Both the ESV and the NRSV are revisions of the 1971 RSV. Well, an online friend of mine decided to exert some mental and physical energy to compare the ESV against the NRSV in the area of improvement of archaic expressions from their predecessor, the RSV.
Now the ESV claims in its Preface that “archaic language has been brought to current usage” and that it employs “current literary English.” Well, let’s decide for ourselves:
N for NRSV and E for ESV:
Phil. 2:7
N : but emptied himself
E : but made himself nothingPhil. 2:27
N : so that I would not have one sorrow after another
E : lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow1 Thess.2:8
N : So deeply do we care for you
E : So,being affectionately desirous of you1 Thess. 2:17
N : we longed with great eagerness
E : we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire1 Thess. 4:7
N : For God did not call us to impurity
E : For God has not called us for impurity2 Tim. 1:18
N : And you know very well
E : and you well know2 Tim. 4:8
N : From now on
E : HenceforthHeb. 4:1
N : let us take care that none of you
E : let us fear lest any of youHeb. 5:2
N : subject to weakness
E : beset with weaknessHeb. 9:6
N : having been made
E : having thus been madeHeb. 11:27
N : as though he saw him who is invisible
E : as seeing him who is invisibleHeb. 12:9
N : Should we not be even more willing to be subject
E : Shall we not much more be subjectHeb.13:2
N : some have entertained angels without knowing it
E : some have entertained angels unawaresJames 1:2
N : Consider it nothing but joy
E : Count it all joyJames 5:8
N : Strengthen your hearts
E : Establish your hearts1 Peter 3:20
N : when God waited patiently
E : God’s patience waited1 Peter 4:18
N : If it is hard for the righteous to be saved
E : If the righteous is scarcely saved2 Peter 1:17
N : that voice was conveyed to him
E : that voice was borne to him2 John 7
N : any such person
E : such a oneJude 8
N : Yet in the same way
E : Yet in like manner
Now the above is just a New Testament sample of what my friend has been working on. In a few days or so, I plan to provide more examples from both the Old and New Testaments. I wish I can take credit for the above, but I can’t. I’m truly grateful to my friend for this list.
Who is this online (offline) friend?
Where are these phrasings coming from?
Well, I’ll have to ask his permission before I reveal his identity.
The phrasings come from both the ESV and the NRSV.
There was a journal article in the Reformed Theological Review which came out 2 or 3 years ago, reviewing the ESV. The article was by Dr. Allan Chapple, and he ended up concluding that the ESV was a rushed, mixed rehash of the RSV, retaining archaic language and using confused translation principles. It’s worth a read if you come across it.
TC, First round knockout!
I think the ESV is going to need some help getting out of the ring.
You will find my post here quite relevant to the issues you raise.
Pingback: just after sunrise
While I agree that there is archaic language in the ESV, will you go on to show where the ESV has improvements over the NRSV? For example, 1 Corinthians 7:1
ESV: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
NRSV: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.”
The ESV is more dynamic and explains the meaning of “not touching a woman.” I am not an ESV defender and have also found the translation disappointing in many places. But there are places where the ESV is better than the NRSV. I hope you are going to show those passages also.
Thanks for taking up this comparison! The NRSV and ESV both have their flaws. In the case of archaic expressions, this is the ESV’s one big drawback (its over-dependence on the RSV) and the NRSV’s strengths. On the other hand, the NRSV has other systemic errors that wound it (e.g., contortions around gender language, translating the OT without respect to the NT). I also think that the phrase “he who…” (a phrase the ESV uses endlessly) is archaic and should be replaced with “the one who” or “whoever.”
Ray McCalla,
translating the OT without respect to the NT
I’m no expert by any means, but shouldn’t the OT be translated based on the Hebrew?
Let me rephrase my question. The ESV archaisms are places where the RSV has been retained or are they drawing from another source (KJV, etc.)?
Now, to retain the archaisms from the RSV or from wherever, goes against what is expressed in the Preface of the ESV. The unsuspecting people out there need to know that the people behind the ESV make claims that there’re not able to deliver on. Their claims are simply not true.
The ESV does have some good spots.
I’ve posed this question before: Where is the ESV’s niche?
If you want a readable revision of the RSV, the NRSV is better.
If you want a literal but readable translation, the NASB95 is better.
If you want a more median translation, well just about anything else is better (HCSB, NIV, TNIV, NRSV, NET, etc.)
The ESV’s greatest weakness is that it did not go far enough in modernizing the RSV. Initially I had great hopes for the ESV, but it just doesn’t deliver. The editors/translators had an opportunity to correct its weaknesses in the 2007 revision, but they chose not to. I can give some slack on a first edition that’s not ready for prime time, but when the changes are so minimal in its revision, well… it’s hard for me to take the ESV seriously.
Rick, I feel the same way too about the extent of the revisions. But I’ve heard of another revision in 2012. Well, if they follow the same guidelines, four years may not matter that much.
Rick,
My thoughts exactly.
TC,
2012 may be too little too late.
It is examples like these that convinced me to switch from the ESV to the NRSV as better formal translation. I would love to see an update of the NRSV as I still find archaic language especially in the OT.
Regarding Mr. Mansfield’s observations: I think it was the NLT (?) people who said that the publisher does not sit in on the translation committee meetings. On the other hand, I know that the publisher sat in on at least some of the ESV meetings and stated how much money was wasted translating a certain passage. One could postulate that they needed to get things done in a certain amount of time, which I’m sure is always the case, but maybe more so in this case. Speculation though as far as time goes.
Not that I’m well read on all the translations but I still go to NASB95 if I want literal.
Jeff
Stan, we have the ESV fanatics and churches adopting it, so it will be around but not as a serious choice, at least for me.
Nothingman, the NRSV is excellent, and I too I’m hoping for an update.
Jeff, if what you report about the ESV is actually true, that is indeed sad.