Revising the ESV once again...

Here it is.

http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

But I'm not sure what your point is, dear Baylys. That the ESV should be rejected? In favor of what? I can't think of a major translation you could pick that hasn't been revised; but my knowledge is far from encyclopedic.

Is your point that translations should never be revised? The only translations that have never been revised (I think) are ones that no one used, and thus did not warrant revision. What board could hit perfection on one go?

That everyone should learn Hebrew and Greek?

NOW you're talking! (c:

The main revision I want to see, they haven't made, and no one is talking about making: drop the superstitious "LORD" and "GOD" business. It is, after all, the one translation that we know is absolutely dead-wrong.

>>But I'm not sure what your point is, dear Baylys.

Dear Dan,

Revisions of revisions of revisions cause confusion, particularly when the publishers don't tell people forthrightly that it's a new edition. This is one of the reasons I use the NASB95. It's not the NASB (with hundreds of silent changes), but the NASB95 (Revised). They changed it and told us they'd done so and now sell it under a new name, and I think that's right and good.

Too, note how fast these ESV revisers are backpedalling from "slave." From "man."

Too, note the flow of money that depends upon copyrighting the Bible.

And those are just three points...

Love,

Somehow they still haven't fixed 1 Tim. 4:7.

ESV: Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness.

NASB: But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women.

I don't know if you can have both. I think it's like trying to be faithful and yet also avoid persecution - the time comes when you have to decide which it will be.

I think that we are so committed to ease of reading that we'd rather have that than the Word of God. A word here or there removed, a concept softened? No problem. A passage written by a rough writer left rough like God inspired it? Problem!

It's a loss to the church not to know that David swore that by morning light not one of Nabal's house "that pisses against the wall" would be left alive.

And Zechariah's grammar and flow is so rough I can barely follow it in the NASB, but in the NIV it reads just like Isaiah. It's work to read Zechariah in his roughness, but I think that that difference is important. Otherwise you get the idea that all the men of faith were poets and a scholars writing and speaking and living in a high style and you could never be one of them, directly contradicting Scripture (that for instance Elijah was a man "subject to like passions as we are").

Dear Jessica,

The tension, as I see it, is not so much between biblical faithfulness and readability as it is between biblical literalness and readability. The latter has been a tension felt by translators since the beginning, and it will continue. The former, while certainly existing as a temptation for prior generations of translators, has really emerged in our own age of tickle-the-ears translators.

In other words, there's no particular problem in readability by actually translating both 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor. 6:9–10. If not the very best translation, it's still perfectly understandable to say "male prostitutes" and "sodomites"--indeed, the meaning is clearer because of the translation of both words.

The real issue, then, is not our reading skills, but our hearts. When it comes to our sins, our age would rather have ambiguity than clarity. We'd rather be children in our understanding and all too "adult" in our conduct, rather than Scripture's call to be men in our understanding and innocent as babes in our conduct (1 Cor. 14:20) The offense is not to readability, but to respectability in our world.

The principal problem with the ESV, then, isn't that it sacrifices truth for readability, but that it has a penchant for euphemizing and rounding off the rough edges of Scripture. (I haven't examined the latest revision, but Tim's concern regarding their apparent "backpedalling" from terms of slavery is also disturbing.) Like you, I appreciate the beauty of its translation, and so I still use it despite its faults. But it would be worlds better if it let God speak as He actually has, rather than trying to dress up our dirty condition.

As for the other translations, I, too, find the NASB95 rather clunky in its wording at times. But this commitment to literalness is also its virtue (though see Acts 2:43 for a major exception to this), and I value it for this. It's certainly the one I'd use for close study.

Among other literal translations, I think the NKJV is also a good candidate, though it's never really caught on. It keeps most of the virtues of the KJV (and there are many!) while removing the archaisms, and it is not as guilty of euphemizing as the ESV. If you like the ESV, I recommend giving NKJV a try.

Warmly,

Josh

Dear Jessica,

If you find the ESV easier to read, read it. I don't think it's at the "no, never" stage, but it will get worse.

This is a revision that is conforming itself to the Spirit of the Age and this will continue as the years pass. I know the men, and I suppose I must say that I've talked with them, personally, a number of times over the years.

They refuse to admit and correct their failure with 1Timothy 4:7. And considering the Spirit of our Age, is there anyone on this blue earth who doesn't know why soft men want to keep "old women's fables" or "old wives' tales" (Greek grawdeiv) out of their product?

They refuse to admit and correct their failure with 1Corinthians 6:9,10. And considering the Spirit of our Age, is there anyone on this blue earth who doesn't know why soft men want to keep "catamites" (Greek 'malakoi') out of their product?

Sadly, the word 'virgin' was sufficient to keep Evangelicals away from the Revised Standard Version while today, twisting God's Word to make it politically correct doesn't even present a speed bump to us. Crossway feels no pressure to right the wrongs: "Aren't all the famous, rich Evangelical and Reformed men in town on our side, and isn't that a large enough majority in any town?"

Liberals are former conservatives who have gotten an education and then work hard to erase every vestige of their past. And this is true of the men who write and sell to more right-leaning Evangelicals as it is true of the men who write and sell to more left-leaning Evangelicals. In other words, both the NIV and the ESV are growing in the same liberal direction. The only difference is how far they are down the road right now.

As I said to one of the main scholars responsible for the ESV, taking "slaves" to "bondservants" is to go from clarity to obscurity. 'Slave' must be swallowed by 'servant.' 'Doulos' must be swallowed by 'diakonos.'

God must be gagged.

This may appear to be an over-the-top statement, but consider the reality: God's words are not translated into English because the translators' fear those words will be understood. Words like 'adam' for instance, which God uses for the race--both men and women. The Hebrew word inspired by the Holy Spirit is not 'people,' 'eve,' or 'adameve,' but 'adam.'

I've always said 'adam' should be transliterated 'adam.' It shouldn't even be translated "man." That's too loose. Give it an upper-case "A" when it's Eve's husband and a lower-case "a" when it's the race. There are many words that entered the English language by being transliterated from the Hebrew and Greek of Scripture. Why not 'adam' for the race?

God did it. Why can't we?

But no, we can't even bring ourselves to leave it "man."

And so it has been changed to "people" and Adam's representative headship of the race (the "in Adam all die" of Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15) is left behind. And of course, the husband's headship of the wife. The elders headship of the church.

Like I said, the problem isn't that these words will be misunderstood. It's their being understood that's caused all the ruckus.

Love,

I just stay with the RSV -- already memorised a lot of verses in that version back when it and the NASB were the only alternatives to the KJV. Looks like the world will eventually come back to the RSV.

I was hoping to be able to find an NASB updated edition at a local bookstore so that I could look at the font (to make sure it's easily readable even in dimmer light or in a moving vehicle) and also to make sure each book of the Bible has a brief introduction that states the date and author and setting of the book. It's frustratingly hard to find much of anything. Our local Christian bookstore doesn't much anymore (and will be closing the early part of next year, due to being unable to compete with e-books and Amazon), and Barnes and Nobles had no NASB Bibles at all. But if you want a NLT or other paraphrases, those abound. Go figure..........

Blessings,
Nancy Wilson

Nancy Wilson,

The NASB Classic Reference is much like what you're looking for, I think:

http://www.christianbook.com/nas-classic-reference-grain-leather-black/9780310931294/pd/93129?event=AAI#curr

The main question is probably whether the font size (8.7) is large enough for comfortable reading in dim light. That's going to vary from person to person. It's been a while since I last looked at one, and print quality can sometimes turn out poorly in a particular bible, but my recollection of the few I looked at was positive in that regard...for what it's worth.

Hope that helps.