By succeed I mean that it is consistently used by a significant number of people...a Bible that's taken for granted the same way that a KJV or an NIV is.
Why the ESV Bible Will Succeed
1. Because the ESV has managed, by hook or crook, to connect with many critical people.
Critical people are pastors, authors, bloggers. Bloggers love the ESV. Bloggers LOVE the ESV. And if they don't, their dissenting posts rahing for the TNIV, NASB, whatever, simply fade into blogdom oblivion...unless, of course, someone says that the TNIV could be better than the ESV. Then, stand back!
2. The ESV blog.
This is very, very smart. This is the future of how people will get all of their news. Their generous habit of mentioning those who blog about their Bible has to help.
3. Those funky, crazy, hip covers.
The Journaling Bible, in my mind, personifies Crossways' grasp on what people like, what looks pleasing and snazzy to the modern eye. They just draw attention.
4. Its position, real or imagined, as an alternative to Mother-God translations of the Bible. Its position, true or untrue, as an alternative to brain-softening "dynamic equivalent" versions. The way that it's posed as the youthful, cool young child of the outdated, archaic NASB...but it still comes with all the classic words and phrases.
5. The fact that it is a good translation, in many aspects.
I have no trouble using a myriad of versions, but I find that the ESV manages to help carry the flow of a Biblical passage. The ands, buts, therefores---it helps to mantain a connectedness that I haven't really found in "easier" translations, which tend to break the Bible into smaller bites.
Why the ESV Bible Will Not Succeed
1. Crossway.
I'm really sorry, but when people who love your translation are begging you to sell it to another publisher because you're doing such a shoddy job, you need to sit up. Crappy bindings, lousy paper, lousy layout, the ridiculously small print in the Journaling Bible---people want to love their Bible for years, not have it collapse after one. That, as I've heard, is not uncommon.
2. Its opposition, real or imaginary, against the TNIV.
Look, brag about your translation all you want, but when one of your most prominent translators (WayneGrudemcoughcough) is on an all out campaign to destroy another Bible, you're going to get mixed up in it. Modern people are going to think that you're stupid when your biggest concern is that some nuance of essential maleness is lost when you say "people" instead of "men." They don't give a damn, and you come off sounding like a fuddy-duddy.
3. ESV, the Red-Headed Stepchild of the Bookstore
I think that it was on Dan Edelen's blog ceruleansanctum.wordpress.com, that the ESV first got this title. I have to agree. In all of the bookstores that I have visited, the only ESV that I see are some Tru-Tone thinlines, hidden in boring black and silver boxes, an ugly Battlezone Bible, or some beat up paperbacks. The only exception is the imposing Reformation Bible, which, by its very title, possess a limited market. Meanwhile, every other version has cheaper, more visible, and just MORE on the shelf.
4. The fact that it's a literal translation
People want to give their children something that they can understand. People want to be sure that the Bible they're sharing with a non-church person will make sense to them. The fact that the ESV retains classic terms, such as propitation, are great for the churchese speaking Christian. Not for those who just want to know what the hell this book is trying to say.
5. The fact that it's not used in many study Bibles
Right now, there's the Reformation study Bible. And the children's Bible, which looks very nice. Meanwhile, we have NO
ESV Open Bible
ESV Life Application
ESV Thompson Chain
ESV Women's Bible
ESV Men's Bible
ESV Teen's Bible (other than the 3Story)
ESV Study Bible(which I understand is coming soon)
ESV by Cambridge publishers
Lots of great covers, but they're all basically text editions.
So there you have it. Five reason why the ESV will, or will not succeed. Anyone have more suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
A reason why the ESV will not be adopted as a standard Bible as the NIV has been:
Because, in spite of claims by Crossway to the contrary, its English is really rather awful. No one speaks, let alone, writes, as the ESV is worded. Granted, the ESV got most of its poor English from the RSV, but the ESV revisers have had plenty of opportunity to put the RSV into English which could attract literary critics. The ESV only sounds good to those who are used to the KJV-RSV Bible sound.
I don't know if the TNIV will succeed. Grudem and some others on the ESV team have done such a hatchet job to the TNIV that it may never recover to gain the market share that the NIV had. But anyone who pays attention to whether or not a translation is truly worded in good quality contemporary literary English has to choose the TNIV over the ESV. And the TNIV is bettered in English quality by the NLT.
I've found that when I read the ESV out loud to someone younger, it is neccesary to translate the translation---and this is narrative passages from Acts, not deep theological stuff from Romans or Ephesians. I find myself grabbing an NIV, a Good News Bible, CEV, whatever.
I noticed that you liked the CEV---I don't care for it, but that's more personal taste than anything. Like I've said, I come from a KJV only background, so I still get forbidden thrills from the dangerous NIV---pathetic really. I wonder if Wayne Grudem feels the same way when he picks up TNIV...
I grew up on the KJV. It's the version I memorized, lots of it. It's what I still remember when I want to look up some wording in a concordance.
Though the ESV might be successful in the Reformed-Evangelical circles, it's lack of being ecumenically-minded might prohibit it from further success, something that its predecessor, the RSV, did well.
Ecumenicism is really just a fancy term for compromise and in some cases that compromise goes so far as to water down the true Gospel and to undermine the meaning of scripture.
Ecumenical, while it may carry connotations of compromise (heaved upon it by suspicious people) actually means (as defined by the OED)
1. Eccl. Belonging to or representing the whole (Christian) world, or the universal church; general, universal, catholic; spec. applied to the general councils of the early church, and (in mod. use) of the Roman Catholic Church (and hence occas. to a general assembly of some other ecclesiastical body); also assumed as a title by the Patriarch of Constantinople; formerly sometimes applied to the Pope of Rome.
OR
2. gen. Belonging to the whole world; universal, general, world-wide
There are other further meanings, but there's the gist of it. I refuse to allow another word to be kidnapped and misused.
OK, be still my quivering heart, my inner word freak is satisfied.
(don't worry about me, I just get like this sometimes)
yes, and besides the poor wording, the ESV is not much different from the RSV. The difference might be minimal, perhaps even comparable to the differences between the NASB 1977 and the update versions. I have written a new post comparing the similarities between the two: http://wordalone.blogspot.com/2007/04/tniv-vs-esv-who-is-winner.html
The TNIV has made more improvements and changes from the NIV. That is why I think the TNIV will be more successful than the ESV over time. But other things like its website, bible covers, etc. are kind of peripheral matters. What really matters is the quality inside--that is--the work that goe inside it.
I'd stay ten feet away from the ESV simply because of Wayne Grudem's endorsement/support of the ESV.
How does that old saying go? "you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas" - yea, I bet Crossway has quite an infestation right now...
I was just curious as to why your comments about the ESV Bible need to contain profanity.
I was just curious as to why your comments about the ESV Bible need to contain profanity.
Indeed the TNIV is an incredibly superior translation. I actually think it will catch on slowly because of the long international success of the NIV. People are gonna think it's a translation for youth or some such nonsense, just as it has taken a long long time to work out the KJV.
I do not always like the NRSV (NOT because of 'gender issues') but it is somewhat moving to read as it is the only english translation approved for use by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant use. I feel that the RSV was left behind too quickly as it was a beautiful piece of English (as was the KJV before it) but was created by a greater number of scholars with far superior texts and methods.
My family has had Christian Bookstores for over 35 years and I currently have a web store, BibleSurplus.com, that sells Bibles in bulk. In the last 3 months the ESV has grown exponentially in sales. I'm amazed by the increase. Does this say something?
LOVE the ESV. And have you seen the new ESV Study Bible? Terrific!
The ESV may not become the standard in the US, however in other anglophone countries where proper English is spoken the good quality of the text will be appreciated.
Succeeding in man's eyes (e.g., market share) isn't the measure we should be concerned about. Saving souls & bearing fruit for the kingdom are the measures we should be concerned about.
God's word is the seed that saves us:
"So faith comes from hearing & hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)
God's word not only leads us to salvation, but it shows us what is right, how to get & stay right & equips us for every work He has for us:
"... the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
And God's word gives us direction:
"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105)
This should have every Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ reading a literal translation. His actual word has power. That power is lost when we start reading man's intrepretation by thought or paragraph. It should have nothing to do with what is easier to read or "understand." We should have a hunger to hear from & dig in to His word not man's.
Remember Paul warned Timothy that people wouldn't listen to God's word. But he still told him to preach the word -- God's word. And the ESV is a literal translation of that word. Feed on it. Don't accept or perpetuate the watered down, powerless thought for thought or paraphrases.
Since your posting, There has been added an ESV Study Bible, The ESV One Year Bible, John MacArthur Study Bible, and the Cambridge Annotated Bible.
I like several translation that are available now. My experience has been that the bvest translation is the one you will read regularly. The Holy Spirit can work in each one of them.
Dbarr
Man... have you guys actually read the ESV.... if so the comments against it are odd to me... I think it is very understandable... we need to be careful that we as a group of Christians do not become "NIV" only or "what ever translation only" you lean towards. The last thing we need is another translation debate
Im thankful for all these translations... its great to have them!
Guess what? Those in Christ can now be condemned, especially if you truly believe the newer ESV are correct.
Romans 8:1 ESV (2011) There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1 ESV (2013 and later revisions) There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh (but according to the Spirit).
Unfortunately, the latter edition of the ESV puts a condition on one’s salvation as it has the implication that one in Christ could be condemned – that much depends upon what we do.
When the original translators did their job, apparently the redactors at Crossways decided to change several of the verses in the ESV translation. The ESV is basically a revision of the RSV which was based upon the Greek compilations NU = Nestle Aland or United Bible Society Greek compilation.
The ancient King James Bible translates this as how the latter version of the ESV does. The problem here is very few ancient Greek manuscripts have this verse with the last 10 words- even the old Scofield KJV notes that “the statement ends with ‘Christ Jesus.’; the last ten words are interpolated.”
In my course work we use the NRSV as does nearly all the seminaries.
What are the editors of the ESV trying to do? My suspicion is that they really want the later versions to reflect the older Textus Receptus despite its translation errors. Unfortunately, the Gideons now use this version.
What is your reaction to this kind of things? Should we be concerned about it?
Post a Comment