History of Translation Research Papers (original) (raw)

I need to say first of all that I like the English Standard Version (ESV). After all, the ESV is a moderate revision (about 6% I believe) of the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952), which itself was done by competent scholars. Like the New Revised Standard Version (also a revision of the RSV), the ESV generally makes good exegetical decisions. Both the ESV and NRSV also significantly improve the gender language of the RSV. 2 So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because 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 reading Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of "standard English." This paper is a constructive critique of the ESV and an encouragement for its committee to make a good translation much better by doing a thorough review and revision of its English style and idiom. Critical questions we will ask include: (1) Does this translation make sense? (2) If comprehensible, is it obscure, awkward or non-standard English? Would anyone speaking or writing English actually say this? A few clarifications are in order. First, as a Greek professor and a Bible translator, I am a strong advocate for using multiple Bible versions, especially those from across the translation spectrum. Both functional equivalent (idiomatic) and formal equivalent (literal) versions have strengths and weaknesses, and both are useful tools for students of the Word. Functional equivalent versions (NLT, NCV, TEV, CEV, GW, etc.) are helpful for communicating clearly, naturally and accurately the meaning of the text. Formal equivalent versions (KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, etc.) help to reproduce formal features of a language like metaphors, idioms, word-plays, allusions, ambiguities and structural markers. Mediating versions, which lie somewhere in the middle (NIV, [H]CSB, NET, NAB, NJB, REB, ISV, CEB), are a nice balance, retaining more formal features than functional equivalent versions but with more clarity than literal ones. I have addressed these issues in depth elsewhere and will not repeat them here. Concerning my personal experience, I have served on three translation committees and have consulted for a fourth. My desire is for all English versions to reproduce clearly and accurately the meaning and message of God's Word.