Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should not become the Standard English Version

“A Bible for Everyone” by Alan Jacobs (Wheaton College English professor)

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/a-bible-for-everyone-1

His conclusion:

…(I)f official agreement on a truly “standard” English Bible remains unlikely, I believe that readers and lovers of the Bible would do well to seek considerably more agreement than we now have about the Bible that we read. Everyone who grew up with the KJV feels the loss of a shared language, of particular words and phrases that resonated in the common ear—words and phrases whose meanings could be tested, considered, deployed and redeployed in an infinitely varied set of contexts. I think now of all those generations of the English-speaking peoples separating the wheat from the chaff, lying down in green pastures, sometimes being weighed in the balance and found wanting but at other times fighting the good fight—the whole vast array of discourse (much of it richly metaphorical) tells us that it is very difficult to share thoughts when we do not share language. And since Christians are counseled to be of one mind, they should be more attentive to the particular words that shape and form our minds. To have once again a widely shared English Bible—“one principal good one”—would be a significant step towards that one mind in Christ.

Another related topic (especially considering the influence of a standard text in cultural areas): this interesting article appeared recently in the WSJ, encouraging the Bible be taught as literature in the public schools: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873243386045783261502898376…

Without the Bible, Shakespeare would read differently—there are more than 1,200 references to Scripture in his works. Without the Bible, there would be no Sistine Chapel and none of the biblically inspired masterpieces that hang in countless museums world-wide.

In movies, without biblical allegories, there would be no “Les Misérables,” no “Star Wars,” no “Matrix,” no “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, no “Narnia” and no “Ben-Hur.” There would be no Alcoholics Anonymous, Salvation Army or Harvard University—all of which found their roots in Scripture. And really, what would Bono sing about if there were no Bible?

Teaching the Bible is of course a touchy subject. One can’t broach it without someone barking “separation of church and state” and “forcing religion down my throat.”

Yet the Supreme Court has said it’s perfectly OK for schools to do so, ruling in 1963 (Abington School District v. Schempp) that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as a part of a secular (public school) program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court understood that we’re not talking about religion here, and certainly not about politics. We’re talking about knowledge. The foundations of knowledge of the ancient world—which informs the understanding of the modern world—are biblical in origin. Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president known more as a cigar-chomping Rough Rider than a hymn-signing Bible-thumper, once said: “A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.”

[Dave Gilbert]

[TylerR]

I finally “gave up the Ghost” (KJV!) on the KJV for study purposes when I took a class on the Pentateuch. It was this verse that did it for me;

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine,” (Num 3:12).

I remember thinking - what in the world is a matrix? Why was I wasting my time trying to decipher odd phrases and words before even pondering the meaning of the text itself?

The KJV is simply the most beautiful English anywhere in several sections. In others, well …

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t complain about the ESV in Dan 9:25. This translation suggests Messiah will return at the end of the 7th week. At least, that is how I took it when I was studying it. It took 20 minutes for me to understand what in the world was going on. The KJV is much clearer …

ESV: 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again[e] with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

KJV: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Big difference!

Which is why I won’t use anything based on the Critical Text. I sat down and compared quite a few of the translations done since the 1880’s over the years, and none of them seem to say the same thing the same way…so I stick with the KJV and a few of the other Reformation era translations ( Elizabethan English notwithstanding ) because if it was good enough to be God’s word in English for well over 200 years, it’s good enough for me now. If only I could find a 100% carry-over from the KJV into modern English, I would be happier…but it doesn’t appear to exist, unfortunately.

Most will say the NKJV is it, but frankly, I’ve looked at that, too, and I’m not satisfied.

Finally, as long as publishing houses employ or otherwise form their own private translation committees ( with the seemingly sole purpose to put the Bible into their own, copyrightable words), I will not support or even consider using their efforts. When a group of God-fearing men get together privately and give it a go with no thought of making a profit, I’ll take a look.

I, too, think the KJV could have used language that could have better stood the test of time, but English seems fairly unique in that it changes fluidly over a few hundred years when compared to other “older” languages…but except for a few dozen words that I had to make the effort to look up the meanings of, I find the KJV to be no harder to read than a newspaper ( by and large ). Incidentally, a “matrix” is another term for the mouth of the womb.

Dave Gilbert, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the passage in Daniel 9 has nothing to do with the critical text.

Also, if you seriously think the KJV wasn’t done for profit, you are mistaken. The KJV was an attempt to regulate the word of God to the people. The King controlled the bible and therefore the people. As a baptist, I don’t understand how anyone can take seriously an anglican translation.

[JobK]

[jhalstead]

Most of the problems listed in the doc are obvious to me in ESV and I’m no big studier of scripture nor a pastor with seminary training or anything else.

You have a person who has a financial and professional interest in the NIV taking shots at another translation that is clearly gaining popularity. It is no different from Pepsi taking shots at Coke or Burger King denigrating McDonald’s. Actually, it is different. It is much much worse. Pepsi and Burger King only claim that their products taste better, not that their products are healthier and people who procure their products are making better moral decisions for themselves and their families. When you consider the importance of the Bible to the life of a Christian, then when you make claims that one is superior or another is inferior, that is exactly what you are doing … saying that accepting one Bible or rejecting another is a good spiritual decision for yourself, your family, your church (if you are a pastor), denomination (if you are a denominational leader) etc. Now even if this is your personal opinion, the fact that you professionally benefit from it because you are a professional scholar who sat on the translation committee and financially benefit from it, not only because its enhancing your professional reputation but because of your affiliation with the secular corporation (Zondervan is part of the Rupert Murdoch empire who disseminates Bibles on one hand and pornography, blasphemous Christ denying movies and TV shows and other filth on the other) who maintains an exclusive copyright for that version gives you the obligation to be more responsible with that opinion to avoid the appearances of impropriety. (Yes, the ESV is copyrighted also, but at least by a nonprofit whose entire operation is printing Bibles and other Christian books … Good News Publishing. Now granted, John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul etc. likely use the ESV because they have contracts with Good News Publishing for their study Bibles and other books - especially in the case of MacArthur who was a longstanding KJV guy prior - but representing the financial interests of Rupert Murdoch vs. a Christian evangelistic association … you pick.)

Basically, the guys who sat on these translation committees and who are paid representatives of these Bible publishing houses need to keep their traps shut when it comes to other versions, and this is a great example why. Because no matter what arguments he uses in support of his position, it will still come down to “don’t let the ESV become the standard English version because if that happens then my having been on the NIV committee won’t be nearly as valuable to my professional reputation, and I won’t make nearly as much money from Zondervan selling the NIV.” If this isn’t a very good illustration of why the Bible warns Christians from chasing filthy lucre (yes I am a KJV guy, but primarily because of my bias for the TR and literal translations … I am more than willing to use other literalist TR versions) then I would like a better one.

JobK, MacArthur uses a NASB and has for years. I would be surprised if anyone at the Master’s Seminary used anything but the NASB.

………..the one you or I will faithfully read, meditate and live by. Pick a translation that is careful, orthodox and true (such as the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc….) read that one - and you will have Heaven’s approval!

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

………..the one you or I will faithfully read, meditate and live by. Pick a translation that is careful, orthodox and true (such as the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc….) read that one - and you will have Heaven’s approval!

That’s a good way to look at it. In spite of all the insults thrown the way of the NIV, I heard someone say once that if Christians would read and live by what is in the NIV, we’d be lot better off than with a lot of Christians who hold to the KJV but spend little time reading it or living by it. I would agree with that wholeheartedly, and I say that as someone who still uses the KJV even though the ESV is the official translation in my church.

[James K]

JobK, MacArthur uses a NASB and has for years. I would be surprised if anyone at the Master’s Seminary used anything but the NASB.

At least one professor at Master’s was using and recommending the NIV in 1988. I know because I visited him that summer and he enthusiastically recommended the NIV Study Bible to me, which has been my primary Bible ever since.

http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=16799

I bought my first NIV at a Pastors’ conference at his church in Toledo

[Jim]

http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=16799

I bought my first NIV at a Pastors’ conference at his church in Toledo

This I can accept given his confusion of other issues.

[dmyers]

[James K]

JobK, MacArthur uses a NASB and has for years. I would be surprised if anyone at the Master’s Seminary used anything but the NASB.

At least one professor at Master’s was using and recommending the NIV in 1988. I know because I visited him that summer and he enthusiastically recommended the NIV Study Bible to me, which has been my primary Bible ever since.

Maybe that was true in 1988. I would be surprised if anyone there still used that thing.

If anybody is seeking a free, quality Bible, visit http://net.bible.org.

The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry. The Bible is God’s gift to humanity – it should be free.

This is a standard the original KJV did not achieve. Isn’t it beyond copyright now simply because of it’s age? On a lighter note, I was very blessed by reading a light-hearted book entitled “God’s Secretaries,” about the making of the KJV. This version has such a remarkable history and wide-ranging impact on the English-speaking world. As I said before, the language is majestic, beautiful and unequaled in so many places.

[TylerR]

If anybody is seeking a free, quality Bible, visit http://net.bible.org.

The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry. The Bible is God’s gift to humanity – it should be free.

This is a standard the original KJV did not achieve. Isn’t it beyond copyright now simply because of it’s age? On a lighter note, I was very blessed by reading a light-hearted book entitled “God’s Secretaries,” about the making of the KJV. This version has such a remarkable history and wide-ranging impact on the English-speaking world. As I said before, the language is majestic, beautiful and unequaled in so many places.

Majestic and beautiful are no substitute for accuracy. Honestly, can people stop making excuses for still using an “english” Bible that isn’t really the english spoken? Sad.

[Greg Linscott]

[Brian McCrorie]

Too late…

Not according to the latest statistics…

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

The NIV, NLT, KJV, and NKJV all rank above the ESV in both dollar and unit sales.

Not saying that makes a translation good or bad. Just observing that it’s hardly a standardized text.

BMc, you’re becoming more a dyed-in-the-wool Fundamentalist all the time- living in the past! Look at you! You’re over a month behind the discussion… :D

BTW- This last post of mine was also meant in jest. BMc is no fundamentalist! :D

Its a greta translation, however the NIV is better. But no question about it the ESV comes in second.

NIV haters please rebuff this article on my website.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf