Why We Switched to the ESV

[Van]

Next the linked article espousing the ESV over and above the NIV, claims the NIV "under translates" where the ESV presents a more word for word translation.

Updating words is attacked, saying we should stick with propitiation rather than say "atoning sacrifice." I agree that "atoning sacrifice" offers no improvement, because either term must be looked up in a glossary or commentary or Bible dictionary. The words translated as propitiation mean "means of salvation." Lets look at some verses:

Romans 3:25 ESV: whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith....

Note how much more effective is the message if it was translated to read: whom God put forward as the means of salvation through his blood, to be received by faith. No side trip to the dictionary required.

In Hebrews 9:5, the mercy seat lid of the ark of the Covenant is in view, not the means of salvation, so here the translation of mercy seat is best.

1 John 2:2 ESV: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Note how much more effective is the message if it was translated to read, He is the means of salvation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 ESV: In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Again we can see that God sent his Son to be the means of salvation for our sins. And the application of the means of salvation, is the act of having mercy on a sinner by spiritually placing him "in Christ" the means of salvation.

 

[Bronconagurski]

The ESV is an awkward translation. If I want woodenly literal, I'll use the NASB. If I want dynamic, the TNIV can't be beat.

I don't have the TNIV, but I recently bought the 2011 NIV Study Bible, which I am enjoying thus far. I am using the ESV along with the 2011 NIV in my bible study. Both are great bibles and study bibles.

 

[Van]

Both the NIV and ESV miss the mark at times providing obscure or misleading translation. For example Romans 8:21 reads (NIV) and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God suggesting the idea is the children have two separate things, freedom and glory, whereas the ESV reads obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. which suggests an aspect of their glory is freedom. However a proper translation reads into the glorious freedom of God’s children. This translation is not only more elegant, it is more literal, given the syntax of the original language. The more you study the ESV, the more you fall back on the other translations, i.e. WEB, NET, HCSB, NKJV, YLT and of course the primary bible I use for study, the NASB. (For Romans 8:21, the NASB blows the translation too. )

 

[Jack Matthews]

Both the NIV and ESV miss the mark at times providing obscure or misleading translation. For example Romans 8:21 reads (NIV) and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God suggesting the idea is the children have two separate things, freedom and glory, whereas the ESV reads obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. which suggests an aspect of their glory is freedom. However a proper translation reads into the glorious freedom of God’s children. This translation is not only more elegant, it is more literal, given the syntax of the original language. The more you study the ESV, the more you fall back on the other translations, i.e. WEB, NET, HCSB, NKJV, YLT and of course the primary bible I use for study, the NASB. (For Romans 8:21, the NASB blows the translation too. )

Elegant? I don't recall that being mentioned before as a goal of Bible translation.

The issues that are raised with the ESV are similar to those raised as virtually any translation of the scripture comes out. It is extremely difficult to sift through and separate previous personal preference, and personal doctrinal formation, from the methods used in producing the translation. So many conclusions, including some in this thread, come down to "the NASB (or insert your preference) is my preferred translation, and in this verse, or phrase, or statement, the ESV doesn't translate it exactly the way my preference does, hence, it can't be as accurate."

I had a pastor several years ago who was blessed to have a couple of college professors in his church who taught Greek at the local Christian college, and offered a continuing course for church members. In a congregation of about 200 adults, there were less than 10 at any given time that took the classes. Most all of them expressed how doing so opened up and gave them a deeper understanding of the word. Originally, I was troubled by the question of how you can claim the Bible is inerrant, and infallible, and seeing the science of Bible translation being seemingly so dependent on subjective answers to questions, with many places where the translation doesn't have a clear indicator of how to proceed. But that issue was resolved by several points made, in order of their priority. 1] Spiritual discernment comes from God who, through his Holy Spirit, opens up understanding of spiritual matters that cannot be discerned by the human mind or human scholarship, according to I Cor. 2. 2] Most translations are the work of committees, not individuals, and that eliminates most personal or sectarian bias. 3] No essential doctrine or revelation of scripture is altered by translation differences in the standard, widely accepted English translations of the scriptures. Problems come to light immediately, and are resolved quickly.

The ESV has become my translation of preference largely because I've been involved with several people I would consider "mentors" in the faith who are experts in Biblical languages, and they trust its accuracy and the translation format. I would guess that's the case with most others and their preferences.

 

[Revmitchell]

Both the NIV and ESV miss the mark at times providing obscure or misleading translation. For example Romans 8:21 reads (NIV) and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God suggesting the idea is the children have two separate things, freedom and glory, whereas the ESV reads obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. which suggests an aspect of their glory is freedom. However a proper translation reads into the glorious freedom of God’s children. This translation is not only more elegant, it is more literal, given the syntax of the original language. The more you study the ESV, the more you fall back on the other translations, i.e. WEB, NET, HCSB, NKJV, YLT and of course the primary bible I use for study, the NASB. (For Romans 8:21, the NASB blows the translation too. )

I do use the ESV. I despise the NIV. But in either case I do not see what your issue is here. You seem to see a significant difference here but I see none. In fact no matter how you look at these verses in the different translations the context is the same.

Whether or not the translation is "elegant" is subjective.

 

[Van]

I have no solution for you not being able to see a significant difference, since only you determine what is significant to you. I explained the difference in the three translations and what was different and misleading and obscure in the first two.

I said for the ESV that "obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" suggested an aspect of their glory was freedom. But that is not what the message is, so the ESV translation is both obscure and misleading. The phrase should be translated into the glorious freedom of God's children. Thus we know the idea is freedom is way better, gloriously better than bondage. And far as significance, getting the truth translated so it is discernible seems significant to me.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have no solution for you not being able to see a significant difference, since only you determine what is significant to you. I explained the difference in the three translations and what was different and misleading and obscure in the first two.

I said for the ESV that "obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" suggested an aspect of their glory was freedom. But that is not what the message is, so the ESV translation is both obscure and misleading. The phrase should be translated into the glorious freedom of God's children. Thus we know the idea is freedom is way better, gloriously better than bondage. And far as significance, getting the truth translated so it is discernible seems significant to me.

I doubt you will find very many people agree with that.

 

[Van]

And if you define "very many" as more than I can find, your doubt is confirmed. However, just in case, the NET agrees with me. HCSB agrees with me, NKJV agrees with me. Or should I say, I agree with the "very many scholars, including Dan Wallace who translated and edited these versions.

The idea is not that this verse by itself is egregious, the idea is that the ESV does not come close to living up to the hype of the article. Most of the verses cited in the article do not represent the best translation available today, and if on the other hand, we selected verses where the NIV does a better job than the ESV, we could make just as invalid a case.

 

[Rippon]

I do use the ESV. I despise the NIV.

You say you despise the NIV. I think you have gone overboard. aside from the cumbersome language the ESV uses all-to-frequently,the NIV is not that different from it. I think you don't know the ESV as much as you claim.

 

[Van]

Lets look at more examples from ESV advocates claiming they show the flaws of the NIV and virtues of the ESV.

Romans 1:5 (NIV) Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.

Romans 1:5 (ESV) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

So the pattern continues, an ambiguous phrase has been translated unambiguously, and this is considered a fault.

At least three differing translations are possible, the ambiguous obedience of faith (ESV/NASB/HCSB/WEB/NET) or the obedience that comes from faith (NIV) or obedience to the faith (NKJV). A footnote of the HCSB recognizes these alternate translations plus "faithful obedience. While providing an ambiguous translation may have merit if no specific meaning seems better given the context, then at least a foot note identifying the possible meanings seems warranted. So the HCSB and NET are the best translation efforts available.

The NET provides this footnote, "5tn The phrase ὑπακοὴν πίστεως has been variously understood as (1) an objective genitive (a reference to the Christian faith, “obedience to [the] faith”); (2) a subjective genitive (“the obedience faith produces [or requires]”); (3) an attributive genitive (“believing obedience”); or (4) as a genitive of apposition (“obedience, [namely] faith”) in which “faith” further defines “obedience.” These options are discussed by C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC), 1:66. Others take the phrase as deliberately ambiguous; see D. B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans: Part I: The Meaning of ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (Rom 1:5; 16:26),” WTJ 52 (1990): 201-24."

My uninformed preference would be to translate it "faithful obedience" with "faithful obedience to the faith" being implied, but not in the text.

 

[Van]

Another verse used to put the ESV in a good light is Romans 3:20 where the NIV84 translated works of the law as observing the law. Definitely a bridge too far, the 2011 NIV returns to works of the law. But as we see with so many of the other examples, the ESV falls down in the very verse cited. Sarx is translated as human being, but is footnoted as flesh, whereas the NASB and NKJV both stick with flesh. Flesh carries the baggage of sinfulness and carnality, whereas human being is a vastly more neutral term.