Please note that comments by Suzanne and John are both moderated. We try to approve comments as quickly as we can but there is sometimes a lag. When comments do not pertain to the post or involve disputes about gender issues or the ESV they are almost never approved.

This was a decision made by the team of contributors at BBB. If you have questions about this feel free to email me directly.

What’s this, is Carolyn Ann Knight the proverbial needle in the haystack? With all due respect, you seem to be blissfully unaware of actual trends.

If your first example is any guide, your examples, in any case, cannot be trusted. I have heard Jeremiah Wright preach on several occasions. At times he quotes KJV from memory, but he is not a KJV preacher. At TUCC, Wright’s church, both when he was the pastor there and now, as I chronicled for readers in the past, a whole range of Bible translations are quoted, read in unison, etc. NRSV and NIV are used more frequently than KJV. In fact, I don’t think KJV is ever used for unison readings (a key feature of TUCC worship).

If all it takes for someone to be a KJV preacher is an occasional use thereof, then I am a KJV preacher, and so is Rick Warren.

For the rest, I will let readers decide what to make of the tone of your response to my anecdotal observations. [material edited out by moderator]

Suzanne’s views on the ESV are well-known. But everyone I know who preaches from ESV, as I have done myself, considers it well-suited in most contexts to preaching to both men and women. It differs little from NIV, NASB, NAB, NJB, and other widely used translations in that sense.

[material edited out by moderator]

As I’ve noted before, Bible translation choices are also in function of culture wars and overall socio-political stances. Always have been; always will be.

Actually, I don’t have anything against Joel Osteen. He speaks a language that many people understand. I once asked an African American colleague of mine in the United Methodist Church, who also pastors a megachurch in Houston, what he thought of Joel Osteen. He pointed refused to say anything but good about him, based on the results he sees on the ground. I have people in my congregation who have benefited from his books.

The linguistic register I use is close to that of Tim Keller. It is rooted more deeply in classical Western culture, whereas Osteen’s register is pop-cultural. The translation choices correlate.

CD-Host,

Yes, ESV sticks to the diction of the Hebrew more closely than NRSV. Here are a couple of examples at random. Psalm 1:1 begins, in ESV,

“Blessed is the man who walks not in counsel of the wicked . . . his delight . . . he is like a tree. . . the wicked are not so.”

ESV preserves the singular-plural contrast, which many exegetes, myself included, think is essential to the message of the Psalm. NRSV eliminates the contrast by pluralizing the singulars. “Blessed are those . . . They are like trees.” [material edited out by moderator]

ESV Psalm 2:1 “Why do the nations rage?” respects the underlying Hebrew; NRSV Psalm 2:1 has “Why do the nations conspire,” is a limp paraphrase of the Hebrew.

In these examples, as often, ESV is closer to Alter’s translation. Alter Psalm 1:1 “Happy the man . . . his desire . . . he shall be like a tree.” Alter Psalm 2:1 “Why are the nations aroused.”

In point of fact, ESV conveys the sense of the first verb in 2:1 better than NRSV or Alter. All this just by sticking with the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition, which reads “rage.” The note in NIV, which also has “conspire,” says “[according to the] Hebrew; Septuagint ‘rage.’” But that is simply wrong. At least NIV translates the cognate noun in Ps 64:3 correctly (“noisy crowd”). BTW, for those whose Hebrew is dictionary-based, don’t forget to look up the references in DSS. This is a great example of an instance in which DSS Hebrew backs up old understandings of a Hebrew verb. The translations which get the first verb in Ps 2:1 right are, besides KJV-RSV-ESV, REB (“in turmoil”); NJB (“uproar”); NLT (“rage”), and NASB (“uproar”). In a DSS text, it is the waves of the sea that “ragash,” if that helps.

CD, perhaps you are surprised by this. In honor of Theophrastus, who is ideologically opposed to ESV, I promise to do a series in the future in which I will give numerous examples of cases in which ESV is to be preferred to NRSV.

The NRSV uses an eclectic approach in reconstructing the Old Testament text, and in particularly relies more heavily on the Dead Sea Scrolls than the ESV. Especially in Samuel, the NRSV deliberately varies from the Masoretic Text. At least it warns the reader that it does this.

The ESV varies from the Masoretic Text also, but not as much as the NRSV. One important difference is that the NRSV’s variances are largely supported by the evidence of other textual traditions; the ESV’s are largely motivated by the need to attempt to harmonize OT quotes with their use in the NT.

Does the OT foretell the NT? It does in the ESV — the translators made darn sure that was the case. The RSV, having had a Jewish translator, provides a more objective view.

You are a bright guy who likes the Hebrew. Let me throw out my regular question for ESV supports to you. Is there even one verse that the ESV translates more accurately than the NRSV?

T., I am also winding up to the 400th anniversary of the KJV. It would be a very easy target to read through it in 2011 and blog about all the funny wording.

Really? And yet today, when one can buy any of dozens of Bibles, the KJV is monthly in the top 3. And the most performed playwright of our era is . . . wait for it . . . William Shakespeare, although there are certainly writers of a more recent vintage.

By the way, snuff — in the form of “smokeless tobacco” is also having something of a renaissance today.

We are about to see the wind-up for KJV-mania (the 400th anniversary), Cambridge University Press has just edited a comprehensive New Paragraph edition, and books on the KJV are now being published at a rate greater than any other time in history. In terms of absolute numbers, the KJV is selling more volumes today than it ever has in its history.

So, just to press the point a bit more, David — what year do you think the KJV is most likely to drop out of the top 10? (I do hope your prediction is during both our lifetimes, so I can trumpet “I told you so.”)