.If it ain't King James... you know the rest.

It’s an interesting thing about Bible translations that they often become symbols of various theological agendas. Anyone who has ever seen the bumper-stickers that say “if it ain’t King James, it ain’t Bible,” or a church sign that says something along the lines of “Ebenezer Independent Fundamental KJV only Tabernacle” has witnessed this sort of thing in action.  It’s not new of course, and if you’re interested in the details of how the Authorized (King James) Version itself was ridiculed by some and embraced by others early in its existence, I’d recommend In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture by Alister McGrath.

For several centuries, there were really only two widely used translations of the Bible in the English Language–The Authorized Version and the Douay-Rheims , which was the Roman Catholic response to the earlier Geneva Bible (the puritans loved the Geneva Bible, but its widespread use waned rather quickly, despite its lasting impact on later versions and English society).

Things are different today.  If one of the greatest problems facing the world in the twenty-first century is, as I once heard a political scientist put it, the notion of “to every tribe a flag,” it could be that one of the challenges facing Christians is the notion of “to every sect a translation.”  I’m not bemoaning the use of multiple translations in itself, but rather the use of translations as a sort of litmus test of particular theologies.  There are positives and negatives about every version of the Bible, and it is important to keep that in mind, particularly because these issues–at least among the mainstream versions, and putting aside sectarian translations like the Watchtower Bible and the tweaked KJV used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints–are really not substantial enough to prevent us from reading, marking, learning and inwardly digesting the word of scripture.

One of my preferred versions, is the English Standard Version.  This translation has not been without controversy and originally drew some flack from some evangelicals as well as liberal Christians.  Among some evangelicals, it has been criticized for being motivated by a desire to reject the NIV and (especially) its successor, the gender-inclusive Today’s New International Version.  Some have gone so far as to say that the ESV is “anachronistic” because of some translation choices it makes, such as returning to King James phrasing in a few places or not updating the language of the RSV in others.  Among liberals, it has been critiqued for similar reasons, though more broadly, because of the choice ESV translators made–being a word for word translation–to stick with male terms when masculine gendered words were used and vice versa.  Something that the ESV does do is to make language that is inclusive in the original inclusive in the translation.

I’m not convinced by these criticisms, and perhaps my lack of concern for them has to do with the fact that I do not minister in a context where women in ministry are as embattled as they are in others. I don’t really see where interpolating 21st century assumptions directly into the text of scripture provides anything but a false sense of comfort with 1) our exegesis or 2) a past society.  The past is another country after all.   If someone is concerned about particular references to men for example, it seems the appropriate place to deal with it is in bible study and exegesis, not necessarily in translating it as “people.”  That track simply allows us to avoid uncomfortable questions and allows our convictions to remain shallow and untested.  I’m not a huge fan of gender-inclusive language anyway, not because I don’t use it when it is natural, but because I detest the protestations that “our language has changed and we need to change too!”  That argument is nonsensical when one considers the fact that if, indeed, language had changed, there would be no need to impose such changes on incoming students at universities and seminaries through “language policies,” rather the change would be bottom up rather than top down and imposed by the self-appointed.  So, when I read “men” or “man” in English, I don’t automatically assume that it is exclusionary in meaning.

For my part, I admit a preference for any of the Bibles standing in the lineage of the Authorized Version/KJV, whether the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version or the English Standard Version.  In fact, one of the (minor) things that drew me into the Episcopal Church after am early childhood spent in the Southern Baptist Church, was that when I began attending Church again in high school and college, the Baptists had all started using the NIV and the NRSV sounded much better to an ear attuned as a child to the King James.  And on the whole, I believe the NRSV is a very good translation, and still use it (especially the New Oxford Annotated edition) in my studies.  I don’t even have a problem with most of the gender-neutral language in the NRSV.  It’s perfectly fine to say “brothers and sisters” where both is implied I think.  Of greater concern to me in regards to the NRSV has been what I’ve observed as a lack of consistency between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Leaving aside passages such as Isaiah 7:14 which are regular hot potatoes in translation discussions, I do not believe that someone, without being guided by notes and cross-references, could be given an NRSV and see where the Gospels, for instance, cite the prophets, because different translation decisions have been made in translating messianic titles.  Indeed, while one of the criticisms of the English Standard Version has been that it tends to read Christian interpretations back into the OT (debatable), the opposite argument can be leveled at the NRSV in that it seems to sever the connection that was assumed by the writers of the NT by privileging other interpretations.  If a Bible has a New Testament attached, I’d expect interpretation to be weighted in favor of Christian tradition where the matter is subjective otherwise.Incidentally, I recall one of the first comments the Rabbi who taught my intro to the Hebrew Bible course in college made. On the first day of class he had us all open our New Oxford Annotated NRSV’s up to the title page for the “Hebrew Bible” and said “This is incorrect. This is a Christian Old Testament. I understand and appreciate what was trying to be done, but it is a misnomer. My Bible has a different order of books, this follows the Christian ordering and is therefore a Christian Old Testament not a ‘Hebrew Bible.”  The final reason that I was never able to fully embrace the NRSV was because of its lack of acceptance by major Church bodies for liturgical use.  In contrast, the RSV earned the title “Common Bible”  Here is a review I wrote of the New Oxford Annotated RSV in 2002 about this point:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV with apocrypha is not called the Common Bible without reason. The RSV and Apocrypha is the only Bible translation that the Roman, Orthodox and most Protestant denominations have authorized for use in liturgy as well as private study. Although the RSV’s successor, the New Revised Standard Version is allowed for personal study in the US Catholic Church, it is not authorized for use in the Liturgy. While the Canadian Catholic Church does use the NRSV in some of its lectionary readings, this is largely because they were prematurely printed and they will be replaced eventually. The Orthodox Church in America has rejected the use of the New RSV for liturgical use AND teaching (though it can be used for personal study). So, as it stands, the RSV is the only translation that is officially used by Roman, Orthodox and most protestant churches for both personal and corporate use. That’s enough for me to use it, but it also helps that it is a great translation, though I echo a former commentators view about the translation of Isaiah 7:14, at least the RSV does not go so far as to irregularly use “mortal” for Son of Man in the Old Testament but not the New, or use “pale green horse” instead of the traditional pale horse in Revelation. When I hear the phrase pale green horse, as is in the NRSV, I think of a VW bug. So, I highly recommend the RSV with apocrypha as a great translation for anyone who likes a bible that is current in scholarship but reverent in its use of language, as well as ecumenical in use.

Cambridge ESV Wide-margin reference

[Note: it has been pointed out to me that the Canadian Roman Catholic Church has recently received Vatican approval for a "modified" version of the NRSV to be used in the Mass.  I'm curious to know what the modifications were.  Also, for a balanced Orthodox reflection on the merits of the NRSV, as well as some notes on the influence of the RSV in the Orthodox church, check out this page from Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral in San Francisco.  As the author notes: "despite its limitations, this complete edition of the RSV has been used as a textbook in most Orthodox (and non-Orthodox) seminary and university courses in Holy Scripture. It has been the basis for more Orthodox and (non-Orthodox) scholarly works on the Bible than any other English translation. It has been used more often in Orthodox (and non-Orthodox) liturgical translations and services of worship, as well as in church school curricula than any other American translation. It has been a truly "standard" text for some time." ]

The ESV, as a more conservative revision of the RSV maintained the strength of scholarship inherent in the original, as well as in the NRSV, but without some of the drawbacks of the NRSV, which I’ve already meantioned.

I was additionally impressed by the ESV through my use of the reference edition in my New Testament class during seminary: it was the only one of several translations (including a nice NRSV Cambridge Reverence edition) that included EVERY cross reference our professor brought up in class.

All these positives aside, the ESV has been hampered by the limited formats it has been available in. The folks at Crossway made some great decisions in the publishing editions like the ESV journaling bible, based upon the popular Moleskine notebooks (which I also use), but for a long time, the ESV has had a limited reach. That’s changing.

As more and more churches from various theological perspectives begin to use the ESV, from Presbyterians, to the Missouri Synod Lutherans (who adopted the ESV as the translation to be used in their book of worship/hymnal) to Anglicans and Episcopalians the drive to provide more formats is growing and publishers are taking note.  Here are a few of the exciting editions soon to be published:

Cambridge ESV Wide-Margin Reference Bible

I love wide margin bibles, and this one will be high on my list when it is released.  Cambridge Bibles are always high quality, and the ability to take notes during bible studies is important, especially for later sermon preparation.  But I believe I’m most excited by the next edition that is in the works, this one from Oxford:

English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha

In seminary our New Testament professor made the comment that a Bible, in order to be an Anglican Bible, must contain the apocrypha.  It has always frustrated me somewhat that there was not edition of the ESV available with the apocrypha.  Some might assign this to the theological outlook of Crossway, or the translators.  I’m not sure how much that played into it, really.  The simple fact is that in the United States at least, our puritan heritage means that it is uncommon to find very many Bibles with the books of the apocrypha bound together with the Old Testament and New Testament.  In fact, the introduction to the RSV common bible makes the point that the Apocrypha wasn’t added to that translation until the Episcopal Church requested it.  So, I’m more inclined to believe that the decision to wait on the apocrypha had more to do with resources and targeting of markets.

If the ESV was ever to have an appeal outside a limmited range of evangelicalism (basically those conservative mainline protestants who haven’t been thrilled with the NRSV or thos evangelicals who are tired of the NIV or unwilling to accept the TNIV) then a version of the text with the apocrypha needed to be available.

For those of us who have been awaiting a version of the English Standard Version with the Apocrypha, our wait is nearly over.  Oxford University Press has announced that they will be releasing a version of the ESV-Apocrypha in early 2009.  The only format at the moment appears to be hardcover, but one can hope for more diversity to come.  The main thing now is that an ESV version of the Apocrypha has been translated and published.  Here is the description from Oxford’s site:

ESV-Apocrypha

The English Standard Version Bible captures as far as possible the precise wording of the original biblical text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. The ESV thus provides an accurate rendering of the original texts that is in readable, high quality English prose and poetry. This Bible has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations.

Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes. More Evangelicals are also beginning to be interested in the Apocrypha, even though they don’t consider it God’s Word. The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha , for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha. This will be the only ESV with Apocrypha available anywhere, and it includes all of the books and parts of books in the Protestant Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, and the Old Testament as used in Orthodox Christian churches. It will have a lovely pre-printed case binding, and will include a full-color map section, a table of weights and measures used in the Bible, and many other attractive features.

The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books.

I hope to see a version of this from Allan soon.

Now, about that BCP-ESV combo.

[Note: given the nature of some of the comments below, I felt like I should direct folks to what the translators of the ESV have to say for themselvesregarding gender etc…

Additionally, I would like to point out that while I don’t know J.I. Packer’s current views regarding women’s ordination–they seem to have shifted several times over the years–the last position he held seems to have been that women can be ordained and serve as long as they are not senior pastors or Bishops. Of course, his personal views are a bit of a moot point since, as a member of the Anglican Church of Canada, he did not leave over the ordination of women, and now as a member of the conservative off-shoot “Anglican Communion in Canada” he is also a member of a church that ordains women without caveats. Packer can hardly been seen as a misogynist, nor are his views radical, whether one agrees with them or not.

Most of the critiques leveled at the ESV below seem to simply be based upon the fact that the ESV didn’t change as much as the NRSV–but of course, it is not another NRSV. I can find no place where the ESV is critisized in its translation where it does not match the RSV… it’s not like they made it more conservative, they just didn’t go as far as the NRSV did. Considering the fact that both the RSV and NRSV are used in Episcopal Churches, it doesn’t seem that there should be any bar to the use of the ESV.