Talk:English Standard Version

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


"English Standard Version®" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect English Standard Version® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#English Standard Version® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"‘For you were [redacted] in Egypt’", or the use of "bondservant" vs. "slave"

[edit]

An interesting read diving deeper into Samuel Perry's critiques, though it'd probably need a more formal source than a direct citation of Fred Clark's writings:

--Dvaderv2 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is interesting. Clark's About page is quite amusing. I personally have trouble with content throughout Patheos as I find the quality of contributions to vary wildly. I have some brief thoughts (which aren't directed at you):
In skimming through, is it really reasonable to assert, with regard to the slave trade, that "Grudem and the ESV translators are trying to keep that literalist, clobber-texting approach without it leading them to the conclusions it was designed to conclude"? I had to search up what "clobber text" means: it's apparently a term used to refer to particular sections of proof texts regarding certain issues surrounding social morality (e.g., with regard to homosexual behaviour, 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). According to Clark, "they’re trying to employ the proslavery white-supremacist hermeneutic of their human-trafficking forefathers while somehow avoiding the perception that they, too, are defending slavery and white supremacy". This is quite simply empty rhetoric that groups the translators of the ESV with individuals in the past that committed eisegesis in an attempt to justify their participation in the slave trade.
I would have detailed in the main article this video of the ESV translators engaging in debate regarding use of the word "slave", but it's an unofficial archive of a copyrighted BBC report where no official source exists. VistaSunset (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ESV and the Creative Commons

[edit]

Now that the Crossway copyright states that "The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license," [1], is it appropriate to include text from Genesis 1:1-3 and John 3:16 on the main page, as the page's contents are under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License?" 199.209.144.27 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A senior editor mentioned that this is fine. See comment on the following revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Standard_Version&oldid=1132134156 VistaSunset (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which concrete parts of the additions do you take issue with?

[edit]

@VistaSunset I have tried to represent Poythress' and Grudem's views fairly noting all their positive comments about feminism, and quoting them directly when describing their view of gender-neutral language and its origins. Right now the lead lacks the subject for which the ESV has faced the most criticism and Poythress' and Grudem's clear pre-publication statements regarding it, ie their description of the project in relation to the "gender-neutral language controversy" as they explicitly place it as the last step prior to the looming release of the reworked NIV in their account (pg.35). Thus I invite you to be concrete in which parts were "reductionistic" so they can be rephrased.

What word do you think is preferable to "advertise" when describing your upcoming bible translation as a "reliable translation" among "new Bible translations which give indication of conforming to the principles upheld in this book"(p. 295)? I think such a statement should be reflected in some way in the article, but I am open for suggestions as I think promising a reliable translation (regarding gender-neutral language) in a book directed at a linguistically conservative audience likely to make purchase decisions for churches is a form of advertisement, but common parlance might make one think more of billboards etc.

I don't see how "entirely composed of white men" (to clarify: I would have just said men sans white, but as the source says "white men" I didn't editorialize in this way—though an attentive reader will realize that race hasn't featured in discussions surrounding the ESV translation decisions) and the exact demographics of each committee are words to watch in your eyes, when they well-cited and merely statements of fact. They in no way validate or invalidate the criticism the project has faced but they are an essential piece of context for it.

Right now, it sounds like the committee itself has stated that "the translation does utilize gender-neutral language in specific cases" when the cited source is a third-party analysis and such assertions have sometimes been part of the criticism leveled against the project. From what I could gather it does not seem that Poythress' and Grudem's views on gender-neutral language have shifted much, nor that the rest of the committee has strayed from what the former previously described as "the principles upheld in this book".

Additionally, Strauss' relation to the revised NIV is imo relevant to his criticism given the preceding statements by Poythress and Grudem about the NIV in course of the gender-neutral language controversy. You can't in a way drop the "gender-neutral language controversy" entirely from the article and only mention some criticism long post-release, without even mentioning the NIV—even if ofc the reader shouldn't be given the impression that it was the only motivation for the production of the ESV. Another problem is just verbatim taking material from Crossway's publications for general readership as it is right now in the gender-neutral language section, when so much of this controversy and the ESV's exact philosophy regarding this point has been published by its collaborators in more specific and way more scientific publications. If there are better sources available they should be used.

Also, I don't see how directly quoting David Bentley Hart's statements from an academic translation regarding both the ESV and NIV (the two major players in said controversy) in their translation philosophy should be left out of the discussion.

I think if quasi-apologetic texts like Mark Ward's defense of the ESV are quoted at length (and I think they should be and remain there because his defenses are articulate and the best representation for responses to ESV criticism), the more controversial statements by members of the translation committee that caused some of the criticism to be expressed in the first place should also be quoted directly. Because leaving out the entirety of the "gender-neutral controversy" prior to publication very well violates NPOV and might have already done so during the GA review if since then no significant part of the article has been removed.

If you want the commonly negative academic reception gone I can live with that, as it was just a bunch of examples and not an actual review of the literature. But the rest of the content you removed was well cited and saying that it wasn't there when this article became a GA and deemed to conform to NPOV isn't by itself an argument for its removal or one that supports the assertion that it in some way violates NPOV, Wikipedia articles aren't museum exhibits and GA reviews not infallible.

Right now the controversy ends after Grudem's denial that the CBMW has any influence on the translation committee, ie before his book articulating an actual response speaking about the ESV to feminist linguistic concerns, instead there is a 9-year jump in the controversy to a late statement by Strauss in the article. This leaves out the most interesting developments like the discussed text and gender-neutral NIV being released and becoming the main NIV. Even the later revised text by Poythress and Grudem going back and directly attacking the then-released TNIV and associated scholars, particularly Strauss and clearly stating how his 1998 Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy is perceived by them as "one of the two main books supporting the TNIV’s position" (pg. 9 - 2004) and how they have had an extensive public back and fourth since Strauss' 2002 The Gender-Neutral Language of the English Standard Version (ESV)—where he is to my knowledge the first person to allege that the ESV at times uses gender-neutral language. They state "The bottom line is that there are competent scholars on both sides of this issue." (p. 24) to then claim "in fact, the implicit claim that “only scholars can understand this dispute” [...] sounds to me dangerously like the claim of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation—the claim that only experts could understand the Bible rightly." (p.25) (a claim which they repeat without the anti-Catholic slant on p. 404 "Some readers might think, “Shouldn’t I just leave questions of translation to the experts?” Many detailed issues in translation require knowledge of the original languages. But in the case of eliminating generic “he,” you can see for yourself the changes that gender-neutral translations introduce. [...] If you are a native speaker of English, you have as much right as any biblical scholar to decide whether such changes are wise.") in order to include a list of 113 signatures from people (mostly not scholars) likely to make purchase decisions for religious organizations (p. 103-109) for the claim that "TNIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards". (p. 101) As an argument for their position and to delegitimize the NIV or the insistence by its supporters on scholarly debate. So much of this debate is personal "Carson here uses the unfair language “condemned” and “compromisers,” again falsely accusing us of attacking the translators personally. [...] he produces an even more distorted version, to which he adds our personal names!" (p. 98) in which both sides repeatedly express the feeling they have been personally slighted. The article should reflect that burning passion of both sides throughout the debate and not just Mounce's later bridge-building with Strauss after there have been 10 years of conflict between the ESV team and Strauss, while rightly observing Strauss' lack of scholarly detachment and resorting to "ad hominem" attacks but leaving out that Grudem and Poythress weren't particularly more tactful in their conduct.

I completely understand the initial comment in the GA-Review by the now banned user that the gender-neutral controversy seems to occupy much of the article's text. Should this just have been some later criticism against the ESV I'd be inclined to agree, but as it stands the translation committee's members contributing scientific but lengthy and inflammatory treatises about gender-inclusive language and the ESV prior to its publication and placing it by their own hand within the timeline of the controversy means that a reader should be informed about the controversy as such (and not merely some of its effects) and the "why" as to the existence of these great amounts of criticism regarding this issue and ESV—despite the relatively coy statements in the actual ESV foreword etc. Its treatment of gendered-language isn't its only legacy but it should be integrated directly into its narrative from its inception to its reception and revision, because it is such an integral part of the two-sided discussions surrounding it.

One can easily draw comparisons to the NRSV(ue) which arguably takes a much more aggressive stance regarding gender-neutral language (as Poythress and Grudem imo rightly state) but which hasn't faced nearly as much criticism for it in the literature—as it hasn't had its own leading contributors write such pointed publications about the other side and opine on a self-christened "controversy" relating to other translators' work directly prior to its release. Thus, while it generally hasn't been positively received by (linguistically and theologically) conservative Christian audiences, it also wasn't placed by its authors' hands directly in conflict with other Bible translations following another translation philosophy—nor was it contextualized in a series of publications described in terms of larger controversy.Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bari' bin Farangi Thank you for your post, I will reply to this soon. VistaSunset (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, none of this is particularly urgent. :) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]