Is The ESV Readable?
There has been a lot of writing over recent months about the readability of the ESV. A recent exchange began when Mark L. Strauss wrote about the English language flaws in the ESV and noted the superiority of the TNIV. I suppose now I can settle this once and for all (not really, but it sure would be nice).
I believe readability depends upon where the individual is coming from. For example, I grew up on the NKJV and a little bit on the NASB. Coming from these two translations, I find the ESV to be very readable. I enjoy reading the ESV. I find it easier to read than the NASB and NKJV and I prefer the ESV over these translations. However, I can understand how someone who has never picked up a Bible before can find the ESV not very readable. For me, I do not find the NIV to be significantly more readable than ESV. This is probably because I am used to certain phrases and renderings. Others may find the readability difference between the ESV and NIV to be more substantial.
I think this is important to point out when some of the ESV backers like John Piper speak about the ESV being easy to read. Piper used the NASB before (from the lesson I have listened to), so the ESV would be more readable. I don’t think these notable people are lying in an effort to sell ESVs. I think it is more a matter of what translation they used to study from previously.
The HCSB seems to have an even higher degree of readability, depending upon who you ask. Some in the congregation where I preach have recently be trying the HCSB and have found it easier to understand. It is more readable because they were using NASBs previously. People who have always used the NLT would likely not find the ESV or HCSB to be easy to read.
By contrast, I am finding the NLT not to be very readable. It is not because the English is difficult, but because I am not used to the style. As I read a verse, I am subconsciously and sometimes consciously trying to figure out if the NLT reading matches the way I remember the verse. So rather than reading along, I am constantly slowing down attempting to determine if what I am reading is saying the same thing that I knew that verse to say in a different translation.
Anyway, I hope some others will consider and expand upon this thought. What you are used to in a translation really makes a difference in how readable a translation seems. Those who grew up on the NIV may find the ESV too wooden. Those who are used to the NASB may find the ESV easy to read. Those who have never picked up a Bible may find most, if not all, translations hard to read. What is your Bible translation background? It affects your verdict at to what translations are “easy to read.”
Don't forget to browse Miscellaneous or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
17 Comments so far17 Responses to “Is The ESV Readable?”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
Joe
January 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Brent, you make a excellent point. Bible translation background and your grasp on the English language. For many, English is their 2nd language – it would be hard to convince them that anything other than the NLT, CEV and NCV is easy to read.
I have found the HCSB to be a nice “best of both worlds” translation.
Joe
January 15, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I will say this, the ESV can still be a little awkward at times with its English. Main reason it has not pulled me from the HCSB.
Brent Kercheville
January 15, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Quite true. I also stumble through the ESV in places because of awkward phrasings. But I think the NASB is the worst. I find it very clunky and the ESV easier. Regarding the HCSB, I like it but it does have some unusual renderings, which throw me.
Joe
January 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Yes it sure does ;-)
Robert Jimenez
January 16, 2009 at 1:45 am
Brent, I made a similar conclusion I had commented on this over at TC blog “New Leaven”. I also grew up reading the NKJV, and that is the main reason why I like the HCSB the most. If I were going to update the NKJV, it would read like the HCSB. Originally they both had the same editor.
I was going through a similar struggle reading through the TNIV this month, but I think I have made some progress. When reading I too am thinking what I remember it sounding like, and it was slowing me down. Or I kept thinking how does the HCSB read in this section. This is during my devotions, and I am trying not to do this. During my studies well that’s a different story.
I think that if you stick with it, over time it will feel more comfortable, at least this is what I am finding. Honestly, sticking with the TNIV has been a bit of a challenge, but it is proving to be very rewarding. I can’t wait to get a printed copy of the HCSB 2nd edition.
Peter Holloway
January 16, 2009 at 3:47 am
Great point Brent. I grew up with the original RSV and struggled with the NIV when it came out – I kept thinking to myself as I read it: “but it doesn’t say that!”. I still have this problem with the more dynamic translations.
I am an avid reader of anything and don’t like over simplification, so I do prefer the more literal translations where I can see something of the underlying language. I can appreciate that this isn’t the case for everyone.
Having said that I’ve always found the NASB to be overly literal to the point of being hard to read. I think that the NKJV is slightly more readable than the ESV but having read through the ESV for a couple of years have decided to keep it as my main Bible as I generally prefer the textual decisions made to those in the NKJV.
Wendyl
January 16, 2009 at 7:38 am
I taught from the NASB for years, then went with the NIV when I moved to a new congregation because that was what they used. Granted the NIV was more readable, but I was always pointing out corrections in the NIV.
I say all this to get to my point, I now don’t necessarily have a primary reading or study bible because I’m very much aware of the differences and nuances of each translation. When I first learned of the ESV a few years ago I got really excited because of all the hoopla about its readability as well as accuracy.
Then I learned the publishers of the ESV were updating it . . . making over 350 changes! I was able to review all the changes they were making before the updated version was published. Some were, in my mind, quite significant. I thought to myself, if they made this many errors initially, how many more will be made in the newer version. As a result then, I have no confidence in reading the ESV.
As for the HCSB, the unusual renderings are very annoying. As such it has little credibility if any. As for the TNIV, though the translators claim they had no feminist agenda in making this a gender inclusive translation, I tend to think otherwise.
Joe
January 16, 2009 at 7:55 am
Wendyl,
I’v been trying to go through the HCSBse text hoping to see if some of the unique readings have been revised or not. Are there any in particular that you can think of at the moment?
Wendyl
January 16, 2009 at 8:07 am
Joe,
I guessing from your question that the HCSB has come out with an updated version, i.e., 2nd edition?
If so, then I don’t have the newer version in which to make a comparison, but would be very willing to do.
Christian Links of Interest | Scripture Zealot
January 16, 2009 at 8:10 am
[...] Is The ESV Readable? [...]
Joe
January 16, 2009 at 8:11 am
I have the revised text in electronic format, but just interested in getting a list of some of the unusual renderings that may put people off the translation as a whole.
Wendyl
January 16, 2009 at 8:43 am
Joe,
How did you get the electronic version? I’d be interested in getting a copy. I have to go to work, but if no one provides you with a list of some of the weird renderings of the HCSB, I’ll try to get some to you later on today. Thanks!
Joe
January 16, 2009 at 8:45 am
I’ll email the information to you, I don’t mean to steal from the ESV thread ;-)
Brent Kercheville
January 16, 2009 at 9:04 am
Peter and Robert,
I am glad that I am not the only one who feels that the translation one is used to or grew up with is the greater part of this issue.
Every so often I do find the NKJV to be superior. It is unfortunate that the NKJV in many places follows some of the KJV problems like a lemming off a cliff. I wish the NKJV people would have been more bold to maintain the tradition, but remove readings that are clearing Western additions or have zero manuscript evidence (like 1 John 5:7).
brian
January 16, 2009 at 9:19 am
I agree with the others, this is an excellent point – redability depends on history of translation usage. I personally have issues with the ESV more for what I see as false marketing issues – but your point may make sense of it all.
Ray McCalla
January 16, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Brent said, “I am glad that I am not the only one who feels that the translation one is used to or grew up with is the greater part of this issue.”
Brent,
I would suggest that one’s own background is the primary reason for at least initial preference or affinity with a particular translation. A few years ago I read a story (sorry, no link) about a 10-year-old pentecostal preacher who was a KJV-only little tyke. When asked by the reporter why he preferred the KJV, he said (something like), “It’s the most easy to understand.” Hogwash. What he meant was, “It’s the one I’ve been raised on, so it sounds ‘right’ to me.”
And that’s the way it is with most people who have been churched.
Terry T
January 21, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I used the KJV until I was a senior in High School (1979 – yes I am old), began using the NIV at that time and used it until a couple of years ago at which time I began using the HCSB.
While I have found a few renderings to be different, not traditional, I just can’t seem to get away from it. Initially I saw a couple of the second edition changes and was ready to return to the NIV but relooked and found them to be right on. (Had a short discussion at Robert Jimenez’s blog – theinquiring minds on that).
I find the HCSB to be more readable than the ESV, far too many archaic words and tortured sentence structure/word order. It is seems to be an improvement in accuracy (more literal) over the NIV. In fact on several occasions I have heard either Piper or MacArthur mention the “Literal greek” rendering of a passage and then seemingly quote the HCSB rendering.
So I will remain with the HCSB.