אבנימ

I recently received an query from a friend who wanted my opinion on the ESV. Here is my reply:

The link which you sent seems to be a classic example of standard “King James only” rhetoric which has been burning in certain fundamentalist circles for decades. If this is the issue you wish to resolve, then I suggest you read “The King James Only Controversy” by James R. White in which the author fairly and ably refutes the KJV-only conspiracy theorists.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556615752/qid%3D1124247133/102-1695140-1292119

D.A. Carson’s book “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism” is also a good one.

Here is a downloadable 50-slide powerpoint file which presents White’s analysis in brief: http://69.49.233.15/KJV1.ppt
(This is worth taking the time to review, to gain a basic understanding of the controversy)

Here also is a list of links on the subject from a reformed site: http://www.solagratia.org/browseCategory.cfm?id=57

The main points of the arguments against KJV-only advocates are: They build their case upon false premises and circular reasoning, and that there is not an iota of difference in the doctrinal and practical results of sound exegesis, no matter what family of manuscripts or textual tradition you choose to favor. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that I, the Greek scholar, who has some knowledge of textual issues, up until recently have read the NKJV. Though I’m not a Textus Receptus or Majority Text advocate, I like the way that translation reads and there is absolutely no theological, doctrinal or practical reason not to use it.

As for Bible translations in general, I subscribe to the “literal equivalence” rather than the “dynamic equivalence” methodology of translation. The NIV is an example of the latter, the NASB of the former. While there are parts of the NIV which are excellent (Dr. Waltke’s translation of the Psalms), I have never approved of the NIV or recommended it because in general it is far too “loose” and the translators take too much interpretive burden upon themselves, in accord with their stated methodology. The NASB does a fine job of being faithful to the text, but most discerning English readers, myself included, find it rather wooden.

I started reading the ESV several months ago, and have also started using it occasionally in family worship. I have found it to be a very happy hybrid of the NIV and NASB. The translation committee’s stated methodology of translation is “literal equivalence” but they have succeeded, while being faithful to the texts, to produce a translation which on the whole flows well, and is quite readable. In comparisons I have done with specific texts I have never found the ESB to be less faithful than the NASB, but have more than once found it to make the text clearer and more readily comprehensible to the average English reader.

The only nit I have to pick is that they chose ‘rule’ over ‘statute’ e.g. “…the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether” There is nothing wrong with the translation per se, it’s just that that particular word seems to have some extra baggage for a lot of people. oh well…

I recommend it.