To Be Honest.. I’m Struggling with the ESV
Why I Don't Love the English Standard Version of the Bible
It’s really hard to question the position the English Standard Version of the Bible has earned itself in Western Christianity. Coming out originally in 2001, it rapidly spread into scores of Churches and Denominations. It is actually the preferred translation of my denomination, the Anglican Church in North America, and is the version that sits alongside my Book of Common Prayer in a black leather over board edition with gold stamping and the apocrypha contained.
I have personally rebound two copies: the first being an ESV I purchased from Truth for Life Ministries that I use for travel; the second being an ESV Preaching Bible that I use when in the pulpit. I cannot remember when I have not either preached from it or failed to use it for any official church activity. The ESV is just the default for the ACNA and as a priest in the ACNA, I follow suit.
And in all honesty, I struggle with using it… here’s why.
Complementarian Bias in the Text
To start, I am unashamedly complementarian. I have no issue looking at scripture and seeing a clear complementarian perspective within both the Old and New Testament. I also, in full transparency, believe that the sacerdotal offices are only open to men. So I would be the perfect audience for this type of translation, right? No.
I have issues when any denomination or theological system forces their own bias on the words of Scripture. I don’t need a translation committee to insert, extract, or mistranslate so as to maintain their own biases. I trust that I can defend what I believe without having to alter scripture to help in the effort. I never want to be like Thomas Jefferson, who took a pair of scissors to the Bible, because he would rather not have to deal with the subjects he didn’t like.
So in the following instances, the translators made choices which seem to have no justification or basis other than to reinforce complementarianism
Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”
This a forced translation which serves to lessen the stature of Junia as a woman and potential apostle. The verse is more literally rendered “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, and who were before me in Christ.” The term used is en tois apostolos which communicates that they were probably a part of the apostles, and simply not just “well known” to them.
Romans 16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church at Cenchreae”
The footnote itself [a] says “Or deaconess”. That is because the word that is used to title her a servant is almost always translated as deacon when used for men in the ESV.
1 Corinthians 14:33:-35: “33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
The ESV forces an unnatural translation at the end of 33 and beginning of 34. Lets see this in two other literal/word for word versions:
NKJV: “33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.”
NASB 1995: “33 for God is not a God of confusion but of [m]peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”
The issue is that the ESV presents a situation as a universal practice “as in all the churches of the saints, the women…” when it may have been a local practice specific to Corinth to have the women not speak up in church.
Weird Phrasing
I am an Anglican who loves reading the works of the Anglican Divines and Reformers. I have several copies of the Books of Homilies and Book of Common Prayer from the 17th-19th centuries. When I see more formal English used and certain phrasings, I appreciate it because I understand it as a feature of the periods. When I see it in a Bible that is 21st century, it is weird and mildly unsettling.
Examples of this are below, and I suggest you pick up any other contemporary translation of the Bible and see how they are handled:
Matthew 7:27 “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.”
1 Corinthians 15:41 “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.”
Luke 23:15 “Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him.
Matthew 9:29 “Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be done to you.””
A part of this is due to the actual history of the ESV, and the fact that it is not an actual translation but a revision. The ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version (1952) which is a revision of American Standard Version (1901) which is a revision of the King James Bible (1611) but using the Critical Text. The ESV maintains awkward renderings from the versions which preceded it, either out of maintaining a literal approach or of simply wanting their version of the Bible to sound like, well, the Bible. Unfortunately, in many places it just sounds like Yoda.
Iphone Like Updates
I expect and am comfortable when new versions of my technology come out. There are solid arguments to be made for better memory, better cameras, better batteries, better operating systems, and better apps. I can choose whether it’s time to update or not based on my use cases.
That becomes more difficult when I am trying to stay faithful to the text preached in my church or used in my denomination. The ESV has been revised the following times:
2001, 2002, 2007, 2011, 2016, 2025
And when it is revised, it always claims to be simply modest changes to better improve “accuracy and clarity” (according to Crossway). We can applaud when a Bible publisher wants to make the Bible even better for its users. Where it gets weird is the fact that they don’t identify (like the NASB, for example) when they do revise it. They don’t label it the ESV2001, ESV2002, ESV2007, etc. This leads to situations where the Bible in your library or church bag is different from the one used by the church.
The other issue is that revisions occur when the language changes or new finds occur that impact the texts used. As far as I can tell, the ESV is still using the same text basis for the new 2025 revision as it did in 2001. The English language has not changed radically in 24 years, and certainly not enough to justify a revision every few years.
Why Does It Exist?
In my library, I have 5 Bible translations (ESV, NASB/LSB, NET, CSB, and NKJV). I have a reading Bible, writing/journaling Bible, and studying Bible in each. I have these because I’m a Priest and I like to see how the verses I preach are handled in different versions. It can be overwhelming sometimes, so there are seasons I read from one translation more than another.
If 5 translations seems overwhelming at times, what do we do with the approximately 50 Bible translations we have now (GotQuestions.org). If 5 is too many, then 50 is simply ridiculously overkill. Comforting ourselves with the statement that “we have a plethora of riches” when it comes to English translations just sounds so pretentious and silly.
So, with that being said, why does the ESV exist? What void did it fill that didn’t have a solution before? Let’s look at that. Did we need another word for word Bible? No, we had the NKJV. Did we need another literal Critical text edition of the Bible? No, we had the NASB. Did we need another academically accurate Bible? No, we had the NRSV from which the ESV was based. Did we need another poetically sounding Bible? No, the KJV is still in print. Did we need another easier to read Bible? No, we had the NIV1984 still in print. There was simply no need for another Bible version.
The reason why the ESV came into existence is that Reformed and Calvinist Pastors saw what occurred with the Revised Standard Version to the New Revised Standard Version in 1989 and a similar move with the New International Version embracing gender neutral language in the Today’s New International Version (2002) and decided to translate their own Bible. There was no void this version was filling other than to ensure Calvinists and Reformed churches had a Bible that agreed with their particular ideologies. The ESV landed right around the same time that Neo-Calvinism alongside the Reformed and Restless wave hit the church. A match made in heaven.
What Now?
In all honesty, I’ll probably continue on using the ESV because I don’t like to make waves in the pulpit or confuse my listeners on Sunday morning. I would prefer to use either the NKJV or NASB; they are both far more literal, more honest in their updates/revision policies, and they actually italicize the words that don’t exist in the original Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. Some may have an issue with the Byzantine/Majority text and the NKJV. I simply point to the fact that all Bible publishers are using multiple texts of the Bible to produce their versions, and are not slavish to the critical text (N/A or UBS). If an opportunity came up to preach from either one, I would take it. I would not, however, force a change where it isn’t sought out.
The ESV is not a bad translation, and one will be led to Jesus using it just as they would another. If all I had was the ESV, I would be well served. For me the issue is that it isn’t a good or bad translation, but it’s a pointless one to exist. The fact that I do Yoda impressions in my study every so once in a while are just weird bonuses, I guess.
Interesting, thank you! My daughter, who is still new to Bible study, told me, "The ESV confuses me." Yes, because much of it is written in a language that you don't speak. So I gave her my NKJV Study Bible.
The ESV seems a more faithful translation than the NIV, but my Study Bible is and always will be an NIV that I bought 30 years ago. It's loaded with highlights, scribblings, and memories. Rather than acquire more print translations, now I go online and triangulate when things confuse me. (Don't let me near Interlinear Chapters.)
For me the heartburn comes with Ephesians 5:21 ("... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ"). The ESV puts the section title "Wives and Husbands" after that verse. The NIV puts its title "Instructions for Christian Households" before that verse. That lands on me as two different sets of translators telling me how I need to think about the passage.
All that said, both the NIV and ESV have led me to the same conclusion: Jesus Christ became man, died on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, so that I might be saved.