Talk:English Standard Version/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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? (The most formal in English apart from things like Concordant.)
NAS (New American Standard)	98%	Formal? (Lost a point when abandoning archaic language, the second-person plural, etc.)
NAU (New American Standard 1995 Update)	98%	Formal? (Completely eliminated archaic language. Anything that's rendered anything other than literally has a footnote giving a more literal rendering.)
KJV (King James Version)	98%	Formal? (The "old standard" for literal translations - is this poetic English because the translators were that good, or is it poetic English because "good English" and many of our idioms are defined by the AV?)
NKJ (New King James)	98%	Formal? (Less so than the AV as it abandoned all archaic verbiage, but made up for it in minor corrections such as "morning star" in Is 14:12.)
ESV (English Standard Version)	98%	Self-defined as "essentially literal". (More literal the RSV in most places, such as "raise hand to the Lord" for "swear an oath", but less literal with gender language.)
RSV (Revised Standard Version)	98%	Sets the standard for formal equivalence with "as literal as possible, as free as necessary".
DRA (Douay-Rheims American)	97%	Formal? (Based on Latin Vulgate, remember.)
HCS (Holman Christian Standard)	97%	Formal?
NRS (New Revised Standard)	97%	Formal? (Dynamic on use of gender language.)
NAB (New American Bible)	96%	Mediating-to-Formal (1970 OT very formal, 1986 NT mediating, 1991 Psalms periphrastic, 2011 NT and Psalms mediating.)
MRD (Murdock Peshitta Translation)	95%	Mediating?
NIV (New International Version)	94%	Dynamic? (Mediating-to-Dynamic?; set the benchmark for "mediating" translations.)
NJB (New Jerusalem Bible)	93%	Dynamic? (Probably around NIV, as this is not 94% due to gender language.)
REB (Revised English Bible)	91%	Dynamic? (Pure Dynamic, periphrastic in areas.)
TEV (Today's English Version)	91%	Self-Defined as Dynamic (Periphrastic very often.)
JNT (Jewish New Testament, Stern)	91%	Dynamic? (Paraphrase: extremely periphrastic in use of Yiddish and "expanded renderings".)
NLT (New Living Translation)	88%	Paraphrase? (Paraphrase.)
TLB (The Living Bible)	81%	Self-Defined as Paraphrase (Precursor to NLT.)

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)

99-97%, literal; 96-94%, mediating; 93-91%, dynamic, below 91%, paraphrase. I'm inclined to include 91% in paraphrase in most circumstances from my knowledge of those translations, unless it it taken from 92% to 91% by use of neutered language (consistent use of it costs between 1 and 3 points, whether it's heavy as in the NRSV or off-the-wall extreme as in TIB) in which it would be dynamic but not a paraphrase. I wish tenths of points were given, as it seems that the transition between "literal" and "mediating" occurs somewhere in the 97.*% range, and the transition to pure paraphrase somewhere in the 91.*% range.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:23, 19 March 2012 (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. —Precedingunsigned 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)

Major article changes (Advert & Disputed tags)

I added two tags to this article.

Here are the reasons for the Advert tag; "ESV restored...traditional renderings," "accurate," "capture the precise wording of the original text," "capture the precise...personal style of each Bible writer," "a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible" and most of all, the USE section.

The Disputed tag for example, "Work on this translation was prompted by the perceived trend towards looseness of style and content and theological liberalism in modern English Bible translations..."

The ESV moves toward the masculine of classical Greek in an updated King James and Tyndale tradition Bible. This was a limited gender-neutral language use Bible.

"Theological liberalism" does not fit clearly fit and this seems more like Wayne Grudem language.

This statement "sought as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer" seems to contradict "literal translation philosophy."While probably my opinion, you cannot take the style of an ancient writer into modern English by using the limited literal word use. Did anyone on the ESV translation team or Crossway ever even claim this?

Isaiah 7:14

"Messianic interpretations are precluded by interpreting almah as "young woman" and translating accordingly, which also contradicts both Matthew's and Luke's interpretation of the passage and thus speaks against Biblical inspiration."

On Isaiah 7:14 and future edits, I do not want to fall into giving the impression "young woman" is liberal, "virgin" is conservative. Virgin is from the Gk LXX. Young Woman is from the Hebrew.

It is obvious the article needed improvement. I sometimes note on the talk page first if I am going to do major changes. Some of the problems are inherited and not the fault of the current editors. I am noticing the start of just reverting over one another and nothing on the talk page. Introducing subjects about "theological liberalism" and Bible version debates sometimes introduce other problems. Westminster Theological Journal, while I am alright with some use as a source, one could find this source one-sided as well as other sources that have been used in this article. Basileias (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not advertisement. The POV tag might be more appropriate. In any event I'm removing the ADVERT tag. Regarding DISPUTED I can't verify the sources because they are offline. If the editor who added this content could place quotes on the talk page (or the article) it would be appreciated. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the sources, and some of the content. I'll come back and type of references tomorrow, as I've been up since this time yesterday. (You can also check Google Books, which sometimes has them. The journal articles are long, and as far as the Bibliotheca Sacra, almost every word is pertinent.) I included a representative supporting quote from a few sources, and believe the content could stand on those few quotes and sources, but added extras for back-up/redundancy/RS concerns. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, all of those claims in the "translation philosophy" section were directly from the ESV introduction or ESV study Bible introduction. Sorry for delays, bad thunderstorm (Columbus, OH).St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that the article was that bad, at all, but JohnChrysostom's edits have improved it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, Basileias, what statements currently sourced do you want supporting quotes from those sources for? Thy wish is my command to my fingers to type thy wish.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not the user that asked for quotes. I covered my issues in my original talk page post. For example, I do not know why Isaiah 7:14 is being covered with commentary in this article. "Isaiah 7:14: Messianic interpretations are precluded by interpreting almah as "young woman"[12][13] and translating accordingly as in RSV, NRSV, REB, also contradicting both Matthew's and Luke's interpretation of the passage and thus speaking against Biblical inspiration;". There is already an article for Isaiah 7:14. Basileias (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Second, "Work on this translation was prompted by the perceived trend towards looseness of style and content and theological liberalism in modern English Bible translations, such as the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI) of 1996, which introduced large amounts of gender-neutral or "inclusive" language, which some found to be objectionable, and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) which did the same..."....this seems contradict what the publisher of the ESV has stated, "The real origin of the ESV Bible goes back to the early 1990s, long before the gender-language controversy, when Crossway’s president, Dr. Lane T. Dennis, talked to a number of Christian scholars and pastors about the need for a new literal translation."(http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/02/origin-of-the-esv/). And I did not even have to look hard for this. Basileias (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Point 2. The sources contradict, then. Maybe they were mulling it over in the early 1990s (in that case being prompted by the NRSV or NJB, which heralded the gender neutral debate), but everything else I've read (secondary sources) say that it was a somewhat kneejerk reaction to the NIVI, or at least that's what prompted them to actually get it out (which is bolstered by Strauss and, oppositely, for the advertising rhetoric for the ESV as a "non-neutered" translation, much like the RSV-2CE, and, on the issue of time, for example, the Catholic NAB, prompted by Divino Afflante Spiritu 70 years ago, was completed in 1986, and just revised enough to achieve Vatican approval in 2011... Bibles take a long time without impetus), and that may be why, reading it, it comes across as slapshod in places (adjacent parts using different gender-language, due to an insufficient revision, I think) - but all of that is speculation or original research, so not in the article. If you feel the desire to rewrite the first two sentences of the "circumstances" paragraph to conform to that, I have no objection (although I do feel the ESV website may be less reliable in a sense than secondary sources, and more reliable in another, as those secondary sources are generally filled with more conjecture than a Wikipedia page so heavily tagged that it is unreadable).

A friend had a copy of the removed post Crossway was responding to. The stories about a kneejerk reaction to what other publishers were doing the ESV publisher regards as second hand tales. I thought as much. I have move the history introduction in line with the source from Crossway. Basileias (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall Crossway ever using advertising meaning "non-neutered" in their marketing. I understood the NIVI to only have been a UK release. I think sources could be problematic because it takes years to plan for a translation if it was responsible for the ESV. I think I know someone who has a copy of the Worthington post in my link. I want to read it. I also want to update myself on the topic before I edit. Basileias (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not in the words "non-neutered", no, but in heavy criticism of gender-neutral language and in stating that theirs was different. Take your time, Wikipedia is a WP:WORKINPROGRESS withWP:NODEADLINE. The NIVI was UK only, but it was planned for release in US but never got it because of the evangelical uproar; it was quietly ditched. Not until nine years later, when it was rebranded as "Today's New International Version", and, then, after accustomizing the public to it, trading the regular NIV for the NIVI in 2011. I don't know if you read the Bible, but the ESV, especially in the 2001 revision, and even now, has a once-over uneven feel in places - some were subjected to revision, vast tracts are the RSV. It feels rushed: objectionable parts were redacted and the sections around them revised, tracts with no objectionable material left untouched: at the borders of these divisions, one can see two completely different gender-language philosophies in chapter 26 and 27, for example (although I still think it to be one of the best Bibles available in an edition with the full 73-book canon in modern English; the NASB and NKJV have no full-canon edition, NETS, OSB, Knox, RSV-2CE, Old Jerusalem and Goodspeed would come close, DRC, CCD, Brenton and KJV [or TMB] for old [Early Modern] English). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I know every translation team will have their approach to translation and gender language. I do know the NIVI is not the NIV update, though I am sure many renderings could be similar and same. How many different ways can you translate John 3:16? The NIV translation team did the work on the Today's New International Version, where if I am remembering correctly, the NIVI was outsourced. None of this though has anything to do with the ESV. Basileias (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And to answer your rhetorical question... uh, fifteen? monogenes admits to at least four renderings ("only", "one and only", "one of a kind", "only-begotten"), and then add in the "for God so loved the world", "God loved the world like this", "God loved the world in this way", "God loved the world so much" [sic], "perish", "die", or "be destroyed", the word for "whosoever", "anyone", "everyone", "all", life "eternal", "everlasting", "always", "forever", "age-enduring".... more like one hundred fifty possible, although there are four (or five) main renderings of it that I've seen throughout all modern English translations (six [or seven] if one counts orthographic differences in early modern English, "whosoever", "believeth") :-D Not a good example because there's no way to neuter it, unless you're an extremist and do "child" or "son-daughter" as I've seen in some commentaries. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 16:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Still - compare any passage in the three editions. The TNIV and NIVI have identical renderings in every location I've checked (admittedly, not many - about a dozen passages and two random chapters, Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 10), and the 1984 NIV renderings are different. The 2011 NIV takes all of the readings from the TNIV/I over wholesale!St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The updated NIV does not take all renderings from the TNIV and the NIVI wholesale. A lot will be the similar, but that statement is not even close to the realm of reality. I will refer you to ESV translator Bill Mounce's perspectives. Again, all of which has nothing to do with the ESV. Basileias (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (updated NIV)

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (TNIV)

Indeed, I missed that - I said I checked only Genesis 3 (Protevangelium) and 1 Corinthians 10 (women are to be silent in church: these being two chapters that gender-neutral translations love to rewrite: and, also, 1 Tim 3 (qualifications of bishops), which I forgot about) and a few Messianic prophecies (most are still there except for Psalm 8). In these places, almost every single rendering is TNIV wholesale. I didn't read the whole thing (I don't use even the old NIV or own one). Thanks for pointing that out, that it is just "influenced" or "heavily influenced" by the TNIV, not just a rebranding of it.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Point 1. Isaiah 7:14 is treated briefly (one or two sentences, I think), because it is a touchstone for this and similar translations, along with the other verses mentioned; such are often mentioned by defenders of the ESV (and NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc. as well), and the original "RSV Isaiah 7:14 controversy" lays directly behind this (as it's a revision of the RSV, to which this gives context - and sources). The ESV is a conservative and evangelical version; most things written on it are going to be by conservative evangelicals (and, surprisingly, some Catholic Bishops' Conferences) just as one can find nothing written by them on the NRSV except for short dismissals, or endless debates over the neutered language. I added the sources about "almah as virgin" because I took it, in your original post, that you were disputing that in the article - not the very inclusion of it. Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 2, Genesis 1:1,3 are the OT touchstones and rallying cries of these Bibles ("Word of God in English", Bibliotheca Sacra), and Psalm 1 and Genesis 3:15 are the touchstones for the gender-neutral controversy (as all of the neutered ones use the incorrect "singular" they in those locations). These few verses are the main changes in the ESV (beyond the removal of archaic language and the moderate neutering) as compared to anything else in the RV-ASV-RSV-NRSV line, and the perceived improper rendering of these verses were what this translation was designed to rectify. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Strauss TNIV

This blog of Christianity Today (a reliable popular publication) states that Mark Strauss was a TNIV translator: it's hard to find many sources for it in my checking, as most have to do with his current standing on the committee or the TNIV debates with Strauss in them. I'm trying to find the list of TNIV translators; I wonder if it's put in TNIV Bibles? If it is, I'll buy a throwaway paperback copy just for that (I've done crazier things in the name of Wikipedia). Edit: on thinking, I'm not certain that even needs to be in the article, but, in any case, like the T/NIV/I discussion above, anything for the increase of knowledge of correction of misknowledge is good in my book.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

He eventually joined the CBT. The member list I have for 2006 is:

• Ronald Youngblood
• Kenneth Barker
• John H. Stek
• Donald H. Madvig
• Richard T. France
• Gordon Fee
• Karen H. Jobes
• Walter Liefeld
• Douglas Moo
• Bruce K. Waltke
• Larry L. Walker
• Herbert M. Wolf
• Martin Selman

I am not sure why this matters in the ESV article. Strauss does not appear in the 07, 08 or 09 lists either. Basileias (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for the ESV article, but if I suspect I may be holding falsity while considering it knowledge, I attempt to correct it or have it corrected through any channel I can find. If it pisses you off, just so say to stay strictly on topic and it shall be done. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not mad, got that other info from a friend. According to the NIV webiste (http://www.thenivbible.com/translation/translator-profiles), Strauss joined the CBT in 2005, well after the TNIV was completed. I believe he started in public relations, which is why he was not listed with the core translators til later. Hope that helps. Basileias (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ESV History

Several of the translations immediately preceding it, such as the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New International Version - Inclusive Language Edition introduced large amounts of "gender-neutral language" which was found to be objectionable by some, and a departure from proper translation after a literal fashion and in to interpretation or dynamic translation.

I have a number of problems with this being entered. I covered it twice in prior comments to the talk page. Crossway states, "The ESV developed from this perceived need, not as a reaction to other Bible publishers’ doings or to meet the Colorado Springs Guidelines."

The whole point of Crossway posting what they did to their blog was in reaction others stories of why the ESV came about. The entered comment gives the impression that it was over gender which is why Crossway posted what they did and called it a second hand tale. Basileias (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Essay 4 of Translating Truth (also by Vern S Poythress) is pretty clear that it was indeed in relation to neutral language, so it's one man in a secondary source against a primary source describing itself. The SPS probably wins, so I defer to your reasoning and will not reinsert what is similar at that point, although there should be (due to coverage in secondary sources) a mention, maybe at the bottom of the section, that "some of those related or serving on the translation team viewed the need for an essentially literal translation as especially pressing, feeling that X translators had left the realm of translation and entered into interpretation by using so-called "inclusive language", which had, as mentioned by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, a major impact on certain passages, namely the qualifications of bishops and deacons in 1 Tim 3, and the status of women in church in 1 Cor 10-11. However, these changes did not go so far as translations outside of the mainstream, such as 'The Inclusive Bible'...." etc.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did a search for "Essay 4 of Translating Truth" and nothing easily came up. Is this essay somewhere I can look at? Basileias (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The essay is here. Or perhaps this is an earlier version. It doesn't seem to mention the ESV.StAnselm (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The book "Translating Truth" is composed of five essays written by different people, all involved in the ESV and all directly relating to it (often as an indirect apologia); Vern Poythress' is number four, if memory serves (I'll go look for the book later today, as I may be confusing Poythress with one of the others, as due to his outspokenness against gender-neutral language in other venues; however, Grudem and Ryken are in their own right [as was virtually everyone who sat on the ESV committee]). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Their perspectives obvious affected how the translation turned out. It does not mean it had anything to do with the origin of the ESV. I am not sure I mentioned it in the word pile prior, but you will probably find that the reason for most new translations is...the licensing fees. Basileias (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, undoubtedly - it's why the Catholic Church is seeming to go with the ESV, because the licensing terms and fees were found to be unacceptable from the NCC (although I always thought that Crossway merely licensed the RSV for revision from the ESV, so the NCC held the copyrights to both, but I suppose, if it is so, that Crossway holds the ESV copyright - it's surprising that they'd let it be modified for Catholic liturgy when so staunchly opposed to printing a version with the deuterocanon, leaving Oxford to pick up the slack). I wonder if that's why there's a new translation every year these days, and they have a shelf-life of about half a decade? "Oh, we need to write the Bible in the people's language, because no one can understand the Common English Version or New Living Translation, let alone the New International Version! Those are almost ten years out of date! God forbid they try to read CS Lewis! What archaic English! Putting the accent mark above the "o" in "rôle"! No one can understand that without a liberal arts degree!" St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ}23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Periphrasic?

I was going to link "periphrasic" in the article to Periphrasis, but the article doesn't seem to describe a style of translation. After referring to the header link in that article, and towiktionary:periphrasis, I think the correct target would be circumlocution. That's a strong term, but since it's used to describe the NIV, I'd regard it as fair. (Tim's comment about the NIV, above, sums it up quite well: "some commentary thrown in instead of translation in a few places".)

I'll make the link to circumlocution for now, as it appears to be the most relevant target, but perhaps someone has a better suggestion. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not source for the statement. I suspect it may be blog chatter and/or an assumption. If a source is found, I am fine with it going back in. Basileias (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Essentially literal

An editor has been trying to make changes to this wording, but it is a direct quote from the ESV introduction, and the sentence uses the phrase "in their own words". The ESV publishers don't describe it as "literal" but as "essentially literal". StAnselm (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edit thrice. The translation is in the vein of literal. "Essentially" is just their silly marketing term. Basileias (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a silly marketing term, it's a technical term that is used by Biblical Scholars to describe a specific kind of translation. See http://www.christistheway.com/2003/a03a10ba.html and http://www.amazon.com/Translating-Truth-Essentially-Literal-Translation/dp/1581347553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352118315&sr=8-1&keywords=TRANSLATING+TRUTH%3A+THE+CASE+FOR+ESSENTIALLY+LITERAL+BIBLE+TRANSLATION%27 . The term is a contrast term with "Dynamic Equivalence" which is what the NIV is or a fully literal translation like Young's Literal translation (which fully preserves the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word order." ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not think those sources are good. StAnselm reverted my edits three times and then accused me of edit waring. The Amazon source is a Crossway source, hence backs their marketing. There is a lot of POV and Calvinist agenda in this article and since it is going to remain without balances sources then the article goes into dispute. Oh, and I have been to seminary. The term was never known until the ESV. Basileias (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Published by Crossway != Crossway propoganda. The term is supported by several authors writing several essays in that book. Big names like Grudem and Ryken. I don't care if you've been Seminary, have a PhD, or were on the marketing committee that came up with the "silly marketing term" yourself... unless you can provide a published reputable source your statements are WP:OR and are going to be discarded.ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My point with seminary is it was never a popular term until Crossway marketed it as so. Some of those big names are not scholars. The ESV is a formal equivalence translation. "Formal equivalence" is the term scholars use. Information is supposed to be back by quality third party sources. Your other source was a Church website (christistheway). That does not even remotely pass muster as a source...lol. Basileias (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long the phrase has been around, it is used in reliable sources to describe the translation philosophy behind the ESV - Which Bible Translation Should I Use? is an example of a book not published by Crossway that is using it. StAnselm (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It says the books release date is October 1, 2012. You guys are really having to climb through the bushes for sources...lol!!! This is almost entertaining!! Basileias (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What does the release date have to do with anything? The book is published by a competitor of Crossway and still uses the term. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Party

Basileias added a tag that suggested that the article relies too heavily on first party sources. There are many Crossway resources, but the majority still seems to be third party. While more sources from greater variety can only improve the article, do we think that there needs to be a tag to caution readers until we do so?ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing in the article, I think we do. Basileias (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you won't own the article. We need to reach a consensus or at least discuss it among contributing and interested editors. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You and your partner do not own the article either. I think the tag should stay until consensus is reached. The reasons are over 1/4 of the sources are Crossway/ESV sources and many other are from private blogs. Basileias (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the tag DOESN'T belong, I'm saying that you don't get to unilaterally decide that when others disagree with you. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop, there is already a neutrality tag on it... and the third party tag is disputed. If you don't stop, I'm going to be forced to take this to dispute resolution. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My issues list

• 1/4 of the sources are from Crossway or Crossway backed sites.
• A lot of personal blogs and websites for sources.
• Study Bibles section is almost an advertisement, with almost no sources.
• Lectionaries section is almost an advertisement, with almost no sources.
• And a slight bit of Coatracking in the article when it talks about "traditional" renderings (e.g. virgin).

Last minute note, I do not expect all this to be taken care of tomorrow and realistically, it has been created over time. As an expectation, I do not believe every issue needs to be corrected. At some point though, some of the problems need to be allowed correction. Basileias (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am willing to offer a 3rd opinion on the dispute the 2 of you have. For what its worth I have no interest in the content of this article. I am only here to evaluate this article in line with WP policies and norms. RobertRosen (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Am I allowed to any edits in this article without every single one being contested? Basileias (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to make edits, but if they are contested you need to follow the WP:brd cycle... not just unilaterally change things however you feel like. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your vandalism charge on me is completely false, and you know it. Basileias (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

3O Request

I have requested a third opinion via WP:3

My issues list

• 1/4 of the sources are from Crossway or Crossway backed sites.
• A lot of personal blogs and websites for sources.
• Study Bibles section is almost an advertisement, with almost no sources.
• Lectionaries section is almost an advertisement, with almost no sources.
• And a slight bit of Coatracking in the article when it talks about "traditional" renderings (e.g. virgin).

Basileias (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

<repeat>Hi, I am willing to offer a 3rd opinion on the dispute the 2 of you have. For what its worth I have no interest in the content of this article. I am only here to evaluate this article in line with WP policies and norms. RobertRosen (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read the article. Basileias has some genuine concerns. If I went through this article (as I've often done with others) with my BOLD Wiki policy eraser (which BTW is not restricted to WP:BRD, there wouldn't be much of this article left. So are you warring editors prepared to cooperate to clean up ? RobertRosen (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is not so much whether the article needs to be cleaned up or if we are willing to do so, it is more along the lines as to whether the 3rd party maintenance tag needs to be there or not. Is 1/4th of the sources enough to warrant the third party tag while the Neutrality tag is already there (and not disputed)? Furthermore, Basileias has done nothing to try to improve the article. I can't find the policy right now, but there is a policy that states that you should not expect others to prove your point. If he wants the article fixed, he should do something about it... otherwise he should leave it alone. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying I have done nothing to improve the article is not fair. Look at the talk page with my last dispute. Myself and the other editor worked it out. It was very lengthy. Also, I am currently not allowed to edit anything by ReformedArsenal or StAnselm (StAnselm reverted me three times and then accused me of edit waring, ReformedArsenal is now calling me a vandal), it is tough to fight a tag team.

I think the article can be condensed. I am willing to go forward, but by stopping every edit I make these two do, it is impossible. Any major changes I will propose on the talk page, but I have been completely shut down here. The 3rd party maintenance tag is only one issue I have, due the type of sources I feel the tag is warranted and it IS HOW YOU CALL help and attention to the article. That is being disallowed. Basileias (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A Path Forward

I'm going to do a full citation clean up and convert the references to Harvard References. This will make it easier to evaluate the sources, as it will have a regular bibliography instead of just a list of scattered notes.

Once that has been done, we'll be better able to see what we have, and what needs fixing.

Is this amicable for you Bas? ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's 1 positive for you RA. Look we all know whats going on here, and we can wikilawyer and filibuster for days without getting anywhere. So lets roll out a BOLD roadmap. What say you we let Bas BOLDLY DELETE 5,000 bytes of this article (now at about 30,000 bytes) which he finds most offensive / unreferenced / non-RS / CoI etc. He should do this in small chunks each carefully explained in his edit summaries. Then RA and I will see if we need to "tag team" him to restore / revert it (this time per WP policy). Then we will let Bas CAREFULLY DELETE another, say, 3000 bytes. I personally feel this article should finally come in at around 10,000 bytes. If either of you have a problem, RA can play Bas and Bas & I will tag team RA. RobertRosen (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern is control, I have not been allowed to do anything. If it helps the process, I am fine with ReformedArsenal making the first steps to sort out the referencing. I do not like the "in use" tag that has been placed. Its telling other editors to "butt-out." This has been the core problem. Basileias (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me clean up the citations first, that way we at least know where we stand on that (and will be able to clearly see the sources that are being rejected by Bas). ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. But, dont use Harvard Referencing as a device to delay or obfuscate. Also, other similar 21st cent. Bibles have WP articles between 6 and 11K bytes. A lot of this smacks of "marketing PR" between competing Bible publishers / churches. (Simply deleting "Emendations" and "Notes" would sort out 50% of this article in 1 shot .. In my very early days at Wikipedia I deleted 14,000 Bytes of Puffery from some religious article in a single edit, and nobody complained !!) RobertRosen (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see he has already started editing, did not even wait for me...lol My first complaint is the address: http://www.esvbible.org in the info box. No other bible articles have it there. I removed it for conformity and he fights it every step of the way when I remove it. I see he's been hackin and slashin. I will check out the other edits and go from there. Basileias (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to look a little more carefully Bas... New International Version has it. This is not a link to a page about the Bible (which is what the external link at the end is), it is a link to the online version of the Bible. Why have that switch in the Template if we aren't going to use it. Beyond that, the only edits I made were taking out the two sections that you said you had problems with that, and removing some dead links. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bas. Firstly, don't do anything. WAIT. BTW, I'm sorry, but I'm in a different timezone and (occasionally) need to sleep. Secondly, be patient and "go with the flow". Thirdly, you wont have to remove anything, as yet. RobertRosen (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I am in wait mode. Do not feel the need to rush. A lot of the issues are a build over years. I did not intend to work everything out. Just a few edits on a pass through and got tag teamed. Basileias (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Source Analysis

OK, I've converted this over to Harvard Citations so we can clearly see what we have. Out of the 20 discrete sources, we have 13 that are not Crossway sources.

Of the 7 sources that are Crossway, we have 2 that are published by Crossway on the subject of Biblical Translation, and 5 that are published specifically about the history and methodology of the ESV.

In addition, there 3 critical of the ESV sources that I have been unable to update because I do not have access to the sites yet (My school's firewall is blocking them for some reason, I'll update them when I'm on my personal line at home).

Here are the sources to analyze

• Beck, William (1970), What Does AlmahMean? (PDF), retrieved 2012-11-08 - Beck is a celebrated and established Bible Translator. and has worked on several translation committees.

• Brueggemann, Walter (2010), Genesis, Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, ISBN 0664234372 - I don't need to speak too much to Brueggemann's credentials... a quick glance at his Wikipage reveals his pedigree is excellent

• Clontz, T E (2008), "Preface", in Clontz, T E; Clontz, J (eds.), The Comprehensive New Testament, Clewiston: Cornerstone Publications, ISBN 0977873714 - I don't know much about the Clontz editors on this work... however this is an independent source who rates the ESV high on the accuracy scale.

• Craigie, Peter (1983), Metzger, Bruce (ed.), Psalms 1-50, Waco: Word Books, ISBN 0849902185 - I don't know a lot about Craigie, but the Word Commentary series is highly respected, and Bruce Metzger is a pillar in Text Criticism

• ESV Bible, Crossway, 2010, retrieved 2012-11-08 - Not a great source in terms of assessment of the ESV, but no reason why these sources cannot be used to establish historical and factual information regarding the methodology and development of the ESV.

• The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Wheaton: Crossway, 2012, ISBN 1433530872 - Not a great source in terms of assessment of the ESV, but no reason why these sources cannot be used to establish historical and factual information regarding the methodology and development of the ESV.

• "Manuscripts Used in Translating the ESV", About the ESV Translation, Crossway, 2010a, retrieved 2012-11-08 - Not a great source in terms of assessment of the ESV, but no reason why these sources cannot be used to establish historical and factual information regarding the methodology and development of the ESV.

• Crossway Staff (21 February 2006), The Origin of the ESV, Crossway, retrieved 2012-11-08 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Not a great source in terms of assessment of the ESV, but no reason why these sources cannot be used to establish historical and factual information regarding the methodology and development of the ESV.

• Dennis, Lane (2011), Word Changes in the ESV Bible Text-2011 (PDF), Crossway, retrieved 2012-11-08 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) - Lane is a biased source in terms of assessment, however this citation only remarks on a revision (which the document supports)

• Grudem, Wayne (2005), "Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out by God?", Translating Truth, Wheaton: Crossway Books, pp. 19–56, ISBN 1581347553 - Grudem is a well respected scholar, however this is a crossway resource, so it should be used cautiously in regard to assessments of the ESV

• Harris, Robert (1957), Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books, ISBN 031025891X Haris holds a PhD from Dropsie College, which is one of the most well respected Jewish Studies institutions in the world. In addition, Zondervan publishes the NIV, which is a competing translation. This resources is highly reliable as it has no reason to be overly favorable in its assessment of the ESV.

• Isbell, Charles (1977), "Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary's Virginity?", Biblical Archaeology Society, 3 (2), retrieved 2012-11-08 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) - Biblical Archeology is a well respected journal that is peer reviewed.

• Johnson, S. Lewis (1953), "The Revised Standard New Testament", Bibliotheca Sacra, 110: 62–65 - Bibliotheca Sacra is a well respected journal that has been in publication for nearly a century.

• Mounce, Bill (2011), ETS Day 2 by Bill Mounce, Zondervan, retrieved 2012-11-08 - Mounce is a well established Greek Scholar who is on staff at Zondervan, however he was also a senior editor for the ESV. Assessments should be used cautiously,
• The English Standard Version Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 0195289102 - See other notes on ESV citations.
• English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, 2012, retrieved 2012-11-08 - See other notes on ESV citations.
• The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version (Catholic ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 1586171003 - See other notes on ESV citations
• Bible Translations Comparison, Rose Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1596361336 - This source is neutral, but is not scholarly. It is a pamphlet that is published and has no listed authors.

• Ryken, Leland (2002), The Word of God in English, Wheaton: Crossway, ISBN 1581344643 - Ryken is a respected scholar, but this is a crossway source, assessments should be used cautiously

• Unger, Merrill (1953), "The Revised Standard Old Testament", Bibliotheca Sacra, 110: 54–61 See note on other Bibliotheca Sacra source.

RA, that's cheating. So here's, what you are going to do.

• Notes are to be used as "notes" and not as inline citations.
• All in-line citations will show up as "References" (preferably in a 2 column layout) .
• Your "References" will become "Resources".
• After that, we'll focus on the first 3 sub-sections (lede /Translation Philosophy /History) and the infobox, which is what 75% of first time readers only read and make darn sure that these are absolutely non-controversial, well referenced from multiple non-Crossway sources which 'both of you agree on. Can we do that please ? Thanks. PS: Good work on the H.Refs. RobertRosen (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RR, I'll thank you from refraining from using language that implies that I have some kind of underhanded motive, saying that I'm a cheater, that I am doing something to delay or obfuscate, does exactly that. You don't come off as neutral when you employ ad hominem reasoning on someone who spent several hours of his day cleaning up an article that he didn't think had anything substantial wrong with it in the first place. What I did was pretty standard for pages using Harvard citations, and I don't really have a dog in the fight of how we do the citations... it just makes it clear what bulk of sources we are using by listing all the sources in one spot instead of trying to filter through them they are interconnected with the inline references. This was not me beginning the editing, this was me making it clear what we have for sources (which is what you were asked to moderate... not the article itself). As of right now we have 14 sources that are not published by crossway in any shape of form, and most of the crossway sources are there to discuss the methodology and history of the translation (which I can see no reason that they are not valid for that purpose.

I still don't buy the idea that simply because a source is published by Crossway that it is invalid, and you're both going to have to prove that those sources are biased before we arbitrarily throw them out. Grudem and Ryken are both well respected scholars, I have no reason to believe that their contribution is substandard simply because the publisher of the book they are published in is published by the same company that publishes the Bible we're talking about (the books are not directly about the ESV, it is not as though I am arguing that http://static.crossway.org/excerpt/why-our-church-switched-to-the-esv/why-our-church-switched-to-the-esv.pdf is a good source for this). ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@RA, see strikeout above. I'm not initially getting into the content of what's on the article, or what is in the sources or even if the sources are reliable or Crossway/non-Crossway. In fact I have no interest or position or bias on the contents or controversies or grand theories of this page. What we need on this page is simple stuff up front which is very well (and clearly referenced and verifiable preferably from non-Crossway sources). Having got that out of the way we can move on to the more scholarly stuff as we dig deeper down the page. If Crossway sources are the only source its not really a problem if its made clear where appropriate. Now having previously appreciated the hard work you've put in, can we have some more of it for the 4 areas I've listed. PS: The referencing has to be sufficiently precise to identify the exact claim/statement made in the source (ie. no obfuscation). RobertRosen (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)