Short Apologetic: The ESV
Addressing Misconceptions
In The King’s English, I outlined four criteria for why the English Standard Version is the best candidate to be the inheritor of the Tyndale-King James English Bible tradition and your standard Bible. I anticipated some pushback about the ESV itself, but due to length, I cut addressing common objections from the article. Defending the ESV is not a matter of superiority or loyalty for me. As I noted, other translations are preferrable to me in aspects of their translation philosophy, such as the NKJV and RSV. Yet, the ESV is simply the only one which meets all four criteria. Therefore, I will address two common criticisms here in a brief apologetic.
Objection: The ESV is a Calvinist Bible
A common objection voiced on the internet, and one that I have even heard in the hallowed halls of the seminary, is that the ESV is a decidedly Calvinist Bible translation. Research for this claim will find it primarily resting on two pillars: 1) the ESV Translation Committee was largely made up of Calvinists, and 2) Crossway, the publisher of the ESV, largely publishes Reformed content. What people imply by presenting these two factoids is that the ESV could not have possibly been crafted without bias, at some point the Calvinist bias from Crossway and the Committee seeped in to their translation.
“…all translations of scripture are tendentious translation, by its very nature, is a continuous implicit commentary. It can become less tendentious only by becoming less of a translation.”
- C.S. Lewis, English Literature In The Sixteenth Century
C.S. Lewis makes the point in one of his works of literary scholarship that translation is always commentary to some degree. When moving from one language to another you will always have to make decisions which will present things differently than they are presented in the original text, even in some small way. There is never a 1:1 translation of a word. No work, from Homer to Dostoevsky, is immune from this.
The controversy around Emily Wilson’s recent translation of The Odyssey is an example of critics pointing out when a translator’s commentary strays too far from the original work. Critics rightly claim her self-described feminism has negatively influenced her translation so far that she reinvents the narrative at places. Her advocates, of course, argue literary reinterpretation through modern lenses like feminism is required to destroy the narrative of the sexist masculine translations, but I will not entertain such outlandish ideas.1 A clear example of this type of thing occuring in the Bible world is found in the heretical Passion Translation (a misnomer) by Brian Simmons, which reinvents parts of the scriptural narrative through the lens of Pentecostalism.
So the question is: did the ESV translators make the mistake of Wilson and Simmons, allowing their personal bias to influence the translation too much to superimpose Calvinism on the text? The answer is quite clearly no. Undoubtedly, theological convictions influenced the translators just as much as any Bible translation has been influenced by the hands which guided it. One must recognize, the translators who were Calvinists were already Calvinists before they ever worked on the ESV. They already believed the Bible, as translated in English that they have been reading their whole lives, leads to theological conclusions supporting Calvinism, just as they do all the doctrines they believe in. Allowing bias to change a translation is completely unnecessary from their point of view. This also dismisses those on the Committee who are not Calvinist. Most concering, it assumes the worst of Christians who are working in good faith to translate what they believe is the inerrant word of God.
Additionally, the ESV is not a new translation, meaning it was not a project that began from scratch. It is an update of the Revised Standard Version, one of the most ecumenical translations ever. The ESV and RSV share a 94% similarity. So really, the implicit claim being made is that in the 6% of difference, the ESV snuck in a Calvinist bias. Now that we have identified the root claim being implied, is it true?
R. Grant Jones, perhaps the most underappreciated Bible content creator on YouTube, and no apparent friend to Calvinism based on the content he focuses on, made an extensive video in 2019 reviewing the supposed Calvinist changes in the ESV. His video thoroughly details how the ESV does not change any passages in the RSV’s rendering in a pro-Calvinist direction. In a few places, the ESV is actually less-deterministic in its renderings. I am embeding the video below. If you have the time, it is well worth the watch and I am indebted to him for doing much of the leg work that I won’t unnecessarily repeat. He does not shy away from offering his opinion and critizing the ESV where he believes the RSV was more accurate, and he notes where the ESV corrects some odd deviations and liberties the RSV took in moving away from traditional renderings. It is a more than fair analysis.
Finally, I believe sometimes people actually are not objecting to the ESV translation, but the ESV Study Bible, which is unapologetically Reformed in its notes and articles. (However, it is still the best study Bible on the market and many contributers were not Calvinists.) In the imagination of some, it may be hard to divorce the translation from the study Bible, despite the latter having no impact on the former and being formed by seperate committees. This prejudice is misguided. After all, no one judges the NIV by the NIV Study Bible or the NKJV by the NKJV Study Bible.
Objection: The ESV is a Complementarian Bible
The second objection commonly voiced about the ESV must be examined closer. The claim is the ESV is biased to a complementation perspective, implicity one rooted in a supposed oppressive dark-side-of-evangelicalism version of complementarianism. (I refuse to shoehorn all non-egalitarian positions which are in some way complementarian under one umbrella. Gender distinctions are clear in Scripture, after all.) Two seperate issues arise here: 1) gender-inclusive language, and 2) the translation of Genesis 3:16.
Gender-Inclusive Language
In the latter half of the 20th century, the English language, lead by academia, began to prescribe gender-neutral and gender-inclusive replacements for many words. Academic institutions and writing conventions began implementing guidelines enforcing this new standard. ‘Man’ became ‘human.’ ‘Mankind’ became ‘humankind.’ (BCE and CE began to gain traction at the same time in case you thought the language revolution is limited to gender.) In the world of Bible translations, led by the NRSV (1989), ‘brothers’ in Paul’s letters and elsewhere became ‘brothers and sisters.’ What was understood as implicit for hundreds of years or more in the English language, that man referred to the species and masculine nouns can be inclusive, was summarily declared obsolete, archaic, and even sexist. Justice and inclusivity demanded this change, or so it was justified. The RSV barely pre-dated this cultural shift. The ESV, instead of taking a position on the shift, decided it would be essentially literal in this matter (see the Preface of the ESV). So in the ESV, ἀδελφός, the Greek word literally meaning ‘brothers,’ is translated as such, though it is certainly often referring to the whole assembly being addressed of which women, ‘sisters,’ were a part. For what its worth, the RSV’s usage of brethren is a more competent choice in my mind than brothers.
Ironically, because of this position, in a few places the ESV is actually more ‘inclusive sounding’ than the RSV, translating the pronoun with the broadest possible but exact literal rendering. For example, in John 12, the RSV talks of “He who believes in me… he who sees… he who rejects…” The ESV, meanwhile, speaks of “Whoever believes in me… whoever sees… the one who rejects…” (R. Grant Jones reviews a few more passages where this occurs in his video embeded above). You may prefer the more inclusive rendering of words like ἀδελφός as ‘brothers and sisters,’ yet it is hard to claim it is motivated by complementarian bias when the translators stick to their principle and render things more inclusive when literalness demands it.
Genesis 3:16
In The King’s English, I lamented how often modern Bible translations force out textual updates. However, this is not historically uncommon. Contrary to popular belief, the KJV was not a stable text until after 1769, when Blaney’s Oxford text was released and would over time become the standard. Unfortunately, the 1611 text was not delivered to blessed King James by St. Paul and never revised. For the 158 years prior to Blaney’s work, the KJV existed in at least three main text editions and countless small variations.
The ESV, attempting to emulate the 1769 stabilization of the the KJV, declared their 2016 text edition to be the “Permanent Text.” This was after three previous minor textual updates in 2002, 2007, and 2011. It is fair to say this was a misguided decision, and it became apparent quickly. Crossway walked back their Permanent Text decision a mere month later.
What was most controversial about the decision to make the 2016 revision permanent was the change to the translation of Genesis 3:16, which was correctly reversed in last year’s (2025) textual update. Take a look at the change yourself:
ESV (2001, 2002, 2007, 2011): To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
ESV (2016): To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” Footnote: Or shall be toward
ESV (2025): To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Footnote: Or to, or toward, or against
The 2016 translation is certainly exegetically justifiable and actually brings the text into alignment with how the preposition in question, אֶל, is used in the next chapter (see Genesis 4:7). However, is it a minority report and adds confusion to an already complex passage. What does it even mean for her desire to be contrary? Is that a result of God’s judgment? How does that relate to the man’s rule and birth pangs? It is all very unclear, while the traditional rendering is at least clearer in plain meaning.
Things in the Bible world blew up when Scot McKnight declared this was a “stealth translation” meant to “turn women and men into contrarians by divine design.”2 This is an absolutely silly reading of the 2016 translation, in my humble opinion, and assumes the worst of those on the revision committee. Around the time of the change, an article in the 1974/1975 Westminster Theological Journal by Susan Foh arguing for the “contrary to” translation was suddenly being reexamined and in vogue again, which assuredly led to this hasty decision. (You can read it here if you’d like.)
Nonetheless, this single passage is inconsequential to determine if the ESV is biased. Denny Burke, who teaches biblical studies at Boyce College and was partial to the 2016 translation, noted in his commentary on the change, “neither complementarianism nor egalitarianism stands or falls on the interpretation of this single verse. One can be an egalitarian and agree with the [Susan] Foh interpretation of ‘desire.’ One can be complementarian and believe that ‘desire’ should be defined in connection with Song of Songs 7:10.”3 As it is a minority report, he is assuredly right. Sandra Glahn, who teaches at Dallas Seminary and was critical of the 2016 translation, similarly noted, “There is not one strictly egalitarian nor one strictly complementarian ‘view’ of how to interpret this verse. Both camps have scholars who are ‘all over the map’ in terms of interpretation.”4
Finally, this is all really a moot point as the ESV has reverted to the previous and traditional rendering of the passage, anyway. The larger scandal to me was their willingness to make such a fundamental change that introduced confusion based on a minority report. I am comforted by the majority of changes in their textual updates over the years having been otherwise minor, conservative, and clarifying rather than confusing. Supposed “stealth” intentions aside, it is important to me that the translation of Genesis 3:16 was returned to the traditional rendering, as one of my four criteria for a standard Bible is the right handling of textual criticism.
Conclusion
If a supposed lack of gender inclusivity in the ESV by using ‘man’ instead of ‘human’ and ‘brothers’ instead of ‘brothers and sisters’ is truly a dealbreaker for you, then undoubtedly my apologetic will not move you. However, I hope to have dispelled the unfair notions that the ESV is biased to Calvinism or is somehow sexist. With the reversal of the 2016 rendering of Genesis 3:16, these claims simply have no merit when brought to proper scrutiny. At its core, the ESV is largely the RSV, with several of the more controversial renderings from the RSV returned to traditional rendering.
I see these criticisms of the ESV as boogeymen (or boogeyhumans, I guess). In a time when every English translation is opting for inclusivity against literalness, and moving away from traditional English renderings, even in conservative translations with English Bible pedigree in its DNA like the NASB, so far the ESV has chosen not to and has more faithfully preserved the English Bible tradition and Tyndale-King James lineage than any other translation. Thank God.
Revisiting my four criteria for a standard Bible, the ESV is the only translation that meets all four, and the criticisms commonly raised do not deter:
It must be translated in the English Bible tradition.
It must have the Apocrypha translated.
It must be widely available and accessible.
It must rightly handle textual criticism.
To read a good academic criticism of Wilson’s work, start here: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/323/article/760982
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/
https://www.dennyburk.com/four-quick-points-on-the-esvs-rendering-of-genesis-316/
https://blogs.bible.org/on-the-esvs-new-rendering-of-genesis-316-contrary-wives/