The English Standard Version: A Review Article -- By: Rodney J. Decker

Journal: Journal of Ministry and Theology
Volume: JMAT 08:2 (Fall 2004)
Article: The English Standard Version: A Review Article
Author: Rodney J. Decker


The English Standard Version: A Review Article1

Rodney J. Decker

Associate Professor of New Testament

Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA

Introduction

Bible translations always seem to generate considerable debate—debate in which it seems difficult to engage objectively and dispassionately. For many Christians a new translation of the Book can be threatening, for it is often perceived as challenging that which is sacrosanct. “Keep your hands off my Bible!” is not an uncommon attitude. And no one with a heart for ministry wants to destabilize the faith of other believers. Such matters are sensitive ones in the church. Many times these sensitivities are unfounded and based upon a lack of understanding of what is involved in biblical inspiration and authority on the one hand and in translation on the other hand. But they are real sensitivities nonetheless.

In recent years concern regarding specific translations has reached high levels of intensity and rhetoric. The more recent outbursts have been produced by the TNIV.2 Some of the concerns

raised have been legitimate, others have been misplaced. In the context of the TNIV debate, the publication of the ESV is significant because its sponsors and advocates have frequently portrayed the ESV as the “safe” alternative to the TNIV. Two major differences are mentioned. One, the ESV is said to be a literal translation,3 whereas the TNIV is described as a dynamic equivalent translation.4 Second, the TNIV is often depicted as using inclusive language in contrast to the ESV.5 A few preliminary comments regarding these issues are in order before examining the ESV as a translation.

Translation Philosophy

Translation theory has often been described in terms of two opposing philosophies: literal versus dynamic equivalent. Both of these terms are problematic. First, “literal” is a very slippery term which has only a vague definition in most people’s minds. Too often it is assumed to refer to word-for-word translation. It is also frequently associated with “more accurate.” Neither assumption is valid. Translation is not a matter of finding word-for-word equivalents in another language. Languages seldom correspond at the word level. If a “translation” were attempted on such a basis, the result might be something like this: “Of the but Jesu...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()