English Standard Version

J. I. Packer, ed., The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Containing the Old and New Testaments. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles (a division of Good News Publishers), 2001.

This is an evangelical revision of the Revised Standard Version that corrects the non-Christian interpretations of the RSV in the Old Testament and improves the accuracy throughout with more literal renderings. It also updates the language somewhat. The makers of this version undertook the work with the idea that there was a need for an evangelical version that was more literal than the New International Version but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible. The Revised Standard Version seemed close enough to this middle ground that it might be suitably revised in a short period of time. The following paragraphs from WORLD magazine (June 5, 1999) reveal the interesting circumstances in which the ESV was conceived:

The English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books, had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day's strategy. During the course of the evening it became clear their concerns with the NIV extended beyond gender issues. The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version, first published in 1952 by the National Council of Churches and recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.

Some months later, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations with the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. An agreement was reached in September 1998 allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary to rid it of de-Christianing translation choices.

The meeting referred to in this article resulted in an agreement signed by all the participants (the Colorado Springs Guidelines), which set forth principles of translation that would rule out the use of gender-neutral language. Clearly the ESV was projected as a version that would deliberately adhere to these guidelines, and this is confirmed in the Preface to the version, which gives three paragraphs in defense of generic masculine terms.

Concerning the revisers the ESV preface states, "The ESV publishing team includes more than a hundred people. The fourteen-member Translation Oversight Committee has benefited from the work of fifty biblical experts serving as Translation Review Scholars and from the comments of the more than fifty members of the Advisory Council, all of which has been carried out under the auspices of the Good News Publishers Board of Directors. This hundred-member team, which shares a common commitment to the truth of God's Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy, is international in scope and includes leaders in many denominations." A complete list of the "publishing team" is provided here.

The first edition of the ESV, which became available in late September 2001, was the ESV Classic Reference Bible, which featured brief introductions to each of the books, section headings within the text, and a center column very full of cross-references. The introductions briefly and simply present the traditional views of the authorship and purpose of the books. In 2007 a slightly revised edition appeared, in which about 360 changes were made. (See the list of changes in the 2007 edition of the ESV on this site.)

In order to give an idea of the frequency and types of changes in the revision, I have given below a full collation of the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans in the RSV and the first edition of the ESV. It will be noted that in these chapters there are as many changes as there are verses, and that the great majority of them serve to make the version more literal. There are however six instances in which the ESV seems less literal than the RSV, and four of these have to do with gender language. Two of these (at 3.4 and 3.28) involve the elimination of the word "man" as a translation of anthropos, one (2.29) involves the replacement of "men" with "man," and one (2.28) involves the elimination of the word "he." There is also in the margin at 1.13 a long note explaining that adelphoi "brothers" may be translated "brothers and sisters." The ESV revisers have normally left unchanged the RSV's generic use of "man" and "men" (see the translation of anthropos in 1.18, 1.23, 2.1, 2.3, 2.16, 2.29) and also "his" (see 2.6, 2.29), and so it is hard to see on what principle they have changed or qualified "men," "man," "brothers," and "he" in these places. But apart from these few places, the changes of the ESV are a distinct improvement upon the RSV.

A Collation of the RSV and ESV for Romans 1-3

Text-Critical Treatment of the Old Testament

In the Old Testament the ESV revisers tend to be more conservative than the RSV in their handling of text-critical questions. In many places where the RSV rendering was based upon an emended text, the ESV revision represents a return to the Masoretic text. We will give a few examples from Genesis:

• In Genesis 4:8 the RSV added the sentence "let us go out to the field" from the Septuagint. This is a reasonable enough emendation, but there is no Hebrew manuscript support for it, and so in the ESV the sentence is omitted, and indicated as a variant in the footnotes.
• In Genesis 10:5 the RSV supplied "these are the sons of Japheth" by conjecture, supported by analogy with "these are the sons of Ham" in verse 20 and "these are the sons of Shem" in 31. Again, it was a very reasonable emendation; but the ESV, sticking to the traditional Hebrew text, omits it.
• In Genesis 19:17 the RSV had "they said" instead of "he said," because the Hebrew text's "he said" does not seem to make good sense here. But the ESV revisers chose to follow the Hebrew, interpreting it as "one said."
• In Genesis 21:9 the RSV follows the Septuagint again by adding "with her son Isaac" after "playing." The ESV omits the added words, renders the Hebrew word mitzachek "laughing" instead of "playing," and in a footnote explains that the meaning may be "laughing in mockery."
• In Genesis 21:16 the Hebrew says "she [i.e. Hagar] lifted up her voice and wept," but the RSV had "the child [Ishmael] lifted up his voice and wept." This is another emendation supported by the Septuagint. We also note that it seems more suitable in the context, because the following sentence is "And God heard the voice of the lad" (v. 17). Nevertheless, the ESV revisers conformed the text to the Hebrew: "she lifted up her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the boy ..."
• In Genesis 24:67 the RSV omitted "of Sarah his mother," by conjecture, for reasons that are not clear to us. The ESV includes the words.
• In Genesis 31:49 the RSV adds "the pillar" before "Mizpah," by conjecture, which seems to be required by the context (a note explains that "Mizpah" means "watchpost"). But the ESV removes the insertion because it has no manuscript support.
• In Genesis 36:2 and 14 the RSV has "son of Zibeon" instead of "daughter of Zibeon," an emendation supported by the Septuagint and by conventions of Israelite genealogy. The ESV follows the Hebrew text instead.
• In Genesis 38:5 the RSV again follows the Septuagint with "She was in Chezib," because it seems more natural after the preceding sentence. But the ESV here has "Judah was in Chezib," reflecting the Hebrew text's "he was in Chezib."
• In Genesis 41:48 the RSV has "seven years when there was plenty in the land of Egypt," following the Septuagint. The Hebrew text here is somewhat awkward, reading "the seven years which were in the land of Egypt," but the ESV sticks to the Hebrew.
• In Genesis 44:4 the RSV added "Why have you stolen my silver cup?" from the Septuagint. The ESV omits the sentence because it is not in the Hebrew.
• In Genesis 45:19 the RSV had "Command them," following the Septuagint, where the Hebrew text says "You (singular) are commanded." The problem with the Hebrew here is that there is shift from singular to plural forms in the words that follow, and it also does not seem to make good sense for Pharaoh to be commanding Joseph to bring his children from Canaan. Joseph's own children were not in Canaan. Nevertheless, the ESV prefers to follow the Hebrew "you are commanded" and (along with several other modern versions) tries to solve the problem by inserting "to say" before the command.
• In Genesis 49:4 the RSV had "you went up to my couch" at the end of the verse, in accordance with the Septuagint, and to eliminate the awkward shift from second to third person. The ESV adheres to the Hebrew here, "he went up."
• In Genesis 49:26 the RSV had "beyond the blessings of the eternal mountains," supported by the Septuagint, where the Hebrew says (somewhat obscurely) "beyond the blessings of my progenitors unto." The ESV simply translates the Hebrew as it is.

In these examples we see that the ESV revisers preferred to translate the existing Hebrew text, without speculative text-critical alterations. But the ESV does not always follow the traditional Hebrew text. Sometimes it lets the emendations of the RSV stand (e.g. Gen. 47:21, "he made servants of them"; Jeremiah 23:33, "you are the burden"). At Genesis 49:10 it repoints the Masoretic text's "until Shiloh comes" to "until tribute comes to him," but this is less speculative than the RSV's consonantal emendation, "until he comes to whom it belongs." In Deuteronomy 32:43 the ESV adopts a reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

This reading is partly supported by the Septuagint also, but we notice that one line found in both the Septuagint and in the Masoretic text has been omitted: "Rejoice, O nations, with his people" (NASB, rendered "Praise his people, O you nations" in the RSV). Do the ESV translators realize that they have removed a line quoted by the Apostle Paul? They have quoted it in a footnote which states that "Rejoice his people, O nations" is found in the Masoretic text, but the footnote fails to indicate that it is also in the Septuagint and in Romans 15:10, in the form "Rejoice, O nations, with his people." Their handling of this is rather disappointing.

Some Corrected Prophecies

More significant than any of the changes listed above are the following three examples from the Old Testament. The passages of the RSV given below are examples of the many which were found to be highly objectionable by evangelicals, and prevented the RSV from ever gaining acceptance outside of liberal circles.

Genesis 22:15-18

This passage is in the RSV a good example of that version's tendency to interpret the Old Testament without reference to the New Testament. The true Christological meaning of the blessing and the prophecy given here is simply ruled out by the RSV, though it is practically required by a New Testament passage (see Galatians 3:16) which interprets the blessing of Abraham as a prophecy of Christ. The ESV restores this interpretation, on the authority of the Apostle Paul. A similar revision is made in the related passages, Genesis 12:3, 22:18, 26:4, and 28:14. See also "offspring" in Psalm 89:4, 29, and 36 in relation to John 12:34 (to which the ESV points in a cross-reference note at Psalm 89:4).

Psalm 2:11-12

The ESV gives a literal rendering of the Hebrew text here, with the word בר (son) understood as an Aramaism. The meaning ought to be clear to any Christian. The RSV translators gave instead a conjectural emendation of the text, with the footnote, "Cn [correction]: The Hebrew of 11b and 12a is uncertain."

Psalm 16:10

In Acts 2:31 Peter points out that this verse cannot apply to David, its human author, because David did in fact "see corruption." His body has decayed. Therefore, we must understand that "he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." Peter's argument here depends in part upon the translation "corruption" for the Hebrew word שחת, shachat. The RSV translators preferred, however, to understand it otherwise, undermining Peter's argument. The ESV has corrected this. ¹

Isaiah 7:14

This verse gives a prophecy of Christ, as explained in Matthew 1:23. The RSV translators chose to ignore the New Testament, as usual, and it was their belief that the immediate context made "young woman" a more likely interpretation (though "virgin" is undoubtedly a correct translation of the Hebrew word almah). The ESV follows the inspired interpretation of Matthew, and includes no footnote giving an alternate rendering. Many similar examples could be given where the ESV has restored traditional Christian interpretations in the Old Testament.

Weak Points

Although the ESV is in general more literal and reliable than most English versions published in recent years, it does need correction or improvement in a few places, and in some places the changes from the RSV are not for the better. Here I offer some criticism of weak renderings and other problems I have noticed here and there in the version.

In Genesis 3:6 the ESV follows the example of the NIV with "she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate," where the RSV had "she also gave some to her husband, and he ate." The RSV rendering is to be preferred here, because the Hebrew (lit. "she also gave some to her husband with her," as in the KJV, ASV and NASB) does not say or imply that Adam was with Eve at the time and place of her temptation. There is nothing corresponding to the words "who was" in the Hebrew, and the word עמה ("with her") in 3:6 has an adverbial force, according to a common usage of the preposition (see עם in the lexicons). This sentence should be interpreted "she gave some to her husband as well, or also." This is the interpretation of the Vulgate, RSV, Berkeley, NEB, REB, TEV and JPS translations, and of most of the commentators. Gordon J. Wenham in his recent commentary (Genesis 1-15, in the Word Biblical Commentary series, published in 1987) ignores the NIV rendering, explains that the phrase "emphasizes the man's association with the woman in the eating," and points to the similar phrases in Genesis 6:18, 7:7, and 13:1. Clearly the narrative, which represents the Serpent talking only with Eve and not Adam, presupposes a situation where the serpent has caught Eve alone. It was the serpent's clever plan to mislead the woman when she was alone, because she could be more easily led astray in the absence of her husband. He targets the more vulnerable woman first, and through her he eventually gets the man as well. The fact that later God blames Adam not for listening to the serpent but for "listening to the voice of your wife" (3:17) also indicates that Adam was not present to hear the serpent's words; it was through Eve's persuasion that he ate the fruit. Evidently he did not hear the serpent's words directly. This, at any rate, is the ancient Jewish understanding of what happened, and it is also the view presupposed by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14, where the prohibition of female leadership in the church is based on the fact that Eve (and not Adam) was deceived by the serpent. If the ESV revisers meant to convey the idea here that Adam was at the tree with Eve while she was being tempted, watching silently while the serpent tells lies to his wife, it indicates a certain lack of exegetical sobriety and conservatism; but unfortunately it does seem that this was their intention. Several people who were involved in the production of the ESV have quoted this rendering in support of the idea that the root cause of the Fall (i.e. the "original sin") was Adam's passivity, his failure to take charge of the situation and control his wife's behavior at this critical moment. ² This is a pretty serious misuse of the text, enabled by a misleading translation of one Hebrew word.

In Genesis 41:8 the ESV translators were less careful than the RSV to indicate a departure from the Masoretic text. The RSV has here "Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was none who could interpret it," and gives a footnote telling readers that the Hebrew actually says "there was none who could interpret them." The ESV regularizes the grammar differently: "Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none who could interpret them," but without indicating that the Hebrew says "dream," not "dreams."

In Genesis 41:56 the ESV footnote reads "Hebrew, all that was in them" where the RSV note said "Gk Vg Compare Syr: Heb all that was in them." The RSV note is much more informative, and we cannot understand why the ESV revisers deleted the references to the ancient versions supporting the emendation.

In their revision of the RSV, the ESV editors tend to substitute numerals for words expressing quantities; for example, the ESV has "16,000" instead of the RSV's "sixteen thousand" in Numbers 31:46. In this the ESV editors were merely using a convention of style used in modern books. But this usage of numerals carries with it an implication of precise enumeration which is obviously not intended by the biblical authors. For us, there is a difference between writing "1,000" and "a thousand." It would have been better to leave the RSV's old-fashioned "thousands" and "hundreds" alone.

In Deuteronomy 15:4-5 the RSV punctuation is much better than the ESV's. The ESV has obscured the meaning of the sentence with its revised punctuation, and there does not seem to be any good reason for it.

For the mishandling of the textual issue in Deuteronomy 32:43 see the comments above under "Text-Critical Treatment of the Old Testament." We really must question the wisdom of eliminating a line found in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, and also quoted in Romans 15:10. But in addition to that, here we also must wonder why they have rendered כפר kipper as "cleanses" instead of the RSV's "makes expiation." The word כפר is full of cultic significance, being the word used when the priest makes atonement for sins at the altar of sacrifice. The BDB Lexicon explains that when God is the subject of this verb, "It is conceived that God in his sovereignty may himself provide an atonement or covering for men and their sins which could not be provided by men" (p. 497). The Christian meaning of this phrase leaps off the page at us in the RSV and other versions. But with the ESV's rendering "cleanses" (a sense unsupported by either BDB or Koehler-Baumgartner) it is quite hidden from us. Where did this weak rendering come from? It seems that the ESV revisers have borrowed it from the NRSV (which also contains the same text-critical emendation of the verse). The NRSV had borrowed it from a Jewish version—the New JPS version of 1982, which in a note claimed that "the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain" here. But the meaning of the Hebrew is quite clear: God himself makes atonement for his people.

The ESV rendering of 2 Kings 5:13 is peculiar. "My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it?" The Hebrew here is better understood along the lines of the RSV's "My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it?"

The ESV editors have added a footnote to Psalm 42:5, explaining that the Hebrew words which they have rendered "my salvation and my God" (RSV "my help and my God") are literally "the salvation of my face and my God." But the Masoretic text printed in the standard editions (e.g. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) says "the salvation of his face [i.e. his presence]. My God ...." (cf. the KJV, ASV, NASB, etc.) The RSV and ESV translators have employed an emendation here, which ought to have been mentioned in this note.

In John's Gospel the ESV (following most other modern versions) translates the word monogenes as "only," rather than "only-begotten." Although most commentators of the present day have argued that "only" is an adequate translation of this word, others maintain that this is an undertranslation of an important theological term. The ESV revisers would do well to include a footnote informing readers of the traditional rendering, "only begotten." For a full discussion of this matter see my recent article, The Only Begotten Son.

In Romans 8:20-21 the ESV's "in hope that the creation" is clumsy, and likely to be misunderstood by readers.

The ESV revisers have omitted the RSV footnote at 1 Corinthians 7:21, which indicated that Paul may be telling slaves to "make use of your present condition instead" of setting their hearts on emancipation. (See a full discussion of the interpretation of this verse here.) This interpretation not only deserves a note, it should have been put in the text.

The ESV has "betrothed" in 1 Cor. 7:25. The RSV had "unmarried." The Greek says "virgins." Likewise the ESV has "betrothed" for "virgin" in 7:34, 36, 37, 38. This represents an interpretation rather than a translation of the Greek.

The ESV's use of "wife" as a translation of gune ("woman") in 1 Corinthians 11 is very questionable. This passage is about the status and behavior suitable to womankind, not just of wives. And there is no indication here that Paul viewed headcoverings as a symbol of the married state. But Wayne Grudem (who played a major role in the production of the ESV) has already used the ESV rendering to support his idea that "Today we obey the head covering commands for women in 1 Corinthians 11 by encouraging married women to wear whatever symbolizes being married in their own cultures ... married women today should not hide their wedding rings." ³ The ESV rendering looks like an attempt to provide support for Grudem's notion about the appropriate modern application in advance. (See Grudem's discussion of the passage here, and a refutation of it here.)

In 2 Corinthians 4:16 we see an example of a bad RSV rendering which should have been revised in the ESV: "Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day." The phrase "outer nature" does not convey the meaning of the Greek here, which says "outward man." Paul means by this the same thing that he means when he speaks of the sin-prone "body of flesh." So probably the best way to render it would be, "Though our outward body is wasting away, our inner man is being renewed ..." (Note: After 2007, printings of the ESV have "outer self" and "inner self.")

There is a tendency in the ESV to substitute the singular "man" for the plural "men" in various places, e.g., "the children of man" instead of "the children of men." Apparently the ESV editors decided that they would use the collective singular "man" inclusively, but not "men." This editorial policy is arbitrary and artificial. People who are used to the all-inclusive use of "man" can also understand "men" when it is used in this sense. We also see that the ESV revisers often avoid translating the singular anthropos as "man," despite the fact that it means just that in Greek. This looks like a sop for those who have been demanding "inclusive language" revisions of the Bible. But there is no point in trying to please that crowd with half-measures like this.

In Philippians 3:16 "hold true to" is a poor rendering for stoichein (cf. Vine, Vincent, Moule)

In 1 Timothy 1:10 the ESV's "enslavers" is less accurate than the RSV's "kidnappers." With this inaccurate rendering (and with the deletion of the RSV footnote at 1 Corinthians 7:21) the ESV seems to be providing ammunition for Wayne Grudem's recent arguments against liberals who like to equate the Bible's statements about the place of woman with its statements about slavery. In response to one recent book that makes this comparison (William Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals), Grudem writes that the Bible "gives principles that would modify and ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery (1 Cor. 7:21-22; Gal. 3:28; Philem. 16, 21; and note the condemnation of 'enslavers' at 1 Tim. 1:10, ESV, a verse that was previously overlooked in this regard because it was often translated 'kidnappers')." ⁴

In Titus 1:1 the ESV renders the preposition kata "for the sake of," when it should be "in accordance with," as in 2 Tim 1:1 and elsewhere. "For the sake of" is a rendering with little or no support in biblical Greek. (The BAGD lexicon cites only John 2:6 and 2 Cor 11:21 for this proposed meaning, but in those places it is just as questionable.) It is employed here only because some commentators have objected to the idea that Paul would have described his apostleship as one which corresponds to or is in accordance with "the faith of God's elect," because this would imply that Paul's authority receives its validity from his doctrinal agreement with "the faith" of the elect (Huther, followed by Alford and many others). But that is precisely what he is saying here! Compare Galatians 1:8. Calvin remarks, "It is as if he had said, 'There is a mutual agreement between my apostleship and the faith of the elect of God; and therefore, it will not be rejected by any man who is not a reprobate and opposed to the true faith.'"

In 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 the ESV revisers have eliminated the RSV footnotes. But the marginal renderings "our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" and "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (which appear in the text of the KJV and ASV) should continue to be acknowledged as viable alternatives to the renderings adopted in the ESV text. See further comments on these verses in my review of the NET Bible.

I might add many other things to this collection of criticisms. But most of them have to do with such minor faults as may be observed in any version.

Conclusion

As modern versions go, the ESV should be counted as one of the best for use in teaching ministry. It is more literal than the NIV, and so it is largely free of the problems that come with the use of so-called "dynamic equivalence" versions; but it is not so severely literal that ordinary readers will struggle to understand it. Its English recalls the classic diction of the KJV, and so it has some literary power (this is not unimportant in a Bible version). Its handling of the Old Testament is agreeable to conservative principles of interpretation. As a revision of the RSV, it is much better than the NRSV in several ways. However, there are some weaknesses in it. For close study it is less suitable than the NASB or NKJV. These latter versions, despite their difficulties and obscurities, continue to be the most useful for detailed and careful study.

Michael Marlowe
December 2007

Notes

1. For a discussion of this point of Hebrew philology see Bruce K. Waltke, "Psalms: theology of," in vol. 4 of The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), p. 1113.

2. See for example the discussion of Genesis 3:6 in William D. Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 125, 131, 141; Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., "Male-Female Equality and Male Headship," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Piper and Grudem (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), p. 96; and Thomas Schreiner, "An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15," in Women in the Church, ed. Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), p. 145. Ortlund says Adam "stood by passively, allowing the deception to progress without decisive intervention ... abandoned his post as head ... forsook his responsibility," etc. Schreiner even goes so far as to say that the Genesis temptation is a "parable of what happens when male leadership is abrogated." This treatment of the text owes much to the kind of pulpit exposition one commonly hears in conservative churches, where the innocence and piety of women is always taken for granted, and the preacher is mainly interested in reminding men of their duties.

3. Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than 100 Disputed Questions (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 2004), p. 336.

4. Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006), p. 77.