Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8264 in Books
• Published on: 2002-06-07
• Released on: 2002-06-07
• Original language: English
• Binding: Leather Bound
• 1106 pages

Customer Reviews

RSV Beauty with Evangelical Accuracy
I was given the English Standard Version Bible for Christmas 2003 and have been reading it daily throughout this year. I admire it for achieving two important goals in Bible translation which are not often successfully accomplished. First of all, the ESV, since its English wording is derived from the RSV, retains as much of the King James wording in a modern style as is possible. Since that is the style that many of us have memorized and learned since childhood and it is a style that lends itself to memorization, that is a good thing.

Secondly, the translating committee has striven for as accurate a translation as possible. They have not opted for "dynamic equivalency", but have attempted to stay as literal as they felt English usage would allow. Now, since I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, I cannot attest to their success, but in some verses where I had been told that other translations did not achieve such accuracy, the ESV appears to have done so. And they did it in a way that makes it superior to the NASB, in my opinion. The NASB, in attempting its literalness, unfortunately also achieved an awkwardness of English style that the ESV has marvelously overcome. Thus this Bible is good for reading style and for accuracy of understanding. It is likely to replace my NIV as my standard usage Bible for the future.

Outstanding translation
I've spent quite a bit of time with the ESV by now, and it is indeed one of the finest versions available, competing with the NASB for accuracy.

There are indeed plenty of passages where the ESV provides a superior rendition than the NASB. But there are still plenty where the NASB is still superior to the ESV. Either way, Christions should look at either of these two translations I believe.

I'll give one example of the NASB's superiority, John 7:31, ESV "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?", NASB, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?".

In the ESV, it appears to be an open-ended question. Will he do more signs?? The NASB brings out the truer sense of the Greek construction, that surely he WON'T perform more signs. I guess this is part of the ESV's greater readability, but for this verse I'll take the NASB's accuracy. However there certainly are passages as well where the ESV wins out, so either of these two excellent translations should be bought and read.

By no means a "standard"
It seems that we have entered the age of designer bibles. Bibles to suit the tastes of each group or sect that finds fault with the established scholarly translations or those commissioned by churches. The NIV is making big $$$ for Zondervan, the HCSB will undoubtedly do the same for Holman and Crossway in the US and Collins in the UK will be hoping that unsuspecting purchasers will fall for their ESV translation.
So what is the ESV? Nothing more than a suitably (for some) altered and somewhat modernized version of the RSV - the very translation which was condemned and burnt by those of the same political colour as those who worked on the ESV.
In the introduction we read that "significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts". In other words, the texts have been changed to suit the tastes of a group of people. Of course, Isaiah 7:14 has been "corrected" to suit it's use in Matthew.
Quite honestly, if you want an accurate translation that is widely accepted both academically and ecclesiatically, go for the original RSV. Especially now that it has been reissued by Oxford. If you are happy with a translation that takes into consideration the whole population, then the NRSV would be a good translation.
It is strange that this translation is aimed at just those people who might tend to use the King James Version. They manage to cope quite admirably with the very archaic language of the 17th century. Strange that those for whom the ESV is intended have problems with a few thee's and thou's and a few more formal verb endings, as found in the RSV.
Everyone is free to give a framework to their belief as they see fit. Doctoring a once condemned translation of the bible is nothing short of hypocrisy.
If you really need an ultra-literal version, there is always the updated NASB.
[At the beginning i mentioned a translation commissioned by churches (rather than by individuals or groups). That is the Revised English Bible, which many Americans might find too British as far as language goes.]