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

[Batt4Christ]

I look at revisions with the same lens as I look at new translations in general - what is the motive for the new version (or revision)? The KJV that so many of our brethren adhere to itself went through three "revisions" until the 1769, while still being known as the "Authorized Version". Lets we forget, the KJV began with the Apocrypha!

But off that soapbox and back to the issue at hand - the NASB (1971) was updated in 1995, with the stated purpose being: "increasing clarity and readability. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure were carefully reviewed for greater understanding and smoother reading."

I haven't spent much time (none really) in looking at revisions to the ESV. What I do know about that version comes from both my own study (and my non-scholar level Greek "skills"), plus visiting with some true Greek scholars who live, eat, and breath Biblical Greek (one who preaches each Sunday without an English translation at all!). My conclusion is that the ESV is extraordinarily well done - but it needs (needed?) some polishing. I don't know what reason Crossway might give for a revision, but my hope is that it is indeed the polishing it needed (much as the NASB needed in its 1995 revision). The ESV does a fine job in 99.995% of the translation, but that .005% of "difficulty" is primarily in flow of language and in some interesting translation choices. I have yet to find anything in the ESV that contradicts or changes solid doctrine as found in the KJV, and indeed have found significantly clearer readings in the ESV.

And this opinion (worth exactly what you all paid for it) posted by someone who preaches from the KJV, but does personal study and even sermon prep primarily from the NASB and ESV.

 

[DaChaser1]

I look at revisions with the same lens as I look at new translations in general - what is the motive for the new version (or revision)? The KJV that so many of our brethren adhere to itself went through three "revisions" until the 1769, while still being known as the "Authorized Version". Lets we forget, the KJV began with the Apocrypha!

But off that soapbox and back to the issue at hand - the NASB (1971) was updated in 1995, with the stated purpose being: "increasing clarity and readability. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure were carefully reviewed for greater understanding and smoother reading."

I haven't spent much time (none really) in looking at revisions to the ESV. What I do know about that version comes from both my own study (and my non-scholar level Greek "skills"), plus visiting with some true Greek scholars who live, eat, and breath Biblical Greek (one who preaches each Sunday without an English translation at all!). My conclusion is that the ESV is extraordinarily well done - but it needs (needed?) some polishing. I don't know what reason Crossway might give for a revision, but my hope is that it is indeed the polishing it needed (much as the NASB needed in its 1995 revision). The ESV does a fine job in 99.995% of the translation, but that .005% of "difficulty" is primarily in flow of language and in some interesting translation choices. I have yet to find anything in the ESV that contradicts or changes solid doctrine as found in the KJV, and indeed have found significantly clearer readings in the ESV.

And this opinion (worth exactly what you all paid for it) posted by someone who preaches from the KJV, but does personal study and even sermon prep primarily from the NASB and ESV.

My main problem with the ESV is that I can't help but wonder if it is popular mainly due to ole 'hype" machine that got started up around it!

Think that its OK to read and study from, but IF one holds to formal translations would stick with either the NASB/NKJV, or for a "mediating" version Niv 2011 /HCSB!

ESV seems to be stuck in between both of those "worlds!"

 

[Rippon]

I haven't spent much time (none really) in looking at revisions to the ESV.

Okay.

My conclusion is that the ESV is extraordinarily well done

I think it's rare and needs to be cooked some more.

- but it needs (needed?) some polishing.

Indeed.

I don't know what reason Crossway might give for a revision, but my hope is that it is indeed the polishing it needed

Crossway is honest here. The ESV is in dire need of polishing.

The ESV does a fine job in 99.995% of the translation,

Perhaps it does a fine job in 19% of the translation.

but that .005% of "difficulty" is primarily in flow of language

About 81% of the ESV text is indeed due to its deplorable English. The "flow" is just not present.

I have yet to find anything in the ESV that contradicts or changes solid doctrine as found in the KJV, and indeed have found significantly clearer readings in the ESV.

The ESV is a doctrinally solid translation. And as much as it needs improvement --it has much more clarity than the KJV.

And this opinion (worth exactly what you all paid for it) posted by someone who preaches from the KJV, but does personal study and even sermon prep primarily from the NASB and ESV.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oldtimer]

I look at revisions with the same lens as I look at new translations in general - what is the motive for the new version (or revision)? The KJV that so many of our brethren adhere to itself went through three "revisions" until the 1769, while still being known as the "Authorized Version". Lets we forget, the KJV began with the Apocrypha!

But off that soapbox and back to the issue at hand -

KJV Preferred poster here, who also owns a number of other versions.

As I understand it, the KJV wasn't revised between 1611 and 1769. "Revised" meaning a fresh look at the source documents and re-translating them.

Instead, several editions (printings) were done to
... correct type setting errors
... standardize spelling, as spelling standardization came about in the English lanugage
... change the typeface from Gothic to Roman to enhance readability

Also, I may not the correctly understanding your comment regarding the Aprocypha. The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha between the Old & New Testements, as a historical reference, that was later omitted. IMHO, that's no different from including/omitting maps, commentaries, and other things routinely added/deleted from what's between the covers of any bible. It doesn't directly affect the scriptures in the two testements.

Something else that concerns me that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is the amount of change needed to receive a new copyright. If memory serves, the NKJV encountered that problem during production. There wasn't enough textual change from the KJV to obtain a copyright on the scriptures. The 'new translation" had to be re-done to include enough variance for a copyright to applied to the revision.

Thus, my question? How many changes were the result of new insight about the KJV and how many were due to the desire be the exclusive publishers of the NKJV?

The same question applies to rapid production of "fresh translations" of all the branded bibles on the market today. The NIV I bought 2 years ago is already out of date according to sales and marketing folks. The 1901 copy of the American Standard that I hope to call my own in a few days is hopelessly out of date. Look how many NASB Lifeway wants to sell me. http://www.lifeway.com/Bibles/New-American-Standard/c/N-1z13x20Z1z141wv

The question was asked earlier in this thread about what it would cost to stay current with bible versions. Spend a little time here exploring to get a sense of just how many money changers are in the temple. http://www.lifeway.com/n/Bibles?Ne=164

Lifeway even has a slick brochure to help me make my decision about which bible to buy from them. https://s3.amazonaws.com/bhpub/edoc...p2B3iSzzenKT4=&intcmp=iTeam2-MTX-BBG-20120109 I wonder how long it took the marketing folks to find 2 verses to suggest there are no material differences across their wide range of bibles being offered?

Which gets right back to the question. If there are no material differences, what's the driving force behind having all these choices? Could it, by any chance, be money?

 

[Phillip]

Recently I started to use the NASB as my text, after struggling between it and the ESV. One of my *concerns was that they would update the ESV again, and they've done just that in April 2011. (I could be wrong about the month, but this is what I've read.) So, some 4 months after my switching to the NASB (I switched in 12/2010) they've revised the ESV. I am glad I didn't go that route, as it looks as though they will phase out the 2007 version with this new one.

* I made this statement in this link so no one will think I'm fabricating this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68777

Here is a link that notes the changes from the '07 to the '11 edition:

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

A few questions for those of you who hold to the ESV and otherwise:

• Did the ESV really need an update?

• Will you now switch to another version?

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

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

• Are you one who is switching to the newer ESV because you think it is better or necessary?

• Do you wish they would have just left the ESV alone, stayed 2007?

Isn't all of this just marketing something to the public that is shiny and new to increase sales, or has the '07 language become so antiquated that it demanded a revision to teh text? Was there some pressure about being PC ("slave" being changed for instance)?

On to the number of English Versions:

• 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 think a church should settle on one text, as I see some churches where any number of versions are used?

• Wouldn't it be better for the local churches to use a certain chosen text for study, preaching services &c?

• Do you feel for the most part these updates we see are based on need, or are they based upon greed?

In your questions you hit several nails right on the head; but, let me explain why it is not necessarily a negative.

For seven years I ran an FM radio station in our local town running a Christian format and we had to sell air-time to churches just to pay the bills. Most months I paid out of my pocket and we finally found a large church that the station could be moved to and we gave the station and license to them.

My point is, if we didn't have the latest music (we ran adult contemporary Christian, no rock/rap etc.) the churches would assume we had no listeners. It became a real headache to have to provide expenses for the station because it was physically located at my house and the other board members didn't see much in the way of helping me out either.

My only point is, the Bibles are being sold in a secular world and they must use secular sales techniques when they market their books because there is a thin line between making money by printing books and loosing money by getting those books back that don't sale. When some other company comes out with a new version, you can just count on most of the other companies to do the same. The same thing happens with car models. Their reason is legit; they had some mistakes in the first runs and then they want to keep up with modern day language so that kids can pick up the Bible and read it but it still holds true to the original documents used.

I think this is just something we are going to live with as long as free enterprise is the economy model used in not only the U.S. but many other countries where the Bibles are sold.

Please don't jump on the companies that are struggling to stay alive because there are companies that well a lot of books but still run low on the actual charts for book sales. Those companies have only one thing they can do and that is to improve their product either physically or improving the text; or they go broke. I would say this doesn't count for the NIV but part of the reason is the huge amount of money they put into marketing it in the first place. Many companies don't have to huge amounts of money to dump into the marketing of their product and that makes it difficult to just survive when your monthly overhead and bills are close to your sales.

 

[Logos1560]

Something else that concerns me that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is the amount of change needed to receive a new copyright. If memory serves, the NKJV encountered that problem during production. There wasn't enough textual change from the KJV to obtain a copyright on the scriptures. The 'new translation" had to be re-done to include enough variance for a copyright to applied to the revision.

Perhaps it is not mentioned because it has not been demonstrated to be a correct claim. KJV-only advocates have made some incorrect and unproven claims concerning copyright laws, trying to claim that a law concerning a derived work made from an existing book under copyright supposedly applies to a translation that is derived and made from sources in a different languages.

I have never heard the claim that the NKJV enountered that problem. Since the KJV is not presently under copyright protection in the U. S., how could the NKJV has any problem in being a revision of the non-copyrighted KJV and a translation of the same original language texts as the KJV? Where is the evidence for your claim?

The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton is a modern-spelling edition of the KJV. It has a copyright, even though its variations from other KJV editions involve spelling and a return to some 1611 renderings. There is now a second 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a very slightly revised edition. It has a 2011 copyright. So far, the only difference I have noticed between the 2005 edition and the 2011 edition is that the 2011 edition updated the spelling "awaked" to "awoke."

 

[DaChaser1]

Perhaps it is not mentioned because it has not been demonstrated to be a correct claim. KJV-only advocates have made some incorrect and unproven claims concerning copyright laws, trying to claim that a law concerning a derived work made from an existing book under copyright supposedly applies to a translation that is derived and made from sources in a different languages.

I have never heard the claim that the NKJV enountered that problem. Since the KJV is not presently under copyright protection in the U. S., how could the NKJV has any problem in being a revision of the non-copyrighted KJV and a translation of the same original language texts as the KJV? Where is the evidence for your claim?

The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton is a modern-spelling edition of the KJV. It has a copyright, even though its variations from other KJV editions involve spelling and a return to some 1611 renderings. There is now a second 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a very slightly revised edition. It has a 2011 copyright. So far, the only difference I have noticed between the 2005 edition and the 2011 edition is that the 2011 edition updated the spelling "awaked" to "awoke."

There is now a 2011 KJV version?

 

[Logos1560]

As I understand it, the KJV wasn't revised between 1611 and 1769. "Revised" meaning a fresh look at the source documents and re-translating them.

Instead, several editions (printings) were done to
... correct type setting errors
... standardize spelling, as spelling standardization came about in the English lanugage
... change the typeface from Gothic to Roman to enhance readability

Your definition of "revised" is not the dictionary definition. The 1611 edition of the KJV has been revised. All the changes made to the 1611 do not involve the changing of the typeface, the standardization of spelling, and the correction of printing errors. Later editors did compare the 1611 KJV to the original language texts and made some changes based on those texts. The term "revised" is properly used of later editions of the KJV.

By the way, today's edition of the KJV is not 100% the same as the 1769 Oxford edition. There are 200 to 400 differences between the 1769 Oxford and most of the varying KJV editions in print today.

 

[Logos1560]

There is now a 2011 KJV version?

Yes, there is now a new 2011 Cambridge edition of the KJV.

I had tried to order one last year, but my order was cancelled when the place in America did not receive that new edition when they expected it.
This past Saturday I came across this new 2011 Cambridge KJV edition at a bookstore so I bought one. That bookstore had just got them in this month.

 

[thomas15]

My main problem with the ESV is that I can't help but wonder if it is popular mainly due to ole 'hype" machine that got started up around it!

Think that its OK to read and study from, but IF one holds to formal translations would stick with either the NASB/NKJV, or for a "mediating" version Niv 2011 /HCSB!

ESV seems to be stuck in between both of those "worlds!"

You are in my opinion totally correct. My belief is that the reformed covenant Amills and post mills wanted a translation to call their own. The didn't want to use the NRSV due to it's copywright being held by the NCC, the NKJV and NASB are in their opinions too dispensational and the NIV and Zondervan is in their view public enemy numero uno so they revised the Revised Standard Version and call it the English Standard Version. The rest is as you say hype from the publisher.

I'm not saying it's a bad translation, I personally have 5 or 6 quality bound editions of the version on my shelves. The ESV has been around now for 10 years and is starting to catch on but is still getting trounced at the cash register by the NIV, KJV, NKJV and The New Living Translation. I'm sure that it will someday soon make some headway there but In my opinion, the ESV is not really The Standard Version of the Holy Bible in the English Language. The claims of the publisher are not realized in the product. Sorry if that offends.

 

[DaChaser1]

You are in my opinion totally correct. My belief is that the reformed covenant Amills and post mills wanted a translation to call their own. The didn't want to use the NRSV due to it's copywright being held by the NCC, the NKJV and NASB are in their opinions too dispensational and the NIV and Zondervan is in their view public enemy numero uno so they revised the Revised Standard Version and call it the English Standard Version. The rest is as you say hype from the publisher.

I'm not saying it's a bad translation, I personally have 5 or 6 quality bound editions of the version on my shelves. The ESV has been around now for 10 years and is starting to catch on but is still getting trounced at the cash register by the NIV, KJV, NKJV and The New Living Translation. I'm sure that it will someday soon make some headway there but In my opinion, the ESV is not really The Standard Version of the Holy Bible in the English Language. The claims of the publisher are not realized in the product. Sorry if that offends.

it has certainly seemed to have become for some reason the "reformed Bible!"

Just think, ESV bible for reformed, NASB/NKJV dispy, Niv for the inclusive language crowd, HCSB SBC. NRSV for "mainlines", NLT for beginners etc...

Literally, edition for every need!

 

[Rippon]

it has certainly seemed to have become for some reason the "reformed Bible!"

Just think, ESV bible for reformed, NASB/NKJV dispy, Niv for the inclusive language crowd, HCSB SBC. NRSV for "mainlines", NLT for beginners etc...

Literally, edition for every need!

I think you have made some unfair blanket niches.

The NIV casn not be justly described as being for the "inclusive language crowd" anymore than the NRSV,NLTse and others. It fills a need that is much broader than that designation.

The HCSB translators were not all Baptists. I think a minority were.

The NLTse is not merely for beginners. Beginners could certainly use it to their advantage. However, many use it to round-out their Bible readings from other more form-oriented versions such as the NIV,ESV,HCSB and NASB.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Jay Green has a KJ3 out.

There is now a 2011 KJV version?

Took a while to get them printed in China and released here, but the leather editions are now available, I believe.