# Talk:English Standard Version

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)

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:

‘For you were (redacted) in Egypt’: Concordance-ism and the ESV (part 1)
‘For you were (redacted) in Egypt’ (part 2)
‘For you were (redacted) in Egypt’ (part 3)
‘For you were (redacted) in Egypt’ (part 4, a slight tangent)
--Dvaderv2 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@Bari' bin Farangi Thank you for your post, I will reply to this soon. VistaSunset (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
No worries, none of this is particularly urgent. :) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bari' bin Farangi Sorry for the delay in reply. Keen to interface with your thoughts (apologies that this won't be comprehensive, as there's a lot to go through here). I'll match by paragraph:
As discussed with other editors in the 2021 GA review, the gender-neutal debate is complex, not to mention controversial, which makes efforts towards maintaining neutrality in this context especially difficult. In its current form, whenever particularly notable commentary has taken place, I've sought to show one side of the argument, and then a contrasting perspective, which gives the article reader the space to make up their own mind on various issues. When major new revisions to the current structure are introduced, this is significantly more likely to destabilise what has required careful balancing over a long period of time. With regard to Poythress and Grudem, I don't have extensive knowledge on the (detailed!) intricacies of the gender-neutral debate prior to the publication of the ESV, although, I'm definitely aware of the general basics. Given the discussion in the GA review regarding bogging/complexity, I've left a link in the Further reading section to the free 2022 PDF republication of their last edition on that topic, which seems to me to be the wisest course of action. I actually have a physical copy of that exact edition (my second-hand copy even had a surviving small piece of paper post-print briefly talking about the TNIV), but because it's basically a textbook, it's very low priority on my reading list, haha! With regard to the edits, I'm concerned that they are destabilising and reductionistic (that is, I feel that they read one-sided and simplify a complex issue, which is not to infer that you haven't put work into the edits). Again, given the GA review, I'm strongly inclined towards leaving this to the Further reading section. The free PDF is readily available.
Using the terminology "advertise" is loaded in this context and destabilises the general presentation of facts. I think it's cleaner to avoid this. I made some edits a while ago about a squabble in the early 2000s regarding the nature of the development of the ESV, but the sources and complexity were too obscure to provide fair, concrete facts.
Again, "entirely composed of white men" is too unstable and reads to me like a political statement. As an example, I could go edit the article on Donald Trump and say that "Trump displays narcissistic behaviour on a frequent basis" (I have just checked, and the article on Trump never mentions public accusations of narcissism). I think it's fair to say that this statement is true evidentally, but it would introduce instability, being detrimental to editorial goals. (For the record, I live outside the US, and I am not American.)
The citation mentions the "ESV translators" making contextual gender-neutral changes when compared with the RSV, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
I agree, it's certainly key that Strauss was involved with the TNIV, but that's central to his contention with Bill Mounce, who produces the standard Greek grammar textbook used in evangelical seminaries throughout the US. Again, this is difficult territory, which is why I have framed the Position on gender-neutal language section with official statements—the reader can make up their own mind, and there are other cited, central arguments throughout the article.
I'm not against citations from Hart, it's just that the overall major structural changes were too destabilising.
Just as an aside, Ward is quoted because he directly specialises in biblical linguistics. He provides a lot of interesting examinations, and I had to aggresively dilute the original article, as it's a transcript of a 23 minute video. Totally understand, but as above, I'm concerned about destabilisation, which seems to read to me like "these people did this for these reasons". I just think we need to be careful.
I'm fine with negative academic reception (I've actually fought to keep all the criticism from Perry intact, there have been multiple attempts at its removal). I agree that articles aren't musuem exhibits, and also agree that GA reviews are not infallible, but I'm concerned with factual editorial that always presents two sides wherever possible when contentious issues are discussed. My work here hasn't been perfect, it's just been difficult to get it to this stage.
I know that the current documentation is not comprehensive, but that's been largely in part due to the massive work to get to this GA stage.
Again, I understand, but I'm still concerned that the inherently detailed nature of the scholar polemics are too much for a general audience, which is another reason why I haven't gone beyond the Further reading listing, at least at this stage.
I agree, it's just that the NRSV is a mainline Protestant / ecumenical translation, whereas the ESV/NIV/TNIV stuff was an in-house debate among evangelical scholars and publishing houses.
Just to finish, I'm not opposed to further work regarding this, but as before, I feel that the wisest way to go about further development is careful edits from its current GA level. Perhaps it would be good to get a couple of external editor voices specialising in NPOV to shed some more light from their perspective(s). VistaSunset (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply — I really appreciate the care you’re taking to maintain balance at GA level. I’d like to clarify a few points where I think we might be talking past one another a bit:
(1) I understand the concern about “destabilising” the article, but relegating the most extensive and explicit statement the ESV team ever made on gendered language (the 2002 Poythress/Grudem tractate) to Further reading effectively turns one of the translation’s defining and most-discussed features into a footnote. That document isn’t a fringe source—it’s the ESV team’s own quasi-manifesto, and most later discussion of “gender-neutral” language in the ESV or NIV controversy traces back to it. I think a concise summary in the body would reflect its significance without unbalancing the article.
(2) On “advertise,” I’m happy to rephrase if another verb captures the sense that the ESV committee actively promoted its translation philosophy to potential adopters. It’s not boasting, but deliberate outreach—something like “market,” “promote,” or “position” might preserve the factual meaning. Given that Bible translations in evangelical contexts are typically distributed through pastoral channels, the audience and medium matter; these weren’t offhand remarks at conferences but part of an intentional rollout.
(3) Regarding the mention of the translation committee being composed entirely of white men: race and gender are objective descriptors, much like saying that Donald Trump is male and of German and Scottish ancestry in his article. They are directly relevant here because a number criticisms directed at the ESV were framed around those facts. If noting such facts reads as “political,” that probably says more about readers’ predispositions than about the description itself. “Narcissism,” by contrast, would indeed be a medicalised evaluation—very different in kind from demographic fact.
(4) On the “Position on Gender Neutral Language” section: as it stands, it cites a third-party analysis asserting that the ESV sometimes employs gender-neutral renderings. But in the second edition of the ESV team’s own book on gender-neutral language, they specifically rebut similar claims, arguing that such renderings are not “gender-neutral” but contextually accurate translations—a key distinction in their argument. The article currently presents the third-party claim without acknowledging this rebuttal, which risks misrepresenting their stated position.
(5) As for Ward: my concern isn’t about his expertise, but about proximity—he’s extremely close to Poythress (editing his website, collaborating on publications, and being personally close friends). That doesn’t disqualify him, but it might call for transparency about his relationship to the ESV team, as it (likely) bears directly on neutrality. But as he’s arguably the most articulate defender of the ESV, I think his comments should stay.
(7) On balance: I agree that criticism should be represented responsibly, but this particular controversy didn’t begin as a symmetrical debate. It began with more theologically conservative evangelicals reacting sharply against the British gender-neutral NIV (and a possible US rollout), including through the tractate in question. “False balance” is a real risk if we frame that episode as two-sided when the initial polemic came from one direction.
(9) A third pair of eyes sounds ideal.
(Personal aside) For what it’s worth, I too am not currently living in the US—but I’ve lived in the South and have seen these translation preferences play out at ground level. From my observations in Baptist circles, the ESV often feels less like a rival to the NIV and more like one to the NKJV—favored by those who want to retain traditional-sounding, clearly gendered phrasing while moving slightly away from the KJV’s archaisms. Still, as you say, the ESV and NIV see themselves as competing for the same broad evangelical audience, even if that audience might not even perceive it that way. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bari' bin Farangi Thanks, this is useful, appreciate that. Based on this, I have made a series of edits that incorporate parts of your prior edits (and above comments). I feel that this is a good start—happy to discuss further if you have any feedback or questions on the edits. Just a couple of comments:
(3) I understand, but respectfully, I still don't think this is a good idea. Whenever hot-button categories are presented in editorialising, I feel that it inevitably reads like politically biased material and automatically becomes frisky with NPOV. I would like to hear some external opinions on this.
(5) Definitely aware that Ward has some direct ties to the ESV translation team. Although, strictly speaking, Ward is a secondary party and has no vote on the translation. He has worked for Crossway in the past (in an unrelated department), but his post was published before that period of time.
(9) Still happy for this if you think it's needed or useful. VistaSunset (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all the effort you’ve put in! Your edits are excellent and addressed essentially all of my concerns. I’m not going to push on the demographics (as I personally don’t believe the underlying argument is sound—either gender-inclusive translation is the right approach or it isn’t, regardless of who happens to be in the room when the translation is produced) — but I do disagree with the assessment that demographic descriptions are inherently “hot-button categories.” Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)