The ESV And The English Bible Legacy

by Leland Ryken

Modern Bible translations are at a crossroads. Multiple translation philosophies argue that there is a right way and a wrong way to translate the Bible. But who is right? And what has been the historic view of English Bible translators?

Leland Ryken, an expert on the literature of the Bible, brings clarity to these questions as he traces the history of English Bible translation from William Tyndale to the King James Bible and argues that the English Standard Version is the true heir of this classical stream.

Here is a great resource for Christians who have questions about why we have different Bible translations and how to choose between them.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Nonfiction, History

192 pages, Paperback

First published November 2, 2011

About the author

Dr. Ryken has served on the faculty of Wheaton College since 1968. He has published over thirty books and more than one hundred articles and essays, devoting much of his scholarship to Bible translations and the study of the Bible as literature. He served as Literary Chairman for the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible and in 2003 received the distinguished Gutenberg Award for his contributions to education, writing, and the understanding of the Bible.

He is the father of Philip Graham Ryken

Reviews

[Tori Samar · Rating 2 out of 5]

To be clear—I love the ESV translation of the Bible. While I do make sure to study and read from a variety of translations, the ESV has been my preferred translation since my junior year of college, when I stopped carrying my KJV to chapel and church services and took my ESV instead. So, by rating Ryken's book with just two stars, I am not in any way saying that I think the ESV is just a two-star translation. My review is concerned only with how Ryken handles his argument that the ESV is a worthy modern representative of the "classic mainstream" of Bible translation.

Let's begin, then, with the good:

-If you're unfamiliar with the ESV or just generally uncertain about its quality as a good modern translation, Ryken will give you plenty of reasons to trust and want to use the ESV.

-As an English professor and literary stylist, Ryken brings great insight to the matter of aesthetics in Bible translation. Granted, my experience is my own and therefore limited, but whenever I hear or read about matters of Bible translation, the discussion typically revolves around one or all of these: formal vs. dynamic equivalence, manuscript families, and language change over time. Likewise, discussion focuses on accuracy in Bible translation/how faithful a translation is to the original Hebrew and Greek. However, in this book, Ryken makes the important point that God is the God not only of truth but also of beauty. Therefore, we should care about how beautiful the form and language are in our Bible translations.

As for criticisms:

-This book is too long and too repetitive. I'm convinced Ryken could've said everything he needed to say in well under 100 pages. But instead, we have a book that's close to 200 pages and repeats some of its claims to the point of annoyance.

-As Ryken devotes many pages to demonstrating how the "essentially literal" ESV is superior to dynamic-equivalent translations, he also makes a handful of comparisons between the ESV and the NASB (Ryken's purpose is to show the ESV's stylistic superiority to the NASB). However, not once does Ryken bother to mention that the NASB is a formal-equivalent translation, like the ESV. Therefore, uninformed readers are left to assume that the NASB is a dynamic-equivalent translation.

-On the subject of dynamic-equivalent translations, Ryken makes this bold statement: "[W]e can trace an arc of increasingly aggressive changing, adding to, and subtracting from the words that the biblical authors wrote. Modernizing translations are a carefully orchestrated exercise (which I experience as a conspiracy) to prevent readers from knowing what the biblical authors actually wrote." Carefully orchestrated? Conspiracy? Prevent readers? That is a very, very serious accusation to make against fellow translators, an accusation that had better be accompanied by much definitive proof. In this book at least, Ryken did not supply me with sufficient evidence of willful deception/malicious intent on the part of dynamic-equivalent translators, nor did he entertain the possibility that these translators (in spite of a different translation philosophy) still have a sincere desire for people to read and understand God's Word.

-I wish Ryken hadn't tried so much to present the ESV as the heir apparent to the KJV in modern Bible translation. What Ryken intends by this argument is to demonstrate the ESV's high quality. Likewise, he makes this argument in part by trying to show the ESV's superiority both in content and form to other modern translations. However, this entire argument and approach make me squirm. Here's why: I've spent my whole Christian life just one fundamentalist degree removed from the KJV-only movement. I know many KJV-only Christians. During my youth, I was even fed some of the lies of KJV-onlyism (thankfully, never by anyone in my church!). It is absolutely a mark of God's grace that I haven't been sucked into the movement, considering how many times my life has intersected with it. So really, my personal experience has left me wary even of the argument, whether explicit or implicit, that "this English Bible translation is superior to all the others." Should we care about the quality of our modern Bible translations? Absolutely. But the alarm bells in my head are going off and screaming "slippery slope!" Perhaps I am overreacting, but it just doesn't seem that far-fetched to me that the argument "this English Bible translation is superior" could somehow morph into "this English Bible translation is the only one you should use." God forbid the KJV's "heir" (seriously, I am not a fan of this descriptor at all!) also inherit its very own "onlyism" movement.

(Read for the 2017 Tim Challies Christian Reading Challenge: A book about the Bible)

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful book for me.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the this books lays out the history of the King James Bible and its immediate forebears and later descendants (particularly the RSV, on which the ESV was based). Ryken works hard to show the glories of the KJV and how they displayed the best of the English Bible translation consensus.

In the second half of the book he endeavors to show how the ESV is a worthy heir of that legacy, which it undoubtedly is. His praise of the ESV is so unabashed and fulsome that it at times seems perhaps over the top (he served on the translation committee), so much so that the book reads almost like an extended pamphlet at times. But he calls to attention elements and features that a casual reader might miss or take for granted, and for this he is to be commended.

I think mainstream evangelicals today should probably read the King James Bible more often. Not because we think it is superior, but because it deserves to be appreciated, because we will get a greater sense of its influence, and because we will see better the tight connection with those Bibles in its "family (RSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.). Yes it was based on inferior manuscripts, and yes linguistics have come a long way--but that's why we have the modern ESV, for comparison and correction.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book made me appreciate the ESV and I have been more willing to switch to that version. I also realized that a Bible produced over a series of revisions during the past few centuries is a sensible way of producing a Bible for the modern days. The tradition in which the ESV stands has been tried, tested and found reliable in its translations.

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am again disappointed in reading Leland Ryken's presentation of formal equivalence Bible translation. I agree that formal equivalence (or essentially literal) is a better policy, but I can't support his way of arguing for it. The entire tone comes across as curmudgeonly, snide, and honestly a little pompous. It is full of uncharitable characterizations about other translator's low regard for Scripture and attributes motives where none were ever stated.

He contends that dynamic equivalence is weaker by largely taking the lowest hanging fruit and then characterizing entire translations based off of the worst passages. He lumps the NIV and the Message together, for example, as if they are both just examples of where dynamic equivalence will end up, which is very misleading. In a couple of instances he even lumped the NASB along with other "modern" dynamic equivalent translations, which simply made no sense; the NASB is a bit more literal than the ESV on the whole.

A major issue with Ryken's argumentation is I could very easily find examples where the ESV does the exact thing that he denigrates other translations for. Would this mean the ESV translators were playing fast and loose with the words of the Bible? Certainly not, but consistency in argumentation would mean acknowledging that there are parts of the ESV that are not always "essentially literal."

I still wonder if Ryken knows Hebrew very well. His examples of Hebrew make me wonder. In one instance, he pointed out how the Genesis 29:32–34 preserved the instances of the Hebrew conjunction "waw" and how this enhanced the flow of the ESV. Yet the ESV did not preserve every instance as it stands in the Masoretic Text; by my count, the ESV dropped of 3 of the 11 instances. It's a nitpick, but Ryken nitpicked and it seemed like something to take note of. It also translated the beginnings of verses 33 and 34 differently though they are exactly the same in the Hebrew. Not a big deal, but a point where the ESV did not strictly follow a correspondence methodology.

Since Ryken is a literary scholar, he spent much time waxing eloquent about how superior the KJV and ESV are to other translations. I get the desire for more reverent sounding translations, but this really seemed to descend largely into personal preference than anything else.

Ryken flies too close to arguments that have been put forward for KJV Only positions for my liking. I could imagine a time when similar arguments are being out forth 50 years from now for ESV Onlyism.

Can't really recommend this book. I am still in search of a better presentation of formal equivalence.

[Yuri Johnston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Resolve to keep, trust, and respect ESV

Remarkable. After lengthy confusion over the issue of translations and eager to understand the extensive of ESV preface, the Spirit led me to this book. If you want to know this book in quick way, read the last chapter. The last chapter will inspired you sufficient to read the whole book! Additionally, this book is input to understand the significant to persevere the essential literal translation, especially ESV. He clearly has the respect for the verbal inspiration which I learned that as one of theological terms, thanks to his boldness and bluntness. I have been jumping around different translations and thought that dynamic translations are better than essential literal due to commentary interpretations. After reading this book, he clarified on every concerns that I have in mind such as I understood much more about the works of translation procession especially of essential literal translation. Much of my confusions are clarified, thanks to him. At his inspirational encouragement, I’m resolved to keep ESV as my long-term bible despite of difficulties. Soli Deo Gloria!

[Timothy E. · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book begins and continues with an ardent defense of the KJV Bible, while ignoring the history and troubles of the KJV. The author points out all the good he can find in the KJV while excoriating any other translation. When he finally gets around to his titled subject, the ESV, it is still in comparison to the KJV, but ignoring the fact that the ESV is an update to the RSV and not the the KJV. This author had no sympathies for the RSV, and is either ignorant of, or else ignored, the actual linage of the ESV.

[Tim Franks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really good overview of the ESV Bible and the English Bible tradition. Mr. Ryken certainly knows his stuff about this topic, having studied it as as scholar and written other books on the topic. It was slanted heavily for the ESV, would have like to see a little more interaction from the other side of the arguments throughout.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has given me a new appreciation for the English Standard Version. My main reason for staying with the King James Version is the preference for the Greek text it uses. Ryken actually gives some solid reasons for the strength of the KJV. His focus is primarily linguistic and faithfulness to God's Word. He argues quite well that the ESV stands in the lineage of Tyndale / KJV.

[Thomas Coletto · Rating 5 out of 5]

A profound history of the English Bible legacy and the philosophy behind the ESV

[David J. Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some very, very helpful material occasionally stymied by unnecessary overstatement.

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leland Ryken is an ardent and passionate defender of God's word. On every page his love for the Scriptures is evident. As a scholar in the English Language and Literature, he brings his expertise to bear on the subject of Bible translation.

The Good
In this book, Ryken makes one of the most compelling and cogent arguments for the "essentially literal" translation philosophy I have read. And, at the same time, argues against the "dynamic equivalence" translation philosophy with powerful precision. He couches the conversation within the historical context of English Bible translations in general and the KJV-Tyndale tradition in particular.

Each chapter strives to build the argument that in every area that can be measured and evaluated, Bibles that follow an essentially literal translation approach are superior and better suited for use than those that are not.

The Bad
There is very little that I would say is "bad" in this book if anything at all. However, I would say that for those who have not made up their minds, this book will feel too heavy-handed in one direction.

The counter to this would be that a reader of this text should read it, knowing that Ryken is making an impassioned defense of the essentially literal translation approach, and the ESV in particular, as the contemporary standard bearer of this tradition. With this is mind evaluate the arguments he makes throughout the books.

Conclusion
After reading this book, I find the argument for primarily using essentially literal Bibles more compelling than the one for dynamic equivalence. Ryken is both knowledgeable and convincing.

If you are looking for a book that defends and promotes the essentially literal translation philosophy for Bible translation, you should not be disappointed with this book.