by Tom Wacaster
One of the more recent translations to be published is the English Standard Version. The ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1971. The intent of the English Standard version translators was to publish a Bible which followed the tradition of Tyndale’s work and of the efforts of the King James translators. Their desire was to produce an “essentially literal” translation with improvement upon grammar and syntax. The ESV has gained considerable notoriety among brethren, and it is finding increasing use in our pulpits and classes. While the ESV is an improvement over the earlier Revised Standard Version, it is not without its weaknesses, some of which, in my estimation, are quite serious. Keith Moser made this observation regarding the ESV:
The ESV translators used footnotes to “inform the reader of textual variations and difficulties in translation” (Preface) which practice allowed them to insert some of their own theology in such notes. For example, the ESV text at Daniel 3:16 reads: “If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.” The footnote, however, translates: “If our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us, he will deliver us from the fiery furnace and out of your hand, O king.” Instead of what the Hebrew has questioning whether the king will carry out the sentence, the footnote questions God’s ability to save (email article, Keith Mosher).
I have read through the Old Testament using the ESV twice, and the New Testament ESV a half dozen times, and have come across a number of passages that demonstrate the translators’ bias in various areas. While the ESV is not as “radical” as the NIV, or “Good News For Modern Man,” I would not suggest it be used for serious Bible study. It could serve, however, as a comparative Bible for study purposes. Having said that, I share with you some of the more serious problems I found in my perusal of the ESV.
Micah 5:2 - “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” Notice that the ESV eliminates the word “everlasting,” substituting it with “ancient days.”
Malachi 2:16 - Compare with some of the more reliable versions such as ASV, KJV, NKJV. You will note that the impression left with the ESV is that it speak of a “MAN” who hates divorce rather than the fact that it is “GOD” who hates divorce, or putting away.
Matthew 5:17 - The ESV makes the same mistake that the New American Standard makes here and has Jesus contradicting Paul. The ESV: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets” (Matt 5:17) and then in Ephesians 2:15 (ESV), “by abolishing the law of commandments.” Compare Matt 5:17 in the ESV with ASV (“destroy”), and KJV.
Matthew 19:9 - The ESV omits the phrase: “and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” - why does the ESV leave that phrase out? While it does NOT appear in SOME ancient authorities, it does appear in a large number of MSS.
Matthew 19:28 - Does not the “new world” suggest the idea of premillennialism? Compare with the ASV, “the regeneration” - i.e. the church age...but trying to determine what the “new world” is by using the ESV as a study bible might prove difficult....unless you are already of the persuasion of the premillennial concepts.
Acts 16:14 - The ESV reads, “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said be Paul.” This, in my estimation, is very serious for it promotes the idea of Calvinism. She was already paying “attention,” and now, having paid “attention,” the Lord opened her heart to give “heed” -- in other words, the Lord opened her heard BECAUSE she paid attention, allowing the words to penetrate her heart so that she WOULD then give heed. By saying the Lord opened her heart so that she would pay “attention” suggests the idea that the Holy Spirit had to somehow act upon her heart to MAKE her pay attention so she would then listen.
Romans 6:17 - The ESV has “standard” of teaching...but the ASV and KJV read “form” - yes, it is true they did obey the divine “standard” but that is not what the Holy Spirit wanted to convey here. The “form” is something LIKE the death burial and resurrection that Jesus experienced. The chapter opens with a reference to baptism as the means by which these Christians came to enter Christ, and by changing this to “standard” it robs the passage of its beauty and cohesion. I'll stick with the reliable versions on this passage!
Romans 12:1 - The ESV translators make the same mistake as the New American Standard....they translate this “which is your spiritual worship” rather than “spiritual service.”
2 Corinthians 2:11 - ESV reads, “for we are not ignorant of his designs” - compare with the original word here: Thayer: “an evil purpose, that which thinks, the mind, thoughts or purposes” - The ASV has “devices” and it seems to me there is a world of difference between “devices” and “designs.”
1 Thessalonians 2:16, the later part of the verse reads: “But God's wrath has come upon them at last” - notice that the ESV expresses “time” - at “last,” “finally,” etc. While it is true that the Greek “telos” can express the idea of finality, it seems that the primary meaning of the word is demanded by the context. Strong:
“From a primary word ‘tello’ (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): continual, custom, end, finally, uttermost.” The ASV, in my estimation, picks up the idea that is more fitting with the context: “to the uttermost” - The context of the passage suggests the idea that when men engage in “forbidding us to speak to the gentiles” (1 Thess 2:16a) they “fill up their sins” and can only expect to face God's wrath “to the uttermost,” rather than “at last.”
Why did the translators of the ESV leave out the word “inspiration” in 2 Timothy 3:16, replacing it with “God breathed out”? Why did they fail to translate John 3:16 with the words “only begotten son,” translating it “only son”? Why did they enclose Mark 16:9-20 in brackets, leaving a doubt in the mind of the reader as to its authenticity? The list goes on and on. I am not impressed with this latest English translation of the Bible. Nor do I recommend its use in serious study of God’s word, or its use in the pulpit and/or Bible classes.
~~~~~~