Talk:English Standard Version

should this version also be indlude in the table at appears in the other Bible articles? Modern English Bible translations

Impact

The ESV has been received very well throughout evangelicalism. Many churches and denominations have adopted it or endorsed it in some way (formally or informally). Many of these groups have been Anabaptist or Arminian in nature, hardly Reformed or Presbyterian. Is there evidence out there to suggest that Reformed folks have embraced the ESV moreso than other evangelicals? In order to have a truly NPOV page, a reference like that would need to have some kind of citation. Otherwise, it's simply not true. I have altered the page to read "evangelicals" instead of "Reformed" or "Presbyterian", as that seems more accurate; at least until there's some substantial evidence to the contrary. KHM03 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-worded and sourced. Obviously, not every endorser, translator, or advisor listed on those pages is Reformed, but they are a prominent chunk (Sproul, Piper, Mahaney, Brown, Mohler, Grudem, Packer, both Rykens, etc). raekwon 20:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the endorsements you cite are not Presby/Reformed folks. By my count, most are actually Baptists, with several Wesleyan/Methodists, Church of Christ, & independents thrown in. So, again, what's your justification for saying that the ESV has found "particular" acceptance in Reformed churches? Please just cite the evidence. How has the ESV been embraced by Presbys moreso than other users of the translation? KHM03 21:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, every example I cited is reformed in his/her soteriology, along with the groups and churches they represent (though some are indeed Reformed Baptists, like Piper and Mohler . . . they're not mutually exclusive terms). As I said earlier, not everyone on the list is reformed, but they do indeed represent a good chunk of the endorsers and the team. raekwon 22:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I revised "non-Christian interpretations" to "interpretations which Christian conservatives have viewed as being theologically liberal" so that the wording would fit with the NPOV of Wikipedia.

BTW, I don't think Mohler is a Reformed Baptist. He is simply a Baptist, of the Southern Baptist Convention. Reformed Baptists will usually explicitly state that that is what they are. They are far in a minority among Baptists. I don't know if any Reformed Baptists worked on the ESV. Apologist James R. White is a Reformed Baptist. I believe he is a member of a Reformed Baptist church. It probably would be a good exercise to surf the Internet for "Reformed Baptist" to get the definition nailed down more clearly. R.C. Sproul is Reformed (but not Baptist). wleman 02:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

For use on your user pages

File:Esvlogo1.jpgThis user recommends the English Standard Version of the Bible.

KHM03 11:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran usage

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is adopting the ESV as our "official" translation in 2006. Our new hymnal and liturgy will feature ESV renderings. Currently we are using the NIV. The more "liberal" Evangelical Lutheran Church In America uses the NRSV, since it is a member of the National Council Of Churches (the LCMS is not). I'm not sure what the smaller, more "conservative" Lutheran synods, like the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are using.--MarshallStack 17:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the LCMS was adopting ESV as their "official" translation. It is only going to be the source Scripture text for the new Lutheran Service Book hymnal (The 1941 Lutheran Hymnal is KJV-based; the 1980's Lutheran Worship hymnal is NIV-based). The Synod-wide bulletin published by Concordia Publishing House still uses NIV for the Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel readings printed on the back cover. Tcschenks 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The ESV is not the "official" translation of the LCMS - the LCMS has never really had an "official translation." The NIV has been the de facto translation of use for many, primarily due to its inclusion as the text for Lutheran Worship (which was adopted by a slight majority of congregations) but I'm aware of a sizeable number of congregations using NKJV or (in some cases) that still have RSVs in the pew racks. With the change to the ESV text in Lutheran Service Book, however, most publications released by Concordia Publishing House from this upcoming Advent season forward will use the ESV in near-exclusivity. The aforementioned bulletin covers will switch to ESV in Advent 2006. There are exceptions, but I would expect them to be rare. --Achernar Dni 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas P. Nass (of WELS) has written some very good articles about translations, including one on ESV: http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/bible-revision-new-international-version-2010. Some of the articles are worth reading for everyone who want to edit this or similar wikipedia entries. Nass understands translation theory and is fairly neutral, even though a conservative dogmatic Lutheran. His article on ESV is worth citing here, IMO. 193.167.107.251 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic equivalence?

The infobox on the page currently states that the ESV's translation philosophy is dynamic equivalence. However, the "Translation Philosophy" section in the ESV's preface says:

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.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Collins. 2002. pp. vii. ISBN 0-00-710748-X.

This doesn't sound like dynamic equivalence to me. I think we should state that the ESV is a formal equivalence translation. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen -- a few of us have been hashing out the categories for a while now. We finally ended up with four from a number of sources:

Formal Equivalence: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU

Dynamic Equivalence: RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB, NIV

Free Translation: JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT

Paraphrase: Living, Phillips, Message

The RSV actually set the pattern for dynamic equivalence with its statement: "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." The NIV is on the borderline for another division, with some commentary thrown in instead of translation in a few places. The Jewish New Testament throws in Yiddish expressions and arbitrarily changes the names for Peter and Paul so that they are always called by their Hebraic names, etc. The designations were something of an accident from different sources. Some had Dynamic Equivalence all the way from the RSV through the NLT. Others started "Free Translation" around the NIV. After a bit of cross verification and discussion, we ended up throwing the kitchen sink of descriptions in -- which is how we ended up with four instead of three categories. I personally like the RSV and ESV, and find them VERY literal, but since the RSV defined the pattern for dynamic equivalence, since implied words are not italicized as most formal equivalents do, and since different sources describe it either way, it's something of a toss up. Tim 18:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is this all explained somewhere "permanent"? It doesn't belong in article space, but it should probably go somewhere in a "WikiProject Bible FAQ" or something. I can't be the only person who's wondered about the formal/dynamic categories in use here. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen -- There are articles on Dynamic and Formal Equivalence, but there is no consistency yet. The info boxes have four categories. The Dynamic and Formal equivalence article doesn't have Free Translation or Paraphrase. And there's another article on the subject regarding Bibles, but it only has three categories. All of this seems to be new on Wiki across the board, and I'm just now trying to negotiate on the different locations to reach a consensus! Tim 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is settled now (as the current ESV status is "formal equivalence" in the article), but the statement "as literal as possbile, as free as necessary", was from the early English Translations, including the KJV: and has been the pattern set for those translations generally consider "formally equivalent"; so classifying the ESV as a dynamic equivalence translation is ridiculous; the RSV is an interesting case though, despite even the ESV being based on it; the RSV was wrought from the ASV, definitely a formally equivalent version; the RSV team wanted something like a dynamic-equivalent approach, as they stated; but in trying to preserve the ASV in their work, produced, as "Accuracy of Translation" (Robert P. Martin) puts it, a "schizophrenic" work: and yet, among translators and readers, despite having a dynamically-equivalent philosophy, in practice, and under evaluation, it yet ended up being a formal equivalence version: since the ASV was so darn literal and trying to preserve it basically nailed their feet into the floor. But as far as valid sources, I've seen none that claim the ESV is a dynamic equivalence translation.

tooMuchData

11:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

The line between formal and dynamic equivalence is arbitrary. Do you set it at 94% equivalence and below (NIV, and down), or up to 98% (to include RSV and ESV). It's just a label until you hammer that question down. In any case, here are the equivalences given in the Comprehensive New Testament (I've added the "label?" column if you want to hash it out):

Version	Equivalence	Label?
ASV (American Standard Version)	99%	Formal?
NAS (New American Standard)	98%	Formal?
NAU (New American Standard 1995 Update)	98%	Formal?
KJV (King James Version)	98%	Formal?
NKJ (New King James)	98%	Formal?
ESV (English Standard Version)	98%	?
RSV (Revised Standard Version)	98%	?
DRA (Douay-Rheims American)	97%	?
HCS (Holman Christian Standard)	97%	?
NRS (New Revised Standard)	97%	?
NAB (New American Bible)	96%	?
MRD (Murdock Peshitta Translation)	95%	?
NIV (New International Version)	94%	Dynamic?
NJB (New Jerusalem Bible)	93%	Dynamic?
REB (Revised English Bible)	91%	Dynamic?
TEV (Today's English Version)	91%	Self-Defined as Dynamic
JNT (Jewish New Testament, Stern)	91%	Dynamic?
NLT (New Living Translation)	88%	Paraphrase?
TLB (The Living Bible)	81%	Self-Defined as Paraphrase

Toy around with the labels all you like -- there ARE no consistently used labels out there.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

not really gender neutral

My edits on the subject of gender neutrality appear to have caused some angst, but I think they are correct:

• While I removed some links to Wayne Leman's documents at geocities, I replaced them with a link to his main ESV page, allowing access to all of Leman's documents on the ESV, not just one or two.
• The article previously said that the ESV had been "found to use gender neutral language like other bible translations that received criticism for its use". While that is Mark Strauss' opinion, that is not fact. It is challenged by Wayne Grudem.
• I stand by my opinion that Mark Strauss' document http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/files/gender-inclusive-esv.doc is pretty poor, at least in its conclusion that "What is odd and ironic is that the some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV". Why? One only has to compare the two versions. The ESV never replaces "brothers" with "brothers or sisters", etc. Furthermore, the ESV on many occasions leaves the sexist language in (e.g. Psalm 1:1 "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked"), so its non-sexist language is occasional, rather than being thoroughgoing as in the TNIV or NRSV. Nevertheless, this is all my opinion. I have left Strauss' document and quote in the article.

Peter Ballard (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing addition

An anonymous editor added this paragraph:

On the other hand, the word for "man" used in the cases to attack the ESV comes normally from the Greek word "anthropos", which according to Strong's dictionary means "human being: - certain, man". "Anthropos" is ambiguous & does not explicitly even mean "man". "Man" is not explicitly stated in the vast majority (if not, all) of the allegations of Dr. Mark L. Strauss. (Source: e-sword)

Although the edit is in good faith, I have removed it for the following reasons:

1. It is not clear to me what is being argued. I think what is meant is, "ESV only translates 'anthropos' as 'person' rather than 'man' when it is clear that the original author did not have a male in mind", but that's pretty well what the paragraph on Grudem's response says anyway.
2. Unless it adds explanation, it is not really needed. The article mentions Strauss' criticisms and Grudem's response. What does this paragraph add? I don't think we need to add "e-sword agrees with Grudem" to the article, unless the e-sword author is a particularly notable expert.
3. The reference (simply "e-sword") is not sufficiently clear. I have googled for Strauss on e-sword.net and can't find anything.

I'm happy to restore the edit if these concerns can be addressed. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from article

I removed the following GF edits: The ESV also omits doctrinal issues concerning divorce and adultery, the geneology of Christ, the way to salvation, the deity of Christ, and the Triune Godhead. Some issues of controversy in the ESV are insignificant, but many (the aforesaid) are major. Some denominations believe as the ESV states, but many do not; therefore, this Bible can be questioned as to doctrinal soundness by denominations who do not agree.

I think a version of this paragraph could make it into the article, but as written it seems to invite translation superiority battles. If this "omits" something, what is the standard that we are using to say that it is included? Is it another translation, or a particular body of manuscripts? What sourcing establishes which one is authoratative? and so on. If certain denominations have taken an official position against this translation, I suppose that if notable that fact and the reason therefore might be included. But as it stands, an unsourced statement such as the forgoing violates NPOV. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally POV and unreferenced, you were right to delete it. e.g. how can it omit texts on divorce? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent editing of Introduction

As of 1-25-2011 9:27am Central Time Zone USA the into reads: "The English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible - one of many English translations of the Christian Bible. It is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The first edition was published in 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. The ESV Study Bible, also published by Crossway Bibles, was published in October 2008. It uses the ESV translation and adds extensive notes and articles based on evangelical Christian scholarship."

It seems that perhaps the insert of "- one of many English translations of the Christian Bible" is an obvious statement, and if it needs to be said in the introduction it should come later. I would recommend it be removed from the introduction or moved to the bottom. I would also recommend rewording the last sentence to read: "ESV is published by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, with the first edition published in 2001, and a second edition published in 2007." I would also recommend including either in the intro or the article a mention of Crossway's commitment to keeping the ESV accessible digitally. "Vision ESV Digital is Crossway’s vision for not only creating outstanding digital content, but also for providing creative ways to access and deliver that content. ESV Digital represents Crossway’s desire to provide the ESV Bible in new and developing digital media forms to equip God’s people around the world in their understanding and application of God’s Word anywhere—anywhere, any time, on every available digital device. The ESV is free everywhere electronically—online, as an e-book, for the iPad, iPhone, Windows 7 phones, and Android phones, on You Version, and in numerous other digital editions." Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I get "english translations of the christian bible" being where it is, since it's provides top-level categorical information that is important, as are the links before it that are the reason for the repetition. Nonetheless, I agree that it's jarring. In fixing this, though, someone should also consider that "christian bible" links to "christian biblical canons," which, for some reason, is not linked to the base "bible" page. Balancing necessary and sufficient wikification in the opener thus might be a job extending beyond this one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.247.175 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Small change, could be better

In the Translation Philosophy section near the top, the construction makes it unclear which version contained "young woman" and which "virgin." Easy enough to guess if you know the implications, but hardly the goal here. I checked the texts just to make sure, and added clarifications. It will suffice, but my work hardly wins any points for style. If someone feels like rewriting it, feel free.

71.111.247.175 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)