Talk:English Standard Version

English Standard Version has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 19, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Structural issue

I am wondering if we need to look at how other articles on Bible translations handle structure. The NRSV has a “principles of translation” section, which I think would be good for us to have. We could then shift the gender language criticisms into this, and make it part of a wider explanation. That’s my initial thought. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see The Living Bible has a “ Textual characteristics” section. Wonder if we can do something with this? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed—that's probably a good starting point re "Textual characteristics". I think that having a section called "Principles of revision" generally makes less sense in comparison. Thankfully the ESV preface will make it relatively easy to discuss (and cite!) relevant topics in a somewhat structured manner, while at the same time trying not to rely on it too much. I can attempt a minor general restructure (along with taking into account the other suggestions you made) next week based on this starting point. VistaSunset (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ESV Apocrypha

Some recent edits were reverted that dealt with the Apocrypha associated with the English Standard Version with the reason given by VistaSunset that "I feel these changes infer that the Oxford ed Apocrypha can be found in the official Crossway text. The infobox details information surrounding the primary feature of the article." While it's true that the original text of the Apocrypha included with the ESV Bible was commissioned by Oxford University Press (and not by Crossway) and published in 2009 (an edition that's now out of print by the way), the Apocrypha has continued to be published and included with some ESV Bibles. These editions of Bible editions with the Apocrypha include, "The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes (a stand-alone edition of the Apocrypha published by Concordia Publishing House), the ESV Catholic Edition (published in the United States by the Augustine Institute and including the Deuterocanonical books recognized by the Roman Catholic church), and the ESV Anglican Edition (published by Anglican House Publishers).

Also, more recently, Cambridge University Press has published an ESV Text Edition of the Apocrypha (another stand-alone edition) and a new ESV Diadem Reference Edition with the Apocrypha. In the prefaces to these more recent editions (such as the ESV Anglican Edition), it's stated that the ESV Translation Oversight Committee reviewed the text of the Apocrypha and made some changes (such as re-translating the book of Tobit from the longer and not shorter Greek text that was done in 2009 for Oxford's edition) and since then, it's now noted in these editions that the Apocrypha text is copyright 2017 by Crossway. So, while I don't think that Crossway itself will publish any editions of the ESV Apocrypha any time soon, it does hold the copyright now on the ESV Apocrypha text that is currently being published by others. In my mind, this makes the Apocrypha an official part of the ESV text, even though Crossway itself didn't originate the project and doesn't really actively publish or promote it.

Feel free to disagree. --Wikiman86 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikiman86, thanks for your edits and this post—I really appreciate it! Gotcha, I see your perspective now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts constructively. I guess I'll have to get myself an Anglican edition one day (which could be tough, because I believe it's technically available only in the US and CA). I have made a few small tweaks and format improvements to your edits (which you can obviously review in the History section—open to feedback). I have moved the Anglican edition to "section 3" in the infobox "Textual basis" section as the Apocrypha is found in the back, which I think makes the most sense in this case for the sake of consistency in structure. VistaSunset (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VistaSunset, thanks for tidying up my edits. I moved the Apocrypha section in the Infobox to in between the OT and NT, to make it consistent with other Wikipedia articles on Bible translations (such as the articles on the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version). Also, even though the ESV Anglican Edition has the Apocrypha after the OT and NT, the new Cambridge ESV Diadem Reference Bible with the Apocrypha places the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments. Cambridge University Press also published earlier this year a stand-alone edition of the ESV Apocrypha. Wikiman86 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"English Standard Version®" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

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

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

Yes, this is interesting. Clark's About page is quite amusing. I personally have trouble with content throughout Patheos as I find the quality of contributions to vary wildly. I have some brief thoughts (which aren't directed at you):

In skimming through, is it really reasonable to assert, with regard to the slave trade, that "Grudem and the ESV translators are trying to keep that literalist, clobber-texting approach without it leading them to the conclusions it was designed to conclude"? I had to search up what "clobber text" means: it's apparently a term used to refer to particular sections of proof texts regarding certain issues surrounding social morality (e.g., with regard to homosexual behaviour, 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). According to Clark, "they’re trying to employ the proslavery white-supremacist hermeneutic of their human-trafficking forefathers while somehow avoiding the perception that they, too, are defending slavery and white supremacy". This is quite simply empty rhetoric that groups the translators of the ESV with individuals in the past that committed eisegesis in an attempt to justify their participation in the slave trade.

I would have detailed in the main article this video of the ESV translators engaging in debate regarding use of the word "slave", but it's an unofficial archive of a copyrighted BBC report where no official source exists. VistaSunset (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]