*Updated*
The Zondervan blog has a PDF file of a fascinating article by Karen Jobes called, “Bible Translation as Bilingual Quotation.” In the article, Jobes discusses the idea that some people have that links literal with accurate. Jobes takes this idea to task noting,
“failure to communicate accurately the meaning of the source utterance was found in those places where the simultaneous translator rendered the source utterance too literally, that is, when preservation of the grammatical, syntactical, and semantic forms of the original statements was given too high a priority in producing the translation.”
Then Jobes gives a chart that shows the word count of the original texts and the word count of many major English translations. The point that Jobes makes is that word count and literalness do not equal accurate translation. That being said, this is the very idea that the ESV assumes when it touts its translation as “essentially literal.” Jobes’ chart leaves out the CSB, but here are some of the word count results:
Hebrew/Greek: 612,483
NIV: 726,133
TNIV: 728,393
NLT: 741,276
ESV: 757,439
NASB: 782,815
There are a couple of interesting observations to make here. First, the more formal equivalent translations–the supposedly “word-for-word” translations–are ironically the most verbose translations. Second, when the CSB is added to this list, it’s word count is an astoundingly small 719,089! That’s more than 6,000 words fewer than the the least verbose translation on Jobes’ list! So, if any translation is going to make an “essentially literal” claim based on a word-for-word correspondence, the ESV would not be the one to make that claim.
Now, all that being said, I agree with Jobes that word-for-word correspondence most definitely does not equal accuracy. However, I also think that verbosity should be avoided at least for stylistic reasons. This may be one of the less obvious reasons that the CSB has had such an appeal to me; it isn’t filled with awkward syntax and unnecessary words.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve noticed several remarks regarding the ESV lately from you. Any specific reason for your distaste in the translation? Most reformed pastors are switching to this version I believe and I’ve began using it as my main study Bible also.
(And regarding the NIV, it’s omission of many verses accounts for a low word count I’d bet.)
cognitivcontent,
Are you Reformed? The ESV is a fine translation, but there’s a real disparity between what it actually is and what it has been marketed as.
Try comparing the ESV with the TNIV; forget about the NIV at this point. The TNIV, in my opinion, is a much better Bible.
BTW, are you aware that Dr. John Piper, who is pro-ESV, continues to find himself correcting many of the ESV renderings? This is not knocking Piper, since I too have been influenced greatly by his writings.
Regarding essentially literal, whatever that really means, Bibles like the TNIV and ESV and HCSB are better judged case by case. You’ll find that even the TNIV is more essentiall literal than the ESV in some places and so on.
According to R. Mansfield, “The best Bible is the one you use.”
cognitivecontent,
I have no particular beef with the ESV. The reason I do most of my comparisons with the ESV is that I see it as the main counterpart to the CSB. Among “new” translations, the ESV and CSB are definitely the best in my opinion. The ESV is my second choice after the CSB. I’m a little frustrated, as tc mentioned, that the ESV has received so much attention from men that I respect (like Piper) while the CSB has been virtually ignored. Those are the reasons that I do most of my comparisons with the ESV.
Will, thank you for this post. I have included it in my collection of ESV Links.
For the sake of accuracy, my article in JETS Dec 2007 is entitled “Relevance Theory and the Translation of Scripture.” My article “Bible Translation as Bilingual Quotation” that is cited on this site was web-published by Zondervan on their blog. Both articles have the verbosity data, though in slightly different formulations. I’m not sure which article Will is referring to.
TNIV – a clear accurate translation vs> ESV a sloppy translation in my mind…makes it an easy choice for me. Word for word (ESV) makes no sense for today’s culture. Thought for thought (TNIV) – with brilliant translators like Dr. Gordon Fee and Dr. Mark Strauss on the committee of translators is really the best translation available today. Just my humble opinion…
Paul,
The TNIV is a fine translation and more consistent and accurate than the ESV. I will give that.
However, the TNIV is not without its shortcomings. At any rate, it has become my study and preaching text.
I’m not too sure about TNIV; still some omissions that I don’t know about. As I remember, Grudem wasn’t a fan of TNIV either.
From what I’ve read, the CSB seems to be a good translation also, but guess it’s a just a preference — the ESV Reformation Study Bible is great to have though.
No translation is perfect.
Cognitivecontent,
How much do you know about translations?
Grudem is no authority on Bible translation, in my opinion.
CSB is quite good. I see that you are Reformed; well, the ESV RSB would be a good fit for you.
DA Carson, who is also Reformed, is a TNIV advocate. Try that on for size.
Wayne, thanks for the link.
Dr. Jobes, thanks for the correction. I’ve made the change in the post.
For those of you advocating the TNIV, I understand why. It is a good translation. By the way, tc, I would hold Grudem to be a much more authoritative voice on Bible translations than any of us who have posted here (with the exception of Dr. Jobes). There is no real tension between Reformed and TNIV.
Will,
Have you ever heard of Gail Riplinger? If you do a google or youtube search on her, you’ll find some very interesting information! She is a scholar (by her account anyway) of the New Age Versions of the Bible.
Thomas found her online the other day, don’t know why, and when I heard her, I thought about your post here.
Have fun, if you have time.
Cristy
Always enjoy your posts on translations Will.
Just finished reading Gordon Fee’s “How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth” (and now reading “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”).
While I still find myself preferring “formal equivalence” versions, I very much enjoyed Mr. Fee’s insight in translation (as you probably know he was/is involved with the translation of the TNIV).
All this discussion on versions no doubt is meaningless to someone who only uses one version. For instance, saying that the NASB has “wooden” English seemed so silly to me coming from a KJV background. Wooden? This is so very clear! Well, reading from the HCSB or NLT I can certainly now appreciate the comment.
It is not until a person carefully examines a passage with different versions, and them from differing translation approaches, that the benefits and drawbacks that our English versions offer become apparent. Like some I have slowly come to the realization of the benefit of multiple versions in my studies.
Notwithstanding, I also regularly observe some folks so caught up in versions themselves (myself included), that on the surface at least it seems they spend more time studying the words than the Word. Of course it is the word differences that provide greater insight into meaning, but I do honestly wonder how spiritually productive all this analytical analysis is worth, especially to the average Christian, concerning these English versions? And in the end the scholars involved with these versions, I trust, fully believe their translation methodology is better (or even the best) approach. Always best to consider differing view points to achieve balance.
Anyway I would certainly, for what it is worth, agree that literal does not mean more accurate. And yet I still use my NASB as my “frame of reference” for study, as it does more accurately represent the Hebrew/Greek manuscript with regards to form. From there the use of multiple versions, with different translation approaches, really add clarity and richness to the study.
Regards,
Mark
tc,
“Try that on for size.”
Since when did Will’s blog become somewhere for you to act like a small child?
It’s apparent that Carson is an advocate of TNIV, anyone who can read knows this – so thank you for pointing that out.
Will,
I’ve used Grudem’s Systematic Theology at both the undergad and seminary level. I’m grateful for that volume, but I’m still not overly impressed with Grudem as an authority on Bible translation. Yes, I’m not in Grudem’s league on translation, but as a reader on these issues, I think I can make some good judgments.
A few years ago, I listened to a debate between Grudem and Strauss. As a listener, let’s say, I learned a lot from that debate.
Btw, I just got my A Commentary on the NT use of the OT, eds. Carson and Beale, and I noticed that Carson has utilized the ESV quite a lot.
Ccognitivecontent,
“Try that on for size” was not meant to be disrespectful.
The first time I really paid attention to that expression was when I was in seminary. Our professor would counter our objections to something he said and then would tell the objector, “Try that on for size.”
We alll knew what he meant and that no disrespect was meant. I’m truly sorry you felt that way.
Mark, thank you for your input. You provide a very helpful perspective.
Interesting blog. I was wondering, just how many copies does the frontrunner in bible sales, the NIV, have on the KJV, NKJV, ESV, etc? Does anybody know? The CBA doesn’t really give any indication as to how far ahead the NIV is as the frontrunner.
Quite frankly, I have no use for the TNIV. I like very much the CSB and have many regrets that it has somehow been in the backwash of translations. Presently, I am rediscovering the KJV and the NKJV and I am liking more and more what I find. I just cannot warm to the ESV.
Sorry to come to the conversation late but if I may I will add my 2 cents.
I prefer the CSB, I am eagerly awaiting the 2009 update.
I used the NIV for over 25 years in preaching and teaching – it is a very good translation. However, I found the CSB to be superior in all aspects. Since I don’t read Greek or Hebrew I have used interlinears and lexicons to help in my studies. I constantly find that the CSB is very, very accurate and is a very “comfortable” read. My opinion is that it is what many if not most evangelicals were hoping the TNIV would be – a move toward more literal renderings without sacrificing readability.
In regards to the ESV’s use of archaic language and literary style – well the sad truth is that it simply feels like the KJV when you are reading it. Of course the textual basis is better which leads to better renderings, but it simply doesn’t read well, it isn’t the English that people read and speak today. I have the ESV on CD and will listen to it as I drive – it is a blessing but I consistently find myself thinking – that is not how a person speaks at work, home or school. My opinion is that that limits the effectiveness of the translation.
A “High Literary Style” is fine for Shakespere, but not God’s word when that is not the commonly spoken language. To move that way is to return to the Medieval days when God’s word was chained to the pulpit and folks only knew what was being read if they understood latin.
For me – the CSB is number 1. I will also compare the NASB, ESV and NIV in my studies.
Thank you.
Hi,
Just an FYI for all you Bible critics out there.
I have spent the last 4 years studying linguistics. The one thing that keeps coming up in research, etc. is-
ALL languages change. English is no exception. Just in the last 30 years the American English has taken a dramatic leap into the “change” arena. Being an “baby boomer” person, it really has me confused, especially when teaching ESL students.
Now put that with the numerous attempts at publishing a “readable” American English Bible translation. By the time the intensive translation work is done and the new Bible is printed, the “new” translation is already obselete. THAT is why you find a good translation that is Hot off the press, already having problems and having to be revised. With the incredibly rapid change of Am. English in the last 10 years, even the ESV and HCSB will soon be obselete. Back to the drawing board…
In Christ,
Deveney