Since announcing my decision to replace the TNIV as my primary text, several readers have inquired about what Bible I’m going to switch to.
Well, I was holding it off until I saw what the revised Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) was going to look like—I’ve seen enough to know that it will not do.
I say no to older texts like the NASB, NRSV (besides, I like the idea of a three-letter abbreviation to my Bible).
- And I know I’ve handed out my share of criticisms of the ESV—from its archaisms and awkwardness to its unnecessary complementarian reflections, and so on.
- Most of these criticisms still stand.
But not enough to prevent me from making the English Standard Version (ESV) my TNIV replacement Bible.
Three reasons for my choice of the ESV:
1. The essentially literal approach has always appealed to me. I make sermon points on words, syntax, and so on. The ESV tends to work well in this area (though some of its sentences are unnecessarily long).
2. I’m more traditional than I thought. Give me those exclamatory “O’s” in the Psalter: “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! (compared to “Lord, our Lord” in the HCSB). You got to dig down deep and put some strong emotions behind them “O’s.”
Let me keep “flesh” in reference to the Incarnation of Christ: John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 5:7. I’ve found the ESV quite faithful in these matters.
3. I’m quite fond of my theological jargon (“redeem,” “justify,” righteousness,” “oracles of God,” “flesh” and so on). I’ve heard the objections: What about new believers? What about the guy at the mall who doesn’t know what “propitiation” means?
To the new believer, I say, “You’ll get it. Just hang around the church gatherings!” Ok, on a more serious note, we need to teach new believers the meaning of these theological terms—not rid ourselves of them. Yes, you’ve heard it: other disciplines have their own jargons. Take the medical profession! Why can’t we have our own? I say, Why not?
And to the guy at the mall, I say, “If there’s a term you don’t understand, feel free to ask questions.
A footnote, if you will—the solution is not to dumb down our theological terms. Rather, we need to teach people how to read intelligently.
In fact, I’ve even seen people who read a Bible like the New Living Translation (NLT) stop to explain what they were reading, because the truth was not made clear.
Well, the wait is finally over. There you have it. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Welcome aboard! Now that wasn’t too painful, was it?
Kyle,
I know you cracked a smile, but I’ll accept the welcome nonetheless.
If I was a betting man…
Jeff
Also, from what you’ve said in the past I wonder if the gender stuff will get to you.
Jeff
Jeff,
I guess you had your suspicions.
Yeah, some gender stuff, but mostly some struggles in Paul, esp. “flesh.”
I would have never guessed. The traditional feeling is definitely a strong point, and it doesn’t hurt that they have a lot of editions available to meet many needs.
The thing that most impresses me about the ESV is how well they are integrating the translation with technology.
None of you reasons are bad (nor great, but…) I personally don’t care for how the ESV reads and prefer the TNIV but I’m not dogmatic about translations. Whatever works for you.
I echo Bryan.
I like reading from multiple versions. A parallel Bible with the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and NLT would be sweet. I would include the NIV but that’s what I read my whole life until the ESV came out, so it’s hard for me to be objective about it.
Pingback: Larry King to End Show – I’m taking over; will destroy others | The Church of Jesus Christ
Patton must have put him up to it…
Nathan,
So I threw you a curve ball? Perhaps I was overwhelmed by all the marketing.
Bryan,
Yeah, in some places it’s a challenge to read from it. Still an objection for me.
Elle,
Reading multiple version has its place.
EE,
Who is Patton? On a serious note, I was waiting on the HCSB.
What a coincidence.
I made the switch to the ESV recently from the NRSV. The more I use the ESV, the more I love the translation. I also love that it is available in so many options including the ESV Online. I have come to use both the ESV and NLT as my 2 main translations and find that they compliment each other well. I totally agree with your 3 points. A great choice.
Nothingman,
Yeah, quite a coincidence. Well, I do like their new online esv. But I don’t care for much of their printings.
The newer publications are much higher quality than their first year or two. Do you have an issue with the quality of the new stuff being released?
Yeah, I’ve actually noticed an improvement. I use the Large Print ESV.
Goodbye, TC. Now that Junia has been taken down again, I must leave. It was a dishonest move and should not find the support that it does. So sorry.
Sue,
Sorry to hear that. But tell me, How is Scott L, who blogs at The Prodigal Thought, able to embrace the ESV and still remain a staunch egalitarian?
I reckon that he has been able to get pass this Junia debate.
It has to be a painful switch for some egalitarians out there. Crossway does have good marketing and can persuade a lot of readers to move over.
Kevin,
I’ll sure like to get Scott L’s take on the matter.
Well, I didn’t list Crossway’s marketing as one of my three reasons.
Pingback: Larry King to End Show – I’m taking over; will destroy others | Christian Articles and videos
The problem with many of these literal translations is the prophets. It is very difficult to understand what they mean accurately.
OK, this is strange. Of course you know my preference, but your 3 reasons for switching to the ESV are a little…odd.
1. Essentially literal? Really? I debunked that myth a while ago: http://www.anwoth.org/2008/02/27/how-essentially-literal-is-the-esv-really/
2. Traditional language. For some reason I’m surprised to hear that this would tip the scales for you. That’s like saying, “I chose to attend this church because the carpet is blue.”
3. Theological jargon. Hmmm…Sounds like the only main translation you’re ruling out with this criterion is the NLT.
So what was it really that made you embrace the ESV? Or perhaps I could ask, what was it that made you decide against the HCSB?
Rob,
I’m not too sure that I follow what you’re saying.
Will,
My friend, it was a bit strange for me too that I would eventually embrace the ESV.
1. “Essentially literal” is a construct that is subject to debate. We’re both aware of that. But on the translation spectrum some term had to be used to capture the predominant approach to a particular translation.
2. I gave samples of the tradition language I have in mind, and they are not trifling as the color of carpet in a church building.
3. Regarding theological jargon, yes, the NLT has been definitely ruled out. But head-to-head with the HCSB, the ESV is the winner.
Just like I outlined above and the HCSB was not going to cut it.
I only happened on Scott L’s blog a few days ago. I will wait and see if he responds.
Since I know some of the men involved in the translation, there is no doubt in my mind that the intent has been to alter any scriptures that give the impression that women could be equal to men in this lifetime. I personally can’t live with it.
1. Junia – “well-known to” a translation which is not supported by scholarship
2. authentein – to exercise authority, instead of “to usurp authority”
3. 1 Cor. 14:34 no margin notes on the status of these verses
4. Eph.5:22, the paragraph break, obviously not in the original manuscripts
5. The preface saying that when the text uses a masculine word it means only the males.
As Ware explains, everything refers to the male, and the females are included inasmuch as they are in a headship relationship with a male. And, of course, according to Ware, the male must “exert” his authority over the female, and use a “firm hand”, but a “warm smile’. I often think that this kind of stuff is the Christian version of other kinds of things we can find on the internet.
There is no end of the trauma that this kind of teaching has caused me. But it is not only me, the women who blog about this are growing, they are meeting in a few weeks at a conference to denounce this kind of Christianity.
I realize that many are not aware of the connection between the ESV and the oppression of women, but I am not making it up.
I don’t know why it was alright for Christian men to flee oppression and come to the US to escape their evil form of government in England, a monarchy which was, st the time, justified by the Bible, and it was more than alright for slaves to want freedom, but it is wrong for women to want to flee from oppression. I don’t understand why some Christian men refuse to treat women as sisters. I can’t fathom it. I don’t understand why so many men reject women unless they are subordinate.
Whatever drives men to watch stuff on the internet, is the same drive that causes men to justify the subordination of women through the scriptures. it is the same human impulse.
Lots of men don’t do this, but they sometimes seem to me to be in the minority, or for some reason the voices of subordination are simply louder and more powerful. Why, for example, can M. Patton express doubt about every aspect of Christianity except the subordination of women . What is in the human heart that wants it so badly. Why would a man’s life not be worth living if he did not believe that women were less? I don’t get it.
And yes, there are some men speaking at that conference also. There are some men who support the equality of women. I do see that. Gratefully.
Sue,
I’m aware of your concerns for sometime now. They are legitimate. You know where I stand as well.
It’s unfortunate that there are no marginal notes in the ESV in the above-verses. Yes, I’ve also posted on this shortcoming of the ESV.
As I noted in the post above, the ESV has a complementarian bias to it (that’s why I’m so interested in Scott L’s take on the ESV).
TC, I’m a little surprised given our discussions over the years, but there’s always room for you in the NASB camp should you change your mind. Having said that, I’ve gone more old school than this; I’ve actually been in the KJV for quite sometime almost exclusively. Not for any real reason other than to experience the language again.
TC, glad you found a translation you can work with. Having switched from NASB to NIV, I’m content to stay with it until NIV2011 comes out.
Peter,
I actually used the NASB for about 3yrs. Had to leave that camp – wasn’t working for me.
KJV! I don’t think I can ever go there, not even for the language.
M. girl,
I really don’t think the NIV2011 is going to cut it for me. Too much politics.
“I really don’t think the NIV2011 is going to cut it for me. Too much politics.”
So close-minded in your old days, eh?
Nathan,
Well, we’ll see what NIV2011 is going to look like.
TC, I recently switched from the TNIV to the ESV as well. The main reason was because my church is switching from the NIV to ESV, and I wanted to be familiar with the version used most in the teaching/preaching of my fellowship (E-Free, by the way). Another smaller reason I switched is that it, or one of its cousins, is the version of choice for a lot of the books I have been reading lately. For example, I have been reading a lot of NT Wright, who almost exclusively uses the NRSV when he is not using his own translation. I found that when he was making finer points and referenced scripture, and I went to the text to consider his ideas, I found he was easier to follow using the ESV rather than the NIV, etc. (I consult the NRSV also, but my copy of it is not the best, physically speaking). I also have been reading some of the “new-reformed”, and well, we all know what translation they champion. Did this factor into your decision also?
Keep up the great work on the blog by the way…always enjoy stopping by and reading what’s here. Wish I had more to add, but most of you say it better than I could anyway. Thanks!
TC, I hear you. But then again, I think there are politics involved in just about every translation you can think of. I like the ESV enough to include it in my “ground round of four” when I’m doing intensive Bible study. My church uses NIV and hasn’t made a switch to any other translation—yet, anyway, lol.
Dan,
I always appreciate your input.
Well, I’m kind of a Pauline guy, following the lead of guys like Wright and Dunn. This was one of the reasons why I got so frustrate with the TNIV – not solid in Paul, at least for me.
For about 4yrs now I’ve been reading and listening to Piper (he has greatly influenced much of my thinking as a shepherd-teacher).
But I’m not a fan of the newer guys like Driscoll and so on.
Perhaps you might say that closer reading of Paul has influenced my decision more than anything else. I know it’s a bit weird, but just do a search of my blog.
M. girl,
Yeah, I forgot they all have this politics thing, including the ESV. I got caught up in some of it too.
Well, I see the wisdom in using the same Bible as the church. That’s eventually where I want to take our new fellowship.
TC,
It’s just that that has me considering a move back to the ESV as well. I have a hard time with Paul in the TNIV, although HCSB is better. But I do find the ESV generally excellent for Paul.
I do struggle a bit, however, with some passages in the prophets and historical sections. They seem to suffer from considerably more archaisms than in the Psalms or NT. I get the sense that the NT, and especially Paul, received more thorough treatment in the update from the RSV (perhaps because Reformed folk tend to hang out there the most?), while large sections of the OT were left as-is.
Nevertheless, there is something nice about traditional language, phraseology, and theological vocabulary that I find attractive.
Great choice, but the NIV 2011 is still on the way. . .
Hope you have a good year with the ESV. As a woman in ministry, I share some of Sue’s objections to the translation. The great mis-translation of the Junia text is a shame and totally unnecessary. It was also done by the good Baptists in the NET translation – also a shame.
Having said that, I am back with the KJV – haven’t been here since college days (a long, long time ago), but am enjoying it thoroughly. I do translate the NT passages for my students, so they are easier to read, but honestly many of them use NKJV anyway. The Greek exercise is very good for me as well.
MM,
Yeah, I have a feeling that they’re not going to please me in Paul, esp. Romans.
Iris,
I’m aware of the kind of challenges that a Bible like the ESV poses for women like you and Sue, in ministry. And I think your objections are valid – just do a search of this blog.
Oh my, the devil has a hold of u. I’ll start praying.
And the TNIV has made a showing on the latest CBA sales data.
Tim,
Yes, I’ve noticed the same in my reading of the OT in the ESV. Quite sloppy – should have done a better job. I couldn’t agree more.
Yes, it is solid in the NT, though lacking in footnotes in several key places, I think.
BM,
Yes, pray for me.
Oh, the irony of the TNIV.
Sue,
I don’t think it is very honest to say that I “express doubt about every aspect of Christianity except the subordination of women.” I have never expressed doubt about the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the canonicity of Roman, the second coming of Christ, my rejection of the Pope’s infallibility, and thousands of other issues that conservative Christians believe. I have changed my opinion about some unjustified beliefs like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God and that modern expressions of tongues are from Satan.
It is irresponsible overstatements like the one you make here that creates a barrier between you and others like me. I find it hard to listen to your complaints because you arrive with a bat in your hand everywhere I see you.
I am not saying your past has tainted your views, but nuanced your ability to have conversations with those whom you so desire to engage. A fanatic is not someone who believes strongly about an issue, but one who cannot talk about anything else.
However, there is the other side to the coin. Those who have been the greatest reformers have not had dispositions that everyone liked. So maybe you will take this as a badge of courage.
But I do encourage you not to misrepresent people the way you did me. In my thoughts, such behavior is worse than that which you are fighting against. At least it is more clearly wrong.
Michael,
I am truly sorry if I misunderstood this post of yours.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/06/the-day-i-quit-believing-in-god/#more-4823
I honestly thought that you were saying that for that period of time you doubted the existence of God, and therefore would have doubted “the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the canonicity of Roman, the second coming of Christ, my rejection of the Pope’s infallibility, and thousands of other issues that conservative Christians believe.”
I honestly thought that is what you were saying. You do often express doubts and I admire your courage in doing so. I did not intend to misrepresent you.
I have no interest in posting what I said about you somewhere where you cannot defend your honour. But when I was goaded by two commenters on your blog, who then chewed me out for promoting word studies, when I was clearly interested in word studies for the purpose of critiquing them, you silenced me, but not them.
Clearly you have the right to do that, but you have to also be willing to take the consequences elsewhere, just as I have to take consequences on your blog where commenters make disparaging remarks about me, that misrepresent me. There is no special treatment for either men or women.
You further remarks show that you are a kind-hearted person, and able to turn a gentle phrase.
But, women are dying inside, they are having their guts scraped out by oppressive theology. There are many women blogging on this, and there is a conference in a couple of weeks on this issue in Florida.
I simply do not understand the callousness that relegates women to hell on earth. I never will.
And in my real life, I do not normally discuss this, so I have a normal life where I am not a fanatic. I am attending a tech ed conference, and interact as a normal human being.
But sometimes, only a few weeks ago, my daughter came home from church in tears again. I experience so much distress in my personal life from this terrible teaching, I would live on another planet if I could. I can’t escape it. It
is entwined in my family.
Thank goodness, now that I have left it, most of my life is restored. But there are residual damages – the mop up is not complete.
Yes, my past has affected my views. But not tainted them. I still smart from Dr. Wallace chewing me out for having the wrong Latin verb – only I didn’t. I see through the exegetical studies like they were saran wrap. They do not fool me. I know when evidence is concocted, and it is wrong for this to be swept under the carpet.
Yeah – I know – pathetic. But true nonetheless. And if this conference is taking place in a few weeks then you know that I am just the tip of the iceberg, and not a lone ranger.
http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id14.html
Anyway, some of the early suffragetes were thrown in adetention centre for the mentally ill, because they were demanding the vote. I am no crazier than they were. All I want is for a woman to have a roof over her head where she is not in a state of total submission.
Sue, I don’t know how my words can provide some affirmation, but I just want you to know that there are many men out there who also stand with you and will support women in your work for gender equality.
Kevin,
Your words do provide affirmation! And in fact, I have noticed several posts and comments by guys in the last few days that have been very affirming. It is really important. I will try to blog a bit and connect to some of these.
T.C.,
First off, I’ve read your (insightful) posts for quite some time, yet never commented.
I really appreciate your various thoughts on so many different translations. You’re pithy, quick, humorous, and thoughtful comments are a breath of fresh air in the blogosphere. You seem to have a good grasp on many translations out there.
On a personal note, as far as “word for word” translations, I’ve enjoyed the NASB (updated 1995), until I was introduced to others translations that do, in fact, read much more smoothly.
As for a “thought for thought” translation, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading from the NLT (2004), especially in the lengthy, narrative portions of Scripture.
For a “mediating”, middle of the road, all purpose translation, I’ve enjoyed the HCSB and sometimes I dabble in the TNIV.
Quite honestly, this past year or so of digging into various translations has really opened my eyes to the benefits of being familiar with a good mixture of all three above spectrum’s of the translation pendulum, especially when preparing to teach/preach.
Over the past few years I’ve read the ESV here and there while reading these other translations and have enjoyed most of it. I too, see the issues you mentioned about gender, etc. however, those really are secondary in my book. More and more I see just how “old school” I am in regards to ‘big’ theological words being in the text, not simply explained in the text.
Overall, I like the conservative bend of the ESV (taking 93% of the RSV 1971 version and leaning more to the ‘right’), the highly respectable theologians behind this work and the fact that they are concerned with readability, as well as accuracy.
For what’s it’s worth, here is a link to Quite Possibly, the “Perfect Bible”, my top ten preferences regarding a physical Bible (not a translation).
Keep up the insightful posts T.C.!
Erik,
Thanks for the kind words.
Regarding translations, it’s bit of a habit of mine to interest myself in translation issues to a degree.
You know, there’s not much difference between the HCSB and the ESV.
Well, the ESV has certain points of attraction. But they should have done more along the lines of gender and avoid some unnecessary archaisms. But it’s a good one, nonetheless.
PS – only problem with the “perfect Bible” is that it’s too BIG.
TC, i’m stunned! Enjoy, I guess. I’ll stick with these 3 TNIV, HSCB, NLT I’ve done fine without the ESV for a few years now. I chose the HCSB over the ESV, and I do think that the NIV 2011 will be improved over the TNIV. My reasons for not reading the ESV are personal and subjective.
I don’t think it’s that big a deal, it’s God’s word! It’s not like you posted that you are going to stop reading the bible – LOL.
Robert,
I’ve not given up on the NIV2011. Perhaps they might surprise me enough to make such a switch. I looking to see what they do in Paul, one of my reasons for replacing the TNIV.
As I indicated in my post, I still have issues with the ESV. But I figure it has enough strong qualities for me to use it as primary Bible.
TC, out of curiosity, how come no NRSV? It seems to me to be just as strong in Paul, which is a concern of yours, and is considered more “gender accurate”, which you also at least appear to be sympathetic to. Sorry if I have mischaracterized you in any way, these are just impressions. How about a post on one vs the other?
Dan,
I must admit that the NRSV is quite strong in Paul, but too inconsistent in the gender area, even an egalitarian like N.T. Wright, who favors the NRSV, admits this as a weakness in the NRSV. I’m actually considering the ESV vs HCSB. How about that one?
TC,
Could you give some examples of this, or cite NT Wright. I would be interested in knowing more about this. After all, the ESV is actually quite inconsistent in the gender area as well. Could the NRSV be more so?
Thanks.
Sue,
To begin with, here’s a familiar line from N.T. Wright, “The NRSV is increasingly accepted in both church and academy. It is not without its faults, and not all of its attempts to avoid gender-specific language are as felicitious as they might be” (The Last Word, p. 143).
He favors “sons” at Gal. 4:6-7, not the NRSV “children” and so on (but I loaned out that book, or I would have given page numbers and so on).
Thanks, I don’t need a reference. I am sure he said that. I hardly think of gender language in the ESV as being “felicitious.” This is not a comparison between the two. There are pages and pages of the ESV, where in Greek there is not a masculine pronour in sight, but in the English, a masculine pronoun is used throughout.
Because of the mismatch between any two languages, gender can never be handled identically. There must be some give somewhere. I think the choice is between “not felicitous” and “even less felicitous.” After all, what could be less felicitous than leaving women out of these verses?
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
“Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,and he gave gifts to men.”
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
“and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Sue,
As you know, I’m not an ESV apologist. I’ve also documented my problems with the ESV’s inconsistencies. I don’t need to rehash the matter here.
I understand. There is really no answer, no perfect translation. I just wanted to follow up on your comment to Dan at 11:53. Have a good day.
I do have to wonder. What do we consider contemporary literature? Does Tolkien count? After all, he influenced an entire genre today known as medieval fantasy. I have to wonder if the work of, say, R.A. Salvatore or Ed Greenwood can influence our translations. I am of the opinion that they write with contemporary English but from a different cultural viewpoint — one which does produce some generic masculines. (In the case of a matriarchal society, I encountered a generic feminine. Hey, if the high heel fits…)
I think it would be helpful for Bible translators to consider contemporary English prose works that are set in non-contemporary settings, such as medieval fantasy/sci-fi literature. While I can’t say it would be a definite guide, it might provide some interesting ideas.
Can contemporary English be used in a way that conveys cultures other than the contemporary western culture? Yes. Ed Greenwood does it. Elaine Cunningham does it. R.A. Salvatore does it. Numerous others, also.
Gary,
A lot of scholars are now considering the various literary genres and so on, but their findings remain suspect. There’s the constant threat of anachronism.
Anachronism is always a threat. Nonetheless, Star Wars novels are fascinating even if idiosyncratic.
T.C.,
Here’s my “shot in the dark” to persuade you leave the ESV camp and join the HCSB camp.
Enjoy these 100 pictures of my new HCSB Minister’s Bible in genuine cowhide:
http://kowalker.com/2010/07/07/100-pictures-of-my-2010-hcsb-ministers-bible/
Sorry to double-post, but here’s an unrelated thought for you, T.C.: My ESV is the Literary Study Bible. The notes in that are priceless! However, they’re drawn from Ryken’s Bible Handbook. In case you ever hear of the ESV LSB, just get a normal ESV Study Bible and get Ryken’s Bible Handbook on the side. Save yourself some money, but still get the insights of a literary scholar. [While I wholeheartedly disagree with his other book that tries to defend the translation philosophy of the ESV, this book would be worth getting.]