English Standard Version

[Big Chris]

As someone who prefers the RSV translation, I'm also interested in the modern "update" - the English Standard Version.  However, this version is particularly clouded by accusations of Protestant bias, which seems supported by its market share of overall sales.  Outside of the Evangelical camp, this version seems to be distrusted even though certain others have amply demonstrated its accurate, literal and cohesive translation philosophy.  The accusations of Protestant bias, then, seem rather unsupported.  Are such accusations being made not because of any actual bias but due to the resulting translation philosophy not favoring a particular ideological/religious position?  Or is it merely due to wanting to place distance between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals as a way of keeping our identities distinct?  Or is it something else? 

I've researched some of the many "which English Bible translation do you prefer" threads both here and on several of Orthodox and even Roman Catholic forums.  While my search has been less than scientific and no statistics can be provided, based on the "eye-ball test" alone, it's easy to see that this version still has not yet received widespread acceptance among these two groups.  This, in part, seems to be the result of groupthink.  Among Orthodox, the KJV or NKJV translations receive the most usage and acclaim while, among RCs, it's the Douay-Rheims and RSV-CE.  Clearly, translation philosophy is not the sole determinant.  Orthodox rely on the KJV due to the translators' reliance upon Byzantine texts and the NKJV due to not only it being a revision of the KJV but also because it has been incorporated into the OSB.  Roman Catholics seems to prefer the Douay-Rheims due to it being a translation of the Vulgate and the RSV-CE due to it being the translation of choice for English translations of the Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI's writings.

Can the modern objections to the ESV, then, be sustained?  Is there truly any basis to our resistance against this version as an Evangelical corruption?

[Iconodule]

It uses the RSV's stupid "steadfast love," so I just pass it over automatically.

[Achronos]

^ NBD

http://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102

It's really good. Now if Oxford could integrate the Apocrypha at the end of the OT or follow the Orthodox sequencing of OT books, it would be my goto.

[Asteriktos]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Do you really think the average person is making their choice of translation based on what manuscripts it uses? And while translation philosophy may come to play, it only happens in a round about way. With the KJV, for example... people like it because they grew up with it, or because most of the biblical phrases that have made their way into western culture are from it, or because they think it sounds more reverent, or it's the first one they learned, or they associate it with stability or tradition or being rooted in history. Ask most people what Textus Receptus is and they'd just as likely guess that it's the name of a dinosaur; Nestle-Aland, on the other hand, is obviously the person who started that food company.

[HouseOfGod]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Do you really think the average person is making their choice of translation based on what manuscripts it uses? And while translation philosophy may come to play, it only happens in a round about way. With the KJV, for example... people like it because they grew up with it, or because most of the biblical phrases that have made their way into western culture are from it, or because they think it sounds more reverent, or it's the first one they learned, or they associate it with stability or tradition or being rooted in history. Ask most people what Textus Receptus is and they'd just as likely guess that it's the name of a dinosaur; Nestle-Aland, on the other hand, is obviously the person who started that food company.

[Big Chris]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Do you really think the average person is making their choice of translation based on what manuscripts it uses?

If by average, though, you mean Ma and Pa in the pulpit who are looking to have the word of Jesus on the coffee table, then I more than agree.  In fact, that is the crux of the OP if you read closely enough.  While I mention translation philosophy as a factor for choosing/rejecting the ESV, evidence suggests that its popularity is due to a more sustained intra-ecclesial top-down sociological phenomenon - or "If it's good enough for Pastor Ron, it's good enough for me."

I consider myself average, though, and yes, translation philosophy matters a great deal to me as does the integrity of the manuscripts.  This is why I've always gravitated towards the RSV lineage.  Using a standard such as "average" is incredibly relative.

And while translation philosophy may come to play, it only happens in a round about way. With the KJV, for example... people like it because they grew up with it, or because most of the biblical phrases that have made their way into western culture are from it, or because they think it sounds more reverent, or it's the first one they learned, or they associate it with stability or tradition or being rooted in history. Ask most people what Textus Receptus is and they'd just as likely guess that it's the name of a dinosaur; Nestle-Aland, on the other hand, is obviously the person who started that food company.

No real argument there.  As I mentioned, groupthink is a major factor in choosing a translation.  Not to mention price.  When forced to pay the bills and answering a call for a personal relationship with Jesus, I'd gladly buy the $.50 ESV Outreach NT versus anything else.

We all have our reasons for choosing/rejecting a specific version of the Bible; however, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic rejection of the ESV remains fairly consistent.  Are these reasons tenable?  This is where an issue of translation philosophy matters.  Or are the reasons for similar personal/social/cultural reasons that you highlight above?

[Achronos]

I don't understand how one could adopt the RSV and yet reject the ESV.

[Big Chris]

I don't understand how one could adopt the RSV and yet reject the ESV.

Which sort of begs the question:  Should we Orthodox (and Catholics) be adopting the RSV?

Let's save that for another thread, though.

[JamesR]

I had an ESV but many parts of it did seem influenced by Protestantism and liberal theologians. For example, Bishop being replaced with 'Overseer' or 'Elder', the Lord's Prayer saying '...from evil,' rather than from 'the Evil one' and I believe it cuts out the 'Thine is the kingdom and thy power and thy glory' part. Slave is also translated to 'servant'. These all seem like marks of a very liberal theologian in the Protestant camp. All in all, I still prefer my NRSV because the translation philosophy is literalism instead of being biased by someone (usually Protestant's) preliminary theological presuppositions.

[sheenj]

and I believe it cuts out the 'Thine is the kingdom and thy power and thy glory' part.

There are two versions of the Lord's Prayer in the Bible. The one in the Gospel According to Matthew ends with "Thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory forever. Amen." versus the one in the Gospel According to Luke ends with "But deliver us from the evil one."

[Shanghaiski]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Do you really think the average person is making their choice of translation based on what manuscripts it uses? And while translation philosophy may come to play, it only happens in a round about way. With the KJV, for example... people like it because they grew up with it, or because most of the biblical phrases that have made their way into western culture are from it, or because they think it sounds more reverent, or it's the first one they learned, or they associate it with stability or tradition or being rooted in history. Ask most people what Textus Receptus is and they'd just as likely guess that it's the name of a dinosaur; Nestle-Aland, on the other hand, is obviously the person who started that food company.

Speak for yourself. If it's not Alexandrinus-Sinaiticus, it's not Orthodox.

[Shanghaiski]

I don't understand how one could adopt the RSV and yet reject the ESV.

Because the RSV is the Third Rome of English Bible translations. A fourth there simply cannot be.

[Asteriktos]

Speak for yourself. If it's not Alexandrinus-Sinaiticus, it's not Orthodox.

I was speaking for neither myself nor you. 

[PeterTheAleut]

I had an ESV but many parts of it did seem influenced by Protestantism and liberal theologians. For example, Bishop being replaced with 'Overseer' or 'Elder', the Lord's Prayer saying '...from evil,' rather than from 'the Evil one' and I believe it cuts out the 'Thine is the kingdom and thy power and thy glory' part. Slave is also translated to 'servant'. These all seem like marks of a very liberal theologian in the Protestant camp. All in all, I still prefer my NRSV because the translation philosophy is literalism instead of being biased by someone (usually Protestant's) preliminary theological presuppositions.

I'm curious why the NRSV. IIRC, this is the one version of the Bible whose liturgical use is NOT permitted in the OCA, precisely because of its theologically liberal, often gender-neutral language.

[Agabus]

Translation philosophies, broken down for philistines and dummies like me:



Source.

[Gamliel]

Translation philosophies, broken down for philistines and dummies like me:



Source.

That is a very good map.  Thanks for posting it.  As all can see, there is a plethora of translations.  They are all translations, so use the one you are comfortable with and do not worry about what others use.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Reviews > Topic: English Standard Version