Is the ESV "essentially literal"?

The ESV defines its translation philosophy as follows:

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original...

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence.

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts. (taken from ESV translation philosophy)

In my earlier article on Isaiah 7:14 I showed an example of what "we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence" means. What it means is that passages in the Hebrew Old Testament are "translated" the way they were used by New Testament authors, which is not translation from the Hebrew at all. As the article showed there is no textual support in the Masoretic (Hebrew) at all for their translation; rather their was support in the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew popular among the New Testament authors) and from that Christian tradition has chosen to override the Hebrew in favor of the Greek. That's not translating "essentially literally" and showing a correspondence its using a loose dynamic translation theory, they made a judgment about what the text "really meant" rather than what it said and translated as if it actually said what they thought it meant.

But the problem is not just the few hundred verses where they do this sort of work. It runs into the whole methodology of translation. We can organize translation types into a collection of layers from more to less literal:

1. Hebrew/Greek, Diglot or Hebrew/Greek Reader (NA27, MT/BT, TR, MT-Heb)
2. Interlinear translation (Brown & Comfort, Marshall, McReynolds, Concordant interlinear)
3. Highly literal (AMP, NASB, YLT, Mounce, Concordant)
4. Formal (NRSV, ESV, KJV, ASV, NKJV)
5. Balanced (TNIV, NET, NIV, HCSB)
6. Tight Dynamic (REB, NAB)
7. Dynamic (NEB, NJB, CEV, NLTse)
8. Loose dynamic (NLT1ed, GNB)
9. Paraphase (MSG, TLB, TAB, JBP)

I've put representative examples of each type of translation. The argument of the ESV website is that the step from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 is inconsequential while the step from 4 to 5 is massive. I think that is simply nonsense. I would argue there are two large steps. The first from 2 to 3 (where we lose: Greek phrase and sentence structure, lesser implications, poetic meaning, analogy, methaphore...); and the second from 7 to 8 where we lose primary meaning of the various words, genuinely moving from a translation to an interpretative translation. If "essentially literal" means anything it means keeping as much as possible the structure and wording of the original. Which leads me to ask the question why not an interlinear. Contrast a verse pair I choose to have as few complexities as possible:

And came out the Pharisees and they began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, trying him. And having sighed deeply in the spirit of him he says, why does seek this generation a sign? Truly I say to you, in no way will be given to this generation a sign. (Mark 8:11-12 Brown and Comfort).

11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." (Mark 8:11-12, ESV)

Lets start listing the differences:

• "trying him" vs. "to test him". Peirazo base is presented in the greek in the present active that is peirazontev. This is an "ing" style verb in English. "Testing him" would be fine, "to test him" is a different tense. That's not translating its paraphrasing. The reader may wonder, why did they do this? Simple, so it matches with John 8:6 where they also translate "to test him", so they can use "This they said to test him" rather than "They were saying this testing him" (as per the NASB) in John 8:6 where the passage is better known. That is they were harmonizing their translation between gospels, and smoothing the language. Laudable goals, but a minor example of how liturgical needs interfere with accuracy.
  
• "the spirit of him" vs "his spirit". Where is "his" coming from? The ESV is implying a relationship between spirit and self that is not reflected in the text. This is a theological change, there really is no excuse.
  
• The position of the negation. They have "no sign will be given to this generation" which is interpretation. Not an unreasonable one but one just the same.
• Finally there is an entire structure of punctuation which is not present in the original. While Brown & Comfort have punctuation, they have the Greek right above the text without so in their's it is clear it just suggested punctuation, i.e. it is clearly commentary. Punctuation is a very powerful tool that can completely change meaning:
  
  • A woman without her man is nothing.
  • A woman: without her, man is nothing.
  Shakespeare in Midsummer's Nights Dream has the most famous example of how powerful punctuation can be:
  
  • If we offend, it is with our good will.
    That you should think, we come not to offend... (We want to offend but with good will)
  • If we offend, it is with our good will that you should think we come not to offend. (You should know that we don't mean to offend)
  
  

Now this is a pretty easy verse. Not tricky in the slightest. These kinds of changes happen on every single verse of the New Testament. Nothing really bad is happening, but this shows pretty clearly and fairly what would be the difference between "essentially literal" translation and what the ESV is actually doing. By aiming for readability they need to compromise accuracy, that is if you buy EVS's philosophy a step 2 translation, an interlinear, is what you should use. You can only argue for the ESV as a translation only if you believe in a balanced translation philosophy rather than actually being "essentially literal".

Now that's interesting because the best known evangelical translation that does openly believe in balance is the NIV/TNIV, "By having a built in system of checks and balances... But the point is that when we produced the TNIV, we wanted accuracy, but not at the expense of beauty; we wanted beauty, but not at the expense of clarity; and we wanted clarity, but not at the expense of dignity. We wanted all these in balance." (from The Balanced Translation Philosophy of the TNIV). That is the very translation the ESV is meant to attack champions the ideology they actually use. I think it is fair to say that nothing particularly dramatic happens from steps 4 to 5. Leland Ryken (editor of the ESV literary study bible) wrote the apology for the ESV that is heavily quoted all over the web, The Word of God in English. This book most certainly deserves a more lengthy refutation than this small article. But what concerns us here is that in the book he groups steps 5-8 indiscriminately as dynamic.

With the exception of the NIV, the bibles he considers focus on ease of reading, that is diminished vocabulary rather than simply modern vocabulary. That is effectively he's contrasting children's bibles with adult bibles and saying for adults the adult bible is better. Now the leader of using dynamic translation to enhance meaning for educated adults was C. H. Dodd leader of the NEB translation team.

This will serve to illustrate the point that a critical and historical approach to the biblical writings puts us in the way of understanding their meaning more precisely, because we allow the writers to speak for themselves, giving their own answers to their own questions. These questions will not always be those that are occupying our minds at the moment. Very often the best service that our reading can do us is to raise prior questions, questions which need to be asked and answered before we can profitably consider the immediate problems, private or public, practical or theoretical, upon which we should wish to get light. Nothing is more certain than that an intelligent reading of the Bible does bring effective guidance in the most urgent and actual present problems; but to get it we must submit ourselves to the discipline of listening to words that were not intended for us at all.

We have seen that at one period a rigid scheme of interpretation tended to blanket the direct impact of the Bible upon the mind; and at another period the license of private interpretation threatened to befog it in a cloud of individual predilections. The critical method finds its way between the horns of the dilemma. It rejects restraint from without upon liberty of interpretation, and at the same time excludes an arbitrary or capricious use of liberty by accepting the intrinsic control of the historical movement within the Bible itself. (The Bible today, C. H. Dodd)

The modern version of the NEB which is more suited for liturgical use is the REB. Were Ryken interested in an honest debate on dynamic translation he would be addressing the REB and places where the REB differs substantially from the ESV. That is precisely what I intend to do in the next piece. In the Isaiah 7:14 I showed that the ESV cannot be counted on to be accurate within the old testament. In this that is not "essentially literal", and if that was one's goal how far better translations are available. In the final installment I will analyze a difficult passage, not a simple one like Mark 8:11-12 and show how the REB/NEB by using dynamic translation philosophy are able to capture meaning lost to the ESV, which is precisely the point of dynamic translation.

As an aside, in the list above I've also bolded the translation I think are very accurate, that is the ones that convey the meaning of the text, at least in a Christian context. The King James is in red since at this point to the English speaking world this bible has become a religious text in and of itself as much as it is a translation. While as a translation it is not accurate, it many ways it is a defining translation like the LXX or the Vulgage and so is accurate in a higher sense by definition.

The reader will notice there are two blanks at step 4 and at steps 8-9. The reason for the problems at 8-9 deserve no real defense. Accuracy is simply lost, though features like level of retention per hour of study for new readers, skyrocket. The problem at 4 is exactly what I've outlined above. Readability kills literal accuracy. Literally accuracy kills meaning. So at step 4 you end up with a bible you can trust neither to be accurate in the text nor in the meaning.

See also:

• When literal is not accurate
• Follow up using another person's ratings.
• Tyndale (publisher the NLT and the Brown & Comfort) responded to a question from the comments with this post (and this comment below)