I was privileged to act as General Editor of the English Standard Version, and now that I look back on what we did in producing that version, I find myself suspecting very strongly that this was the most important thing that I have ever done for the Kingdom, and that the product of our labors is perhaps the biggest milestone in Bible translation in certainly this last 50 years, and perhaps more. Perhaps I ought to be saying 100 years—I think I should, actually—because it was almost 100 years ago that the paraphrase renderings of the Bible began to present themselves, as they did, as the version that you ought to read if you want to understand the Word of God. I think that, while in the short term it was not false entirely, did set the world of Bible translation and distribution off on what long-term was going to prove a false trail.
-J.I. Packer, author of Knowing God.
[thanks to Justin Taylor, via Craig Schwarze]
8 comments:
so why is it so jolly unreadable then?
Dunno. Sin?
The ESV OT contains some of the worst and most contorted prose I have ever seen in English (and I have writted some of that sort of prose). It is really hard to read out loud, and very hard to listen to.
And: have you read Alan Chapple's critique of it in the RTR?
Really? Surely you hyperbolize, Jensen Jr.
Yep, skimmed Alan's critique. My goodness. Everyone's got a whinge to add to the pile. All the English translations except for JWs and Living are pretty good.
The reality is they are all either asymptotically tending towards the inerrant word of God (good), or fuzzily approximating it (the paraphrases that JI Packer slams—OK tending towards iniquitous), and those who are really fussed about it should go and learn the original languages.
This is pretty good isn't it?:
A PSALM OF DAVID.
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.
Hi all. I'd have to agree with Michael on the stilted prose of the ESV. Mind you it's not as bad as my favoured translation, the New King James, which has a tendancy to use VERY stilted prose that even I struggle to grasp. It uses modern words in archaic word order and it can be very frustrating to read, even for the educated.
I still with the NKJV because it's translation is more literal than others, like the ESV. But every now and then I find myself returning to the NIV to find out what my version is trying to get at. One classic example of this is Solomon's prayer in dedicating the temple. In the NKJV, the first 5-6 verses of the prayer have no full stops in them!
I'm with Michael, and regard Packer's words [despite the fact that I quoted him in church this morning] as completely over the top and silly.
The ESV is not nearly as far from the NIV as its promoters would have us believe.
The advertising for it was so far-fetched it was bordering on the dishonest, if not tipping over into that area.
So-called "dynamic equivalence" translation, maligned by the promoters is used in the ESV over and over, though probably not as much as in the NIV and its improved version the TNIV.
Despite all the publicity, I can't help noticing that many Christians and churches have stuck with the NIV. It is a pity that the negative publicity has steered them away from its updated version.
I should have said that I like my ESV Reformation Study Bible very much, but what I don't like is the kind of publicity which promotes the very good ESV bible by putting down other equally helpful bible versions.
Dr. Packer has not earned the right to be heard. He needs to take his name off the Statment of Concern against the TNIV and apologize to his colleagues Bruce Waltke and Gordon Fee first.
Post a Comment