The ESV – why I was wrong!

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.

Read Full Post »

Should we abandon our Bible?

This article was frst produced in 2002. It helps explain why we took the decision to use the ESV at CCB. As the next post will explain, we’ve had reason to revert to the NIV. But I thought I’d give you a flavour of what we were thinking seven years ago.

For information on the ESV see here.

Should we abandon our Bible?

Nothing like a provocative opening to grab the attention! Let me put it this way, ‘should we abandon our dog eared and ageing New International Versions (NIV) and replace them with a shiny new English Standard Version (ESV)?’ Christian publishers like the Good Book Company want us to do so. Familiar voices from Australia tell us that it’s likely to become the Bible of choice amongst evangelical congregations in the English speaking world. Our own Christ Church Balham (CCB), Fairfield Community Church and Cornerstone have already abandoned the NIV and embraced the ESV and St Helen’s Bishopsgate followed our strong lead! Were they sensible or recklessly impetuous? After all, the NIV is the biggest selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. It makes up about 30% of all Bible sales.

Should the ESV be the Bible most evangelicals read? I want to suggest that all the congregations should make the change. But to substantiate that claim we need to think about what sort of translation we should be using.

What sort of translation?

We’re about to throw ourselves into the deep waters of translation theory and if we’re to emerge alive we’ll need to keep it simple. The debate about the merits of any Bible translation depends upon our commitment to functional equivalence (FE) or dynamic equivalence (DE). Readers who are keen to chase this further should visit http://www.matthiasmedia.com/au and follow the ESV links.

Dynamic Equivalence

The NIV is a DE translation that aims to convey the equivalent sense of a phrase rather than the equivalent words. The underlying translation philosophy prioritises the reader rather than the text. It attempts to reshape the ancient text to make it accessible to the modern world. The emphasis is on pursuing readability for the modern reader. Therefore the goal is seems to be to make the translation as simple as possible. There is no question that the NIV is simpler to read but that is not as good a thing as it first appears. This commitment to simplicity results in the following four frustrating features:

1. The NIV employs shorter punchy sentences that make the language lively and engaging. But doing this eliminates those helpful connective words that demonstrate the logic of the author’s argument.

2. The NIV irons out any ambiguities of meaning in the original text and presents one of the options to the reader. But this approach takes the responsibility of interpretation into the hands of the translator and not the reader. True, all translations involve interpretation but the NIV is at the ‘taking liberties’ end of the spectrum.

3. The NIV translates the same original word with different words to produce more stylish flowing English. But this means that the reader is unable to put together a picture of what the author means when he uses this same word.

4. The NIV removes concrete biblical metaphors with more abstract concepts that are supposed to be more straightforward. But the original images are not hard to understand and the effect is to flatten and lose the power of the word’s imagery.

Functional Equivalence

The ESV is a FE translation that aims at ‘word for word’ correspondence. The underlying translation philosophy prioritises the text rather than the reader. Therefore the aim of the translator is give the reader as much access to the ancient text as the reader’s linguistic skills will allow. It is unrealistic to expect most readers to learn the original languages and so the aim is to replicate the ancient text in terms of content and also form. It does this by preserving as many of the features of the ancient text as possible. Nevertheless it would be misleading to suggest that the ESV translation is free from any interpretative translation decisions. All translation involves a degree of interpretation since a complete word for word correspondence would be virtually unreadable.

For example consider a literal translation of Galatians 5:16, ‘but I say in Spirit you walk and the desire of the flesh by no means you will complete’. It’s transparent but inaccessible! The ESV renders this ‘but I say walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh’. But the NIV goes for ‘so I say live by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of your sinful nature’. The ESV is preferable since it preserves the vivid ‘walking’ metaphor and Paul’s frequent word ‘flesh’.

ESV Imperfections

However, the ESV it is not perfect. No translation is. There are two problems that will need revision. The commitment to FE is not carried out consistently and fails to meet it’s own translation aims. Nevertheless, what we get with the ESV is a translation that is at least at the same level of formal equivalence as the NIV but in most cases it is several steps closer to the original. The ESV has not lived up to its promise in the area of clarity of expression and the quality of English usage. AT CCB we have had occasion to reach for the dictionary when words like, ‘sojourn’, ‘portent’, ‘confute’ and ‘adjure’ came up. It is supposed to be pitched at Year 8 but there must be some very clever 12 year olds in America! And this is its most frustrating feature. At times the English is almost inaccessible. We need a revision and someone without a degree needs to check it out!

Conclusion

Should we abandon the NIV? In time, perhaps. Should we abandon the Bible? Never. So let’s keep our perspective on this. In the Christian press there has been some theological mud slinging. Pejorative words like ‘transparent’ suggest that the NIV is ‘obscure’, it’s not. Words like ‘dynamic’ suggest that the ESV is ‘static’, it’s not. We’re talking about two good translations. And so to decide to go on reading the NIV is not like saying you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God. Surely we’d rather people read any translation than no Bible at all. But if you had to choose I’d recommend the ESV. It may feel for a while like owning an Apple Mac. It’s a superior product, loved by its users, revered by those in the know but owned by hardly anyone! And that may be a sufficient reason to stick with the NIV.

Bibliography

• T. Payne, ‘Translating’, The Briefing Issue 247
• T. Payne & P. Jensen, ‘The ESV and NIV Compared’, The Briefing Issue 278
• T. Payne, ‘FAQs on the ESV’, The Briefing Issue 283
• T. Payne, ‘The ESV: two years on’, The Briefing Issue 306
• T. Payne, ‘Is this the English Bible we’ve been waiting for?’ & T. Payne, ‘How close are we to the Bible?’
• T. Payne, ‘The Briefing and the ESV: A response to Don Carson and Allan Chapple’,
• J. Piper, ‘Good English with Minimal Interpretation: Why Bethlehem uses the ESV’
• G. Goldsworthy, ‘He’s a jam doughnut? When is a translation not a translation?’ The Briefing Issue 306
• A. Chapple, ‘The English Standard Version: A Review Article’, RTR 62/2, August 2003
• R. Gibson, ‘I’ll have mine naked thanks: A buyer’s guide to today’s Bibles’, The Briefing
• A. Jacobs, ‘A Bible for Everyone’,

Read Full Post »

Should We Abandon Our Bibles?

This is something I wrote back in 2002 on the ESV translation that we currently use at CCB.

Should we abansone our Bibles? Nothing like a provocative opening to grab the attention! Let me put it this way, ‘should we abandon our dog eared and ageing New International Versions (NIV) and replace them with a shiny new English Standard Version (ESV)?’

Christian publishers like the Good Book Company want us to do so. Familiar voices from Australia tell us that it’s likely to become the Bible of choice amongst evangelical congregations in the English speaking world. Our own Christ Church Balham (CCB), Fairfield Community Church and Cornerstone have already abandoned the NIV and embraced the ESV and St Helen’s Bishopsgate followed our strong lead! Were they prudently sensible or recklessly impetuous? After all, the NIV is the biggest selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. It makes up about 30% of all Bible sales.

Should the ESV be the Bible most evangelicals read? I want to suggest that all the congregations should make the change. But to substantiate that claim we need to think about what sort of translation we should be using.

What sort of translation?

We’re about to throw ourselves into the deep waters of translation theory and if we’re to emerge alive we’ll need to keep it simple. The debate about the merits of any Bible translation depends upon our commitment to functional equivalence (FE) or dynamic equivalence (DE). Readers who are keen to chase this further should visit the Matthias Media website and follow the ESV links.

Dynamic Equivalence

The NIV is a DE translation that aims to convey the equivalent sense of a phrase rather than the equivalent words. The underlying translation philosophy prioritises the reader rather than the text. It attempts to reshape the ancient text to make it accessible to the modern world. The emphasis is on pursuing readability for the modern reader. Therefore the goal is seems to be to make the translation as simple as possible. There is no question that the NIV is simpler to read but that is not as good a thing as it first appears. This commitment to simplicity results in the following four frustrating features:

1. The NIV employs shorter punchy sentences that make the language lively and engaging. But doing this eliminates those helpful connective words that demonstrate the logic of the author’s argument.

2. The NIV irons out any ambiguities of meaning in the original text and presents one of the options to the reader. But this approach takes the responsibility of interpretation into the hands of the translator and not the reader. True, all translations involve interpretation but the NIV is at the ‘taking liberties’ end of the spectrum.

3. The NIV translates the same original word with different words to produce more stylish flowing English. But this means that the reader is unable to put together a picture of what the author means when he uses this same word.

4. The NIV removes concrete biblical metaphors with more abstract concepts that are supposed to be more straightforward. But the original images are not hard to understand and the effect is to flatten and lose the power of the word’s imagery.

Functional Equivalence

The ESV is a FE translation that aims at ‘word for word’ correspondence. The underlying translation philosophy prioritises the text rather than the reader. Therefore the aim of the translator is give the reader as much access to the ancient text as the reader’s linguistic skills will allow. It is unrealistic to expect most readers to learn the original languages and so the aim is to replicate the ancient text in terms of content and also form. It does this by preserving as many of the features of the ancient text as possible. Nevertheless it would be misleading to suggest that the ESV translation is free from any interpretative translation decisions. All translation involves a degree of interpretation since a complete word for word correspondence would be virtually unreadable.

For example consider a literal translation of Galatians 5:16, ‘but I say in Spirit you walk and the desire of the flesh by no means you will complete’. It’s transparent but inaccessible! The ESV renders this ‘but I say walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh’. But the NIV goes for ‘so I say live by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of your sinful nature’. The ESV is preferable since it preserves the vivid ‘walking’ metaphor and Paul’s frequent word ‘flesh’.

ESV Imperfections

However, the ESV is not perfect. No translation is. There are two problems that will need revision. The commitment to FE is not carried out consistently and fails to meet it’s own translation aims. Nevertheless, what we get with the ESV is a translation that is at least at the same level of formal equivalence as the NIV but in most cases it is several steps closer to the original. The ESV has not lived up to its promise in the area of clarity of expression and the quality of English usage. At CCB we have had occasion to reach for the dictionary when words like, ‘sojourn’, ‘portent’, ‘confute’ and ‘adjure’ came up. It is supposed to be pitched at Year 8 but there must be some very clever 12 year olds in America! And this is its most frustrating feature. At times the English is almost inaccessible. We need a revision and someone without a degree needs to check it out!

Conclusion

Should we abandon the NIV? In time, perhaps. Should we abandon the Bible? Never. So let’s keep our perspective on this. In the Christian press there has been some theological mud slinging. Pejorative words like ‘transparent’ suggest that the NIV is ‘obscure’, it’s not. Words like ‘dynamic’ suggest that the ESV is ‘static’, it’s not. We’re talking about two good translations. And so to decide to go on reading the NIV is not like saying you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God. Surely we’d rather people read any translation than no Bible at all. But if you had to choose I’d recommend the ESV. It may feel for a while like owning an Apple Mac. It’s a superior product, loved by its users, revered by those in the know but owned by hardly anyone! And that may be a sufficient reason to stick with the NIV.

Further resources on this issue can be found here

• Driscoll, ‘Why Mars Hill Uses the ESV’
• Payne, ‘How close are we to the Bible?’
• Payne, ‘The Briefing and the ESV: A response to Don Carson and Allan Chapple’,
• Piper, ‘Good English with Minimal Interpretation: Why Bethlehem uses the ESV’
• ESV Resource Page at Matthias Media
• For information from the publishers on the ESV go here

Read Full Post »