I have created an interface to the ESV web service from Emacs. It seems to work well enough. As usual, I’ve got big plans for it, and as usual, I’m not sure when I’ll get around to implementing them. But this works well enough for what I usually need.
-
Copyright
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Where noted, some Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.
All other content, except where indicated, is copyright © 2004-2008 Charles Sebold, Tracey Sebold, and Patrick Chan. All rights reserved. You may aggregate our RSS feed on your own website, provided you do not charge a fee to view it, or sell advertising space on that site.
23 Comments
You’ve been using Emacs for nearly two years?
*ahem* Seems a bit longer to me.
Two years? That number (wherever it came from) is likely from a pretty old document.
Two years appears on your EmacsWiki profile.
Updated, now it says almost ten (which sounds right to me at the moment).
Big update to esv.el, it fontifies the buffer now, and looks pretty nice. There’s a lot more I want to do.
So, how are you using this ESV API? Does the person that is using your EsvMode have to sign up to the API to use it or is it covered under your use? (Did you pay $100??)
The ESV API could be put to good use but for the limitations.
I’m using the ESV API in two ways personally.
So, it would be impossible for me to cover esv.el’s users and their usage under my license to use it. My license to use it is the same as anybody else’s is, but I provide a tool to take advantage of it, much like the Musterion ESV Wordpress plugin does. I don’t feel bad about shifting the burden of license regulation to my users; they need to be responsible for it. I purposely ship esv.el in such a way that they have to make a choice as to how to configure it, to force them in some small way to acknowledge the license.
As far as limitations go, the ESV is very nearly the freest modern translation in terms of licensing. I love the NASB but Lockman apparently puts the stress on “LOCK” when they’re telling people who they are. NET isn’t bad for restrictions but they’re not as formal as I like in translation method, and the really good part about NET (the footnotes) is harder to get your hands on.
So, to answer your last statement, the ESV is put to good use, all the time, precisely because of the reasonable nature of their limitations compared to everybody else. That it’s such a great translation is a bonus. If you’re waiting for a modern translation to be released CC or DFSG or GPL then you’re going to be waiting a while; scholars like to be paid.
My questions were strictly out of curiosity and nothing more. I was wondering how you thought the license applied to a work such as this. I’m fully aware that this is GPL’ed and therefore non-commercial.
When I made my last comment I was thinking along the lines of the possibility of software like the SWORD Project or something.
At first I was kinda excited about the prospect of an API for a translation of the Bible. It’s a very good idea and one that more should use. But after looking through the restrictions, it makes good use for small projects (like this one,) but for larger ones (like a SWORD type project) it’s requires more.
There was no attack on the ESV, it was more of a conclusion based on the limitations of the ESV API.
It’s too bad, really, because getting a good full translation in people’s hands, especially those that don’t have the money or it isn’t readily available in their area, is very important.
It’s interesting that you bring up the SWORD project. The implementations of SWORD that I’ve seen for Linux are capable of downloading and using the ESV for free, within their license.
That’s not using the web API, that’s using a license for downloading the text itself. When I’m sitting at my computer (at least, until I coded this up), I use GnomeSword 2-3 times a week to look things up in both ESV and NET. Since I’m usually cutting and pasting into Emacs I won’t have to use GnomeSword quite as much anymore to do that, unless I’m doing full text searches (which I intend to extend into esv.el, but not right now).
ESV has other licenses for other uses. It’s hard to find a situation where you can’t get hold of one electronically for free. My phone has it, using E-Sword (and not web access). iPhones, if I’m not mistaken, can get it either local or via the ESV website specially redesigned for iPhones. Linux, Windows, Mac… all have legal ways of getting the ESV without paying for it.
If you wanted to print it, you’d have a problem. Then again, maybe you wouldn’t. These guys were so cheap in their licensing that somebody was able to print New Testaments and retail them for $.50/copy a year or two ago. These days, that’s almost unheard of.
Seriously, if you don’t mind paying something, the ESV is as good as it gets right now. But if you just can’t pay anything… well, there is the good old KJV and ASV. You just don’t get the benefit of modern LXX scholarship, textual criticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so forth.
Well, some would argue you could pay for NASB95 and not get those now. *smiles*
To be honest, I haven’t looked at the SWORD Project for a couple of years… I was just bringing that up as an example of what lines I was thinking along.
It’s good to hear that the ESV is being better about getting electronic copies to people without the means of purchasing a license or printed copy.
Oh, and about the GPL’d nature of esv.el… that doesn’t actually have much to do with the ESV API license, I don’t think. The question is what people do with it. You can use GPL software on a commercial site, and then break the ESV license with it. Alternatively I think I could pay for software that uses the ESV API, but use it in a noncommercial way and not have to pay Crossway for it.
I am pretty sure that one of the two or three raisons d’etre (spelling?) of the ESV is to reduce the licensing burden of a good Bible. They were looking at the fact that every single major book publisher feels like they have to have their own version of the Bible now or have to pay ransom - I mean royalties - to somebody else to have a decent translation being quoted in their books.
Until recently, John Macarthur was in the strange situation of preaching out of the NASB for years, but having to publish his Study Bible in NKJV, because his publisher owned the NKJV and didn’t want to pay Lockman’s prices. That’s just one example.
Unfortunately, this hasn’t changed anything as far as publishing goes. I still don’t think there was much point to the HCSB except that the Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing arm decided they didn’t want to pay these things out, no matter how cheap the ESV could be.
I’m sorry, I know there are people out there who like the HCSB, but honestly I haven’t seen anything so earth-shaking that it’s worth walking away from NASB and/or ESV yet.
Hi, thanks very much for this, very nice!
It’s been a dozen years or more since I’ve done any serious Emacs hacking, but you might like to add some code along these lines to handle span elements (I’ve got v1.7):
((and (listp verse-item)
(eq (car verse-item) ’span))
(dolist (span-elem (cdr verse-item))
(if (stringp span-elem)
(insert span-elem))))
This really matters for class=”divine-name” spans: the Lord gets omitted otherwise, and I don’t want to edit Him out 8^).
It would be good to fontify the Divine Name, but my elisp skills have deserted me and I have a sermon to write…
Grace and peace.
Thanks, Ben! Adding it now. That’s what I get for mostly testing NT passages.
Charlie: You’ve hit upon one of my very favorite areas, so I have to add a couple of thoughts on this before it closes.
You’re absolutely right about the ESV in regards to electronic access. There are few if any electronic venues where you can’t find the ESV, and almost always for free. It may be because of the blogs I frequent, but I would venture to say the ESV has become the defacto Web bible for a large number of bloggers. The NET Bible is also very good with their licensing for Web use (I actually had a discussion with the permissions guy - super nice guy - and he added specific language for blogs, something no other translation I know of has). The NET Bible will let you print copies, BTW.
I’ve read through the licenses of all the major translations, and setting aside translation issues for a moment, the NIV/TNIV license isn’t really clear as to whether non-commercial Web use falls under its guidelines. It allows fair use for 500 verses quoted “in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio),” but later says that “…any other use including, but not limited to, copying or re-posting the Scripture on the Internet is prohibited.” It also has the restriction that the scriptures “may not be altered or modified in any form but must remain in their original context.”
The NKJV requirements are even more onerous. “Quotations must conform accurately to the NKJV text, including appropriate spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and special text formats.” I read this to mean that where the NKJV has italics because the word was added, you must also have that in there.
But my favorite is this: “Within 30 days following the printed, visual, electronic, audible, or musical use of the NKJV, two complete copies of a work using quotations from the NKJV (except for sermons, church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday School lessons, church newsletters, and similar works) must be sent to the following address: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, 501 Nelson Place, Nashville, Tennessee 37214-1000. In cases where NKJV is used online, written notice of the web page address is required.”
They obviously have no desire to have NKJV used electronically.
Speaking of non-use, I have a little inside info on the NASB. My understanding is that it wasn’t the cost that kept John MacArthur from using the NASB, but the refusal of the Lockman folks to allow it. Apparently they are quite selective on who and how it is used, and I know of at least one pastor who has switched to the ESV because of his fear that the NASB would one day be out of print due to Lockman’s lack of support.
Finally, I’m going to respectfully disagree with you on the HCSB. It is less literal than the NASB, which is true of every modern translation. And there are some things that are hard to get used to, especially the use of contractions. Nevertheless, I’ve found myself using it recently, and I think it is a solid translation. I know that many believe the HCSB is all only about the SBC not paying licensing fees, but I’d invite you to read this link and reconsider that thinking.
Wow, thanks for weighing in, Matt.
The NASB/MacArthur thing is very interesting. That is so strange… they have Calvinists among their translators and consultants, so it seems unlikely that the problem lies with Mac’s Calvinism. It certainly can’t be with his dispensationalism; probably their best-selling study Bible is the Ryrie, for goodness’ sake. I wonder what the problem is.
As far as HCSB, I read that interview, and that’s what made me think it might not be worth it. But, to be fair, I haven’t taken the time yet to actually look at the translation.
You know what I really, really like about the ESV? The Old Testament translation. Honestly, it rules. The NT is good, and better in readability than NASB for sure these days, but sometimes I just really prefer to know that Paul did write a seven-verse sentence occasionally. *smiles*
You never know, though… I may jump ship when that really great ESV Study Bible comes out. I haven’t seen a general-purpose study Bible that looked that good. I still am not a fan of study Bibles but man, that’s going to be some Christmas present fodder this year (if the green stuff is available).
What Blum says about the experience with Lockman and trying to buy the translation is the same thing I heard from the guy I talked to.
Thanks for extending the deadline on the comments, BTW!
When I get home tonite, I’ll get you a link to a cheap copy of the HCSB you can check out. I also have a link for you guys to a nice, text only copy of the *cough* TNIV *cough*.
In the meantime, can you tell me why the Blum interview turned you off? I only ask because it had the exact opposite effect on me, and I’m wondering why.
The comment deadline extends automatically if the conversation is continuing. Wordpress rules (more specifically, that plugin rules).
I linked above, but here is my take on that interview explicitly:
http://merbc.invigorated.org/archives/2007/12/20/bad-press/
Look out, Patrick might get you for coughing about the TNIV. (Just kidding, I guess you can be evangelical and like the TNIV.)
I think our church has copies of the HCSB in storage (we got them really cheap last year as part of a promotion). I’ll check with Pastor Rob and see if we have any. He’d probably let me have one.
I’m such a dummy. Maybe if you link to your post yet a third time I’ll get the message. Ha!
Thanks for the link. I’ll be responding in due course.
BTW, I think the ESV Study Bible is going to be awesome. But I can’t justify adding another Bible to my shelf right now, even one that is as awesome as that.
Here’s my response to your critique of the Blum article. I’ve followed your format because it was easiest.
1. I think his point is best made by the John 3:16 issue. “Everyone knows” John 3:16, so no translator is willing to change it, even if there is a more accurate way of translating it.
2. To some extent, I think it’s a matter of personal preference - how vernacular vs. how formal you want the language of your translation to be. For example, HCSB uses contractions, which I’ve found hard to get used to. But as I’ve continued to think about this issue, as it relates to different translations, as well as specifically to the TNIV, I’ve wondered if maybe part of my objection to other translations are simply because they don’t “sound like the Bible,” which is really just another way of saying they deviate from the King James Tradition (see point 1).
3. Among the annoying things about the ESV, one of the worst is that they footnote the same thing in a thousand places. It would almost certainly be better to address it either in an appendix, or in a note in one place, and then reference that note repeatedly. This is true for “leprosy,” “bondservant,” and “bothers and sisters.”
4. I think that the results of translation are plain for all to see. Any translation choice affected by the MT should be obvious, so I don’t see a concern here.
5. I’ll admit, I’m not 100% certain about the appropriateness of his statement. However, my information is that the description is essentially an accurate description of the way the Foundation has chosen to do business in the past.
6. To which I would reply “English Standard Bible?” Could it be better? Probably. But there’s a certain amount of pretentiousness in any statement of a “standard Bible.” It’s funny, because I had the exactly opposite reaction. This point put my mind at ease, because the explanation was much less pretentious than the name appeared to be.
7. Your Song of Solomon statement stands as written. Our church went through 1 John expositionally, and there are clearly issues that a translator must wrestle with. One specific example is the word “perfect.”
8. I’ll have to check BDAG to see if Blum is merely quoting them, or if he’s making the “stupid” statement himself. I didn’t get the sense that he was asserting the superiority of the HCSB translators in this case; merely the translation.
9. No comment. You’ve lived that whole thing…I can add nothing to the discussion.
10. I actually like the idea that they would define words. I will grant that there is a danger here, especially if the word is defined incorrectly. But the popular alternative seems to be excising these words altogether (which I’ve written about here). I think the HCSB’s alternative is better, and it makes me more likely to use this as a translation for evangelism. In the interest of completeness, I will note that the HCSB has neither “grace” or “propitiation” definted in the back, but I still think the principle is sound.
Re: the brackets, I think Blum’s statement says it best: “I suppose one of the reasons for doing it was to be able to say that we are as literal as possible.” You can go to extremes on that, but I think they are fine in the regular text. They are annoying as all get out when you’re trying to quote from it on a blog, though. I am glad they opted out of italics.
I’d rather see italics with OT quotes, but that’s more personal preference than anything else. They have their OT quotes in bold.
Finally, I’ll add that I think Blum is onto something when he says that marketing for the ESV is better than HCSB. Crossway has done a fantastic job of getting the word out on the ESV, about getting endorsements, and about proactively making it accessible to the electronic generation.
But just as Crossway has done a good job, I think Broadman & Holman has done a poor job. The website is probably the lamest website ever for using the translation. You can’t even access the footnotes, which is one of the best features. And the interview is the first place I’ve seen anywhere where someone specifically tried to disclaim the connection between the HCSB and the SBC.
Anyway, have a look at the translation when you get a chance, and let me know what you think.
P.S. for Patrick: regarding the HCSB, you said “I don’t like how it looks and the layout and so on, at least based on the editions I’ve seen in bookstores…” I wonder if you would elaborate on what specifically was unattractive to you. I have a pew bible and the Holman Pocket Edition, which I love, so I’m curious what you saw that wasn’t so lovely.
Zowie. OK, let’s see if I can get my foot far enough into my mouth to answer these.
Ultimately I think I’m not being fair to them. I distrust them immediately, and with little reason. I think I should give them a chance before I write things like this. I guess I’m a little gunshy about people outside the best elements of what I consider to be my tradition (Calvinists, Covenant Theology (most of it), Baptist, etc.) telling people what the Bible means.
I suspect that I’d be one of those people telling God to just squash all the translations and make everybody learn Hebrew and Greek a la Islam and Arabic. And that would be wrong, and silly.
I need to think these things through more before I talk about them. Thanks for setting me straight (again).
Gosh, I hope you didn’t feel like I was “setting you straight.” My take was different than yours, and I was giving it to you. One thing I appreciate about this place more than just about any other place I frequent is the opportunity for spirited discussion and debate amongst like-minded brothers (and sisters - ha!). It’s a safe place where we can talk things out. Out loud.
I’ll have more to say this weekend or the first part of next week.
BTW, I didn’t say congrats yet on the original subject of your post. You’ve made God’s word more accessible in some way - and that is a cool thing.
Let me preface this by saying that at least 90% of all my reading, blogging, etc., of the Bible uses the ESV (or RSV). So I’m not trying to bash the ESV here. Just trying to be evenhanded.
1. You may be right about the John 3:16 thing. But there is a difference between a new translation and a revision. I recently got a copy of the RSV on Palm, and I am amazed at how closely the ESV folks chose to stick to the RSV wording. There is a site somewhere that you could go and look at the changes, and I think that would be interesting. I think it would be conservative to say that at least 2/3rds of the ESV is unchanged or only changed in minor ways (such as removal of archaic language for the address of deity). There is a difference between “how do we translate this from Greek to English” and “is what we see here the best way of conveying the Greek?” That’s not making a judgment, merely an observation.
3. I think we’re actually mostly in agreement here. My problem with the ESV is the way they do footnotes (repetitive), not the fact that they use footnotes. I think that transparency is vital to understanding the text.
4. This made me smile, because the ESV’s marketing pretty much says the same thing that Blum does. Read this, for instance. I thought it was interesting also how they try to position themselves as the “standard.”
5. I’m going to let this drop so I don’t cross over into gossip. I’ll just say based on what I’ve heard that he may not have mischaracterized those negotiations. At the same time, it’s probably unfortunate that he said anything at all, at least publically. I get the feeling that he was speaking off the top of his head (or maybe out of turn?).
6. This gets into Bible marketing, to some extent, and everyone wanting to knock the NIV off their perch. Or better, to unseat the KJV and become the new “standard.”
7. I agree with that. Of course, I would suggest that at least some of this is because we go to expositional churches. If I went to a church that didn’t exposit the Scripture, I’d probably want a more dynamic translation. Part of this is also related to translation method, and trying to get the meaning right. I’m guessing you and I would both say that overtranslation is worse than undertranslation. In studying translation theory, however, I think the vast majority of translators would disagree with that statement, and would consider them equally bad.
8. You’re right about the word “stupid.” I wasn’t able to look it up, but if I ever find time, I will.
I still need to give Patrick a piece of my mind as well, but that will have to wait.
One Trackback
Emacs Interface to the ESV API…
Charlie at Talking Out of Turn has created an Emacs interface to the ESV web service.
To clear up any confusion, this kind of application is definitely welcome.
……