Three Basic Challenges to the ESV

[chev1958]

Three Basic Challenges to the ESV
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Charlottesville, Virginia

November 23, 2010

Crossway publishers continue their very successful (dare we say relentless) marketing of the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible. Crossway editor Justin Taylor’s recently featured a new video on his blog in which “various leaders” explain “why they trust and appreciate this translation.”

The ESV is, without doubt, the translation of choice among those whom Colin Hansen has described as the “young, restless, and reformed.” Here, however, are three basic challenges that might give one pause before jumping on the ESV bandwagon:

1. The ESV has a National Council of Churches copyright.

If you turn in a copy of the ESV to the bottom of the copyright page, you will find this note:
“The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.”

The note is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean that the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches holds the copyright to the RSV, upon which the ESV is based, or does it mean that the NCC retains, as well, some rights to the ESV? What agreement did Crossway reach with the NCC in order to revise the RSV and create the ESV? Did they pay them a one-time fee? Or, does the NCC receive ongoing royalties from sales of the ESV?

On this point Alan J. Macgregor queries:

Does this mean that every time a believer purchases an ESV Bible, he is financially supporting the National Council of Churches? (That body denies most of the fundamental doctrines of the Evangelical Reformed Faith). There are still many professing Evangelical and Reformed groups and publications, all enthusiastically encouraging us to buy and use this new version. The separation principles commanded in the Scriptures, and which our discerning forefathers solemnly held to, seem to have been discarded and forgotten (Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV [The Bible League, 2004]: p. 50).

Even if there is some contractual arrangement whereby the NCC received an upfront lump payment and does not receive royalties for individual ESV sales, challenge # 2 remains.

2. The ESV is not, in fact, a new translation but an evangelical revision of a notoriously liberal translation.

A close inspection of the preface to the ESV is revealing. Though it claims to stand “in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations,” it is clear that the ESV actually issues from a far more liberal source.

On one hand, the ESV wants to claim a place in the tradition of the classic English translations of the Protestant Reformation, but, on the other, it must admit that its roots are actually in later Protestant liberalism.

Again, the preface captures the ESV’s awkward stance: “The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.”

So, in truth, the ESV’s lineage is through the infamous English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971.

The old RSV was roundly condemned by evangelicals when it first appeared. The most criticized passage was Isaiah 7:14 in which the RSV translated the Hebrew word almah as “young woman” rather than “virgin.” Conservatives, no doubt rightly, took this as a not so subtle undermining of the doctrine of the virginal conception of Christ.

When the NT portion of the RSV was completed in 1946, Westminster Theological Seminary Oswald T. Allis wrote a stinging critique of the work titled Revision or New Translation? (P & R, 1948).

Granted, the ESV has corrected passages like Isaiah 7:14 (i.e., it reads “virgin” and not “young woman”). Still, the fact that the ESV springs from the RSV cannot be an irrelevant consideration. If one compares the ESV and RSV, he finds that the translations are very often is full agreement with one another.

Some have suggested that despite corrections like that made with Isaiah 7:14, the ESV still retains some doctrinally questionable renderings from the RSV. Alan J. Macgregor cites the following passages as examples: Micah 5:2; Isaiah 53:9; 1 Corinthians 3:3-4; 1 Corinthians 7:36-38; Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; and Revelation 19:8) (see Macgregor’s Three Modern Versions, pp. 55-58).

Let’s take Micah 5:2 as an example:

KJV: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

RSV: But you, O Bethlehem Eph’rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.

ESV: But you, O Bethlehem Eph’rathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.

Note that the ESV follows the RSV verbatim except for the insertion of the word “too.” The doctrinal issue here would have to do with the change of “from everlasting” to “from ancient days.” Macgregor concludes, “the liberal rendering of the RSV is retained in full, so undermining the Deity of Christ, reducing Him to a created being who has a point of origin!” (Three Modern Versions, p. 56).

There are other issues related to the ESV’s general translation philosophy which Macgregor pinpoints. Despite the fact that it is championed by gender complementarians, “it appears that concession is sometimes made to the gender neutral lOBby” (Macgregor, p. 54). Oddly enough, some of the old RSV’s gender
specific renderings (composed before the ascendency of academic feminism) are made gender neutral in the ESV.

Here are three examples from Romans (emphasis added):

Romans 2:28:

RSV: “For he is not a real Jew….”
ESV: “For no one is a Jew….”

Romans 3:4:

RSV: “…Let God be true though every man be false….”
ESV: “…Let God be true though every one were a liar….”

Romans 3:28:

RSV: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
ESV: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

Finally, despite its claim in the preface to be an “essentially literal” translation, the ESV often makes use of dynamic equivalent methods, as does the RSV. One example cited by Macgregor is the rendering of the phrase evn th/| paliggenesi,a| (literally “in the regeneration”) in Matthew 19:28 as “in the new world” (though a note in the ESV provides the literal rendering).

3. The ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text.

The final challenge comes in the fact that the ESV is not based on the traditional texts of Scripture that were used by the Protestant Reformers in their vernacular translations (the Masoretic text of the OT and the received text of the NT). For the NT, most significantly, the ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text as found in the UBS 4th ed. and the Nestle-Aland 27th ed.

This means that as one reads through the ESV he will find translations based on texts that diverge from the Tyndale-Geneva-King James Version tradition. Examples:

Though the primary textual issues relate to the NT, here is one example from the OT: In Psalm 145:13 the ESV includes a bracketed half verse in the text that the footnote explains “is supplied by one Hebrew manuscript, Septuagint, Syriac (compare Dead Sea Scroll).”

The other examples are from the NT:

The ending of Mark’s Gospel (16:9-20) is included in double brackets after an inserted note which reads: “*SOME OF THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 16:9-20+.”

The pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), likewise, appears in double brackets with a similar introductory note inserted into the body of the text.

Philip’s confession in Acts 8:37 is removed from the text proper and relegated to a footnote.
Though these departures from the traditional text ought to raise considerable alarm, the more fundamental worry is the basic fact that the ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text.

This means that one day a new critical text will be produced (UBS 5th ed./Nestle-Aland 28th ed.) by the secular academy. This means that eventually there will also be, in all likelihood, a NESV (New English Standard Version) or perhaps RESV (Revised English Standard Version) placed on the market.

Who knows what decisions future editors of this Bible will make? Perhaps, for example, in future editions Mark 16:9-20 will be exiled to the footnotes! Translations joined to the modern academy must, of necessity, be unstable.

Conclusion

Let’s leave the final word to Alan J. Macgregor:

Despite all the hype and glowing statements about the ESV, it fails to deliver on its promises. It is in reality nothing more than a very mild revision of a very liberal Bible version. While there are some pleasing improvements over the RSV, not all the changes are for the better. By using the RSV, as their reference point, the translators have started in the wrong place. The leaven of liberalism is still there. The conclusion of the matter must be that it is “weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Three Modern Versions, p. 59).

[trc123]

I don't understand labeling a Bible as "very liberal translation" or "very conservative translation." Shouldn't the distinction be a "correct translation" versus a "flawed translation?"

[John81]

I don't understand labeling a Bible as "very liberal translation" or "very conservative translation." Shouldn't the distinction be a "correct translation" versus a "flawed translation?"

I agree such language would be more precise, especially today when liberal and conservative don't necessarily mean the same thing to all people.

[John81]

It's good to see some real, concrete examples of how the ESV compares with the KJB and to learn more of the making of and the format of the ESV.

I read a book which used the ESV when quoting Scripture (I can't remember the name of the book). While reading the book I noted that every quote from the ESV was compatible with the KJB, except one, and that one was WAY off. I had planned to mark that and check into it more later but apparently I forgot to.

In any event, since reading that book I've been looking for something that really addresses this issue.

[DennisD]

I don't understand labeling a Bible as "very liberal translation" or "very conservative translation." Shouldn't the distinction be a "correct translation" versus a "flawed translation?"

I agree such language would be more precise, especially today when liberal and conservative don't necessarily mean the same thing to all people.

I think both of you are looking too much towards what these words mean in politics. From what they mean in the dictionary, it seems to fit pretty good.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

preserve the existing bible that God has given seems to be the point.

Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

[John81]

I think both of you are looking too much towards what these words mean in politics. From what they mean in the dictionary, it seems to fit pretty good.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

preserve the existing bible that God has given seems to be the point.

Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Myself, I know what the terms mean, and to me the use of their meaning here is clear. However, for the general public this often isn't the case. I know many college grads who can't grasp this, let alone the large number of high school grads who see the terms liberal/conservative in a one-dimensional, mostly political terms.

It's truly amazing just how uneducated our "educated" population is today, and how lacking they are in terms of critical thinking skills and reading comprehension.

You are correct, the terms used are valid. One would think anyone with at least a high school education would get that, but many folks today don't or even can't. This is why most magazines are written at a grade school level.

[trc123]

I stand by my statement, it would be more concise and leave less room for interpretation if the phrasing was "correct translation" vs. "flawed translation." The version is either correctly translated or not correctly translated. It is not up to the translator to put their own ideological spin/interpretation to their work. I personally would find a version of the Bible that was "conservative" in its translation as offensive as one that was "liberal" in its translation. Error is error.

Also, the word liberal is not necessarily a bad word. I believe the Lord Jesus Christ was liberal in many respects. I know he was "liberal" in his love for lost sinners.

[Bro Jim]

Christ liberal? He had not, has not changed. He Loved sinners from the beginning, and the whole Bible has always pointed to Him as Saviour. As to translations, if there is but one change, deity, salvation, etc. then doesn't the whole becomes suspect. Nothing like deciding to compromise. Every wonder why it is so hard to reach the lost? "Yea, but this Bible says." Is it the Living Word, or a living word?

Edited November 24, 2010 by Bro Jim

[irishman]

is the "narrow path" considered conservative?

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

There is a lot of conservatism in being narrow mined, as opposed to open mindedness. Some are so open minded that every time they turn their head, THEIR BRAINS FALL OUT!

Every one knows the meaning of conservatism and liberalism, whether political or not, that's why the world is in such bad shape!
Actually, both phrases are correct though--the liberal bible always leaves something out, so that it is "flawed".
(Small "B" in "bible" is deliberate!)

Edited November 24, 2010 by irishman

[DennisD]

I stand by my statement, it would be more concise and leave less room for interpretation if the phrasing was "correct translation" vs. "flawed translation." The version is either correctly translated or not correctly translated. It is not up to the translator to put their own ideological spin/interpretation to their work. I personally would find a version of the Bible that was "conservative" in its translation as offensive as one that was "liberal" in its translation. Error is error.

Also, the word liberal is not necessarily a bad word. I believe the Lord Jesus Christ was liberal in many respects. I know he was "liberal" in his love for lost sinners.

I still think you are looking at the words wrongly. Something conservative in translation means it hasn't changed (preserved condition)...so it's the same when God inspired it through godly men to write it...alas, "correct translation" as you put it. With your post above it still seems you are boxed in with the political ideas of these words, I'm just talking about straight translation of the word without worrying about political ideology.

[John81]

I still think you are looking at the words wrongly. Something conservative in translation means it hasn't changed (preserved condition)...so it's the same when God inspired it through godly men to write it...alas, "correct translation" as you put it. With your post above it still seems you are boxed in with the political ideas of these words, I'm just talking about straight translation of the word without worrying about political ideology.

You are correct. However, the terms conservative and liberal can have different meanings and for some they would be unclear.

It's very sad, but many folks have an exceedingly limited grasp of vocabulary, very poor reading skills and lack reading comprehension.

I know some college graduates that can still only read and comprehend at a level between elementary and grade school. I've talked with high school graduates and colllege students who didn't know who Hitler is. One girl guessed that he had been an American president!

Of course this lack of education is part of the reason there is a market for so many "easier to read/understand" Bible versions. Typically though, these dumbed-down and watered-down versions don't get read either because so many actually hate to read.

A dictionary can be a great tool but since most folks won't bother to use one they become of no effect.

I can understand the call for a very clear meaning regarding the translations, but at the same time we SHOULD all be able to understand what is meant by conservative and liberal in this context; it's a real shame so many folks can't.

[BobinKy]

Jeffrey T. Riddle...

Thank you for your excellent post.

...BOB