I’m not partial to the ESV: I have a campus edition wide-margin reference of the version, and I think I’ll get some use of it. With reference to the popular paraphrases, it is a big improvement (in most terms), over such translations as the NIV: I’m very glad for the ESV in that respect. Generally it is a fine version. A great and fair review, with due praise, and criticism of certain particulars of the translation, its translators and some background on peripheral scholars, can be found here: agreeing with the careful words of that review (Michael Marlowe), I would hesitate to recommend the ESV, however, for very close study, as it’s not quite as literal or careful as versions such as the NASB and NKJV: the NASB may be hard to love, but it’s well worth studying from; the NKJV may use the TR, but its margins contain the variations that matter: just look at the NA text they contain. Both are more careful, both are more considered, both had more devotion of time and energy and particulars than the ESV.
Several issues with the ESV are pointed-out by Marlowe’s review. One, the translation, (using my words), accommodates teachings of Grudem and Co., rather than overriding them. Grudem has this “little” problem with trying to be PC to make Christ more appealing to a world, he doesn’t seem to understand, that utterly abhors true Christianity. It is possible to make a middle-position between them, which many to do in order to “build bridges”, but at that point one has already left the small space within which we are to abide, and left “Christianity” for a counterfeit that poses as such. His kind of “apologetics” seems to be truly apologizing for essential Christian teaching, rather than proclaiming them: apologetics as defined from the Greek term whence we get “apologetics”, is not an apology in the sense of being wrong. When Grudem explains-away 1 Cor 11, for instance, (“it’s a sign, just a sign, and only about married women, so here we recognize things like wedding rings”), he ignores Paul’s words there, the Greek, and the historical ensample left us by the Church and interpreters (even the earliest ones) through the ages.
Throughout, the ESV can be counted upon to remove (through re-interpretative renderings) or minimize (through less precise words) offensive teachings with regards to women, slaves, and other such topics according to early twentieth century liberalism, theologically and secularly: however those groups abused Scripture for their causes, it is not uncommon to see Grudem (and evangelicals in general) doing the same; only this time there are not only liberals preaching that Christ came to make utopia, (contrary to His explicit words), but it is seen even by supposedly conservative Christians as a way to get people to “accept Christ”, “look, we hold the same ideas about social justice, so you don’t have to be opposed to Jesus and He gets you into heaven”. I want to put it bluntly: liberal social justice ideals and goals and practical works to obtain them are usually founded upon principles, and pursued through actions, diametrically opposed to Christian ones and ways: those who hold to them practically hold to another faith, (not that there’s never no points of common interest, but nonetheless, this is often the case).
Think I’m too serious about this? Let’s take 1 Cor 11 for an example, now read the last few verses thereof: Paul was a zealot on that point. A stupid fundy, I guess.
