enjoy the OT in the ESV, but the NT seems to be very awkward. I have a hard time reading it outloud (I teach in my Church). My Church uses the NKJV and I thought the ESV would be a great way to transition my class to a newer translation (and because I bought into the hype).
However, I do not have a disdain for the translation. I still use it in my personal Bible Studies.
I personally think there should be a “New Bible” out there that allows you to have an ESV OT and a NASB NT. That would be my favorite.
So in short, I don’t like the NT ESV, I truly enjoy the OT ESV. I find the ESV is marketed VERY well and has many “cool” covers/styles – and HEAVILY pushed from the Reformed background.
Yet, if this translation gets people to start reading and understanding God’s Word, without marring it, then All Glory to God Alone.
Judson
LikeLike
As I’ve said on this site before concerning the ESV…a decent translation, but in every way overrated. The NLT still stands out to me as the translation to beat, overall.
LikeLike
Why does this post say “75 comments” and I only count four?
(Sorry. I’ve never read the ESV.)
LikeLike
I really enjoy the ESV. It is probably the main translation that I use. I don’t really want to complain to much about it because I have taken a year of Greek and Hebrew and I know albeit a small amount of what goes into making a translation. The NASB follows the original really well but it does not sound so smooth; its very wooden. I think the ESV does a good job at following close to the original but sounds and feels really smooth and is fun to memorize. It is not without its downfalls though. Most know that that it is nearly impossible to impossible to make a translation without interpretation. Therefore, I do agree with Dr. McKnight that the ESV is more of a reformed translation which is mainly used by Presbyterians (PCA) and Reformed Baptist. I wish the ESV was a little bit less tied to a tradition. I wish (although it is not likely to happen) they would just translated adelphoi as as “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers” and mentioning that it could be translated as “bothers and sisters” in every footnote. Also, it would be nice if the word euangelion was translated as “good news” instead of “gospel”. It was argued in by someone else (and I apologize that I do not have the link) that the ESV, since the translators want it to follow in the legacy of the King James, is filled with Christian(ese) language. It is not a great translation to use in evangelism, giving to a new believer or using in a teaching situation where students are not familiar with the Bible or steeped in Christian subculture. There are many more problem with the ESV. Those are just a few that I have for now; I know there are more. I agree iMonk that we do need more translations. It is never good to just have one and favor it and only read that one. Rather, it is best to read many, and if blessed with the opportunity, to read and study the Bible in the original languages. With that said, I find myself using the ESV a lot; although I also like using the NASB and I would like to buy a NLT and NRSV and maybe a NIV2011 if it ends up being good.
LikeLike
At our small gathering my co-pastor and I have been using the ESV for about a year. We’ve found it better than the NIV for our purposes and acceptance at our place has been good as far as complaints go. On the other hand, probably only half of our folks crack open a Bible during the week anyway. We’re a very casual service, a ministry of a more traditional South Carolina SBC church.
LikeLike
I don’t mind the ESV so much, but my kids won’t let me read it to them after dinner; they complain that it’s too hard to follow. So I use an NIV then.
LikeLike
I got my Catholic NLT pretty cheap so I don’t know why you think it’s a cost-prohibitive translation.
LikeLike
I use all kinds, but I still love the NASB. That’s what I grew up using and memorizing. I also use the NKJV and NLT.
LikeLike
I’ve used ESV as my main Bible for four years now. I would agree that there are several places in which the readability could be enhanced without compromising the goal of having “literal” or “functional equivalent” translation philosophy. It would be nice for them to bring out a second edition at some point that smoothes some of these over.
Here’s an example of an ESV translation issue I blogged about a few years back, where they seem to pick a literal translation over a perfectly obvious idiom resulting in a very awkward reading:
http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2005/07/19/esv-%E2%80%93-a-breathtaking-translation/
Also, check out this post from Jeremy Pierce a few years back with another example:
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/06/how_not_to_tran.html
LikeLike
I was a loyal NIV guy just because that is what the majority of people in my church used. However, I got sick of explaining my disagreement with NIV’s translation of sarx in Paul as “sinful nature,” so I switched to ESV, where sarx is simply “flesh.” I was reluctant to use the ESV at first because of the people I knew who were trumpeting it, but when I cracked it open and gave it a read I was pleasantly surprised.
I like that it is readable, yet I can usually tell what the Greek says by reading the English.
LikeLike
My understanding is that literal translations make sacrifices in English readability, while ‘readable’ versions are based on more ‘loose’ translations. I think the ESV make a genuine (and laudable) effort at marrying the two approaches but obviously there will be some compromise on both sides. If i recall correctly, when it was first put out even those promoting it made concessions as to it’s ‘wooden’ feel in reading, but attributed this to its adhering to a literal translation.
I tend to use several different translations for different purposes – I use the ESV for study, the NIV for devotional reading (or reading in large portions at a time), and the KJV for memory (I just like the poetic feel and linguistic beauty of the Old English!).
LikeLike
The NET Bible is fantastic. The only reason I don’t use it is because no one else I know uses it (so the congregation can’t follow along).
LikeLike
I found a NEB hardcover at my local library sale. I really enjoy it’s novel-like layout, with unobtrusive chapter and verse notations.
My translation pedigree is as follows: KJV growing up in a country Methodist church, NIV as a young Christian in college, NRSV textbook in Methodist liberal arts college, NASB as a seminary student (recommended by SBTS), then ESV as a refomed Baptist associate pastor.
I hear you on the marketing thing. I was thinking about how the only version to have a “Literary Study Bible” is the ESV. Such a thing definitely appeals to a certain demographic (pipe-smokers and all that).
All that said, I do like the ESV.
LikeLike
Being of the Reformed persuasion I got sucked into the ESV hype. I bought a copy for each member in my family. Now all copies are buried under a layer of dust in forgotten corners of the house.
The more I read the ESV the more disenchanted I got. It read more like the NRSV, which of course it is a rewrite and not a “new” translation, with all the same issues inherent with the NRSV. Supposedly, the ESV was supposed to “correct” theological inconsistencies but I was not successful in discovering them.
So, I am back to the Byzantine tree-hugger mode, specifically the NKJV. NASB95 keeps a close place on the desk. Hhhmmm…
Seems John MacAuthur publishes his study bibles in those two versions.
LikeLike
The translation mosaic is one of the many reasons I have lost interest in Christianity. We cannot even agree on what our “sacred text” should say. It is simply an ocean of confusion for me and has served to strip the scriptures of whatever shreds of integrity they might have had in my mind’s eye. They’re all just books to me now.
I respect Muslims because revere their holy texts.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me, my background ,or the part of the country I live in, but I don’t get where some of the comments made are coming from.
1) I don’t know what people are reading when they say the ESV is “clunky”. I haven’t found that to be the case at all, and I have read almost all the way through it since I purchased my new bible in Jan. Sure there are some sections that are preferable in the NIV or NASB but overall I have found it quite readable, and suitable for study and memorization.
2) What marketing??? Sure the ESV has gotten some big name endorsements, and yes most of them are reformed (I joke sometimes that ESV stands for Every Supralapsarian’s Version) but hyped-up and marketed? Most bookstores that I go into, whether they are Christian or general have only a small section of ESV’s which is dwarfed by the sections for the NIV, KJV, and NKJV. I know many people who had never even heard of the ESV until I mentioned it to them.
Based on some comments I also wonder if the discontent is really with the ESV or is it just people who have an axe to grind with the reformed folk?
LikeLike
I must say, i believe the Bible was also written to be poetic, and the beauty of the language to be inspiring. (Not, of course, at the expense of the message, but in support of it.) Thus, i really, really respond well to well written, poetic Bible. I agree that if it takes great liberties with translation and the the Word itself is lost, then it’s all for naught, but all things being equal, i will choose a Bible that gets me with good, flowing language. (NKJV and NRSV are my choices. Admittedly, i’m a big reader and my mother was a librarian, so factor that in.)
LikeLike
I have used the ESV pretty much exclusively for several years, for preaching, teaching and personal reading & study. I use Logos to consult other translations when needed, but have relied on the ESV most of the time for the English. Yes, it is clunky once in a while, but seems to more literally accurate than the NIV. However, I teach at a Christian college and most of the students still use NIV. I have noticed a trend toward the ESV in the last couple of years, though.
LikeLike
NET!!!!! http://www.bible.org If only they had marketing machine – but being non-profit and all. And a cheaper paper back for church use. However we have TNIV as the pew bible. We are Alliance and Mennonite. i just can’t handle the neo-reformed fundamentalist crazies that promote the ESV.
LikeLike
The NEB is a beautiful translation, it’s a shame it never caught on in the US.
LikeLike
I will say that, often times the ‘clunkiness” comes from the reader and not the text. When I was in seminary our NT prof did an exercise where he had an actor come in and perform the Gospel of Mark from the KJV. At the end of the period he asked people ti identify the translation… most people couldn’t because they had been totally pulled into the performance. Those who attempted often suggested the RSV because they recalled thees and thous. Then he asked who had difficulty understanding, and only a few people raised their hands. Finally he made the point that the problem is often not with the text, but with our reading of it. If you decide to use the KJV for Christmas services (as many congregations I know still do), then by all means practice it so that your delivery isn’t clunky, and while the language may be somewhat archaic, it is understandable when delivered well.
This, of course, isn’t an argument for the KJV or even the ESV, only a note that sometimes the recognition that a translation is “clunky” is simply the recognition that it doesn’t follow modern speech patterns all that well and therefore needs more effort.
For the record, I have a personal dislike for the NIV and find it “clunky” precisely because I still have the cadences of the KJV in my head from childhood. Therefore, to me, the NRSV and even the ESV are less clunky because I stumble over the verses less when reading aloud (they go the way I expect rather than doing something novel, like the NIV). I recognize this as totally my problem, and not the NIV’s problem.
I appreciate the NLT and when I do a manuscript Bible study I often put the NLT and either the NRSV or ESV in columns side by side so folks can compare.
LikeLike
Its one thing to say theology is never separate from translation. Its another to just “re-translate†the parts you don’t agree with.
Every translation decision is one of agreement or disagreement with others. The theology of one translator or translation committee may lead them to a different decision–they are no more right than those whose opinions lead them to another conclusion. For example, one of the places where the ESV has been criticized is in Isaiah 7:14 for translating Almah as virgin, a deliberate “re-translation” and, as with most ESV “re-translations” a going back to an earlier reading. And yet, translating “almah” as “young woman” can be just as ideologically laden for two reasons:
1) obviously many Jews of the 2nd temple period interpreted Almah as virgin or else the translators of the Septuagint would not have translated it as parthenos, which usually means virgin.
2) Almah means “young woman of marriageable age assumed to be a virgin”
Under those circumstances, the best English translation would probably be maiden, since it carries the same nuance as the original, i.e. a young woman assumed to be a virgin but not necessarily so.
In regards to “re-translating parts [someone] doesn’t agree with,” I’d like you to show me an example of a Bible that doesn’t do that. Indeed, as I referenced above, the editorial committee that was supposed to edit the NRSV on stylistic grounds did far more than the translators actually believed they would (or in some cases, should). As Chris E says below, very few translations start from a blank slate, and most are somehow ideologically motivated. The AV/KJV, for instance, was motivated as a translation precisely because the King and other members of the established church didn’t like the Geneva Bible–mostly because of its notes, but also for other reasons.
I agree with Chris that “one man’s disagreement over text’ is another man’s ‘bad translation from the original’.” We just have to trust in the permanence of God’s word will show through in work of flawed translators just as it has in the work of flawed original authors.
This has gotten off topic somewhat–my only point is that there is no real deal-breaker with the ESV, aside from the fact that it can be a little awkward in some places, mainly because of inconsistent modernization.
LikeLike
I think the NASB isn’t getting as fair a shake as it should. Y’all know there was an update in 1995, right? Check out Acts 4:19-20 in the NASB and the ESV and read them both aloud then come back and tell me which one was easier to read.
LikeLike
While I agree the ESV does have some clunky passages that don’t read very well, on the whole I find it the best translation out there that is “essentially literal” while still maintaining (again, mostly) clarity and readability. As for the NLT, I do like its style very much, it’s very clear reading, but I’ve found a number of very questionable passages in it, where the translation is really way off or very misleading. That made me give the NLT up in favor of the ESV. Given that I’m a Lutheran, with the arrival of The Lutheran Study Bible, I’m now pretty committed to the ESV anyway.
LikeLike
Let me add one thing:
I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of choosing a translation because you “like the way it reads.” For example, when the HCSB came out, I thought I really liked it. In fact, even today I would say it is the one that sounds/reads the best in English. But IMO it is just not a good translation. If you don’t know the original languages, however, how are you supposed to decide which translation to use? My advice would be to use the translation that your pastor preaches from. Your pastor preaching God’s Word to you is God’s means of grace and the power for gospel change in your life.
Of course, my pastor preaches from the NIV and I use the ESV, so I guess I’m a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Well, I would say (as Michael stated above), that the ESV is translated to shore up neo-reformed, complimentarian and a pre-millenial dispensational stance. But I can’t complain to much, because I still carry an ESV most of time, since years of notes are in it. I don’t care for the NRSV to much, but I know the “problem passages” actually are supported in the Hebrew text. I know plenty of conservatives that use the NRSV (it is the standard inside the academy). The NRSV copyright is owned by the NCC, and that is really were it gets its liberal branding.
Personally, I think the NET and the NLT are really good TRANSLATIONS, and the TNIV works great in corporate settings.
LikeLike
I’ll admit my bias up front: I had both Greek and Hebrew classes with one of the primary ESV translation committee members.
That said, I believe the ESV is the best translation we have available in English. That says a lot, because there are a number of really good English translations, which each have their particular strengths. But it doesn’t say everything, because there is room for improvement with the ESV. The “clunkiness” that I admit I find at times in the ESV is no more off-putting (actually, it’s less off-putting) than the particular problems I find present in each of the other translations.
LikeLike
I guess I may as well speak up to somewhat defend the NKJV. I generally can’t stand the KJV, but the new version is very readable. For a long time I usually just used it as my personal reading bible but had NRSV and NASB around if I though I wanted something “more accurate”. But a college professor encouraged us to have multiple versions available in class so I always had my NKJV in that class. In one case we were comparing versions of a verse and he actually said that in his opinion the NKJV was closest to the original Greek, and it was never particularly off. Unfortunately I can’t even remember which class that was much less what the verse was. I’ve gained a healthy respect for it’s accuracy since then and I happen to like the way it reads. I sometimes wish it was called something else though, I don’t particularly want to associated with the “KJV only!” crowd if I can avoid it.
I’ve certainly never thought of myself as a Byzantine manuscript-tree hugger.
LikeLike
hilarious because your first option made me laugh out loud. i was wondering where the NRSV would fall on your list and … i’m also in the Claiborne love camp. i’ve been “marketed” too?
LikeLike
The ESV is bascially the gender-exclusive language response to the NRSV. It didn’t revise, change, fix much otherwise, and so it’s a bad translation in my mind…it’s just a response to another translation, not even a fresh translation.
It’s clunky, not as literal as the NASB, and it’s English that no one would normally speak.
Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
I use NASB, but considered switching to ESV while in seminary at SBTS. It reads like the NASB, and has few translation differences. My first red flag was when I was doing Greek translations through 1 & 2 Corinthians. Their translation of some passages just aren’t supported by the Greek. The more I looked into it, the more it seems to be driven by the theology of the translators than the language itself.
But what do you expect? Translation is as much art as science – every translation reflects the theology of its translators at some point or another.
LikeLike
My favorite translation to read of all time will always be The New English Bible from back in the 60’s it flows well to me. As far as the ESV it does fine but i will agree it sounds clunky read aloud. Its good to hear some positive thing being said about the NLT.
LikeLike
I like the ESV in general – I just wish they had had more literary types amongst their translation team. I’d like a modern translation that was theologically conservative, but with the readability of the KJV (as it would have been at the time). In terms of readibility, the New Jerusalem Bible or the REB are way better – though they are off in terms of translation.
LikeLike
Very few translations post Wycliffe start with a tabula rasa – so in that sense everything is a case of ‘re-translation’ of the parts that are not suitable (for whatever reason).
The KJV started with the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. The RSV started with the KJV. And one mans ‘disagreement over text’ is another man’s ‘bad translation from the original’.
LikeLike
I’m in this boat, looking at the ESV as a better more current NASB for more literal translating. But I agree that the NLT has a much better feel, impact for storytelling, etc.
LikeLike
The ESV never claimed to be an ”easy to read” translation and the first time I read it I knew why. It said It simply was an evangelical version of the NRSV in my mind and that suits fine with me. I am a believer that we need to use clunky sounding translations for the Church because God inspiried words and the NASB and ESV do best amoung the options to give credit to that fact. Use the ESV like I do but don’t say it is something CrossWay never claimed it to be. it is surely easier to read than the KJV or Tyndale translation right?
LikeLike
I used to think it was a great translation, until we started trying to read it publicly during worship. What sounded pretty good in my head sounded stilted and clunky when read out loud. Basically, people in the “pews” found it difficult to follow and understand the text when it was being read.
For me, this was unacceptable, so we switched to the TNIV for public reading, for the most part.
LikeLike
We just ordered paperback NLT’s for our entire youth group @ $5 a pop. And imitation leather binding of the same editions for $8. They are becoming ridiculously common these days. Now all I’m waiting for is the full translation w/ apocrypha
LikeLike
Given a choice between NASB, NIV, or ESV, the ESV wins hands-down. I grew up when the RSV was in vogue, so that may be why the ESV works for me. The NASB is as poetic as a biology textbook. The NIV translation is very inaccurate in places. Call the ESV imperfect, but perhaps give it points for being a good compromise. (C- versus D+ or F). I don’t know why bible translation seems to be a choice between beauty and accuracy, and the best we can get is uninspiring translations which don’t quite capture what is recorded in the ancient manuscripts. I do wish versions of the NLT were available in more affordable bindings. I don’t think wrapping the bible in pretty cow skin makes it any more sacred.
I like the World English Bible (WEB), because it is in the public domain (FREE!!! Quoting from it doesn’t violate copyright laws); it is a variation of the ASV, which is both readable and relatively accurate; it will soon have a complete translation of the apocrypha. Still not perfect, but I am sick of publishers owning the bible by means of controlling the copyrights of its translation.
LikeLike
Thanks for this link. This is fantastic.
LikeLike
Its one thing to say theology is never separate from translation. Its another to just “re-translate” the parts you don’t agree with.
LikeLike
I read the Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible these days. The reason I chose it is because it changes all the contexts to Here and Now. It brings the Bible to life for me, as if it is around me, all the time.
Surrounded with Now is good when referring to God.
LikeLike
I’ll admit that the ESV doesn’t exactly flow. I was shocked when my pastor said he’s give it about a 90% accuracy rating, and he is reformed and Baptist!
The whole translation issue has been very irritating to me recently. Even though ESV wasn’t a revision of the NRSV, I think that it is pretty clear that the whole idea of it was reactionary. “Let’s counteract your liberal agenda Bible with our conservative agenda bible, and then let’s fight over who is really the rightful heir of the KJV.” Seriously, I almost want to see how an honest atheist would translate the bible just to remove Christian theological preferences. Then you would get literal.
But seriously, I want to read multiple translations at once, but I think it is best to start with a very literal word for word. Whatcha all think is, FWIW, the translation with highest accuracy percentage wise?
LikeLike
I went through a phase in my personal study and my public ministry where I wanted a literal translation. The NASB was to clunky and I was sold on the ESV. As I used it I fell for the marketing. I felt more doctrinally sound (how ridiculous is that?). My congregation is in East Tennessee with extreme demographics (80 + and teenagers, very few in between). The ESV did not work for anyone. When I was preaching the English did not sound natural. Both the younger and older crowd had difficulty understanding. I spent most of my sermon explaining cultural background with less time for practical application. I really noticed its flaw in one on one pastoral counseling. I dumped the ESV for the NLT. Everybody understands it and I spend my time explaining things that need explaining because the NLT dose such a good job of explaining the culture in the translation.
LikeLike
Good thoughts Eddie.
As an American, I have tons of resources and I am just a lay person trying to understand the scriptures more. Growing up I only had the KJV. When I became a believer my Dad and I picked out a NIV Scofield Study Bible. I was still a teenager and used that for about 6 years are wore it out. I then got the NIV Study Bible and used that for about 10 years and still am glad of all the notes I have taken with it. More recently I bought the ESV Reformation Study Bible. I enjoy it to. Some of the wording I do like better than the NIV, but some I do not.
I read through the NLT in a One Year edition and really enjoyed it. I also have a NASB mostly for reference.
So, all in all, most if not all of the translations I have were beneficial to me and still are.
LikeLike
My only experience with ESV was an online audio dailing reading. I was never inspired to go out and purchase this version but because a British guy was doing the reading, it sounded more intelligent, poetic, etc.
LikeLike
Not to mention the way that the ESV crowd launched an all out assault against the TNIV a few years ago. I used to use the ESV exclusively from the time it came out until about 2006. I had problems with the “clunkiness” of the english, but I just pressed on – after all, look at how many scholars recommended it! I thought it must just be me. Then in 2006 James Dobson had Wayne Grudem on his radio program and just started blasting the TNIV – the same way the KJV only crowd does against anything other than the KJV. So, here we have the start of the ESV only movement. I wasn’t a TNIV reader, but it didn’t matter – their true colors started to show. So, in my mind, using the ESV started to associate me with: 1). The reformed camp 2). Bible bashers. And I don’t want to be either. Coupled wit the poor english, this was enough to make me start looking at other translations. The NLTse, NASB, and the NKJV have become my part of my regular routine.
LikeLike
I much prefer the NET to any translation these days, especially the parallel English/Greek NT with notes, which is just an awesome thing. I think they made a translation the right way.The ESV has never been my favorite, for reasons others have already mentioned. I think the study Bible is a solid tool to have.
In reality it seems that because of superior ESV marketing, it will soon be the standard Protestant version.
LikeLike
As one who grew up on the NASB, I looked forward to the ESV as a literal translation that retained some readability without losing almost all literary style like the plain vanilla NIV. I tried to like the ESV, just like I was told I should, but I don’t. The dated language and awkward sentence structure sent me back to reading the NASB and the NLT. My ESV brethren may look down on me for using the NLT, but I shall in no ways exchange clarity of the text for the approval of the elders.
LikeLike
If you’re concerned about that, google the history of the NRSV and the revisions made by the editorial committee post-translation. Translating is not somehow non-theological–that’s a myth.
The ESV is a good translation in large part because it is based upon the RSV and makes some updates to the text, bringing it down to the same generation as the NRSV. There are some places where the phrasing is a little awkward–usually because of the contrast between the updated language/order with the portions that read like the RSV.
I’ve used the ESV and NRSV side by side in study, preaching and worship for two years now (our pew Bibles and my preaching bible are ESV, while the lectionary is NRSV) and most of the time their differences aren’t that noticeable. The NRSV is more poetic in several places, and is obviously more gender-inclusive. Outside of the psalms, I don’t really mind that. What does bother me a bit about the NRSV is that there is a lack of consistency in translation across the Old and New Testaments, so that one wouldn’t necessarily know that Jesus is citing the prophets when he refers to the “Son of Man” without a footnote telling you to go look in the OT at “mortal.”
There are a few other places where the ESV seems to force the issue–such as the use of propitiation (in Romans, Hebrews and 1 John), a conscious decision to return to an earlier term. The folks believed it to be a better expression of the meaning, but obviously not everyone agrees.
On the whole though, I haven’t seen anything that would make me stop using the ESV. While I might use the NLT occasionally, I don’t think I’d use it in place of either the NRSV or ESV. Generally speaking, as long as it’s in the AV/KJV-RSV-NRSV/ESV tradition, I favor it over the others stylistically.
LikeLike
I read the ESV at home but my church mostly uses the NLT. I prefer in ESV still and have no issues with readability. It’s not perfect, just like any translation, but it’s the best I’ve used so far, and I’ve used various translations since becoming a Christian over 20 years ago: RSV, TLB, NIV (used this for several years), NASB and now ESV with a sprinking of The Message and the KJV thrown in for good measure.
LikeLike
Translation is an art as much as a science, there can never be a “perfect” translation because meaning gets clouded in the migration to a new set of idioms. Different translations can be good for different things, though, and the bulk of English translations actually opens people to both textual analysis and the art of translation -this is a good thing.
Personally, I find the NLT to be great for narrative but awful for poetry and wisdom lit. I can’t stand reading the epistles in the NIV because it’s smoothes things out to much. The RSV/NRSV I like for poetry over the KJV because it’s still high reading level but the idioms are mostly modern. I love comparing multiple translations with my own – because I get a deeper appreciation for the depth of the text.
LikeLike
I know this is not a “translation soapbox” post, and I’m not one of those who think that there is some sort of hidden connection b/w KJV english and ancient Greek. I’ve actually heard that argued, but can i volunteer to be the one KJV Byzantine tree hugger guy for folks to throw rocks at:)
This is one place where my IBF upbringing has held out. But i will say i am miles beyond my upbringing in that i don’t think that Charles Stanely is a heretic b/c he uses a NASB
But seriously, to talk about marketing Lifeway seems to be pushing the HCSB hard, and from what I’v read it’s not that good
LikeLike
I was formulating my comment in my mind but continued reading comments before posting. Eddie upstream got there before me. I was going to say that Wycliffe Bible Translators have a saying (I think it is them and I think I’m getting it more or less right) that no one deserves to hear the gospel twice until everyone has heard it once. Change “hear” to “read” and it puts quite a different perspective on this thread.
LikeLike
My wife and I were actually talking about this the other day. We’re increasingly becoming aware that the ESV isn’t the “perfect translation” as we thought a few years back. However, I’m not at a place where I think any others are that much better that it’s worth me spending the money to change translations. They all seem to have issues.
We came to the understanding that the original language is objective material, but any English translation will be subjective material. Meaning, that any English translation will always have the translator’s interpretation of scripture and possibility even some hidden agendas.
Sorry… not much help… but I guess I’m saying, we’ve kind given up.
LikeLike
I pre-ordered the ESV back before it was initially released in ’01 with high hopes it would be a groundbreaking update to the updated RSV (not NRSV) or a literal but more readable translation than the NASB. After all, it was endorsed by a crowd of conservative, Evangelical ‘rock stars’ preacher/teachers like Mohler, Piper, etc. (even though endorsements by big name linguists and original language scholars are lacking). Reading some of those endorsements you’d think the ESV was better than the original autographs (to be read sarcastically, please).
While the ESV is a solid, literal translation, the English in it is often clunky, archaic, and quite honestly not the same English spoken by the folks to whom I’ve ministered in the parish, in hospitals, or in the military chaplaincy. I’m not speaking of theological terminology but the style, wording, etc. in general. The ’07 update fixed some problem areas, but it still is not what I had hoped it would be. Honestly, if the ESV is such a fantastic translation, the RSV was perfectly fine…given that the updates/revisions/differences account for about 5% of the whole text.
As I see it, Koine was the language of the marketplace and the ‘average Joe,’ which I why I dumped the ESV as my primary translation for the NLT. The NLT isn’t perfect, but it was translated by fantastic linguists, theologians, and scholars. IMO, the folks who drag it through the mud for whatever reason need to read the list of translators and eat a big helping of humble pie before being too critical.
LikeLike
I fell in love with the ESV for several years. I liked the fact that it was more readable than the NASB, more literal than the NIV, and has a bit of elegance about it. However, while I still use it a good bit and on the right day it is still my favorite, I do find it clunky on occasion and, moreover, some of its English use bugs me, coming from someone who was an English major in college. It is a dated English, using wording (especially the backwards negatives such as “speak not” “love not,” etc.) that cannot possibly be called entirely modern English. That said, there’s room for a bit of literary license, as long as it is fully comprehensible, especially in areas of poetry. Also, I think the “essentially literal” philosophy is both a misnomer and hinders the translation in parts. The ESV varies from strenuously literal at some points to surprisingly dynamic in others. Some of the ESV’s best English moments are when it forgoes a literal translation altogether (much of Hebrews, for instance). In the end, the ESV is a very good translation, but it is not perfect. I’m holding onto hope that the ESV translators will listen to a few of Mark Strauss’ comments about it in future revisions. It is interesting to note that several of the ESV translators also were on the NLT committee.
LikeLike
Unless you’re like me, and grew up with the RSV. The ESV is then easy to read. And, I have no theological opinion about the translation. I’m not reformed either.
LikeLike
Two hundred million people speaking two thousand languages with no access to Scripture in their own language. As a Bible translator, I have my opinion on the ESV, NLT and the rest, but can I suggest that we need to re-orientate our priorities towards those who have nothing, rather than arguing over our plenty?
LikeLike
Thanks for the Mcknight quote: it helped me clarify what kind of evangelical I am! http://getanchored.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-does-your-translation-say-about.html
LikeLike
what is it’s theological bent?
What about the NRSV makes it more appropriate for liberals? is it just the gender choices?
LikeLike
I use ESV primarily for study and for preaching. No complaints here. I haven’t found it any more unreadable than other translations, and I actually find it more “literary” in places than the NIV, which I look at second most often. I’m not a translation expert, though, so “literary” may be more a mark against it for some in terms of readability.
Speaking to the “tribe list,” though, I love the NRSV too. And I grew up using the NASB and still like to read from that for leisure. When I quote verses from memory, I most often am quoting NASB b/c that’s what I was raised in, I think. But ESV quotage is slowly replacing it, I think.
LikeLike
I like the ESV, but even with my minimal Greek and Hebrew training, I see where it misses the mark on occasion. It would be better, and I know it’s idealistic, if we could teach people to read the Bible in the original languages. I’m just learning now and I love it! It’s like watching a wide-screen movie instead of the full-screen. You see so much more. But, that takes time and effort. And now I have to run to church.
LikeLike
On the other side, I think some people like to beat on the ESV BECAUSE the marketing was so good. Makes it a fun target to attack, especially if you’re not lumped into the Reformed group that’s claimed it. I’m a fan of the NLT and use it for devotional reading, but some of the translations are pretty suspect. I’m a huge fan of the ESV for it’s readability (It’s just written at a higher reading level) and it’s more literal approach. Obviously it’s not perfect, but it’s definitely one of the best.
LikeLike
As a Christian Bookstore owner it’s interesting to watch people decide which translation to buy. Those who put the different Bibles side by side and read them usually choose the NLT. It seems those who are buying the ESV are doing so because their pastor told them to or they have “heard” that it’s a more accurate translation – not because they like the way it reads.
LikeLike
I spent a semester in a 700 level exegesis class translating 1+2nd Peter, James and Jude. I usually have an esv open in front of me in Accordance, along with my translation and the NA 27th. I had been weary of the ESV because of it’s theological stance, but I was really surprised once I started translating and had it right in front of me.
It did seem bent to me. I have never found it’s readability to be a problem, and I love it compared to the NASB (which is very wooden). Most of the problems weren’t with really complicated issues, but with small words that can be translated in several ways (usually prepositions). The place where I did see a serious translation lacking was in a class on Revelation, and it was translating the “meta” in very interesting ways. Looking over the “translation oversight committee” shows where the theological bent is. While this wasn’t so evident when the translation first came out, in the last 5 years it has been really picked up as a banner translation for a specific viewpoint.
LikeLike
ESV is the first translation I have been satisfied with since NASB. Most other “modern” translations take too much liberty with the text. God bless those who invested so much so that we could have it!
LikeLike
Agreed. ESV is “clunky”. Comparison is the NIV.
LikeLike
Wanna see a really interesting thing? Check out the difference between 1 Corinthians 13.3 in the ESV versus the NLT. Read about it in the Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament and it becomes pretty obvious that the NLT actually made the better more intelligent translation (compared to the ESV and NIV among others who made the more traditional translation). Of course, you could go back and forth comparing instances like that, but it just goes to show, in my opinion, that the ESV isn’t this untouchable translation that all serious Bible readers should automatically flock to.
Also, wondering if you’re feelings about the ESV have been affected by marketing is like wondering if you’re feelings about Happy Meals as a child were affected by McDonalds marketing. The way some bloggers advertised it and talked about it, you’d think it was the first Bible translation ever available for people who actually take the Bible seriously.
LikeLike
Here is a link which seems to objectively critique the ESV by a qualified professor, who basically likes the ESV but wishes they could fix some readability issues. I tend to agree with his assessment. To me the ESV seems more like the NASB in readability than I was hoping. I too use the NLT second edition as my preferred translation.
http://betterbibles.com/2008/11/21/why-the-english-standard-version-esv-should-not-become-the-standard-english-version-by-mark-strauss/
LikeLike
Without going onto my translation soapbox (y’all have one too, c’mon, admit it) my experience with the ESV is that is a smoother read than the NASB. I use the ESV for sermons, Sunday School classes, and my seminary work. I also use it for day-to-day devotional reading.
LikeLike
Oops, mixed up the acronyms. The details aren’t particularly important, as I don’t think the NRSV is more flawed than the RSV or a connection to one and not the other is the problem. Its the entire idea of changing just the bits of a translation you don’t agree with rather than just translating it.
LikeLike
I like the ESV, but I’ve found some instances where I think the NASB translates better, despite its clunkiness.
LikeLike
I like the ESV but I don’t think it’s a grand improvement on the old RSV, which remains the best translation available IMHO. I have high hopes for the “Common English Bible”, coming out in 2010 or 2011 (I think).
LikeLike
T:
The ESV is a revision of the RSV, not the NRSV. Very different matters. The RSV was a translation used and loved by people like John Piper. The NRSV was the revision that raised some of the gender-language issues. Whatever one thinks of the NRSV, the ESV is a cousin, not a descendant.
LikeLike
I was using the NASB before the ESV. I bought the ESV under the sell that its a more readable NASB. Well… if it is, its barely better. Still feels kind of ‘wooden’ when reading it publiclly.
If the ESV had come out a year later, I would probably have given the HCSB a more serous look and perhaps gone that way.
Without the ESV, we wouldn’t have gotten the ESV study bible, which I am grateful for.
LikeLike
I dunno Michael, CBD has a good selection of NLT Bibles, the 10th Anniversary hardcovers look nice – and you could always just get students pew Bibles for $8.99.
LikeLike
The ESV is clunky, and occasionally sounds like a translation that was translated several decades ago rather than recently.
The history of the ESV makes me skittish as it was basically the NRSV with small bits of it changed to meet theological considerations. It strikes me as fundamentally wrong to allow theology to determine translation rather than linguistic expertise.
But, while these are my reservations its not as if the ESV is so fundamentally flawed as to be an obstacle to the gospel (or even approaches that level). It just means I choose to use a different translation among the embarrassment of riches that is the choice of English translations.
LikeLike
I love the ESV. In my feeble estimation, I feel it is a literal translation that reads like NIV. It works for me.
LikeLike