So let’s pivot to a real world question concerning, “Ok then, but what translation do we actually use?”
My church presently uses the ESV, and has for maybe 10 years now. Prior to that (before I came) they used the NKJV. I think the motivation at the time had mostly to do with the elders becoming persuaded of the merit of critical text over the received text.
I personally settled into the ESV around 2009, I think. The church I was previously a part of used that, and when I began giving some level of study to the topic of textual criticism and translations, I found Piper’s case for the ESV to be as compelling as any. I recall at the time being mildly bothered (less than I am now) by the incessant “brothers and sisters” and “bondservants” footnotes, but in many cases appreciated the ESV’s more substantive decisions on when to footnote alternate translations (e.g. Genesis 49:10).
Years later, I am now far more familiar with and militant against the neutering of the ESV, its pulled punches on malakoi, and so forth. However, at the same time, like I stated above, the ESV is something of an “old friend.” It’s the known quantity. Besides, I think there are cases where the ESV really does get it right where less neutered translations like NASB and LSB get it wrong (such as the example that began this post). So if I were to pivot to one of those translations, I feel I would just be trading one set of problems for another.
As I would study to preach, I spend time making sure I’ve acquainted myself with the differences between the ESV, KJV, and NASB95 on any given passage, and try to get the sense of the Greek or Hebrew at at least a primitive lexical level, and – where relevant– try to spot any meaningful differences between the critical text and received text. I want to try to exalt the words of Scripture to the greatest extent I can, especially where I perceive that the ESV has deviated from the proper sense. But when I envision myself preaching from any other translation, I don’t see how this work would change at all.
So as we preach and teach, we are sure to comment on the neutering of God’s word, the nature of effeminacy, the infection of feminism in our translations, and so forth. I take the liberty of shaming the neutered footnotes often. I accentuate the fatherhood of God, and I avoid taking the word “humanity” upon my lips, always insisting instead to refer to man, Adam or Adam’s race.
But I don’t feel like I’m solving anything, really, by pivoting to the NASB95 or LSB. The work of the preacher remains the same, regardless of which of these translations is the one actually being read. But each of them are ashamed of the words of God in their own ways, are they not?
Perhaps instead of thinking in terms of purity, we ought simply treat it as a matter of triage. Given that the major heresy in the church today is our anthropological rebellion, maybe I should be willing to trade the ESV in favor of any formal equivalency translation that refuses to be ashamed of the male distinctive, regardless of what other issues it introduces?
Now, I am at something of a crossroads. My church is currently working toward planting a church about 45 minutes away where we have a few families currently residing, in a town that needs a gospel witness. Myself and another of our current elders will be sent as the founding elders, with me operating as the lead pastor. If I really want to press the issue of pivoting away from the ESV as we begin a new church, now is a pretty good time to have that conversation.
So what would you guys advise? I get the vibe that we’re still at least a decade or two away from a new translation that would really stand in the gap the way Tim would like to see (and I am compelled to earnestly pray for that work). But what to do in the interim?
