The New ESV & Do We Have Too Many Versions Out There?

Did the ESV really need an update?

I would guess the decision was made by a consensus of the experts who have worked to develop the version based upon a variety of factors; 1) the general popularity of version, 2) the number of potential verses with problems, 3) a re-evaluation and re-application of the translational method defined in the original preface.


Will you now switch to another version?

The ESV will continue to be one of the main versions I use.


Are any of you a little disappointed they've updated this version again, (and only after a revision some 4 years back?)

No disappointment but I’m surprised that they make these changes so quickly after the previous changes – I don’t see why these couldn’t have been addressed with the earlier change.
I’d guess their idea is a number of small changes along the way are better than a major change later on.


Have the changes to the latest ESV improved this version, or not?

Debatable but I’d say the improvement is minimal.


Are you one who is switching to the newer ESV because you think it is better or necessary? Isn't all of this just marketing something to the public that is shiny and new to increase sales…?

The small changes do not necessitate buying a new paper version. Hard copies have a limited carry and use life… probably less than 10 years.
I use Logos bible software; the upgrade is automatic and without cost. Other major software platforms offer the upgrades without cost.


Do you feel all of these versions are really necessary? Or are the number of these versions causing confusion, church conflict, and/or are there just too many versions? Do you feel for the most part these updates we see are based on need, or are they based upon greed?

People like to complain; arguing about whether we have few versions or too many is pointless. A translation is made to be compared to other translations and ultimately to the original language versions. A single individual or group will have different ideas about what they consider is the best way to translate. Given a strong motivation and given enough scholarly and financial backing, translations will continue to be made.

So how many bibles do you have sitting on your shelves? Will you continue to collect them?

Rob

 

I have the ESV study bible in hardcover, and what little I have used it, it seems pretty good. Now, what are some of the differences between the old one and the revised 2011 edition? Does anyone know?

 

i think that MOST modern bible versions should keep their revisions to a minimal, as the main reasons one would 'update" a version would be either due to "new and improved" manuscripts just discovered, or newest Greek/hebrew texts are now updated to use...

Since all modern versions use pretty much the latest greek/hebrew texts when transaltion was first done, no real need to redo!
other would be due to changes in meanings of Englsh words since made, and again, that would be minimal....

Think both NASB/NKJV examples of "smoothing over" the translation to make it easier to read/understand for today...

The "can of worms" would be gender inclusive language, how much/little to use?

Think far better to chose a version that you can read with understanding and get into it, than worry about updating it each time "newed" revision comes out!

 

I just recently started reading the HCSB and really enjoy it, but it's been out for several years, so I'm already behind in the "new versions" category.
Is it possible to keep up without spending a fortune on the latest and greatest bible version?

 

bible gateway!

they had the NIV 2011 before any one else!

 

I don't see a need to run out and buy the latest and greatest ESV. The old one will do just fine.

 

I hate to say it, but I do think a lot if it is money oriented. We are dealing with humans and they are known for their love of money (even Christians...shhhhhh don't tell).

I remember when I got saved (back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth), there was very little to pick from in the way of versions. Basically KJV and maybe NIV. They came in basically one color, black. Now there's not only a multitude of versions, but also a multitude of bindings and study notes, versions for athletes, hunters, teenagers, women, men, dogs, cats, and you name it. There's no doubt that bibles are a "market", not just the word of God. I admit that I have been suckered in but I'm trying to change that.

Ok, done with my rant. :laugh:

 

Yes. Just call me Ms. Troglodyte.

 

I won't list versions available back then that would not have suited you. But the Modern Language Bible was around in 1969. It would have been a fine choice for you.

 

It has needed a more complete revision. The first time it was released was a rush job. Huge swaths of the 1971 RSV were kept intact. There was not a careful process of checking against the originals,much less the antiquated and awkward English grammar. Mr.Ryken did little to nothing to improve the English of the RSV to legitimately call the new one brand new.
Mark strauss was right to question whether to call this version "The English Standard."

I haven't been a fan of the ESV,so that question doesn't apply to me.

I am surprised that they have done so little when a big facelift was needed.

Incrementally.

The first question doesn't apply to me.

In answer to the second no,it was not done just to increase sales. It was meant to improve the product.

The subject of versions is a whole other topic. No,the multiplicity of versions is not causing confusion.

Updates and revisions are always going to be needed.No translation is perfect,but they can be improved. Martin Luther updated/revised his translation five times in his own lifetime. Will you convict him of greed?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Especially since I just bought one 6 months ago.

 

I want to know how the latest ESV translates some snips from Ezekiel.

The older ESV has the following from the book of Ezekiel:

3:7 : "have a hard forehead"
The 2011 NIV simply has "hardened." The NET translation has "hard-headed."

8:5 : "lift up your eyes now toward the north."
It just means "look toward the north." as the 2011 NIV has it.

18:6 : "eat upon the mountains"
2011 NIV has:"eat at the mountain shrines."

18:11 :"eats upon the mountains"
2011 NIV has :"eats at the mountain shrines."

18:15 : "eat upon the mountain."
2011 NIV has: "eat at the mountain shrines."

Acts 17:6 : These men have turned the world upside down."
2011 NIV has :"These men who have caused trouble all over the world."
It just means stirred up trouble over the Roman empire according to NET notes.

 

Ez 3:7 presents a curious dilemma, Rippon.

Should translators :
1) translate the idiom literally in the original language
2) translate as an idiom in the receptor language
3) translate the meaning

The choice is based upon their guiding principles found in the preface of the translation.

As the ESV is touted as an "essentially literal" translation the first choice is most consistent with their methodology.

In this case they might consider the second option if the first option is too obscure – but in my opinion, the literal translation communicates the original meaning with sufficient clarity.

I like the second option, "hard-headed" but you'd have to continue changing the idiom throughout the rest of the passage. The translators might have thought that was too invasive to the text.

The third option presents a problem for those interested in the structure of the original language, you lose something of the structure of the paragraph. Sure, the language is updated to today's English but it's over translated.

Rob