ESV Translation (Reformed/Calvinist Bias?)

[darinhouston]

I believe Steve halfway recommended (based on his limited familiarity) the ESV translation. I have noticed it has become very popular, but almost exclusively among the newly reformed. There is a very popular Reformation Study Bible (ESV) in fact.

My question is does anyone know whether there are any translation issues that the ESV takes in this regard that would result from Reformed/Calvinist biases?

[steve]

I have not noticed. However, I only use that translation when teaching at one of the two Schools of Biblical Studies in Kona (because they use that version and gave me a copy). These schools are Calvinistic in their leanings. This particular school had switched from using the gender-neutral NRSV (a clear improvement). I did not expect to like the ESV (I thought it would be more dynamic equivalence oriented), but was pleasantly surprised at the degree to which it remained literal in its translation of the few books for which I used it.

[darinhouston]

I have not noticed. However, I only use that translation when teaching at one of the two Schools of Biblical Studies in Kona (because they use that version and gave me a copy). These schools are Calvinistic in their leanings. This particular school had switched from using the gender-neutral NRSV (a clear improvement). I did not expect to like the ESV (I thought it would be more dynamic equivalence oriented), but was pleasantly surprised at the degree to which it remained literal in its translation of the few books for which I used it.

From what I've read, the primary criticism has actually been it's overuse of what they call the "essentially literal" technique -- retaining almost a slavish literalism. The one exception noted in the review I read was Hebrews (which I understand is virtually impossible to translate literally to English in any intelligible way). I do understand it goes out of its way to use thelogical terminology such as "atonement" "justification" and the like instead of more literal terminology to support an easy use of the ESV for Reformed teaching which makes heavy use of those terms, but I was wondering if anyone was aware of areas where these or other exetical substitutions would actually affect the basic teachings in this area.

On a side-note, if anyone is interested in seeing a funny list of some of the kind of silliness that can come from slavish word for word translations, check out the list from the ESV at:

http://bible-translation.110mb.com/improvingesv.pdf

Here are a few examples of the categories (they give long lists of like examples, many of which are pretty funny). The reason this interests me so much is that it gives you an impression of the sort of difficulties in relying on the specific wording of any given translation in contrast to the much more important grand scale context of the conversations (forest vs. trees).

“Oops” Translations in the ESV
We can start on a more lighthearted note. Occasionally translators will render a text “literally” without realizing the potential for misunderstanding or double meaning. All versions must watch out for this, but literal ones are particularly susceptible. For example, the ESV (following the RSV) originally rendered Gen. 30:35, “But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped …and put them in charge of his sons.” It is remarkable that Laban had so much confidence in his goats! This gaffe was pointed out and a second
printing of the ESV corrected it, taking authority away from Laban’s goats: “… and put them in the charge of his sons.” Here are a few more “oops” translations that I have found in the ESV.

“Grinding Together”?!
Luke 17:35 ESV “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”

• Comment: In contemporary English, “grinding together” suggests seductive dancing or something worse.(Perhaps both should have been taken for judgment!) Most versions clarify that this means grinding “grain,” “meal” or “flour” (cf. TNIV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, REB, etc.)

Such clean teeth!
Amos 4:6 ESV “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities”

• Comment: It sounds like God is distributing toothbrushes to the Israelites. The Hebrew idiom means they had nothing to eat. The TNIV reads “I gave you empty stomachs,”; HCSB: “I gave you absolutely nothing to eat.”
  NET: “I gave you no food to eat.”

Rock badgers are people too!
Prov. 30:26 ESV “the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;”

• Comment: In addition to the tortured word order, the ESV’s use of “people” is very strange. We sometimes joke that animals are people too, but surely ants and rock badgers are “creatures” or “species,” not people.

Idioms Missed in the ESV
Almost all the problem translations cited in this paper could be called “idioms missed,” since most literalist errors result from idiomatic differences between languages. Here we focus on phrases or clauses that the ESV has tried to render literally, resulting in awkward, nonsensical or inaccurate English.

Mark 1:2 (pars. Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27)
ESV: “Behold, I send my messenger before your face”

• Comment: The Greek idiom pro prosōpou sou (lit. “before your face”) means “ahead of you.” I would never say, “I arrived at the restaurant before your face.” Most versions recognize the idiom and translate accurately (HCSB, NET, NIV, NAB, NLT, REB, GNT, GW). While the original NASB used “before your face,” its 1995 update (NASU) recognized the idiom and corrected it to “ahead of you.” The NRSV similarly revised the RSV. Curiously, the ESV misses the idiom here (and parallels), but gets it right in Luke 9:52 and 10:1, where pro prosōpou autou is translated “ahead of him.”TNIV: “I will send my messenger ahead of you,”

NASU: “Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you.”

ESV Archaisms
Archaisms are also often literal fallacies, but this category also applies to words or phrases that were likely retained because they sounded “biblical,” which normally means “Elizabethan”— entering the language through the King James Version. We must ask whether these expressions would be considered normal English today.

Matt. 1:18
ESV …she was found to be with child,

• Comment: The ESV is not literal here (the Greek idiom is “having in belly”), so this can only be classified as an archaism. Of course I would never say today my wife is “with child” unless I were trying to sound archaic and “biblical.”
  TNIV …she was found to be pregnant,

REB …it was discovered… that she was pregnant

Collocational Clashes in the ESV
Collocations are words that are used together in a language to express a particular meaning. For example, in English you “take a walk” but in Spanish you “give a walk” (dar un paseo). Spanish uses a different collocation to express the same meaning. Collocational clashes occur when translators render words literally without considering their collocational relationships in the target language. Here are some ESV examples.

Eph. 6:7
ESV ...rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man,

• Comment The whole sentence is awkward, but especially the collocation “service with a good will.” We normally speak of “willing” “cheerful” or “enthusiastic” service.TNIV Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,

NRSV Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women

Exegetical Errors in the ESV
All translations must make difficult exegetical decisions, and some errors are inevitable. Here are some examples where an overly literal approach contributes to errors in the ESV.

2Thess. 2:2
ESV we ask you, brothers… not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us…

• Comment: “A spirit” will be misunderstood by most readers as an evil spirit or a demon. In this context is surely means a prophetic utterance. See the commentaries. “Shaken in mind” is also strange English.
  TNIV …whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter…

REB …by any prophetic utterance, any pronouncement, or any letter…

ESV Lexical Errors and Problems
One of the more common errors of literal versions is the attempt to use only one English word for every Greek or Hebrew word. This error—common also to first year Greek students!—fails to recognize the semantic range of words. Here are a some examples in the ESV.

Luke 18:34
ESV But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp
what was said.

• Comment: The saying was not hidden (Jesus just said it!). The meaning was hidden. ESV has not recognized that rhēma here refers to the meaning of the saying, not the saying itself.TNIV …Its meaning was hidden from them,

REB …its meaning was concealed from them.

[SteveF]

My question is does anyone know whether there are any translation issues that the ESV takes in this regard that would result from Reformed/Calvinist biases?

Hi Darin, I'm not aware of any particular translation issue but I do know there were numerous transaltors from Calvinistic schools involved in the translation (J.I. Packer was the General Editor). It only seems natural that a bias would unwillingly come through at times.

I do understand it goes out of its way to use thelogical terminology such as "atonement"

Just a bit of interesting info on the word "atonement". John Wycliffe invented the word when he was translating the Bible into English. He pieced together the words "make at one" or "at onement" to create this new word. He felt it would best describe the term found in Latin.....or a least, that's what I remember reading in one of Alister McGrath's books.

[steve]

The ESV no doubt makes its own share of errors in translation. However, I do not object to most of the wording that is criticized in the posted list of ESV gaffs. Where an archaism from the KJV is retained, which does not reflect a literal translation of the Greek, we have a true flaw. But I am not opposed to literal, word-for-word translations of idioms that are unfamiliar to us, but which were in common use among the original writers and readers.

When we read the Bible, we know that we are reading an ancient book from a different culture, and should be prepared to encounter (and to decipher) idioms that are not used in our culture. I feel the same way about Shakespeare. His works are full of idioms unfamiliar to the modern man on the street, but if someone were to come out with a version of the Works of Shakespeare in a modern paraphrase, I would still wish to read the original (using the paraphrase, perhaps, alongside as sort of a commentary). The original may be a bit harder to understand than the paraphrase, but it retains the genius of the author, and I am not a lazy student.

If the man making the paraphrase can understand the meaning of the original well enough to paraphrase it accurately, then I think I can do so also. While many efforts at paraphrase probably hit the mark just perfectly, I have had strong objections to many a paraphrase put forward by competent scholars ("The Message" immediately comes to mind). When I read the Bible, I want the translator to tell me what the author said, not what the translator thinks the author meant. It is my responsibility to decide what the scriptures mean—and I am willing to put out as much effort as the next guy toward that end.

[darinhouston]

Excellent points, Steve. I think the worst sort are not retaining the original idioms, but in converting them to sort of "half-idioms" (see quote below), and also using the archaic terms that sound biblical such as "with child" instead of the literal "having in belly." If you're going to avoid the odd literal, go ahead and say pregnant.

These are problems with all translations, and I sometimes feel lost in a sea of confusing text that I know is confusing only because it's not native to me, and may not even fairly represent the original text. What I really want is a God-breathed modern translation that is endowed with God's perfect inspiration. Short of that, In know I'll have to get less lazy in my learning. I just wish I had 36 hours in a day and didn't need sleep.

There is an unfortunate tendency among biblical scholars—who live in the world of Hebrew and Greek—to
think they are getting it “right” if they mimic the form of the original languages. The unfortunate result is a
tendency to create “half-idioms” (half-English/half-Greek), transferring a few words of the original, but
missing its meaning in standard English. This is what the ESV does when people speak “with a double
heart” (Ps. 12:2), have “news in their mouths” (2Sam. 18:25), “go in and out among them” (Acts 1:21; 9:28),
or “fill up the measure of their fathers” (Matt. 23:32). These are half-idioms—Biblish rather than English.
As noted earlier, idioms work as a whole rather than through their individual parts. In translating the English
idiom, “He’s really in a pickle,” it would be a mistake to preserve cucumbers in the translation. It is not the
component parts but the statement as a whole that communicates its meaning.

Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to
translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and
plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as
the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound
awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and
plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through.

Asking the simple question, “Would anyone speaking English actually say this?” is a good test for standard
English. This simple question could transform our Bible versions and bring them in line with the finest
translation practices used around the world. We must remember that the ultimate goal of Bible translation is
not to give our students a “crib” on their weekly Greek and Hebrew assignments, but to clearly and
accurately communicate the meaning of God’s inspired and authoritative Word.