Jump to content

English Standard Version: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 524458883 by StAnselm (talk) rv
per consensus
Line 38: Line 38:
==Use==
==Use==
The ESV has been used as the text of a number of [[study Bible]]s, including the ''Scofield Study Bible III'' (an update and revision of the classic [[dispensationalist theology|dispensational]] [[premillennialist]] ''[[Scofield Reference Bible]]''),<ref>''Scofield Study Bible III''. Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-19-527875-0.</ref>
The ESV has been used as the text of a number of [[study Bible]]s, including the ''Scofield Study Bible III'' (an update and revision of the classic [[dispensationalist theology|dispensational]] [[premillennialist]] ''[[Scofield Reference Bible]]''),<ref>''Scofield Study Bible III''. Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-19-527875-0.</ref>

==Criticism==
[[Mark L. Strauss]] has defended gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the [[TNIV]], [[New Living Translation|NLT]] and [[NRSV]], and is a member of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation.<ref>{{cite web|title=About the New International Version Bible|url=http://www.biblica.com/niv/|publisher=[[Biblica]]|accessdate=14 November 2011}}</ref> Strauss argues that the ESV uses similar gender-inclusive language, and wrote, “What is odd and ironic is that some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV”. Strauss has also suggested that criticism against competing Bible translations to the ESV is contrived for marketing purposes. ESV translator [[Wayne Grudem]] has responded that, while on occasion the ESV translates "person" or "one" where previous translations used "man", it keeps gender-specific language where that is in the original, so it does not go as far as gender-inclusive translations such as the TNIV and NRSV;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.faithandvalues.com/gateways/tnivdebate.pdf|format=PDF|title=TNIV Debate Between Wayne Grudem and Mark Strauss}}</ref> and the ESV web site makes a similar statement.<ref>[http://www.esv.org/translation/gender Gender Issues], ESV web site</ref>

Strauss has also criticized the ESV for what he calls "Biblish", which, he says, "is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually speak", and considers the ESV, like other formal-equivalent versions, to be "a good supplement" to dynamic or periphrastic versions, but "unsuited as a standard Bible for the Church" or for main use. He goes on to state, "This is because the ESV too often fails the test of 'standard English'".<ref name="strauss"/> This weakness that Strauss identifies is considered a strength of the ESV and other literal translations by proponents of that methodology, emphasizing that it reminds readers of the Bible's strangeness, coming from a world thousands of years gone, by not fitting it to grade-school English - when the texts themselves are not always grammatical - and modern Western sociocultural sensibilities, such as feminism and the pursuant gender-neutral debate; and that it also allows for more transparency to the source texts, requiring less interpretation on the part of translators, with the goal of leaving as much semantic vagueness as the original texts possess visible to the reader in translation, not arbitrarily closing off exegetical choices to the reader at the level of translation.<ref name="tt"/>

There have been attempts to formulate lists of translation issues in the ESV. Bible translator and linguist Wayne Leman has compiled a list of what he considers to be translation problems in the ESV.<ref>[http://bible-translation.110mb.com/esvlinks.htm ESV Links], see heading "ESV translation problems, noted by Wayne Leman"</ref> Meanwhile, at the 2008 gathering of the [[Evangelical Theological Society]], [[Mark L. Strauss]] presented a paper entitled "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version: How to Make a Good Translation Much Better"<ref name="strauss"/> in which he detailed his view of the most common "translation errors" of the ESV. He states in the opening,
<blockquote>
I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal-equivalent versions (RSV; NASB; NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”
</blockquote>
[[William D. Mounce]], the New Testament Editor of the ESV, responded briefly to Strauss on the Koinonia blog owned by Zondervan:
<blockquote>
[Strauss] kept saying that the ESV has "missed" or "not considered" certain translational issues. While I am sure they were not intentional, these are emotionally charged words that do not help in the debate. They are in essence ad hominem arguments focusing on our competence (or perceived lack thereof) and not on the facts. He was not in the translation meetings and does not know if we in fact did miss or did not consider these issues. Time and time again Mark said that if we made a change, then we would have gotten it "right." This, of course, is not a helpful way to argue because it implies there is only one "right" way to translate a verse. His solution appeared to be that we should adopt a more dynamic view of translation, and then we would have gotten it right. The solution to this debate is to recognize that there are different translation philosophies, different goals and means by which to reach those goals, and the goal of the translator is to be consistent in achieving those goals. In all but one of his examples, our translation was the one required by our translation philosophy.<ref>Koinonia: [http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/11/ets-day-2-by-bill-mounce.html ETS Day 2] by Bill Mounce</ref>
</blockquote>


==Notes==
==Notes==

Revision as of 06:38, 23 November 2012

English Standard Version
File:Apocrypha.JPG
Full nameEnglish Standard Version
AbbreviationESV
Complete Bible
published		2001 (revisions in 2007 and 2011)
Derived fromRSV—1971 Revision
Textual basisOT:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Septuagint influence.
Deutero./Apoc.: Göttingen Septuagint, Rahlf's Septuagint and Stuttgart Vulgate.
NT: 83% correspondence to Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition.[1][verification needed]
Translation typeFormal Equivalence
Reading level10.0[2]
Version revision2007, 2011
PublisherCrossway Bibles
CopyrightCopyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a ministry of the Good News Publishers of Wheaton, IL
Genesis 1:1–3
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible. It is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The translators' stated purpose was to follow an "essentially literal" translation philosophy while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages.[3]

History

Work on this translation was prompted, in the early 1990s, by what Dr. Lane T. Dennis stated was a need for a new literal translation by scholars and pastors.[4] A translation committee was formed, and sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV. About 6% was revised in the ESV.[5]

Translation philosophy

The stated intent of the translators was to follow an "essentially literal" translation philosophy while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages.[6]

Revisions

The ESV underwent a minor revision in 2007. The publisher chose not to identify the updated text as a second or revised edition. It was intended to replace the original ESV under the original name. Another edition which changed about 500 words focused on grammar, consistency and clarity.[7] The most notable verse change was "wounded for our transgressions" to "pierced for our transgressions" in Isaiah 53:5, matching the NASB rendering.[7] This edition was issued in April 2011.[7] The 2007 edition has been gradually phased out in its favor.

Editions

Apocrypha

The publisher cites the fact that the ESV "has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars, clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations."[This quote needs a citation] An edition of the ESV with the Biblical apocrypha was developed by Oxford University Press and published in January, 2009.[8][verification needed] The publisher's hope for this new edition with Apocrypha is that it will be used widely in seminaries and divinity schools where these books are used in academic study.[9][verification needed]

The books of the Protestant apocrypha are called the deuterocanonical books or anagignoskomena by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. They are not to be confused with writings called "apocrypha" by Catholics and Orthodox, such as 1 Enoch, 4 Esdras, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.[citation needed] The ESV version is a revision of the Revised Standard Version 1977 Expanded Edition. The team translating the Apocrypha includes Bernard A. Taylor, David A. deSilva, and Dan McCartney, under the editorship of David Aiken.[8][verification needed] In the edition including these books, they are printed and arranged in the order of the RSV and NRSV Common Bibles.

Textual basis

For the Apocrypha, the Oxford translating team relied on the Göttingen Septuagint for all of the Apocrypha except 4 Maccabees (relying there on Rahlf's Septuagint) and 2 Esdras (the Ancient Greek of which has not survived), which used the German Bible Society's 1983 edition Vulgate.[8]

Use

The ESV has been used as the text of a number of study Bibles, including the Scofield Study Bible III (an update and revision of the classic dispensational premillennialist Scofield Reference Bible),[10]

Criticism

Mark L. Strauss has defended gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the TNIV, NLT and NRSV, and is a member of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation.[11] Strauss argues that the ESV uses similar gender-inclusive language, and wrote, “What is odd and ironic is that some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV”. Strauss has also suggested that criticism against competing Bible translations to the ESV is contrived for marketing purposes. ESV translator Wayne Grudem has responded that, while on occasion the ESV translates "person" or "one" where previous translations used "man", it keeps gender-specific language where that is in the original, so it does not go as far as gender-inclusive translations such as the TNIV and NRSV;[12] and the ESV web site makes a similar statement.[13]

Strauss has also criticized the ESV for what he calls "Biblish", which, he says, "is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually speak", and considers the ESV, like other formal-equivalent versions, to be "a good supplement" to dynamic or periphrastic versions, but "unsuited as a standard Bible for the Church" or for main use. He goes on to state, "This is because the ESV too often fails the test of 'standard English'".[14] This weakness that Strauss identifies is considered a strength of the ESV and other literal translations by proponents of that methodology, emphasizing that it reminds readers of the Bible's strangeness, coming from a world thousands of years gone, by not fitting it to grade-school English - when the texts themselves are not always grammatical - and modern Western sociocultural sensibilities, such as feminism and the pursuant gender-neutral debate; and that it also allows for more transparency to the source texts, requiring less interpretation on the part of translators, with the goal of leaving as much semantic vagueness as the original texts possess visible to the reader in translation, not arbitrarily closing off exegetical choices to the reader at the level of translation.[15]

There have been attempts to formulate lists of translation issues in the ESV. Bible translator and linguist Wayne Leman has compiled a list of what he considers to be translation problems in the ESV.[16] Meanwhile, at the 2008 gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mark L. Strauss presented a paper entitled "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version: How to Make a Good Translation Much Better"[14] in which he detailed his view of the most common "translation errors" of the ESV. He states in the opening,

I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal-equivalent versions (RSV; NASB; NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”

William D. Mounce, the New Testament Editor of the ESV, responded briefly to Strauss on the Koinonia blog owned by Zondervan:

[Strauss] kept saying that the ESV has "missed" or "not considered" certain translational issues. While I am sure they were not intentional, these are emotionally charged words that do not help in the debate. They are in essence ad hominem arguments focusing on our competence (or perceived lack thereof) and not on the facts. He was not in the translation meetings and does not know if we in fact did miss or did not consider these issues. Time and time again Mark said that if we made a change, then we would have gotten it "right." This, of course, is not a helpful way to argue because it implies there is only one "right" way to translate a verse. His solution appeared to be that we should adopt a more dynamic view of translation, and then we would have gotten it right. The solution to this debate is to recognize that there are different translation philosophies, different goals and means by which to reach those goals, and the goal of the translator is to be consistent in achieving those goals. In all but one of his examples, our translation was the one required by our translation philosophy.[17]

Notes

  1. ^ Clontz (2008, Preface) ranks the English Standard Version in sixth place in a comparison of twenty-one translations, at 83% correspondence to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed.
  2. ^ Rose Publishing 2006
  3. ^ "Introduction", Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Crossway, 2007
  4. ^ Crossway Staff 2006
  5. ^ Strauss, p. 1
  6. ^ Crossway Bibles 2011, p. VII
  7. ^ a b c Dennis 2011
  8. ^ a b c Oxford University Press 2009, p. 1177
  9. ^ Oxford University Press 2012
  10. ^ Scofield Study Bible III. Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-19-527875-0.
  11. ^ "About the New International Version Bible". Biblica. Retrieved 14 November 2011.
  12. ^ "TNIV Debate Between Wayne Grudem and Mark Strauss" (PDF).
  13. ^ Gender Issues, ESV web site
  14. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference strauss was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference tt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ ESV Links, see heading "ESV translation problems, noted by Wayne Leman"
  17. ^ Koinonia: ETS Day 2 by Bill Mounce

References

  • ESV Bible, Crossway, 2010, retrieved 2012-11-21
  • Johnson, S. Lewis (1953), "The Revised Standard New Testament", Bibliotheca Sacra, 110: 62–65
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Standard_Version&oldid=524463844"