The English Standard Version: The Most Literal Translation?

Of the King James Version, the (British) Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version (the traditional gender-specific edition, not the modern "gender-neutral" edition), the New King James Version, and the English Standard Version, which is the most literal translation of the Bible? Which is the least literal translation of the Bible?

Your response might be, "I don't know which is the least literal, but I've heard that the most literal translation is the ESV." My response is, "I don't know which is the most literal translation, but - in at least one important respect - the ESV is the least literal, because it drops a helpful practice followed by the KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, and even (although inconsistently) by the NIV, the practice of indicating to the reader when something has been added to the translation that is not in the original Hebrew (or Aramaic) of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. The KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV use italics to do this, and the NIV uses brackets - alhough not consistently - but the ESV provides no such indication.

Let me provide an example of how sometimes even the KJV may be superior to the ESV, and let us look at two texts where Christ testifies to His own deity.

First, some background. It is fairly well known that the Gospel of John is the "I AM" (ego eimi) Gospel, emphasizing the deity of Christ. Here are some references from John's Gospel. (I'll be quoting from the New International Version unless I indicate otherwise.) Let's begin with a look at the traditional seven I AM's::

1. I AM the Bread of Life
Then Jesus declared, "I am (ego eimi) the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
-- John 6:35.
At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread that came down from heaven."
--John 6:41
"I am (ego eimi) the bread of life."
--John 6:48
"I am (ego eimi) the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
--John 6:51

2. I AM the Light of the World
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am (ego eimi) the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
--John 8:12

3. I AM the Gate (or the Door)
Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am (ego eimi) the gate for the sheep."
--John 10:7
"I am (ego eimi) the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture."
--John 10:9

4. I AM the Good Shepherd
"I am (ego eimi) the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
--John 10:11
"I am (ego eimi) the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—...."
--John 10:14

5. I AM the Resurrection and the Life
Jesus said to her, "I am (ego eimi) the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;...."
--John 11:25

6. I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life
Jesus answered, "I am (ego eimi) the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
--John 14:6

7. I AM the (true) Vine
"I am (ego eimi) the true vine, and my Father is the gardener."
--John 15:1
"I am (ego eimi) the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."
--John 15:5

That we have here implicit claim to deity is supported not only by the fact that in these passages John uses ego eimi rather than simply eimi (which he often uses elsewhere in sayings of Jesus), but also by the following verse:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am (ego eimi)!"
--John 8:58

where the reference is clearly to Exodus 3:14:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites. 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
--Exodus 3:14

Now for a short digression. If a New Testament translation supplies words that are not in the original Greek, there are ways in which that can be shown. As I said, the KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV use italics. The NIV uses brackets (but, unfortunately, not consistently). Although the ESV has a reputation for being a literal, word-for-word translation, it actually seems to be the least literal in this specific area, substituting interpretation for translation, even where it may dilute the Bible's teaching on the deity of Christ. (I'm sure that this is unintentional, but I think I can show you at least one important instance of how this can regrettably be the case.)

Let's consider John 8:24. Here is in my own fairly literal translation from the original Greek,

"I said to you therefore that you will die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

That's what the Greek of John's Gospel says that Jesus says. By use of italics, the KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV all show that this is the literal word-for-word translation:

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [the italics are in the KJV text], ye shall die in your sins.
--John 8:24, KJV

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he [the italics are in the ASV text], ye shall die in your sins.
--John 8:24, ASV (the RV is similar)

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He [the italics are in the NASB text], you will die in your sins."
--John 8:24, NASB

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He [the italics are in the NKJV text], you will die in your sins.
--John 8:24, NKJV

Even the NIV puts into brackets the words not in the original Greek:

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be] [those brackets - and the words within them - are not mine, but in the NIV text], you will indeed die in your sins.
--John 8:24, NIV

Incidentally, I think the use of brackets is an improvement over the earlier use of italics. When I was a young Christian, I assumed that the words in italics must be the most important words, since they were emphasized (or so I thought). But I came to realize that such was not the case when I began to observe that the words in italics were often the least important words. Not until years later did I understand that the italics meant that the words in italics were not in the original. With the use of brackets, a proper understanding is more "intuitive." (I only wish that the NIV had been more consistent in noting where the translation contained words not in the original, but its adherence to "dynamic equivalence" rather than to providing a word-for-word translation makes that difficult or impossible.)

The ESV, however, does not indicate at all that what John really said is that Jesus said "unless you believe that I AM" rather than "unless you believe that I am he." Here is how the ESV renders the verse:

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [there are no italics or brackets in the ESV text to indicate that the word "he" is not in the original text] you will die in your sins."
--John 8:24, ESV.

(By the way, I should perhaps mention that the on-line Bible Gateway site apparently removes the italics from the KJV, ASV, and NASB and removes the brackets from the NIV, leaving only the italics in the NKJV to show when words are supplied that do not appear in the original text.)

I believe that John 8:24 is an important verse where Jesus testifies to His own deity. A similar important verse testifying to the deity of Jesus Christ is nearby, John 8:28:

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am (ego eimi) [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me."
--John 8:28

The various translations handle this verse in exactly the same way as they handle John 8:24:

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he [the italics are in the KJV text], and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
--John 8:28, KJV

Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he [the italics are in the ASV text], and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.
--John 8:28, ASV (the RV is similar)

So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He [the italics are in the NASB text], and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me."
--John 8:28, NASB

Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He [the italics are in the NKJV text], and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things."
--John 8:28, NKJV

Even the NIV puts into brackets the words not in the original Greek:

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] [those brackets - and the words within them - are not mine, but in the NIV text] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me."
--John 8:28, NIV

The ESV, however, does not indicate at all that what John really said is that Jesus said "you will know that I AM" rather than "you will know that I am he," as the ESV renders it:

So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me."
--John 8:28, ESV

Note again that the ESV does not use italics or brackets or anything else to indicate that the word "he" is not in the original Greek text.

That the Jews took the "ego eimi" to be a claim to deity is obvious in John's Gospel by, for example, their desire to stone him for blasphemy (cf. John 8:58-59).

Unfortunately, the NIV is not as consistent as the KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV. Sometimes it translates "ego eimi" as "I am He" without indicating that the "He" does not appear in the original Greek:

"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am (ego eimi) He.
--John 13:19, NIV.

Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?" "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "I am (ego eimi) he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am (ego eimi) he," they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." "I told you that I am (ego eimi) he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."
--John 18:4-8, NIV.

It is difficult to read the Gospel of John without being aware that there is a special significance to the phrase "I AM," but the ESV translates ego eimi as "I am He" without indicating that at that point - and unlike the KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV - it is not being a literal word-for-word translation, but is supplying interpretation (adding a word) without indicating that it is doing so. (Even the NIV is more literal in this situation, even if inconsistently so.)

When the RSV appeared, the uniform consensus of evangelicals was that it was a terrible translation. O.T. Allis, Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, for example, wrote more than one book critiquing the RSV. About the only evangelical of note who defended the RSV was Edward John Carnell, who was savagely treated by other evangelicals because of his support of the RSV. Now, all of a sudden, it appears that there were a lot of closet supporters of the RSV and that the RSV is now being praised as an excellent literal translation! (The RSV is the basis on which the ESV is built.)

Here are some interesting historical facts. William Tyndale's translation was the first translation to use italics for words not in the original text. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to use italics extensively for words not in the original text. Thus the KJV did not invent the practice, but followed a tradition that existed before it. The RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV continued that tradition (in spite of the fact that italics in other writing are now universally used to indicate emphasis, not absence of words). (And, as we saw, even the NIV - not noted for any commitment to being a literal translation - will sometimes use brackets to indicate words not in the original text.)

What translation was apparently the first significant translation to depart from the tradition of indicating words not in the original text, the tradition that began with William Tyndale and the Geneva Bible, was continued by the King James Version, and was retained by the (British) Revised Version and American Standard Version? You guessed it: it was the Revised Standard Version, the foundation on which the English Standard Version is based, and the ESV follows the RSV in that regard (even though the New American Standard Bible and the New King James Bible, both of which came after the RSV, continued to use italics to indicate words not in the original text).

So I have to admit at this point that (warning: mixed metaphor coming up) I have not let myself be stampeded into jumping on the bandwagon for the ESV, a translation which could be accurately described as the RRSV (Revised Revised Standard Version) or ERSV (Evangelical Revised Standard Version). It is a good translation, but I do challenge the claims sometimes made that it is more "literal" than other translations.

Although I do believe that the King James Version ought to be supplemented by more modern translations, I do not believe any Christian ought to be apologetic about continuing to use the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version (the traditional "gender-specific" version, not the modern "gender-neutral" version), or the New King James Version, all of which I regard as fine translations, along with the English Standard Version (which, however, has not in my opinion provided proof at this point that it is clearly superior to - or ought to replace - these other versions).