Over five years ago I wrote a piece justifying CCB’s adoption of the brand new translation of the Bible; the ESV. I’ve reproduced it here. In my humble opinion, it was a work of genius. The article, not the new translation! But I was also wrong. Not wrong as in sinful but wrong as in stupid.
If I had my time again I wouldn’t make the move. I’ve changed my mind. And we’ve gone back to the NIV. Many within the congregation are delighted. There was cheering in the All Age Congregation when I announced it. And they don’t get excited about anything! I’m still in two minds. I love the ESV. I can’t quite bring myself to give it up in preparation. Often it’s the preservation of the Pauline prepositions that I find so helpful. The study Bible is a work of art. It’s brilliant. And I like the way it preserves the visual and literal sense of many of the phrases in their original langauges. You’ll see what I mean if you look at the examples on this chart.
Although many in the congregation aren’t sad to see the back of the ESV, I am. But it makes perfect sense in our context. This article from Mark Straus highlights eleven issues he has with the ESV. But for me the following three factors have become overwhelmingly frustrating and have probably become a hindrance to our gospel ministry.
1. It’s inconsistent
It doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do. I’m sure I remember reading somewhere in the blurb that they’d translate the same word in the same way so that the reader would be able to make the links that are present in the original languages. But the translator’s just don’t keep to their word. As Mark Thompson and Allan Chapple highlight.
2. It’s incomprehensible
Perhaps that’s overstating it a little! But at times it’s a shocker. As one friend said, ‘it’s English, but not as we know it’. Using the restrained vernacular of the academic, Mark Thompson says, ‘The ESV retains some archaic expressions, e.g. ‘behold’ and ‘adjure’’. Adjure?!!! Desirous?!
3. It’s impenetrable
It’s unreadable at times because the grammar is tortuous. We frequently have degree level educated men and women unable to read. It’s embarassing for them and it’s painful for us. And it’s not their fault. At times, it reads like something from Yoda.
We want people from Balham to come into church and hear the gospel in language that they can undersytand. Sadly I’m just not convinced that the ESV really helps us in that. I’m looking forward to the new edition of the NIV. But we can’t wait. And neither can the congregation. We’ve got a mission coming. And that was the impetus for change that we needed.
I’m not saying that there’s a whole load wrong with the ESV. There isn’t. Let’s keep this whole thing in perspective. This is a really, really good Bible translation. I’ve loved using it and will continue to do so, especially in preparation. I have some sympathy with what they’re trying to do. But it’s a Bible for the ‘sharper tools in the box’ and not all of us in Balham fall into that category.
Hi Perks, delighted to hear your decision.
Personally, I have been nothing less than horrified at the terrible piece of work which is the ESV. Wooden, clumsy, bizarrely archaic-sounding, and breaking many a rule of God-honouring translation. May your change away be followed by others who have the courage to act on the ESV’s weaknesses.
BTW Tim Ward has a good footnote about the ESV’s shortcomings in his recent book on Scripture – not on me at the moment, but I’ll pop in the reference when I can look it up.
Keep up the great blog!
Lewis
What a treat!
No really, say what you really mean about the ESV!
I’ll search out Tim Ward’s comments – I’ve just picked up a copy.
perks
Very interesting! In the denomination to which the church I attend belongs, the Presbyterian Church in America, it has become increasingly commonplace to see the ESV in use. There is a real perception among conservative evangelicals in the US that more literal is better. But I think you’re right. There are times I have been frustrated by the ESV’s unpolished grammar. Also, all that I’ve memorised from the Bible is out of the NIV as a grew up, and sometimes when I’m looking for a passage I know by heart, it’s harder to find in the ESV because it’s worded differently.
For us the intelligibility for the unconverted has become the key issue. We’re not a massively ‘churched’ culture here in south London and so people simply aren’t familiar with Bible words and Bible concepts. The NIV is just more accessible to outsiders [as well as church members] and we’re working hard to maintain our missional priorities. THe NIV helps us with that.
Interesting thought provoking article. (I’m sure your links are equally interesting but I have a 4 year old clamouring for his “Beginners Bible” – thanks again).
I grew up with the NJB which I will describe as “an accessible challenge”.
My Home Group use the ESV (mostly)- occasionally we use the NIV when we are particularly flummoxed!
In fact I encountered the NIV for the first time in my HG which I joined three years ago and loved the simple poetry of it. I know that there are solid arguments for the deeply academic translations, but my heart always yearns for the NIV. The rendering of Zephaniah 3:17 makes my heart feel like it is bursting.
Zeph
As the person doing the reading on Sunday – it was a joy to read it out of the NIV… so much easier to read out loud. But my quiet times are still based in the ESV (unless the Daily Reading Bible changes its mind too). I think using two (or more) versions is good – especially for those of us who don’t know greek/hebrew – to be reminded that words have a range of meaning and to think carefully about what is being said and why.
Funny how for 300 years Christianity managed to survive in the UK with the King James Bible, The Book of Common Prayer and Psalms in Latin!
We get a little carried away with the translation, and forget the power of God to speak to us spiritually deaf people despite our best attempts not to hear
Wise words Matthew!
I’m thinking about preaching in Latin this weekend – surely google translator could help me write it! I was at a meeting the other dayw here a senior and learned clergyman used the phrase ‘ex animus’. No one else had a clue what he meant but I took it upon myself to ask him whether it meant ‘used to be an animal’. His disdain for the ‘younger’ generation was unmistakable, which I enjoyed!
The NIV is definitely a lot easier to understand! A good thing about using the ESV is that it has opened my eyes to ambiguities in meaning which the NIV can gloss over.
[...] UPDATE: One mission-minded pastor’s decision to abandon the ESV. [...]
New Living Translation’s working pretty well for me. Clear and makes sense.
Thanks Phil. I’ve got a lovely NLT that I used for a while. It’s very readable. I think Don Carson was involved in the translation so it’s got good solid evangelical pedigree! Would you use it as the main congregational Bible though? Isn’t it just a little further down the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum from, say, the NIV?
Honestly, I think it really depends on the situation, and only you know your congregation and the people you’re speaking to.
If my congregation was made up of people with limited education then I probably would use the NLT, if everyone is university educated then maybe not. If I wanted a service to be really accessible then I’d make my choice of Bible as accessible as possible.
No point in using something that people can’t really understand.
Nice to have a choice of versions isn’t it?
Yeah it is, but it’s a luxury isn’t it? Those of us in the Uk and the US need to maintain our persepctive on the translations issue. Organisations like the one you work for are making sure that people in other parts of the world have just one version in language that they can understand. Press on!
We do make revisions though as language changes. In our culture we’ve possibly become a bit extreme, but even some of the communities that have one version of the Bible revisions are necessary as language use changes.
No different in the UK or US, our language use doesn’t stand still.
Nice talking to you.
I have read
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/should-we-abandon-our-bible/
You write, “The debate about the merits of any Bible translation depends upon our commitment to functional equivalence (FE) or dynamic equivalence (DE).”
Isn’t Functional Equivalence the same as Dynamic Equivalence? I think you mean “Formal Equivalence”. KJV, NKJV and ESV use Formal Equivalence i.e. a more literal translation whereas Dynamic Equivalence is more of a paraphrase.
I prefer “Formal” because it brings us closer to the original Greek & Hebrew. Many of Tyndale’s English phrases were literal translations of Hebrew idioms which at first must have sounded strange to the English ear but now are part of everyday English even among non-Christians.
Don’t underestimate people’s intelligence and the power of the Holy Spirit. Why dumb-down everything? Why not educate people?
We have dictionaries, many on the internet are available.
I just looked up “exanimus”. I learnt something new. It means “lifeless”. That’s not difficult. But some people do use Greek or Latin to show off.
[...] I ran across a blog where the author was teeter-tottering back and forth over the ESV and the NIV. His church originally used the NIV, then switched to the ESV, then back to the NIV. [...]
Couldn’t resist a comment on this thread which I’ve stumbled on while browsing for something quite different. (Usually that happens more at Sainsbury’s …)
We too are using the Extra Serious Version at church,
but missing what I thought of as the Nicely Intelligible Version
Well I wouldn’t use the NIV! In Isaiah 14:12, it calls lucifer the “Morning Star”, then laster refers to Jesus with the same name…in essence calling Lucifer Jesus or vice versa! That’s just ONE thing wrong with the NIV out of several. They omit over 67.000 words. It was translated by men from different denominations who agreed to make it a bible that does not offent any religious group. One of the final translators was a homosexual…this means the NIV does not condemn that lifestyile (since words loke ‘sodomite’ and ‘effeminate’ are among the words omitted). The ESV, I have learned in my studies of the various translations, is the closest to the KJV in translated versions, but still has some flaws! This is why I prefer that to any other version to reference my KJV, the real Bible!!
This discussion about which bible to use for study or the pulpit is very interesting. I have NIV Study Bible but now I am going to get an ESV to see what you are talking about. My main concern is not how hard the bible is to read but how accurate it is. I am beginning to think I can only rely on the KJV.
THis has really made me think.
I have been thinking of switching to ESV, because I find the NIV gloss so basic.
But will certainly take my time over it now, given all these comments.
We are starting to use ESV in our staff meetings, so will see what happens.
Hi Urban Pastor,
I advise sticking to the 1984 NIV. The “New” NIV contains wholesale changes, apparently to make in gender neutral.