Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament
11/13/2006 04:49 Filed in: Faith & Reason
If you're an ESV aficionado who likes the translation just as its been since 2001, I've got some news you'll be glad to hear. But if you are someone who had any hopes of significant changes in an ESV revision, you may be gravely disappointed.
In August This Lamp broke the story about an upcoming revision of the ESV with official word from Crossway. However, we were informed that the completely updated text would not appear until 2007, confirmed to be January 2007 recently on the ESV blog. Right now the only updated text available is that of the New Testament, found in The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament.
A reverse interlinear is a bit of an unusual reference work, and I will review it at a later date. But my focus in this blog entry is on the actual changes made to the ESV text which is why I've obtained a copy of the ESV Reverse Interlinear. As mentioned the changes surveyed here apply only to the New Testament.
I'm not sure how to refer to this edition of the ESV text to distinguish it from the first edition published in 2001. I should be clear that the changes made to the text are nowhere near the extent of change made in something like the the 2004 second edition of the New Living Translation. In fact, from what I can tell, the changes are few and far between which no doubt will disappoint those who were hoping for significant changes to the text. The changes have been referred to on the ESV blog as "minor textual updates," so for now, I will refer to this edition as the "updated ESV."
I found it interesting that the ESV copyright inside the ESV Reverse Interlinear still referred to the 2001 publication year in spite of the fact that this is a slightly different text. Surely this is an oversight, and I would expect an updated copyright on the full-text Bibles to be released in January. Further, although the ESV Reverse Interlinear comes with a CD containing the ESV Bible Reference Library (Logos/Libronix), unfortunately the text is not that of the update. For a moment I hoped I had access to the revisions in both testaments.
Where does one begin when finding changes between the original ESV text and the updated ESV? Obviously, I don't have the time (or patience) to compare every verse in the ESV NT line by line, so I looked to sources that have critiqued the text of the ESV. I mean, I assumed that a translation committee would have targeted significant issues that had been pointed out. I thought this was the obvious route to take. Specifically, I have looked at the analysis of the ESV at Better Bibles Blog, the ETS Review of the ESV by Rodney Decker, and a review by Allan Chapple. The contributors to the Better Bibles Blog do not officially endorse any particular Bible version, but are primarily interested in what makes for good Bible translation. Decker, at the time of his writing of his review, was essentially positive toward the ESV--claiming it as his #2 preferred translation behind the NIV--in spite of his critique. Of the three critiques, Chapple is the most negative, but I do believe his assessment is quite fair because it evaluates the ESV by the claims that the publishers have made for it.
The table below lists NT verses that I could find in the updated ESV. If the verse was questioned in one of the two above-mentioned sources, but is not displayed below, it was not changed. Feel free to make specific inquiries in the comments and I will update this post with any further changes found.
Yes, it's a short list, isn't it? I'm sure there are more changes, and I'll modify this post as I discover them, but as I said above, the changes are few and far between (too bad I don't have access to both versions for use in the handy new Accordance text comparison feature). The ESV has been plagued by criticism such as "archaic word use," "baggage from the RSV," and the feeling that it felt rushed to publication (my actual sentiment). I suppose there's good news for those of you who were perfectly pleased with the ESV the way it was: you can simply write the updates into the margins of your Journaling Bible.
After spending the last four hours going through three different sources critiquing the ESV, I am genuinely surprised that the update was not more extensive than what I've found so far. When I started writing this post, I felt like the above table would have literally dozens of entries. I wondered if it wouldn't take me two or three days to actually upload this post to my blog.
But all the major criticisms of the ESV still hold true. The inverted negatives remain (Matt 7:1), the use of archaic words like "lest" are still found in abundance, and incorrect translations are retained for what I can only guess is the sake of tradition. Even "unawares" remains in Heb 13:2--ouch! I would have nearly bet money that Heb 13:2 would have been updated.
In my opinion, I really feel like the ball was dropped somewhere with the ESV update. If anyone was hoping for a contemporary translation in the Tyndale tradition, this is simply not it. For contemporary language in the Tyndale tradition, I'd have to still recommend the NRSV. For an accurate literal translation, I still believe the NASB is far superior to the ESV, and Allan Chapple's review specifically bears that out in a number of places. In the final analysis I'm no longer sure exactly what niche the ESV is supposed to fill in today's selection of English Bible translations because while parts of it are an improvement over the RSV, it suffers from not going far enough and not remaining consistent throughout.
Look, if the ESV speaks God's word to you, as I always say, keep reading it. It befuddles me, though, to think that a translation of the Koine Greek New Testament--that is, God's Word communicated in a common tongue--would communicate the scriptures in a manner that is not consistent with common contemporary language at all. At least no one that I know speaks in reverse negatives. Well...maybe Yoda.
But hey, maybe Crossway simply knows its market. Maybe readers of the ESV want something that sounds like it came from a different generation. Just realize that such sentiment is not keeping with the spirit in which the New Testament was written. If you were sitting on the fence regarding the ESV, hoping that the update would significantly fix things, I believe it's time to move on. If you're still on the fence, read Chapple's review and note that none of the problems he pointed out have been fixed. As I said, the NASB makes a better literal choice in a Bible translation. If you want a contemporary, but accurate translation, I always recommend the TNIV. If that's not for you, and you want something that adheres to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, I heartily endorse the HCSB as a superior choice over the ESV, the only other CSG translation.
Perhaps the rest of you can wait for the ESV II in 2012...or will that be called the RESV?
Previous Related Posts:
- Truth Unchanged Changed? Revised ESV Release Imminent: Solid Evidence
- Official Word from Crossway: No Complete ESV Revision until 2007
- Sign of the End Times: Singular They in the ESV
- More on 1 John 3:24 in the ESV: Change Is Coming
In August This Lamp broke the story about an upcoming revision of the ESV with official word from Crossway. However, we were informed that the completely updated text would not appear until 2007, confirmed to be January 2007 recently on the ESV blog. Right now the only updated text available is that of the New Testament, found in The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament.
A reverse interlinear is a bit of an unusual reference work, and I will review it at a later date. But my focus in this blog entry is on the actual changes made to the ESV text which is why I've obtained a copy of the ESV Reverse Interlinear. As mentioned the changes surveyed here apply only to the New Testament.
I'm not sure how to refer to this edition of the ESV text to distinguish it from the first edition published in 2001. I should be clear that the changes made to the text are nowhere near the extent of change made in something like the the 2004 second edition of the New Living Translation. In fact, from what I can tell, the changes are few and far between which no doubt will disappoint those who were hoping for significant changes to the text. The changes have been referred to on the ESV blog as "minor textual updates," so for now, I will refer to this edition as the "updated ESV."
I found it interesting that the ESV copyright inside the ESV Reverse Interlinear still referred to the 2001 publication year in spite of the fact that this is a slightly different text. Surely this is an oversight, and I would expect an updated copyright on the full-text Bibles to be released in January. Further, although the ESV Reverse Interlinear comes with a CD containing the ESV Bible Reference Library (Logos/Libronix), unfortunately the text is not that of the update. For a moment I hoped I had access to the revisions in both testaments.
Where does one begin when finding changes between the original ESV text and the updated ESV? Obviously, I don't have the time (or patience) to compare every verse in the ESV NT line by line, so I looked to sources that have critiqued the text of the ESV. I mean, I assumed that a translation committee would have targeted significant issues that had been pointed out. I thought this was the obvious route to take. Specifically, I have looked at the analysis of the ESV at Better Bibles Blog, the ETS Review of the ESV by Rodney Decker, and a review by Allan Chapple. The contributors to the Better Bibles Blog do not officially endorse any particular Bible version, but are primarily interested in what makes for good Bible translation. Decker, at the time of his writing of his review, was essentially positive toward the ESV--claiming it as his #2 preferred translation behind the NIV--in spite of his critique. Of the three critiques, Chapple is the most negative, but I do believe his assessment is quite fair because it evaluates the ESV by the claims that the publishers have made for it.
The table below lists NT verses that I could find in the updated ESV. If the verse was questioned in one of the two above-mentioned sources, but is not displayed below, it was not changed. Feel free to make specific inquiries in the comments and I will update this post with any further changes found.
| 2001 ESV | Updated ESV | |
|---|---|---|
| Mark 8:34 | And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." | And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." |
| John 19:17 [note change in capitalization] |
and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. | and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. |
| Acts 1:3 | To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. | He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. |
| 1 Cor 11:30 | He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. | And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption. |
| 1 John 3:24 | Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. | Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. |
| Jude 14 | It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, | It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, |
Yes, it's a short list, isn't it? I'm sure there are more changes, and I'll modify this post as I discover them, but as I said above, the changes are few and far between (too bad I don't have access to both versions for use in the handy new Accordance text comparison feature). The ESV has been plagued by criticism such as "archaic word use," "baggage from the RSV," and the feeling that it felt rushed to publication (my actual sentiment). I suppose there's good news for those of you who were perfectly pleased with the ESV the way it was: you can simply write the updates into the margins of your Journaling Bible.
After spending the last four hours going through three different sources critiquing the ESV, I am genuinely surprised that the update was not more extensive than what I've found so far. When I started writing this post, I felt like the above table would have literally dozens of entries. I wondered if it wouldn't take me two or three days to actually upload this post to my blog.
But all the major criticisms of the ESV still hold true. The inverted negatives remain (Matt 7:1), the use of archaic words like "lest" are still found in abundance, and incorrect translations are retained for what I can only guess is the sake of tradition. Even "unawares" remains in Heb 13:2--ouch! I would have nearly bet money that Heb 13:2 would have been updated.
In my opinion, I really feel like the ball was dropped somewhere with the ESV update. If anyone was hoping for a contemporary translation in the Tyndale tradition, this is simply not it. For contemporary language in the Tyndale tradition, I'd have to still recommend the NRSV. For an accurate literal translation, I still believe the NASB is far superior to the ESV, and Allan Chapple's review specifically bears that out in a number of places. In the final analysis I'm no longer sure exactly what niche the ESV is supposed to fill in today's selection of English Bible translations because while parts of it are an improvement over the RSV, it suffers from not going far enough and not remaining consistent throughout.
Look, if the ESV speaks God's word to you, as I always say, keep reading it. It befuddles me, though, to think that a translation of the Koine Greek New Testament--that is, God's Word communicated in a common tongue--would communicate the scriptures in a manner that is not consistent with common contemporary language at all. At least no one that I know speaks in reverse negatives. Well...maybe Yoda.
But hey, maybe Crossway simply knows its market. Maybe readers of the ESV want something that sounds like it came from a different generation. Just realize that such sentiment is not keeping with the spirit in which the New Testament was written. If you were sitting on the fence regarding the ESV, hoping that the update would significantly fix things, I believe it's time to move on. If you're still on the fence, read Chapple's review and note that none of the problems he pointed out have been fixed. As I said, the NASB makes a better literal choice in a Bible translation. If you want a contemporary, but accurate translation, I always recommend the TNIV. If that's not for you, and you want something that adheres to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, I heartily endorse the HCSB as a superior choice over the ESV, the only other CSG translation.
Perhaps the rest of you can wait for the ESV II in 2012...or will that be called the RESV?
Previous Related Posts:
- Truth Unchanged Changed? Revised ESV Release Imminent: Solid Evidence
- Official Word from Crossway: No Complete ESV Revision until 2007
- Sign of the End Times: Singular They in the ESV
- More on 1 John 3:24 in the ESV: Change Is Coming