Bible Translation Bias?

[Reader Antonius]

Not sure if this is proper place for a thread like this, but here seemed to be the most apropos.

I recently got my hands on the English Standard Version-Catholic Edition, a product of a 2017 agreement between the Catholic Bishops of India and Crossway. It's essentially the regular 2016 ESV with the deuterocanonical books proper to the Catholic canon. With the exception of a fresh translation of the Book of Tobit, there are not many changes from the original Protestant version (mostly differences in wording, from what I can tell).

I've become rather excited to use this translation as my primary devotional and study version. I used to be a votary of the old RSV in its second Catholic edition (RSV-2CE), but I wanted a newer translation based on recent editions of the critical text. To be more specific, I wanted a translation with dignified language in the King James-Tyndale tradition, formal equivalence translation, modern language, and using the most recent manuscripts and scholarship. The ESV-CE seems to fit the bill!

I have heard however that the ESV has been accused of having doctrinal biases in some of the translation decisions that were made in the text. A simple Google search can probably turn up alleged examples, usually being claimed as either Calvinist/Reformed or Christological (e.g. eternal subordination of the Son) or some other bent.

That said, I was hoping to hear from Christians who use the ESV regularly as to whether they would agree with this claim. Have you noticed anything denoting bias in the ESV during your reading or study? If so, could you provide examples?

In addition, what are your general thoughts on the ESV? Do you like it? If so, why?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Not sure if this is proper place for a thread like this, but here seemed to be the most apropos.

I recently got my hands on the English Standard Version-Catholic Edition, a product of a 2017 agreement between the Catholic Bishops of India and Crossway. It's essentially the regular 2016 ESV with the deuterocanonical books proper to the Catholic canon. With the exception of a fresh translation of the Book of Tobit, there are not many changes from the original Protestant version (mostly differences in wording, from what I can tell).

I've become rather excited to use this translation as my primary devotional and study version. I used to be a votary of the old RSV in its second Catholic edition (RSV-2CE), but I wanted a newer translation based on recent editions of the critical text. To be more specific, I wanted a translation with dignified language in the King James-Tyndale tradition, formal equivalence translation, modern language, and using the most recent manuscripts and scholarship. The ESV-CE seems to fit the bill!

I have heard however that the ESV has been accused of having doctrinal biases in some of the translation decisions that were made in the text. A simple Google search can probably turn up alleged examples, usually being claimed as either Calvinist/Reformed or Christological (e.g. eternal subordination of the Son) or some other bent.

That said, I was hoping to hear from Christians who use the ESV regularly as to whether they would agree with this claim. Have you noticed anything denoting bias in the ESV during your reading or study? If so, could you provide examples?

In addition, what are your general thoughts on the ESV? Do you like it? If so, why?

I downloaded it and flipped through Genesis, usually a good way of looking at it starting at the beginning and all.
The translation of the creation is okay.

Though the Genesis 3 trinitarian reference mentioned in John 1 is not translated in this version.

It's probably an okay version like NIV or the other modern versions.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think the ESV has a specific Reformed bias. However it is a conservative Protestant translation, where the RSV is a mainline Protestant translation.

The biggest difference is in the OT, where RSV, and more so the NRSV, translates in the original historical context, and the ESV sometimes accommodates the OT to Christian understanding. The best-known example is Is 7:14, but there are others.

There are also differences in understanding of some passages. E.g. in Rom 3:25, NRSV translates "atonement" and ESV "propitiation." The word has a range of meanings. I think ESV has accommodated the translation to an understanding of penal substitution, whereas atonement is more general.

The NRSV, without a special Catholic edition, has Imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (according to Wikipedia). ESVCE seems to be approved by the Indian Catholic Church.

In practice the main reason some Catholics prefer the ESV seems to be if they don't like gender-inclusive language, even when the original is gender-inclusive. If you're like that, you'll probably prefer the ESV. Otherwise, you should consider the NRSV.

 

[splish- splash]

Some denominations also, seem to print their own bibles which are very much biased towards their church doctrines. For instance, A certain lady once gave me a bible as a gift and I got the shock of my life upon reading it.

 

[HARK!]

I use the CLV. I started using it to avoid bias, and I was looking for something that conformed to textual criticism. It's better than most; but it still falls short on both counts.

Here is a short 2 minute video which purports that Bible translations are market driven.

 

[Athanasius377]

The ESV is a fine translation if you want to know what God’s word says the ESV will do just fine. The same with the RsV which the ESV is a revision. The issue comes down as Hedrick pointed out is how you translate Isaiah 7:14. alma means a young woman. The Septuagint translates the word as virgin. Both are correct as I don’t know how you have a young woman who isn’t a Virgin but the Greek leaves no doubt. Both are orthodox. The issue comes when one tries to shoehorn another translation other than virgin since the Hebrew implies virgin. There have been volumes written in the matter.

Truth is the ESV is probably 98% the RSV and there are plenty of orthodox believers that use the RSV.

 

[pescador]

If you want to know if the KJV is the most accurate translation, watch this video...

 

[Andrewn]

I recently got my hands on the English Standard Version-Catholic Edition, a product of a 2017 agreement between the Catholic Bishops of India and Crossway. It's essentially the regular 2016 ESV with the deuterocanonical books proper to the Catholic canon. With the exception of a fresh translation of the Book of Tobit, there are not many changes from the original Protestant version (mostly differences in wording, from what I can tell).

I've become rather excited to use this translation as my primary devotional and study version. I used to be a votary of the old RSV in its second Catholic edition (RSV-2CE), but I wanted a newer translation based on recent editions of the critical text.

Have you found significant differences between ESV-CE and RSV-2CE? Is there a reason to have both?

 

[Andrewn]

There are also differences in understanding of some passages. E.g. in Rom 3:25, NRSV translates "atonement" and ESV "propitiation." The word has a range of meanings. I think ESV has accommodated the translation to an understanding of penal substitution, whereas atonement is more general.

What do you think of the CEB, especially as compared to other idiomatic translations, eg GNT, NLT, NIV, etc.?

 

[hedrick]

What do you think of the CEB, especially as compared to other idiomatic translations, eg GNT, NLT, NIV, etc.?

It's a translation I want to like. I think it's a good compromise between literal and free, and it follows mainline preferences. But I've seen some odd translations, particularly in Romans. My inclination is to use the GNT instead. I haven't seen anything there to object to, and I think it does a really good job getting the meaning across, even if it's a bit too free to use for serious exegesis. In principle, CEB is close enough in wording that you could use it for exegesis. But at this point I'd use NRSV instead.

My impression is that the CEB tended to depend upon individual translators. Not for final wording -- they had lots of review for that -- but for the initial translation that got the meaning. Some of the translators seem to have been more aggressive in using new ideas than a typical committee translation such as RSV or NRSV.

So at the moment I use a combination of NRSV and GNT.

Incidentally, NIV seems to have stronger evangelical biases than ESV. I disagree with ESV in a number of places -- particularly their approach to the OT -- but it's still a good translation. N T Wright has said of NIV that you'll never understand Paul if you use the NIV. I've seen some examples. If you prefer an evangelical translation I'd use ESV or possibly HCSB. (I don't know HCSB as well.) Or NET.

 

[pescador]

It's a translation I want to like. I think it's a good compromise between literal and free, and it follows mainline preferences. But I've seen some odd translations, particularly in Romans. My inclination is to use the GNT instead. I haven't seen anything there to object to, and I think it does a really good job getting the meaning across, even if it's a bit too free to use for serious exegesis. In principle, CEB is close enough in wording that you could use it for exegesis. But at this point I'd use NRSV instead.

My impression is that the CEB tended to depend upon individual translators. Not for final wording -- they had lots of review for that -- but for the initial translation that got the meaning. Some of the translators seem to have been more aggressive in using new ideas than a typical committee translation such as RSV or NRSV.

So at the moment I use a combination of NRSV and GNT.

Incidentally, NIV seems to have stronger evangelical biases than ESV. I disagree with ESV in a number of places -- particularly their approach to the OT -- but it's still a good translation. N T Wright has said of NIV that you'll never understand Paul if you use the NIV. I've seen some examples. If you prefer an evangelical translation I'd use ESV or possibly HCSB. (I don't know HCSB as well.) Or NET.

N T Wright may have his opinion but it flies in the face of reason. What is his basis for saying that the most popular English translation prohibits people from understanding Paul? Does he have some secret knowledge about NIV readers?

 

[hedrick]

N T Wright may have his opinion but it flies in the face of reason. What is his basis for saying that the most popular English translation prohibits people from understanding Paul? Does he have some secret knowledge about NIV readers?

How does "reason" establish anything about the accuracy of the NIV? Here's what he says:

"I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about . . . This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. (Justification, page 52)."

Bit more here: N.T. Wright Slams the NIV – Christian Monthly Standard

He was speaking of the NIV 84. It's possible that this has been improved in the most recent NIV:

Even N.T. Wright will appreciate the Upated NIV?

I wasn't aware until doing this search that NIV 2011 had made a major change in handling justification. That was apparently Wright's problem.

 

[pescador]

How does "reason" establish anything about the accuracy of the NIV? Here's what he says:

"I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about . . . This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. (Justification, page 52)."

Bit more here: N.T. Wright Slams the NIV – Christian Monthly Standard

It's possible that this has been improved in the most recent NIV:

Even N.T. Wright will appreciate the Upated NIV?

It's just one man's opinion; one of many, many, many, many others. As Paul warned the church at Corinth, "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." If you are a disciple of N.T. Wright, I suggest that you broaden your horizons.

 

[hedrick]

It's just one man's opinion; one of many, many, many, many others. As Paul warned the church at Corinth, "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." If you are a disciple of N.T. Wright, I suggest that you broaden your horizons.

It seems that the translators of the newest NIV may actually agree with him. See above.

 

[Andrewn]

I wasn't aware until doing this search that NIV 2011 had made a major change in handling justification. That was apparently Wright's problem.

I have no doubt that NIV 2011 is an improvement over NIV'84. But, for almost 30 years NIV'78/84 was more widespread than NRSV, NASB, NKJV, and the Catholic NAB. There are better translations that have been published in the 21st century. But again, there are worse translations that have been produced in the 21st century and some are gaining traction!

My impression is that the CEB tended to depend upon individual translators. Not for final wording -- they had lots of review for that -- but for the initial translation that got the meaning. Some of the translators seem to have been more aggressive in using new ideas than a typical committee translation such as RSV or NRSV.

Idiomatic translations tend to show more unevenness than literal translations. The exception is probably GNT, which seems to be balanced. Perhaps it benefited from many revisions over the years. I like CEB rendering of some passages, it truly uses "common English" while avoiding slang and simplified phrases. But in other sections, I don't appreciate its choices.

What do you think of CEB translation of OT?

 

[pescador]

It seems that the translators of the newest NIV may actually agree with him. See above.

Try re-reading my message above which says, "It's just one man's opinion; one of many, many, many, many others. As Paul warned the church at Corinth, "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." If you are a disciple of N.T. Wright, I suggest that you broaden your horizons.

BTW, the new NIV wasn't published because your guru, Mr. Wright, objected to the way "justification" was translated. They have "bigger fish to fry" than his opinion.

The International Bible Society, which publishes the NIV, say this, "And so in the original NIV charter, provision was made not just to issue periodic updates to the text but also to create a mechanism for constant monitoring of changes in biblical scholarship and English usage. The CBT was charged to meet every year to review, maintain, and strengthen the NIV’s ability to accurately and faithfully render God’s unchanging Word in modern English.

The 2011 update to the NIV is the latest fruit of this process. By working with input from pastors and Bible scholars, by grappling with the latest discoveries about biblical languages and the biblical world, and by using cutting-edge research on English usage, the Committee on Bible Translation has updated the text to ensure that the New International Version of the Bible remains faithful to Howard Long’s original inspiration."

 

[1watchman]

Not sure if this is proper place for a thread like this, but here seemed to be the most apropos.

I recently got my hands on the English Standard Version-Catholic Edition, a product of a 2017 agreement between the Catholic Bishops of India and Crossway. It's essentially the regular 2016 ESV with the deuterocanonical books proper to the Catholic canon. With the exception of a fresh translation of the Book of Tobit, there are not many changes from the original Protestant version (mostly differences in wording, from what I can tell).

I've become rather excited to use this translation as my primary devotional and study version. I used to be a votary of the old RSV in its second Catholic edition (RSV-2CE), but I wanted a newer translation based on recent editions of the critical text. To be more specific, I wanted a translation with dignified language in the King James-Tyndale tradition, formal equivalence translation, modern language, and using the most recent manuscripts and scholarship. The ESV-CE seems to fit the bill!

I have heard however that the ESV has been accused of having doctrinal biases in some of the translation decisions that were made in the text. A simple Google search can probably turn up alleged examples, usually being claimed as either Calvinist/Reformed or Christological (e.g. eternal subordination of the Son) or some other bent.

That said, I was hoping to hear from Christians who use the ESV regularly as to whether they would agree with this claim. Have you noticed anything denoting bias in the ESV during your reading or study? If so, could you provide examples?

In addition, what are your general thoughts on the ESV? Do you like it? If so, why?

I cannot say "I like it" for it is like so very many new Versions that keep coming out over time to teach what different ones like. Most are not consistent with the intent of such a dependable version as the KJV ---studied over 300-400 years. I find the best Bible for me is the KJV Scofield Study Edition --- 'to each his own', as the saying goes!