[Mins] Bible Translation Committee report

Sat Jun 8 05:42:15 UTC 2013

Thanks Peter for sending the thought provoking observations about the ESV -
with regard to comparative readability and Chapple's review.

Our committee would like to respond with the following remarks :- 

1. While the readability test puts the ESV in quite a good light (equal 2nd
with the NIV11), we'd like to reiterate the observations made in the Synod
2006 report - i.e. quantifying readability is extremely difficult. 

2. With regard to Chapple's review - please keep in mind that he is
assessing all the faults of ONE translation. Our committee has compared the
ESV against the faults & strengths of all other viable options. This can
radically change the conclusions that can be drawn from such an assessment.
For instance, one could say a readability test was done for the ESV & it
scored a lousy 62, meaning 11 yr olds would struggle to read it easily. This
sounds bad until you point out that by comparison with the "winner", the
NIV84 on 63, the ESV is not all that bad after all.

3. Chapple's negative review of the ESV was completed in 2004. Since then
the ESV has had two updates (2007 & 2011)

4. Chapple's conclusion is "Do we really need the ESV when we've already got
the NIV & the NRSV?" In reply we'd like to point out -

a) The NIV is no longer an option & so that part of his conclusion is no
longer a consideration

b) We as a committee do not believe the NRSV is a better option than the
ESV. In fact, for Chapple to even consider the NRSV a better option reveals
he has a different view of faithful Bible Translation than is argued in our
report. This is because the NRSV takes a similar approach to "political
correctness" as does the NIV11, which have already established is
inappropriate."

CRCA Bible Translation Committee

In Christ,

Albert Esselbrugge

From: mins-bounces at crca.org.au [mailto:mins-bounces at crca.org.au] On Behalf
Of WPG
Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 2:23 PM
To: mins at crca.org.au
Subject: [Mins] Bible Translation Committee report

Dear Brothers,

The English Standard Version

As Sessions and Classes consider the report of the Synodical Bible
Translation Committee, may I draw to your attention the useful paper by
Allan Chapple, evaluating the ESV? Please find attached to this email. His
findings are appended below.

Readability

As an exercise, I used a "Readability Index Calculator"
(http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php) which employs
the Flesch-Kincaid algorithm to calculate readability (see details at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid) for four English versions of
Scripture passages. I used text only, with no verse numbers, paragraph
breaks or references. Here are the results for four passages of Scripture:

Psalm 119

NIV 1984

NIV 2011

ESV

NAS95

HCSB

Flesch-Kincaid

Grade Level

7

7

7

8

7

Reading Ease

68

68

66

61

64

Order 

1

1

2

3

4

Daniel 12

NIV 1984

NIV 2011

ESV

NAS95

HCSB

Flesch-Kincaid

Grade Level

10

10

9

13

9

Reading Ease

60

60

65

54

63

Order 

3

3

1

4

2

Matthew 5

NIV 1984

NIV 2011

ESV

NAS95

HCSB

Flesch-Kincaid

Grade Level

8

8

8

10

8

Reading Ease

69

67

68

64

69

Order 

1

3

2

4

1

2Peter

NIV 1984

NIV 2011

ESV

NAS95

HCSB

Flesch-Kincaid

Grade Level

11

12

13

18

12

Reading Ease

55

53

49

35

50

Order 

1

2

4

5

3

According to the Wikipedia article, the 'Reading Ease' scores may be
interpreted as follows:

In average Reading Ease, the NIV84 came top (63), with NIV2011 (62) and ESV
(62) second, then HCSB (61.5) and finally NAS95 (53.5).

Blessings,

Peter Gadsby

Canberra

Chapple's findings

Conclusion

In this article, I have attempted to assess the quality of the ESV. I have
done so by examining the extent to which it achieves its own objectives. In
Part 1, I measured the ESV against its goal of being an 'essentially
literal' translation. In Part 2, I considered the related aim of providing
'word-for-word correspondence' or 'consistency of translation'. In Part 3,

I looked at the ESV's intention of offering 'clarity of expression',
especially by replacing 'archaic language' with that in 'current usage'.

A set of consistent findings has emerged across all three parts of this
investigation. These are:

1. The ESV is essentially the RSV, with only minor changes overall.

2. Where there are variations from the RSV, they seem to be quite haphazard,
and don't appear to reflect the consistent pursuit of any of the primary
goals the ESV Committee set for itself.

3. The ESV's substantial retention of the vocabulary and phraseology of the
RSV gives it a rather dated, awkward 'feel'. It doesn't obviously commend
itself as a 21st century version

4. Measured by its own aims, the ESV is not a great success.

5. Of necessity, all mainstream translations are hybrids, a mixture of the
'formal equivalence' and 'dynamic equivalence' approaches. There are not two
ways of translating or two kinds of translation-as the ESV's own Preface,
and especially publicity for the ESV, might imply. The difference between
the ESV and other translations is one of degree only, in relation both to
what their objectives emphasise and to how well they achieve them.

If these conclusions are sound, several others follow from them:

6. The claim that the ESV is superior to the NIV (or any other modern
translation) needs to be demonstrated, and not just asserted.

7. Committing a congregation to use the ESV may mean putting unnecessary
obstacles in the way of new Christians, of people from unchurched
backgrounds, and of people without an unusually high degree of literacy.

8. We might still get the version that the ESV was supposed to be if the
team that worked on it (or another team) did the job again. It appears that
the ESV was produced in record time. At least some of the features I have
drawn attention to appear to be signs of haste, and doing the task more
carefully would undoubtedly yield more consistent and worthwhile results.

This final conclusion leads me to raise one more issue. Are the NIV and NRSV
really so inadequate, or a redone ESV really so essential, that we can
happily accept many thousands of hours and dollars being poured into yet
another translation for the English-speaking world? We already have more
than we need, and an increasing range of special editions of many of them.
How can we keep diverting for our own benefit resources that should be used
to ensure that our fellow-Christians in the two-thirds world have just one
edition of one translation in their own language? Surely it is time for us
to say (at least for a while), 'Enough is enough!' '... as a matter of
fairness, [our] abundance at the present time should supply their need .' (2
Cor. 8:13-14, ESV).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://crca.org.au/pipermail/mins_crca.org.au/attachments/20130608/4922ac48/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://crca.org.au/pipermail/mins_crca.org.au/attachments/20130608/4922ac48/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9897 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://crca.org.au/pipermail/mins_crca.org.au/attachments/20130608/4922ac48/attachment.png>