Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Monday February 4, 2008

The Beauty of a Good Translation

I love language and the English language in particular. While I have always enjoyed using words and studying language, I found that my love of English was forged during the time I spent studying other languages, primarily those from which English is derived—Latin, Greek, and to some extent, French. I also studied linguistics and, of course, the English language itself. I came to love understanding how people use words to craft ideas. There is a good reason that people continue to study Shakespeare in high school despite increasingly antiquated language. Shakespeare was a master of the language, a master word crafter, and it benefits anyone to learn from his example. The same is true of Dickens or any other number of authors. What I learned is that words are important. Who would want to read a modern translation of Shakespeare? We would be left with nothing but a second-rate story. And an author’s words are important. That may come as no great surprise and may even seem obvious, but the translators of dynamic equivalent translations would have to disagree, at least somewhat, as their translation philosophy proves that they feel ideas are more important than words.

Whenever I take the time to read the Bible slowly and meditatively, and this is particularly true of reading the Old Testament, I am struck by the beauty of the language as it is translated in the English Standard Version, my translation of choice. While I do not know how to read Hebrew, I often hear people speak of the poetic nature of the language which leads even the prose to have poetic qualities. It seems to me that the ESV does an admirable job of capturing that. The same cannot be said of all Bible translations. I have come to love the little literary devices, the metaphors and phrases used by the ancient writers and find that they add so much to the reading of the text. Without a translation that accurately rendered these sayings we would lose so much of the flow and meaning of the text.

There is so much beauty in the prose of the Old Testament and I am thankful to have access to a translation (and to several translations, really) that accurately renders the metaphors and phrases used by the original authors. Let me provide you with a few examples. I am going to use the ESV as my standard essentially-literal translation. I do this not necessary to indicate that it is superior to the others within the category, but simply because it is the translation I use for my devotional and study work.

Let’s begin with 1 Kings 2:2 where King David gives his final wishes to his son Solomon. The ESV renders this “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man.” The other essentially literal translations agree with this translation as the NASB, KJV and NKJV are all very similar. There are two constructs here that I feel are essential to the text. “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” and “show yourself a man.” Let’s see how several other common translations render this particular verse:

  • “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man.” (NIV)
  • “I am going where everyone on earth must someday go. Take courage and be a man.” (NLT)
  • “My son, I will soon die, as everyone must. But I want you to be strong and brave.” (CEV)
  • “I’m about to go the way of all the earth, but you—be strong; show what you’re made of!” (Message)

As we see, the NIV renders the verse in a way that is consistent with the original text. The NLT deviates a little bit, expanding the meaning of “the way of all the earth” to “where everyone on earth must someday go.” It also says, “be a man” rather than “show yourself a man.” The CEV further interprets the verse, removing any sort of literary device in both parts. The Message does a little better, maintaining the first half of the verse but removing the “show yourself a man.”

What is lost in the NLT and the CEV is the metaphor “the way of all the earth.” It is an important term, beautifully poetic, and surely one that is worth some time in meditation. There is a depth of meaning to that phrase that is clearly missing in words like “I will soon die, as everyone must.” Readers of the NLT and CEV have no access to this phrase and miss out on the wonderful opportunity to meditate upon it and learn from it.

Another example comes only one verse later. 1 Kings 2:3 continues David’s instruction to his son. David exhorts Solomon to follow God and “walk in His ways.” The ESV translates the verse as “…and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn.” Let’s see how other translations render “walking in his ways.”

  • “…and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go,” (NIV)
  • “Observe the requirements of the LORD your God and follow all his ways. Keep each of the laws, commands, regulations, and stipulations written in the law of Moses so that you will be successful in all you do and wherever you go.” (NLT)
  • “Do what the LORD your God commands and follow his teachings. Obey everything written in the Law of Moses. Then you will be a success, no matter what you do or where you go.” (CEV)
  • “Do what GOD tells you. Walk in the paths he shows you: Follow the life-map absolutely, keep an eye out for the signposts, his course for life set out in the revelation to Moses; then you’ll get on well in whatever you do and wherever you go.” (Message)

The term “Walking in his ways” is a wonderful metaphor for living a life that honors God. We seek to emulate Him by following carefully in the footsteps of God. I am reminded of a song by the Smalltown Poets, “Call me Christian,” where they sing, “As a boy I’d put my steps / In my brother’s bigger tracks / To match his stride / And just like that I follow Jesus / Jesus is my guide.” That type of imagery is absent from the New Living Translation as well as the CEV. The Message is quite close and the NIV is, once again, accurate.

Moving along we come to 1 Kings 2:9. David asks Solomon to exact revenge against Shimei, a man who had cursed David. “Now therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.” The metaphorical phrase here is “bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.” Again, this is a wonderfully descriptive phrase that has more meaning than simply “kill.” Yet several translations provide only this meaning.

  • “But now, do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.” (NIV)
  • “But that oath does not make him innocent. You are a wise man, and you will know how to arrange a bloody death for him.” (NLT)
  • “Now you must punish him. He’s an old man, but you’re wise enough to know that you must have him killed. (CEV)
  • “But neither should you treat him as if nothing ever happened. You’re wise, you know how to handle these things. You’ll know what to do to make him pay before he dies.” (Message)

The NIV does a good job, only changing Sheol to grave. The NLT writes about a bloody death. This seems to miss the point for the verse is not primarily concerned with the mode of death, but with the reason for the death. The Message misses the mark altogether. Neither the NLT, the CEV or the Message see fit to render the word “grey” or “hoary” (as the King James renders it). Is that not a word God placed in the text? Is it not an important word? I do not understand why they would knowingly remove a word God saw fit to include.

One of the most beautiful and oft-repeated phrases in the Old Testament is found in 1 Kings 2:10. “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.” Several essentially literal translations render “slept” as “rested” but the meaning remains the same. The Bible Knowledge Commentary says of this verse, “The picturesque phrase rested with his fathers beautifully describes David’s death and suggests that his activity did not cease forever. Indeed, the bodies of all believers who die simply ‘rest’ until they are resurrected to live with God and serve Him eternally.” David entered a temporary rest as he, along with the rest of Creation, awaits the final consummation. Here is how other translations render that verse:

  • “Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David.” (NIV)
  • “Then David died and was buried in the City of David.” (NLT)
  • “David was king of Israel forty years. He ruled seven years from Hebron and thirty-three years from Jerusalem. Then he died and was buried in Jerusalem.” (CEV - combines verses 10-11)
  • “Then David joined his ancestors. He was buried in the City of David.” (Message)

The NIV remains consistent with the text. The NLT and CEV say simply that David died. The Message extends the verse by saying that David joined his ancestors, something that is a bit of a stretch but at least somewhat true to the meaning of the verse. The NLT and CEV do not allow their readers to see the beauty of “resting with his fathers.” Instead, David simply died. What a tragic loss! Readers of these translations will not see any hope beyond the grave. They will not know that David has gone to be with his fathers and that he is merely resting. Once more, are these not words that God deliberately placed in the text? Should readers not have access to them?

In 1 Kings 2:12 Solomon has assumed his father’s throne. In fact, according to an essentially literal translation, “Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established.” While the meaning of the phrase “sat on the throne of David his father” is clear, meaning that Solomon succeeded his father as ruler, there is an interesting sense of continuity in the original words. Doing more than simply replacing his father, Solomon actually assumed his throne. This may seem a small distinction, but I feel it is important nevertheless. It is similar to verse 3 (above) where David exhorted Solomon to walk in God’s ways. Now Solomon is sitting on his father’s throne. Let’s see how other translations have rendered this verse:

  • “So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his rule was firmly established.” (NIV)
  • “Solomon succeeded him as king, replacing his father, David, and he was firmly established on the throne.” (NLT)
  • “His son Solomon became king and took control of David’s kingdom.” (CEV)
  • “Solomon took over on the throne of his father David; he had a firm grip on the kingdom.” (Message)

Once more the translations are varied with the NIV being most literal and the CEV straying furthest from the text. The NLT, CEV and Message see fit to explain the verse while the NIV, along with the essentially literal translations, leave the words as they are. Through reading a literal translation we can picture Solomon ascending his father’s throne and taking over his responsibilities. This imagery is foreign to the dynamic equivalent translations.

Examples multiply as I read the Bible. I love these little literary constructs and love to think about them. They offer more than meets the eye and there is reward in doing the work of understanding them. I’ve also found that they provide wonderful “teachable moments” where I can ask my children what they might mean. They require thought and meditation.

I am grateful that I have access to such a solid translation of Scripture. While I do not know Hebrew, I still have access to an accurate translation of the author’s original words, complete with the phrases, words and metaphors that set one author apart from another. I have access to the full meaning, or as close as I can come without access to the original language, of what was written so long ago. I simply can’t understand how anyone would be satisfied with anything less.

Amazon

Comments (44) »


1. Scott D. Andersen
February 4, 2008
10:22 AM

Maybe here is your motivation to study Hebrew so you can appreciate even more the Word of God. Your article is challenging me in that direction. If possible I, myself, would dearly love having the ability and access to the original Hebrew which would provide an avenue of meditating on the very words of God. A good translation is a great gift indeed! How much more access to the very language from which the translation was made. Henry Martyn missionary to India and Persia expressed in his Journals and Letters the great joy and delight he found meditating on the Hebrew Psalms.

Thanks for the serious challenge you make.

sda


2. Matt Monge
February 4, 2008
11:11 AM

I too enjoy the ESV as my preferred version, in part due to the issue you just discussed. I’m able to confidently consult the ESV, knowing they’ve not taken liberties with the text that they ought not. I agree with you in that I think it’s important for us to note the literary devices that are used by the ancient writers, as this can and will illuminate passages to us in a deeper and more meaningful way. The challenge, then, is to study these literary devices, recognize them in the text, and identify the purpose of their employment in a given passage.


3. Josh
February 4, 2008
11:13 AM

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts. The ESV is a good translation. Have you ever considered the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) translation?

I think that it has almost all of the strengths of the ESV, without the weaknesses.

The verses you quoted in the ESV are:

1 Kings 2:2 As for me, I am going the way of all of the earth. Be strong and brave,

1 Kings 2:3 and keep your obligation to the LORD your God to walk in His ways and to keep His statutes, commandments, judgments, and testimonies. This is written in the law of Moses, so that you will have success in everything you do and wherever you turn,

1 Kings 2:9 So don’t let him go unpunished, for you are a wise man. You know how to deal with him to bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood.”

1 Kings 2:10 Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.

1 Kings 2:12 Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his kingship was firmly established.

These verses are fairly similar to the ESV and include many of the things you like.

There are some areas where the ESV is terrible though. They use tons of inverted negatives and some really archaic English. My biggest peeve is when it translates something, “Would that …”

Examples include:
Rev 3:15 I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

Luke 12:49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!

Judges 9:29 Would that this people were under my hand! Then I would remove Abimelech. I would say to Abimelech, ‘Increase your army, and come out.

These same verses in the HCSB are:

Rev 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot.

Luke 12:49 I came to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already set ablaze!

Judges 9:29 If only these people were in my power, I would remove Abimelech.” So he said to Abimelech, “Gather your army and come out.”

Another thing the ESV really struggles with is inverted negatives, such as:

Gen 21:12 But God said to Abraham, “*Be not* displeased …
Gen 49:6 Let my soul *come not* into their council …
Prov 26:4 *Answer not* a fool according to his folly…

These passages do not follow modern English grammar. They should say: “Do not be displeased”, “Do not come”, and “Do not answer”. The ESV could have been just as literal and used better English. The HCSB doesn’t have nearly as many of these issues.

Another disadvantage of the ESV (in my opinion at least), is that it comes from the KJV tradition. Don’t get me wrong, the KJV has been used by God in a mighty way. However, some of the translations descended from it are wary of rendering a verse more accurately even with ample evidence. The best example of this is John 3:16.

In the KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In the ESV: 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 main problem is the phrase “so loved”. People take this to be an intensifier of the love God had for the world. i.e. “God really, really loved the world”. The Greek word translated “so” actually means “in this way” or “in this manner”.

Hence, John 3:16 in the HCSB becomes: For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

The ESV is a good translation. However, I think that there are other translations (like the HCSB) that share most of its strengths, without nearly as many of its negatives. If anyone is interested in finding out more about the HCSB, there is a great interview about it here:

anwoth.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/interview-with-dr-ed-blum-general-editor-for-the-hcsb/

The HCSB has a few issues also (which will hopefully be addressed in the 2009 update), but I think it is a translation worth checking out.

I will now step off of my soapbox and end this really long comment.


4. Josh
February 4, 2008
11:16 AM

Oops. That full web address (broken into two pieces) is:

anwoth.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/
interview-with-dr-ed-blum-general-editor-for-the-hcsb/


5. Ryan
February 4, 2008
11:16 AM

My translation of choice for years has been the NASB. Recently, however, I’ve heard a lot of praise for the ESV. What difference, if any, do you see between the two translations and why all of the excitement around the ESV?


6. Karen in Wichita
February 4, 2008
11:17 AM

I bought a really cheap paperback ESV a couple of years back, and have liked it well enough I really need to get around to buying something sturdier.

A week ago last Sunday they handed out Faith Comes By Hearing CDs with (IIRC) the NIV translation, and their “KIDZ Bible” in NIrV, which I hadn’t heard before. Our seven-year-old is up through Psalms, and while it’s a very accessible (fourth-grade reading level) version, it… um… lacks poetry.

(It’s also not doing anything for his accent: he’s just come from listening through audio books of Paddington Bear, of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Alice in Wonderland, and one other I can’t remember, all read by British readers, as are about half the parts of the KIDZ Bible. He’s picked up bits of the accent(s), which mingle interestingly with his Wichitan accent…)


7. Matt Monge
February 4, 2008
11:26 AM

Ryan, I think you’d find the ESV to be a little more readable, for lack of a better term. The NASB, in comparison to the ESV, comes off a little wooden. That said, I use the NASB very regularly as well.


8. MrPages
February 4, 2008
12:13 PM

Tim, you’re comparing apples to oranges. You’ve just looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica and written a post on how it is obviously far superior to the “Usborne Children’s Guide to Stuff!” and “Popular Mechanics Magazine”.

The CEV is written at a grade four reading level. It deliberately avoids “terms and grammatical constructions were likely to be misunderstood by people who heard texts being read aloud.” Slamming it for not using a phrase like “going the way of all the earth” to show the superiority of your chosen translation is simply irresponsible. It didn’t avoid that phrase out of neglect, it was deliberate.

The Message is similarly focussed. It’s just not designed to be a study bible. If you want scripture to study word for word, or to see the underlying structures of the Hebrew, then get a translation designed to show them.

If you are deeply studying the Word out of the CEV or the Message at a “looking for Hebrew structures” level, you ought to have our head examined, and the writers of those translations would agree. They simply aren’t designed for it, they have other purposes. You can argue the need or lack of need for simplified or understandable or relevant scripture translations all you want (I’m not really supporting them here) but at least give them the respect of treating them like they were intended to be treated: as aids to getting people who don’t have the education or interest in scriptures interested in them.

If you want to slam a translation that is designed for study for not doing it well, then fine. Writing an article on how your Ferrari beats a school bus and a minivan and concluding that your Ferrari is the best vehicle is just cheap.


9. RDB
February 4, 2008
1:20 PM

My question, MrPages (#8) is why we need so many translations written at a Gr4 level. It doesn’t speak very well of our literacy or our dedication when most translations are aimed at people with elementary reading skills.

And also, The Message and CEV may be intended as you say, but they aren’t exactly marketed to 4th graders. They are displayed side by side with ESVs etc and essentially directed at the same market so in that sense I think its fair to compare. It’s not exactly “apples to oranges” when we’re comparing translations of the same text.

Ultimately your complaint further reflects negatively on the CEV etc because it provides further indication that the CEV and the Message are further removed from the original texts than the ESV. Hence the CEV is OK in its place but for a serious study of the Word it is not enough on its own.

Ultimately, I don’t think your use of the word “slam” is entirely accurate (indeed, its a little more inflammatory than necessary). It’s not “slamming” to provide a reasoned comparison and point out perceived inferiorities and superiorities. “Slamming” would involve putting down or belittling the alternative translation, which I certainly can’t perceive in Tim’s article. The CEV or similar translations can serve useful purpose in communicating truth to people in an understandable way.


10. Rob
February 4, 2008
1:40 PM

Mr. Challies, I really enjoy your discussions on this subject. I’ve found the same pleasant reading since I got my ESV a couple of years ago. Your grasp of the differences really challenges me to pay more attention to wording differences in the different translations.

Josh, I can see your point, but disagree. I think these two uses of the language really bring color and poetic quality to the Scriptures. “Would that” and the use of inverted negatives appeal to me. I use them in my own poetry, and they really appeal to my sense of imagery. I think it’s probably a sense of personal aesthetics, depending on the individual’s taste.


11. MrPages
February 4, 2008
2:10 PM

“It doesn’t speak very well of our literacy or our dedication when most translations are aimed at people with elementary reading skills.”

Which is a problem with literacy levels more than it is with scripture. 45% of the American population reads at a level 1 (barely literate) or level 2, according to the National Institute for Literacy. Considering that these lower reading level Bibles will reach 45% of the Adults plus 100% of the children, it’s not hard to see why they exist.

They are marketed side-by-side with study Bibles, and I wholeheartedly agree that it’s a problem, but the problem lies with marketing and profit over all. But let’s not get into the whole issue of the Christian marketplace, shall we?

“CEV is OK in its place but for a serious study of the Word it is not enough on its own.” I don’t see that as negative at all. It’s precisely the reason that the CEV was created. Again, if you want to argue the fact that these translations should or shouldn’t exist, that’s another post.

This post was trying to compare a study bible to a non-study bible, and in my opinion (which is where we differ) came out very condescendingly on the non-study bibles for the sole crime of not being study bibles.


12. don bryant
February 4, 2008
2:19 PM

Gee, I know Hebrew and am still stuck on the Living Bible - no the New Living Translation but the 1960s Living Bible. If my seminary finds out (Westminster) they will take my degree back. In fact, I think I should turn myself in. I think one of my biggest goofs in ministry was to try to turn the Bible into high literature with so many nuances that everyone ends up scratching their heads.


13. Randy
February 4, 2008
2:27 PM

In some ways I do agree with MrPages, that the comparison of CEV to ESV is not entirely fair when considering the original intent of the translators to create a 4th grade reading level Bible. The real question is why translators would intend that.

But, RDB is spot on about the marketing. It is indeed sad to see that so many adult Christians need a 4th grade translation and harks back to Hebrews 5 with the solid food/milk analogy. It is especially difficult for me when I see that my pastor, when he actually uses scripture in his sermons, quotes the NLT and uses it for study as well.

I personally don’t see the need for so many translations, especially those marketed to adults with such low reading levels. It may seem unfair to adults who did not have the ability to receive the education I did, but that is easily overcome by regular exposition of scripture by pastors and teachers in the church. Even Paul expected the Gentiles to know and understand OT Jewish law.


14. Wayne Leman
February 4, 2008
2:34 PM

Hi Tim. You wrote:

I love language and the English language in particular. While I have always enjoyed using words and studying language, I found that my love of English was forged during the time I spent studying other languages, primarily those from which English is derived—Latin, Greek, and to some extent, French. I also studied linguistics and, of course, the English language itself. I came to love understanding how people use words to craft ideas.

Tim, I love language as well, and, like you, English in particular. And my love for English has been forged through the same kind of literary experience as yours. I am a linguist by profession. I am also an English editor. I write poetry. I love metaphor and other figures of speech, both in the Bible or in other literature.

On the basis of a background similar to yours, I come to a very different conclusion from you. I do not find the language of the ESV beautiful. In fact, I find it off-putting. There are so many instances of unnatural English syntax, obsolete expressions, and simply awkward English. I have been studying English Bible versions for many years, including the ESV. I have interacted with Dr. Ryken, the stylist for the ESV, and have submitted several editorial suggestions to him for improving the quality of English in the ESV. He has told me that the ESV committee accepted some of my suggestions.

Clearly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect that I would agree with you about the beauty of much other literary English, including, of course, that of Shakespeare which you refer to. Shakespeare was a literary genius. His English was beautiful for its time and is still beautiful for those speakers of English today who can take the time to learn what Shakespeare is saying in the English of his time.

I could give hundreds of examples of English in the ESV which strike my literary soul as ugly, rather than beautiful, but other scholars who have reviewed the ESV have typically mentioned the major literary problems this well-intentioned version has.

I am glad that you find the ESV beautiful. But I fear that the ESV cannot really speak beautifully to a majority of native speakers of English today because it is not written in beautiful English literary language of today.

It would be wonderful if you could conduct some scientific surveys on your blog to find out what percentage of other native speakers of English consider a variety of wordings in the ESV to be beautiful or not. I’d be happy to help you design such a survey.


15. John
February 4, 2008
3:22 PM

Is the ESV really that much of an improvement over the KJV?


16. Scott D. Andersen
February 4, 2008
4:11 PM

To Josh in Post#3:

Your comments on Joh 3.16 were very good. And point out the need to be a close reader of the scripture and the great blessing of having access to the original language. Looking up the English word “so” it certainly contains the meaning of “in this manner” and the word corresponds well to the underlying Greek word. But reading without consideration could leave one with the misplaced idea you explained as in “so much:”

From answers.com
adv.

1. In the condition or manner expressed or indicated; thus: Hold the brush so.

From e-sword:
οὕτω
houtō
Thayer Definition:
1) in this manner, thus, so
Part of Speech: adverb


17. Bob AuBuchon
February 4, 2008
5:54 PM

The “Message” is a paraphrase, and should not be viewed as a translation.


18. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 4, 2008
8:21 PM

Is the ESV really that much of an improvement over the KJV?

Consider this comparison:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. - 2 Cor. 6:11-13 KJV

Any idea what in the world is being said here? Here are the same verses in the ESV:

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also. - ESV

Quite simply, the KJV uses archaic language, much of which has no relevant meaning today, some words of which have actually reversed in their meanings from what they meant in the KJV!


19. Jacob Lichner
February 4, 2008
8:34 PM

Great post Tim! The closer to the actual text a translation is, the better; and in response to MrPages, especially for our youth! We may teach at a fourth grade-level and produce fourth grade level bible resources, but who would dare subtract or add to the word of God? In saying that and if I may speak plainly, many of the translations mentioned are simply unacceptable and the Message in particular is not a translation at all, but a perversion. I say this for truth’s sake.

And in response to Josh… If only English could express Greek present participles more clearly… “so everyone who believes and continues to believe in Him will not perish…”


20. Scott D. Andersen
February 5, 2008
9:49 AM

Truly not trying to be argumentative, but to point out how we can be one-step removed from the original language thru a translation (I mean a translation choice for a particular phrase) that chooses to translate the sense more so than the words:

Greek for 2Cor 6.11 where ESV says: “We have spoken freely to you” is Τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν ἀνέῳγε πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Which literally: The mouth of us is opened (or ‘has opened’ - perfect tense as in another verse elsewhere the perfect tense is translated “It is written” instead of “it has been written”) towards you.

No where is there a greek word for “spoken” or “freely” so in this particular instance the ESV has removed us farther from the original words than the KJV. I believe part of the thrust of Tim’s article was the hope that the ESV does not do this but chooses more often than other translations to retain the “literary devices, the metaphors and phrases used by the ancient writers.”

Just submitting this for consideration. And reflecting upon this article and all of these comments does indeed raise my appreciation and gratitude for good translations.


21. Ivy
February 5, 2008
11:01 AM

I work for a Bible translation organization (Wycliffe Bible Translators) that helps people translate the Bible into many “lesser-known” languages around the world. There are an estimated 2,251 languages left in the world that still don’t have ANY translation of God’s Word. You can find out more about the work of these translations at www.wycliffe.org. I feel so blessed that I have access to so many different English translations that help me understand God’s message. I want to help other people also have the Bible in their “heart language.”


22. Will
February 5, 2008
6:23 PM

Tim, I agree with Wayne Leman above. I would also ask whether you’ve had any exposure to the CSB (HCSB). I was disappointed that your comparisons did not include the CSB.

Being a big fan of the CSB myself (and not much of a fan of the ESV), I read your post seeing it as comparing bad with good rather than best. It’s like saying that my wife’s diamond on her wedding ring is the best diamond in the world since it’s better than the fake one from the vending machine. Of course, compare it with the Hope diamond and things change quite a bit. The CSB is my Hope diamond of Bible translations. The ESV’s pretty good compared to the ones you use in your post; but compare it to the CSB, and it falls far short. Check it out; I think you’d like it.


23. carissa
February 5, 2008
7:19 PM

i take issue with a lot of the comments made here. reading hebrew so as to read “the very words of God”? what are us non-hebrew speakers reading, then? i just think it ascribes a false sense of authority in hebrew… in a way, there is since it’s in the autographs, but in another way, absolutely not! the word is just as authoritative in english or swahili. hebrew was not chosen for any special reason any more than the hebrew people were.

i also agree that the esv rendering of “the way of all the earth” is lovely in its poetry and perhaps ought to be translated that way because the poetic form says something as well as the content itself. but there are many other cases in which the esv might sound nice, but is less clear (as well as cases where the esv sounds plain silly, as the “would that” example cited above). the word of God does not have to sound archaic or be at a university reading level to be authoritative and powerful.

but the sociolinguistics of english bible translation is complex, because english was one of the first languages (post-middle ages, anyway) to have the bible in the vernacular, AND because the king james version was (and is) so pervasive and oft-quoted that it has influenced our very language as well as our perception of what the bible ought to be. the KJV was not written in extremely formal english but common english (as the NT was written in common greek). over time, as it was un-updated, it sounded more and more foreign until it became “bible-ese.” and now we have important verses, like john 3:16, that don’t even make sense to modern-day speakers! “God so loved the world that” sounds like “God loved the world so much that…” to moderns, but really it is intended to say, “God loved the world in this way: that he gave his only son.” (check the greek.)

anyway. enough of that tirade. i just think we shouldn’t be so snobby. i personally am glad that there is a version the average fourth-grader can understand (and it isn’t the esv).


24. MQ
February 6, 2008
2:00 AM

Carissa, the KJV wasn’t written in common English—at least not spoken common English. It was written in a somewhat archaic, artificial fashion, much more Latinate than the versions which preceded it. This was done, some think, because at that time the Bible was typically read aloud—preached from—and this style was suitable for declamation.

As for the ESV, in every example given by the OP it agrees with the NRSV. Setting aside the gender issue for a moment, while the NRSV is often lauded as a pinnacle of Biblical scholarship and style, the ESV is just as often derided as a linguistic atavism.


25. Scott D. Andersen
February 6, 2008
10:25 AM

Carissa and all, I am truly very very sorry for comments that were snobby and detracted from the authority of a faithful translation. Your point is well made that a faithful translation is authoritative and brings to us the Word of God. Thanks be to God who in his wonderful mercy and grace has made it possible for us to read in our own languages his precious Word. I don’t want to discourage anyone from the joy and comfort of the scriptures. I would like to acknowledge that the consideration of this article has encouraged me to be a better student of the scriptures and for me and many others far more so because more enabled that includes pursuing an understanding of the original languages. With God’s grace there is value and purpose in this pursuit as a service to my friends in Christ and my devotion to God. But there is a danger that this would lead to pride, arrogance, snobbery, foolishness - rather than humility and servanthood as you have well pointed out.

In the Westminister Confession I read the following concerning both translations and the original languages that might provide a reasoning for both a proper confidence in the original languages and the need for a faithful translation:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]


By the Grace of God striving to be an encourager,

sda


26. Steve T.
February 8, 2008
11:36 AM

My preferred English translation is the NRSV. It’s not perfect, but then, no translation is (heck, no ancient manuscript we have is perfect). One of the problems with the ESV is that in most academic circles it’s (derogatively) referred to as the Evangelical Standard Version. The fact is, non-evangelicals don’t use it and don’t think much of it.

My own assessment of it is that it is stronger in parts and weaker in others. I’m not that fond of the way the Psalter is rendered, for instance, and among contemporary versions, prefer the NLT for the Psalms and OT Wisdom Literature. I wonder, sometimes, if we need to be dogmatic in our churches about using only one translation when it may be preferrable to use multiple translations in some instances.

All that said, sometimes the best translations you’ll find are by commentators and other biblical scholars. My favorite translation of Genesis (as a whole) is by Robert Alter, who coincidentally, also does a great job on the Psalms.


27. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 8, 2008
4:34 PM

Steve, what do you think of the RSV?


28. tcgreek
February 9, 2008
12:06 AM

I’ve been an NASB user for sometime now. It has a special place in my heart, but if I were to recommend either the NASB or the ESV, I would recommend the ESV. Here’s why:

1. The ESV is generally more readable than the NASB.
2. The ESV is more textually consistent than the NASB (I know many would find this hard to believe, but it is the case). For example, the NASB translate porneia three different ways in Matthew: “unchastity,” “immorality,” and “fornication.” The ESV has faithfully rendered the Greek “sexual immorality.”

This, however, doesn’t mean that the ESV is the all-purpose or absolute Bible to use. I find the HCSB to be a more consistent and readable version than the ESV. For example, the ESV renders chesed “mercy” in Ps 23:6 while everywhere else it is rendered “steadfast love” in the Psalter.

The HCSB renders chesed as “faithful love” throughout the Psalter, even at Ps 23:6.

I cannot understand why the ESV didn’t render the future passives as they should in Matt 16:19. The HCSB succeeds here.

But I do like the ESV at Acts 2:42, being faithful the the definite articles in each case. The HCSB fails here.

And yes, I love the ESV at 1 Tim 2:1-7, rendering anqrwpoi in its various inflections as “people” over the HCSB “everyone” (see also 4:10). ESV winners in 1 Timothy.

Both are good translations of the word of God, serving different purposes.


29. F.D.Hunt
February 9, 2008
1:45 PM

Thanks for your Blog post, Tim, I, too, appreciate the “beauty” of the ESV, as well as the RSV, and KJV before it! What, however, I do not understand is the outrage, hostility and outright hatred displayed by the ESV “Bible Bashers”. You, know, those people who love the “so-called” modern translations, who run websites which seem dedicated to expending enormous amounts of energy railing against the ESV. Many of them lurk about the blogsphere looking for any positive comments concerning the ESV, and having found them; swoop in quickly to alert us of their disdain for it! All well and good, I suppose. After all, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion! But, why can’t they just “live and let live”? Why do they have to keep telling us how much they hate the ESV? We are so fortunate to have so many different translations. What we ought to be concerned about is the widespread “Biblical illiteracy” in this land, and not so much whose translation is superior. The burden of the mad rants and ravings of the “ESV Bible Bashers” is intolerable. Sometimes I wish that they would just shut-up and leave us alone! Everyone should be allowed and encouraged to the read the translation of their choice!

Let me say that I LOVE the ESV because it communicates to me in a style that I can remember – its words and phrases have a lasting impact and impression on me. I like its vocabulary, syntax, structure, and style. It’s memorable and familiar. I use all of the other translations as well: NIV, HCSB, NLT, NASB, NET, REB, NRSV, ASV, etc., etc.

But my two favorite translations are the ASV and the ESV. Here is what I am saying – just as, when it comes to ice cream, I like chocolate and vanilla, so when it comes to Bible translations – I like the ASV and the ESV. I will not begrudge you your “pistachio” or “cookies & cream” – you may have them, but I like what I like!

As far as my opinion of the modern translations, written in the lingo of the 21st century, “native” speaker of American English, I would describe many of them as: simple, plain, forgettable, unremarkable, bland, flavorless, colorless, ordinary, weak, dull, drab, cheap, boring, frivolous, dead, common, tasteless, un-inspiring, uninteresting, flippant, easy, graceless, basic, lifeless, low-budget, flat, unimaginative, temporary, and utterly disposable.

Nevertheless, these translations do, at least, accurately convey meaning, and for that I am grateful! But, I’m not as grateful for them, as I am for the ESV.


30. Steve T.
February 10, 2008
2:35 AM

Brian,

i like the rsv, but the nrsv is, in my opinion, an improvement. for one, the more contemporary language (changing the “thous” and “thees,” for instance) is helpful, but also, completely new renderings based on new manuscript evidence incorporated in Nestle-Aland (for the NT).

as far as i know the nrsv is still the only translation that you’ll find in eastern orthodox, roman catholic, and protestant churches (though, yes, rcc churches tend to use the NAB translation, not to be confused with the NASB).

that’s an issue i have w/ the HCSB, NASB, and ESV, as well as the (T)NIV—they just haven’t gotten much “play” outside evangelical circles. the HCSB, from what i understand, is an almost exclusively southern baptist-used translation. the ESV, for a while at least, was only used by reformed folk from westminster seminary (or with ties to it). that’s probably something of an over-exaggeration, but still to this day, i don’t know any non-evangelicals who use any of those translations listed above (not to mention the NLT and others). (about the only translation i’ve seen or heard of non-evangelical christians using apart from the NRSV/RSV is, interestingly enough, eugene peterson’s the message.)


31. Stephen
February 11, 2008
9:18 AM

Nicely done, Tim. You articulate one of the main reasons I switched to the ESV a couple of years ago. Another reason I love the ESV is I find in it a natural flow that lends itself well to memorization. In fact, I find it easier to memorize passages from the ESV than from the NIV. I think the NIV is an excellent translation, and I still use it often, but I’m glad to see that more and more churches are going to the ESV.


32. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 11, 2008
10:15 AM

Steve, I’m sure you are aware that the ESV is a revision of the RSV, just like the NRSV, one main difference being that the NRSV uses a gender neutral translation philosophy.

You also seem to be evaluating the NRSV on its widespread use rather than its accuracy.


33. Wayne Leman
February 11, 2008
1:16 PM

Setting aside the gender issue for a moment, while the NRSV is often lauded as a pinnacle of Biblical scholarship and style, the ESV is just as often derided as a linguistic atavism.

Neither the NRSV or ESV has English which would be considered good by English editors or English professors (I am an English editor and I have taught English in university). But the NRSV is an improvement upon the ESV in that the NRSV has very few, if any, inverted negatives. The NRSV has also moved the unnatural syntax of the RSV/ESV translations closer to natural English syntax, although there is still a long ways to go yet. Gender issues aside, it is not surprising that Bible scholars have widely adopted the NRSV for the text to use in academic courses on the Bible, while I have not yet heard of any academic courses taught which use the ESV as their text.

I think it would be good for all of us to relax, breathe deeply a few times, and try to look at these translation issues as objectively as possible. It is also important to do as many objective comparisons as possible, rather than making dismissive comments of any translation, based on one’s overall subjective opinions. I say again that I am glad that ESV advocates love the ESV. I am glad that they feel that it is a good translation. I am glad that they memorize it. (I memorized large parts of the KJV as I was growing up.)

But I call for us to think as objectively and clearly as possible about whether or not any Bible translation meets its purported goals. If it does not, then there is a wonderful opportunity to help improve it so that it does. That is why I contribute to English translation teams (including the ESV) noting areas where the English is lacking in good literary quality. I am grateful that the ESV team has taken my suggestions seriously. I am grateful that Dr. Ryken is the stylist for the ESV. He knows English well and recognizes that the ESV needs further revision. And so do many other members of the ESV team. That is why the ESV team meets to discuss and make revisions. May God bless them and every other Bible translation team that works to make ttheir translations even better.

For those who wish a version that follows the Colorado Springs Guidelines on gender language, the HCSB does as well as the ESV. But the HCSB has far better quality literary English. You can see some of my comparative studies at this website.


34. Steve T.
February 12, 2008
1:22 AM

Brian, Yes - I am aware that the ESV is a revision of the NRSV, but it is ostensibly an evangelical revision. And though I am an evangelical myself, that is my main problem with it. I read both biblical Greek or Hebrew so “accuracy” in an English translation, while obviously important, is not necessarily my primary concern. I also wouldn’t say that the ESV is more or less accurate than the NRSV. They are both products of diligent work done by first-rate biblical scholars. But, of course, scholars disagree (quite often, in fact) and this gets reflected in Bible translations.

At the end of the day I think most mainstream Bible translations are generally adequate for public and private use. What is, therefore, my main concern is ecumenical acceptance. It concerns me that evangelical presses continue to release new translations. You don’t find that sort of thing among mainline denominations and I wonder sometimes how much padding the bottom line plays into that. And why is it that non-evangelicals don’t use the ESV, HCSB, NLT, NASB, (T)NIV, et al.?


35. Josh
February 13, 2008
11:26 PM

I can’t believe what I just read. The ESV so soooo bad. It’s soooo archaic in it’s wording. Our Lutheran church had this translation shoved down its throat as the ultimate translation ever. We’re now considering dropping it. It’s hard to understand and the sentence structure of much of the verses don’t make sense sometimes. It’s a half-baked NASB. The NASB is better than this THING. It’s a re-treaded Revised Standard Version!!!! It’s a marketing hack!!


36. david
February 14, 2008
12:48 AM

Yeah, the ESV is terribly hard to understand. And it doesn’t have any pop-ups or pictures you can color, either. Or funny rhymes. It could really use some rhymes.

From Genesis—
The sun did not shine
it was too wet to play
So Moses climbed up
on Mt. Sinai one day.

From 1 Samuel—
Samuel:
I am Sam.
Here I am.

Eli:
That Sam I am, that Sam I am!
I did not call you, Sam I am!

Sorry, Josh, but really — you’ve got to be kidding. What, exactly, is hard to understand in the ESV? Can you give an example?


37. Josh
February 14, 2008
9:33 AM

YOU CHERRY PICKED SCRIPTURES

NO DIFFERENT THAN THE KING JAMES VESION IN MANY PLACES, IT’S A MAKETING HACK!!

Romans 16:7 (King James Version)
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Romans 16:7 (English Standard Version)
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

IN OTHER PLACES, ITS HARDER TO UNDERSTAND!!!!

John 1:18 (Today’s New International Version)
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 1:18 (English Standard Version)
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

THE HCSB, TNIV, NIV, NASB, Everything is better than this weed. THE ESV IS A WEED. I WANT OUR CHUCH TO DUMP IT SOOOO BAD. I HOPE IT DOES. ITS A RETREAD RSV


38. Josh
February 14, 2008
9:55 AM

ESV

29 For they shall be ashamed of the oaks
that you desired;
and you shall blush for the gardens
that you have chosen.
30For you shall be like an oak
whose leaf withers,
and like a garden without water.
31And the strong shall become tinder,
and his work a spark,
and both of them shall burn together,
with none to quench them.

HCSB

29 Indeed, they will be ashamed of the sacred trees
you desired,
and you will be embarrassed because of the gardens
you have chosen.

30 For you will become like an oak
whose leaves are withered,
and like a garden without water.

31 The strong one will become tinder,
and his work a spark;
both will burn together,
with no one to quench the flames.


39. david
February 14, 2008
10:16 AM

I’m still not seeing it, Josh. Those are pretty simple words.

I think your problem is that you don’t want the actual words of God, you want an explanation of those words. You don’t want a Bible, you want a Bible commentary.

Scripture is not always easy to understand, even when translated in simple terms, as the ESV is. Theologians work hard to understand it. Should it be easier for you and me?


40. ElShaddai Edwards
February 14, 2008
10:36 AM

[…] you don’t want the actual words of God, you want an explanation of those words.

Evidently you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the literalists’ spin that the ESV and other formal translations are “the actual words of God”. The only “actual words of God” exist in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic (assuming inerrant transmission). Every translation, whether formal or functional, is “an explanation of those words”. And because there is no 1:1 correspondence between the original languages and English, every English translation is an errant translation. There is always something lost in translation.


41. David
February 14, 2008
11:37 AM

I know quite well how translation works. I know that no translation is perfect. But a translation is supposed to be just that: a translation, not an interpretation. The fact that perfect translation is impossible does not relieve the translator of the responsibility to translate accurately. To do less is to deny that the actual words of God matter — which is what the authors of paraphrases and dynamic equivalents believe.


42. ElShaddai Edwards
February 14, 2008
12:26 PM

But a translation is supposed to be just that: a translation, not an interpretation.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you again. Translation is interpretation. Semantic interpretation and syntactic interpretation. Without linguistic interpretation, you end up with a mess of words that no native English speaker could possibly commend as beautiful (which was the point of this whole post). Unless perhaps you are thinking of theological bias in interpretation; but that’s not interpretation, that’s commentary.

To do less is to deny that the actual words of God matter — which is what the authors of paraphrases and dynamic equivalents believe.

Perhaps “the authors of paraphrases and dynamic equivalents” believe that “the actual words of God” carry semantic meaning and that it isn’t enough to make a syntactical translation of the words, but that the meaning must be accurately expressed in the idioms of the receiver language as well. Translating semantic meaning accurately is just as important a responsibility as translating syntactic word structures.


43. Josh
February 14, 2008
7:27 PM

There is a new movement out there. It follows after the King James is the only Word of God group. The new group is the ESV group. One of our Sunday school leaders was releaved from his post. He started to do the “open your ESVs to “. So arrogant. Half the students did not have one. The ESV people want it so criptic that it takes someone to interpret it for you. Why bother with a translation then. Just teach everybody Greek. The ESV people are the new King James cult!!! The ESV people are trying to start a WAR in our church!!!


44. David
February 14, 2008
8:09 PM

Josh, I don’t know what problems you’re having at your church, but that would be something to take up with the elders rather than grouse about to a bunch of strangers on a blog.

If you seriously think the ESV is “criptic [sic]” and hard to understand, you really need to try to raise your level of literacy. As I said before, you’re looking for an interpretation rather than a translation, and they are two different things. You need to be willing to do the hard work of 2Timothy 2:15.