| English Standard Version | |
|---|---|
| Full name: | English Standard Version |
| Abbreviation: | ESV |
| Complete Bible published: | 2001 |
| Derived from: | 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version |
| Textual basis: | OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Septuagint influence. Apoc./DeutCan: Göttingen Septuagint, Ralf Septuagint and Stuttgart Vulgate. NT: High Correspondence to Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition.[1] |
| Translation type: | Formal Equivalence |
| Reading level: | Middle School |
| Version revised: | 2007, 2011 |
| Publisher: | Crossway Bibles |
| Copyright status: | Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a ministry of the Good News Publishers of Wheaton, IL The Apocrypha © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc., of New York, NY |
| Online address: | http://www.esv.org/ |
|
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. |
|
|
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 English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible. It is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version.[2] The first edition was published in 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
Contents |
The stated intent of the translators was to produce a readable and accurate translation that stands in the tradition of English religious reformer William Tyndale in 1525–26 and culminating in the King James Version of 1611. Examples of other translations that stand in this stream are the Revised Version (1881–85), the American Standard Version (1901), and the Revised Standard Version (1946–1971). In their own words, they sought to follow a literal translation philosophy. To that end, they sought as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. The result is a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible.
Work on this translation began over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations. Under noted theologian J.I. Packer, who served as general editor, the translation committee sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV. Nevertheless, only about 5%–10% of the RSV text was changed in the ESV. Many emendations were made to satisfy the objections of conservative Protestants had considered the RSV to be theologically liberal, for example, changing the translation of the Hebrew almah from "young woman" (used in the RSV) to "virgin" (in the ESV) in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove "thou" and "thee" and replace obsolete words (e.g., "jug" for "cruse").
The ESV underwent a minor revision in 2007.[3] The publisher chose not to identify the updated text as a second or revised edition; it was intended to replace the original ESV under the original name.[4] A third revised edition was issued in April 2011 and has gradually been phasing out the 2007 edition.
An edition of the ESV with the Apocrypha (featuring books from the Protestant Apocrypha, and the deuterocanonical books of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament) was developed by Oxford University Press and published in January, 2009.[5] The publisher cites the fact that the ESV "has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations." Thus, they deemed, "Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes." The publisher's hope for this new edition with Apocrypha is that it will be used widely in seminaries and divinity schools where the Apocrypha is used in academic study.[5] The team translating the Apocrypha includes Bernard A. Taylor, David A. deSilva, and Dan McCartney, under the editorship of David Aiken.[6]
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in the second edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1983), and on the Greek text in the United Bible Societies' fourth corrected edition of the Greek New Testament (1993), and the twenty-seventh edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (also 1993). In exceptional, difficult cases, the translation committee consulted the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources in order to shed possible light on the text or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.[7]
For the Apocrypha, the Oxford translating team relied on the Göttingen Septuagint for all of the Apocrypha except 4 Maccabees (relying there on Rahlf's Septuagint) and 2 Esdras (the Ancient Greek of which has not survived), which used the German Bible Society's 1983 edition Vulgate.[6]
Mark L. Strauss has defended gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the TNIV, NLT and NRSV, and is a member of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation.[8] Strauss argues that the ESV uses similar gender-inclusive language, and wrote, “What is odd and ironic is that some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV”.[9] Strauss has also suggested that criticism against competing Bible translations to the ESV is marketing contrived.[10] ESV translator Wayne Grudem has responded that, while on occasion the ESV translates "person" or "one" where previous translations used "man", it keeps gender specific language where that is in the original, so it does not go as far as gender inclusive translations such as the TNIV and NRSV;[11] and the ESV web site makes a similar statement.[12]
There have been attempts to formulate lists of translation issues in the ESV. Bible translator and linguist Wayne Leman has compiled a list of translation problems in the ESV.[13] Meanwhile, at the 2008 gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mark L. Strauss presented a paper entitled "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should Not Become the Standard English Version"[14] in which he detailed the most common translation errors (in his view) of the ESV. He states in the opening,
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 Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”
William D. Mounce, the New Testament Editor of the ESV, responded briefly to Strauss on the Koinonia blog owned by Zondervan:
While the content of the paper was helpful, I am afraid that it only increased the gap between the two "sides" of the debate. There has been a lot of hurt and damage done toward people on both sides of this debate (e.g., someone shot a bullet through a TNIV and mailed it to the publisher), and I got the feeling that Mark was getting tired of being attacked. I would be tired if I were in his shoes. He kept saying that the ESV has "missed" or "not considered" certain translational issues. While I am sure they were not intentional, these are emotionally charged words that do not help in the debate. They are in essence ad hominem arguments focusing on our competence (or perceived lack thereof) and not on the facts. He was not in the translation meetings and does not know if we in fact did miss or did not consider these issues. Time and time again Mark said that if we made a change, then we would have gotten it "right." This, of course, is not a helpful way to argue because it implies there is only one "right" way to translate a verse. His solution appeared to be that we should adopt a more dynamic view of translation, and then we would have gotten it right. The solution to this debate is to recognize that there are different translation philosophies, different goals and means by which to reach those goals, and the goal of the translator is to be consistent in achieving those goals. In all but one of his examples, our translation was the one required by our translation philosophy.[15]
Two previously existing Study Bible publications previously or concurrently appearing in other translations have now been published in ESV editions. The Scofield Study Bible III,[16] an update and revision of the classic Dispensationalist Scofield Reference Bible, which was originally created using the King James Version, but which has appeared in multiple translations over its century of publication. The Reformation Study Bible, a Reformed Protestant study bible edited by R.C. Sproul, originally appeared in the 1990s in the New King James Version and was published by Thomas Nelson. The notes were adapted from that previous edition, with the new ESV edition being published by P & R Publishing.
In 2007, Crossway Bibles published the Literary Study Bible based on the ESV, with notes on the literary elements of Scripture by literary scholar Leland Ryken of Wheaton College and his son, Presbyterian pastor and theologian Philip Ryken.[17]
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod has adopted the ESV as the official text used in its official hymnal Lutheran Service Book, released in August 2006. It is in use in the church's three and one year lectionaries released with "Lutheran Service Book." The official publishing arm of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Concordia Publishing House, is using the English Standard Version as its translation of choice in all its published materials. Concordia Publishing House, the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, released The Lutheran Study Bible in October 2009, which also uses the ESV. A study version of the ESV Apocrypha is planned to be released in the fall of 2012.[18]
The ESV Study Bible was released by Crossway Bibles in October 2008. The general editor is Wayne Grudem, and features ESV editor J.I. Packer as theological editor.[19] Initial sales of this study bible have been high, with the publishers announcing, "With pre-publication demand surpassing the first 100,000 printing, the ESV Study Bible has already gone back to press for a second printing of 50,000 copies, with a 50,000 third printing soon to follow." [20] Online Christian book retailer Westminster Books has called the ESV Study Bible "by far the fastest selling new product in the history of our store."[21]
The MacArthur Study Bible has been made available in ESV in 2010. An ESV edition of the popular Ryrie Study Bible was published in 2011.
| The Bible in English |
| Old English (pre-1066) |
| Middle English (1066–1500) |
| Early Modern English (1500–1800) |
| Modern Christian (1800–) |
| Modern Jewish (1853–) |
| Miscellaneous |