# A new Bible......... The Poll



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Help me out....those who feel I need to move "beyond" my NIV.....

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 06:30:43 EST-----

To make things easier on one and all I MEANT to put a poll with the first Thread...woops....sorry...anyway...RECAP: I use the NIV, most of you think it a bad choice, I have considered a new Bible as it were, you, my new PB friends may help me. Advise away..................................................


----------



## jambo (Dec 2, 2008)

A new bible is really your own personal choice. Some like the NASB, some the ESV whilst others KJ or NKJ. There is no perfect translation. If the majority of PB members recommended say the NASB that does not mean that you would prefer it to the ESV. When a new bible comes out I would compare certain passages. This can be done on line which means you can check them out before moving onto a new translation. However just to check a few passages is not sufficient as you really need to use a version for a while. If you are thinking of changing translations, buy a cheap edition first and use it for a few months before deciding whether you want to make that your favoured translation or not.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

jambo said:


> A new bible is really your own personal choice. Some like the NASB, some the ESV whilst others KJ or NKJ. There is no perfect translation. If the majority of PB members recommended say the NASB that does not mean that you would prefer it to the ESV. When a new bible comes out I would compare certain passages. This can be done on line which means you can check them out before moving onto a new translation. However just to check a few passages is not sufficient as you really need to use a version for a while. If you are thinking of changing translations, buy a cheap edition first and use it for a few months before deciding whether you want to make that your favoured translation or not.


Actually I agree....I just want a "feel" from the members I was going to use Bible Gateway for comparing.


----------



## sastark (Dec 2, 2008)

*1599 Geneva Bible*.

And, barring that, the New King James.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

sastark said:


> *1599 Geneva Bible*.
> 
> And, barring that, the New King James.


I did not put the NKJV in he list, have not hd much experience with it.


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 2, 2008)

My first choice would be the KJV, second choice NKJV, and third choice would be ESV.


----------



## Matthias (Dec 2, 2008)

KJV


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Dec 2, 2008)

*Is there and Echo...echo...echo*



sastark said:


> *1599 Geneva Bible*.
> 
> And, barring that, the New King James.



I concur. 1599 Geneva bible has over 30,000 study notes to help you along...and I would even go a little farther and say, "Get BOTH"!


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > *1599 Geneva Bible*.
> ...


The "oldest" I would go would be the King James Version (sorry)


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 2, 2008)

First choice, KJV; no second choice.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

The Word on the Street, by Rob Lacey. 

Not really. 

(I just love when you type it in to amazon.com, it actually say, "by Rob Lacey." Not, you know, "by God" or something like that. Even Amazon knows it's not the bible...)

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 07:22:39 EST-----

But seriously: does anyone here use the Holman? I'm curious.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 2, 2008)

I voted ESV.
It's becoming the standard version for many Reformed folk. The OPC and PCA use it as their "default" version.

It will be an easier move from the NIV to the ESV than it would be to the NASB.

Instead of the linear paradigm that many use for translations...






I prefer to use this paradigm...





Which is from the book...


----------



## Grymir (Dec 2, 2008)

King Jimmy!!!!!!!!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

Grymir said:


> King Jimmy!!!!!!!!



 I'm glad there is someone else out there who says that.


----------



## Honor (Dec 2, 2008)

dude I say the ESV study Bible all the way... it's the coolest thing since sliced bread... maybe even cooler but I really like sandwiches though


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Were most of the people who worked on the ESV Reformed? I ask since it is seems to be THE Bible among the reformed people. For those shouting King James, I use the King James lot in my devotional reading given the cadence and beauty. What I am looking into are modern translations.


----------



## Quickened (Dec 2, 2008)

I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.

Sometimes when i am doing studies I'll have more than one bible out. At my church the ESV is the main text. From my personal use the ESV is my main text.

Although i also have a NKJV (at work), KJV (home), HCSB (in my truck), NASB (Home)


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Quickened said:


> I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.
> 
> Sometimes when i am doing studies I'll have more than one bible out. At my church the ESV is the main text. From my personal use the ESV is my main text.
> 
> Although i also have a NKJV (at work), KJV (home), HCSB (in my truck), NASB (Home)


I never hear much about the HCSB anymore....even Baptist (in the SBC) seem to like the ESV in general.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 2, 2008)

Depends on what you're using it for. Your walking around Bible -- whatever is a faithful translation that you _like_. (Not what others say you should like). Some claim NASB is hard to read out loud, so if that will be a primary use, you might consider.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2008)

ESV. That way you're using a Bible that is both readable and based on good scholarship.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 2, 2008)

I think George Grant gave one of the best summaries of the ESV when he said that it, "combines the accuracy of the NASB with the readability of the NIV to make one of the best translations on the market."


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Hamalas said:


> I think George Grant gave one of the best summaries of the ESV when he said that it, "combines the accuracy of the NASB with the readability of the NIV to make one of the best translations on the market."


If that is the case, it is a big draw for the ESV! The reason I have used the NIV for so long is that it flows well and is easy to rad both aloud and privately.


----------



## Quickened (Dec 2, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> Quickened said:
> 
> 
> > I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.
> ...



I hadnt heard of it until i received it as a gift on the day i was baptized.


----------



## JM (Dec 2, 2008)

Get a nicely bound AV or Geneva.


----------



## eqdj (Dec 2, 2008)

larryjf said:


> It will be an easier move from the NIV to the ESV than it would be to the NASB.



I can sure vouch for that!

This is the first time I've heard that the RV (Revised Version?) is the most literal - I'll have to check it out.

I would recommend reading the recent paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society by Dr. Mark Strauss, "Why the English Standard Version Should Not Be The Standard English Version". 

I use a text-only parallel NASB/LBLA.


----------



## Grace Alone (Dec 2, 2008)

Why John Piper recommends the ESV:

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## eqdj (Dec 2, 2008)

Here are a few more links worth reading

PB: 10-31-07 The ESV and The Reformed
PB: 04-02-08 About NASB vs. ESV

and my favourite:

NASB Onlyism Gaining New Momentum


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 2, 2008)

Another vote for the 1599 Geneva. 

And right now, Tolle Lege has it on sale (2 for $69.95). 

Let's see - the 'fugitive' Puritan's Bible, notes from Calvin, Knox, Coverdale, and Beza throughout, and the whole thing on CD ROM as well, all for the price of dinner for two at a not-so-flash restaurant. Are you picking up the phone yet? Good.

My work here is done then.


----------



## Theognome (Dec 2, 2008)

The NIV played no small part in my own coming to Christ, so I do have a fondness of it- but presently I only use it for comparative purposes. My primary translation is a NKJ Geneva, with an NASB close at hand. 

I have not studied much Greek, so I can't say which is 'better' from that stand point. I have studied Hebrew to some length, but again, I'm not the one to say which translation is more 'faithful' to the intent of the original text.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, and not the translation, that does the job of interpreting the Word of God. The best tool you have to approach scripture- regardless of the translation- is prayer.

Theognome


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Theognome said:


> The NIV played no small part in my own coming to Christ, so I do have a fondness of it- but presently I only use it for comparative purposes. My primary translation is a NKJ Geneva, with an NASB close at hand.
> 
> I have not studied much Greek, so I can't say which is 'better' from that stand point. I have studied Hebrew to some length, but again, I'm not the one to say which translation is more 'faithful' to the intent of the original text.
> 
> ...


Well stated.


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan (Dec 2, 2008)

I use the ESV as my study Bible (I use the Reformation Study Bible in the ESV). It's not always the easiest reading translation; however, I appreciate that someone went through and cleaned up the problems that are in the prior NRSV--which is full of inaccurate translations created solely to satisfy non-Biblical political correctness prejudices.

This was the first time the NRSV jumped out at me as being a basic mistranslation:



> When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed _*all the children*_ in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.
> 
> Matthew 2:16 (NRSV)



If you weren't aware of the actual story, you would think Herod killed both male and female children, which not only makes no sense in the context of what Herod was doing (trying to kill the Messiah), but also intentionally mis-translates the Greek, which is clearly masculine. (I went back and checked my Englishman's Greek New Testament.)

So what was the agenda? Simple de-gendering, even if it made the passage nonsensical? Or was there a thought that we today should think that the ancients would have thought the Messiah could be a woman? I don't know, it's a puzzlement.

But once you notice this sort of thing in the NRSV, you see it all over the place and realize it is a fundamentally unreliable translation.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

eqdj said:


> Here are a few more links worth reading
> 
> PB: 10-31-07 The ESV and The Reformed
> PB: 04-02-08 About NASB vs. ESV
> ...


NASB ONLYISM......


----------



## Hilasmos (Dec 2, 2008)

I've never understood why the NASB isn't as readable as the ESV. I find the NASB very readable, I guess it might have something to do with "thinking Greek" and the NASB following that better. I can make clearer distinctions, while viewing English only, of _hina_ and _gar_ clauses, which to me, at the least, is important to being able to follow the train of thought - and therefore making the translation readable. I also use the ESV a lot and have recently gotten the Study Bible version, which I really like. Its a little big and heavy, so I find myself using it for home study more and carrying my thineline to church.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 10:52:37 EST-----



> "We believe that the New American Standard Bible is the absolute perfect and preserved Bible. There's no need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to understand some kind of 'deeper meaning' of the text. It's all right there in English, in the New American Standard...
> 
> We lift up the NASB above all. If you want to be saved you better get one. If you don't know English you better get to learning."
> 
> Tominthebox News Network - Religious Humor/Satire: NASB Onlyism Gaining New Momentum



I thought this was a joke at first, but apparently not...I will laugh anyway


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> I've never understood why the NASB isn't as readable as the ESV. I find the NASB very readable, I guess it might have something to do with "thinking Greek" and the NASB following that better. I can make clearer distinctions, while viewing English only, of _hina_ and _gar_ clauses, which to me, at the least, is important to being able to follow the train of thought - and therefore making the translation readable. I also use the ESV a lot and have recently gotten the Study Bible version, which I really like. Its a little big and heavy, so I find myself using it for home study more and carrying my thineline to church.


In fairness to the NASB, in my limited experience I have not found it a hard "read", I just have stuck with the NIV given that I have more material that uses the NIV as the primary text, I guess it is just familiar to me. Changing Bibles is like getting away from an old pair of comfy jeans, no matter how grotty they are you are comfortable.


----------



## bened (Dec 2, 2008)

The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy. 

That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or NASB (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).

All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

bened said:


> The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.
> 
> That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or NASB (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).
> 
> All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.


I HAVE thought about the NKJV, Sproul used to use it in his books pretty often....


----------



## bened (Dec 2, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> bened said:
> 
> 
> > The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.
> ...



Interesting you mention that. Visited his church in Fl about a month ago when on vacation. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized RC was indeed preaching from the NKJV.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 2, 2008)

You might check some past threads on this.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/NKJV-v-esv-37039/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-have-NKJV-sales-been-so-strong-32066/
And if you really want to dig on the KJV http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-only-125/

Here are some of my comments sort of blended together. It was a quick edit, so might have some overlap/repeating.


> The ESV is excellent, except that they didn't really cue the reader on to translation decisions. Italics are not used to show inserted words and there are very few margin notes revealing decisions and textual variants. This gives the read the idea that the translation is absolutely correct, when it is not. Although I'm a MT guy, I prefer the NKJV because it's close, uses italics to reveal decisions (added words) and has variants in the margins to cue the reader/student to dig further when necessary. While being literal, it is not nearly as presumptuous as many other versions. Translation decisions are noted by using italics and margin notes, and variances from both the NU and MT are noted as well. This gives the reader the opportunity to investigate and make decisions in accordance to their own textual preferences/convictions. I've encouraged members of our church to do likewise for the same reasons. From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with _italics _where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.



Just in case you didn't catch it, I prefer the NKJV. I'd take the NASB before the '95 update second. I love the ESV translation, but because the reader is not warned of translation decisions, only use it for personal study - though never primarily. And I love my new ESV Study Bible too, though I have the old Reformation Bible, which is basically the same thing in NKJV.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

bened said:


> Jon Lake said:
> 
> 
> > bened said:
> ...


Yes! I went to a lecture....about a year ago, he was using the NKJV then as well. I guess a lot of his notes are still from that text...


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 2, 2008)

AV (KJV) first, ASV second. 

Haven't heard of the ASV? It's the granddaddy of CT translations and still among the best.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> AV (KJV) first, ASV second.
> 
> Haven't heard of the ASV? It's the granddaddy of CT translations and still among the best.



Glad someone else is still holding on to the ASV. Big fan.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> AV (KJV) first, ASV second.
> 
> Haven't heard of the ASV? It's the granddaddy of CT translations and still among the best.


I think there is only one publisher left that does the ASV, Star, I think it's called, not sure about the quality (of the Bible not the text).


----------



## matthew11v25 (Dec 2, 2008)

I am voting HCSB just to give it a boost. I use the ESV but I have been using a lot more of the HCSB. The HCSB is gutsy (as Mounce said it is the only translation that gets John 3:16 right!), and with the superb amount of translational foot notes (about 3x the ESV) it is a great study resource. It is multi denominational (19 different denominations involved) and for the most part a bridge between the NIV and NASB. The readability is much smoother I find than the ESV. Give it a try.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> I am voting HCSB just to give it a boost. I use the ESV but I have been using a lot more of the HCSB. The HCSB is gutsy (as Mounce said it is the only translation that gets John 3:16 right!), and with the superb amount of translational foot notes (about 3x the ESV) it is a great study resource. It is multi denominational (19 different denominations involved) and for the most part a bridge between the NIV and NASB. The readability is much smoother I find than the ESV. Give it a try.


I have a hardcover NT, I may "play" with reading it a while.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 2, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > AV (KJV) first, ASV second.
> ...



That's the similar problem with the NKJV. I like it very much, and preached from it for several years. But when we were deciding on a new translation for our church, I did not think it wise to choose the NKJV, pretty much because only Nelson publishes them, and they make shoddy Bibles (I went through 4 in 5 years). There are also almost no study Bible resources in NKJV, which I could recommend to the congregation.

For that reason we switched to the ESV.


----------



## Theoretical (Dec 2, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> I've never understood why the NASB isn't as readable as the ESV. I find the NASB very readable, I guess it might have something to do with "thinking Greek" and the NASB following that better. I can make clearer distinctions, while viewing English only, of _hina_ and _gar_ clauses, which to me, at the least, is important to being able to follow the train of thought - and therefore making the translation readable. I also use the ESV a lot and have recently gotten the Study Bible version, which I really like. Its a little big and heavy, so I find myself using it for home study more and carrying my thineline to church.
> 
> -----Added 12/2/2008 at 10:52:37 EST-----
> 
> ...


I find the NASB to be very readable, but very difficult to read aloud fluidly. I also have this to a lesser degree with the ESV. Maybe it's my relative lack of education in terms of oral communication compared to generations past, but I stil butcher it badly

NIV and KJV are straightforward for me to read aloud. The NKJV's not too bad on this count.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 3, 2008)

KJV


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I voted ESV.
> It's becoming the standard version for many Reformed folk. The OPC and PCA use it as their "default" version.
> 
> It will be an easier move from the NIV to the ESV than it would be to the NASB.
> ...



I think it's interesting that, with the advent of the NIV, CET, NLT, etc., in recent years that the old RSV (first published in 1952), which was practically called the Commie Bible back in the day, is now considered to be one of the more _conservative_ Bible translations. Interesting how perceptions change...


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 3, 2008)

I would have said NKJV, but if you are a long-term NIV user, the ESV is a vast improvement in terms of literal translation, and you will probably transition a lot more easily.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 3, 2008)

NASB is my hands down favorite, likely because it was used in the pulpit where I attended as a baby believer. As I've mentioned in other places, the ESV just sounds tortured to me -- it was used on a trial basis for a while at my church and is the standard text for a sister church -- it just sounds overly wordy and awkward.


----------



## eqdj (Dec 3, 2008)

jwithnell said:


> NASB is my hands down favorite,... As I've mentioned in other places, the ESV just sounds tortured to me -- it just sounds overly wordy and awkward.



Ditto


----------



## Iakobos_1071 (Dec 24, 2008)

*1599 Geneva Bible*- First and foremost.
King James Version- Second option.

I was raised on KJV. I was introduced to the 1599 Geneva Bible like 5 months ago.. I now have two of them and I am finding hard to go back to KJV. Also, the translators of the 1599 Geneva Bible were dedicated to Sola Scriptura.. I trust them more than the different guys King Jimmy appointed to translate his Authorized Version. 

Most of all, the notes and commentary.. wow.

1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 24, 2008)

KJV from Cambridge. Geneva Bible 1599. For one with notes 
Dutch Annotations on Holy Scripture. Heritage books sells it. KJV will be the easiest for memorization.


----------



## jawyman (Dec 24, 2008)

Honor said:


> dude I say the ESV study Bible all the way... it's the coolest thing since sliced bread... maybe even cooler but I really like sandwiches though



I love the ESV. The two mission churches that overseen by my session are both ESV churches and it is awesome.

-----Added 12/24/2008 at 03:00:18 EST-----

Take a look at this list of contributors to the ESV:

Editorial Oversight Committee

The following people comprise the Editorial Oversight Committee, which developed the concept, selected the contributors, and provided general oversight and final approval of the ESV Study Bible content and design.

Executive Editor

Lane T. Dennis

Crossway Books and Bibles

Ph.D., Northwestern University

General Editor

Wayne Grudem

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Theological Editor

J. I. Packer

Regent College (Canada)

D.Phil., The University of Oxford

Old Testament Editor

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

New Testament Editor

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Project Director, Managing Editor

Justin Taylor

Crossway Books and Bibles

B.A., The University of Northern Iowa
Study Note Contributors

The following people were responsible for writing the ESV Study Bible notes, as indicated below for each book of the Bible. In many cases more than one person contributed to the writing of the notes for specific books, and the notes for each of the books involved many levels of review and editing. The final notes as they appear in the ESV Study Bible, therefore, are the result of a collaborative effort, and in some cases may include content or views differing from those of individual contributors.

Genesis

T. Desmond Alexander

Union Theological College (Belfast)

Ph.D., The Queen's University of Belfast

Exodus

Kenneth Laing Harris

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Leviticus

John Currid

Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte)

Ph.D., The University of Chicago

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi

Tokyo Christian University

Ph.D., Council for National Academic Awards (UK)

Jay A. Sklar

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Gloucestershire

Numbers

Gordon J. Wenham

Trinity Theological College (Bristol)

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

Deuteronomy

Paul Barker

Holy Trinity Doncaster (Australia)

Ph.D., The University of Gloucestershire

Joshua

V. Philips Long

Regent College (Canada)

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Judges

David M. Howard Jr.

Bethel Seminary (St. Paul)

Ph.D., The University of Michigan

Ruth

Ronald Bergey

Faculté Libre de Théologie Réformée (France)

Ph.D., Dropsie University

1 and 2 Samuel

David Toshio Tsumura

Japan Bible Seminary (Tokyo)

Ph.D., Brandeis University

1 and 2 Kings

Iain W. Provan

Regent College (Canada)

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

1 and 2 Chronicles

Brian E. Kelly

Canterbury Christ Church University (England)

Ph.D., The University of Bristol

Ezra

J. Gordon McConville

The University of Gloucestershire

Ph.D., The University of Sheffield

Nehemiah

J. Gordon McConville

The University of Gloucestershire

Ph.D., The University of Sheffield

Esther

Barry G. Webb

Moore Theological College (Australia)

Ph.D., The University of Sheffield

Job

Kenneth Laing Harris

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

August Konkel

Providence College and Seminary (Manitoba)

Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Psalms

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Proverbs

Duane A. Garrett

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Baylor University

Kenneth Laing Harris

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Ecclesiastes

Max F. Rogland

Erskine Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Leiden University

Song of Solomon

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Andrew Stewart

M.A., Covenant Theological Seminary

Isaiah

Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.

Immanuel Church (Nashville)

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Jeremiah

Paul R. House

Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Lamentations

Paul R. House

Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ezekiel

David J. Reimer

The University of Edinburgh

D.Phil., The University of Oxford

Daniel

Iain M. Duguid

Grove City College

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Paul D. Wegner

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

Hosea

Robert I. Vasholz

Covenant Theological Seminary

Th.D., The University of Stellenbosch

Joel

W. Brian Aucker

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

Amos

John Oswalt

Wesley Biblical Seminary

Ph.D., Brandeis University

Obadiah

Paul R. Raabe

Concordia Theological Seminary (St. Louis)

Ph.D., The University of Michigan

Jonah

Mark D. Futato

Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando)

Ph.D., The Catholic University of America

Micah

W. Brian Aucker

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

Dennis R. Magary

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Wisconsin at Madison

Nahum

Walter A. Maier III

Concordia Theological Seminary (Ft. Wayne)

Ph.D., Harvard University

Habakkuk

Paul D. Wegner

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

Zephaniah

David W. Baker

Ashland Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of London

Haggai

W. Brian Aucker

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

Zechariah

Iain M. Duguid

Grove City College

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Malachi

Gordon P. Hugenberger

Park Street Church (Boston)

Ph.D., C.N.A.A., College of St. Paul and Mary/Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies

Matthew

Michael J. Wilkins

Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Mark

Hans F. Bayer

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Luke

Wayne Grudem

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

John

Andreas J. Köstenberger

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Acts

John B. Polhill

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Romans

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

1 Corinthians

Frank S. Thielman

Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Ph.D., Duke University

2 Corinthians

Scott J. Hafemann

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

D.Theol., Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tübingen

Galatians

Simon J. Gathercole

The University of Cambridge

Ph.D., The University of Durham

Ephesians

S. M. Baugh

Westminster Seminary California

Ph.D., The University of California, Irvine

Philippians

Sean M. McDonough

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of St. Andrews

Colossians

Clinton E. Arnold

Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

1 and 2 Thessalonians

Colin Nicholl

Research scholar

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

1 and 2 Timothy

Ray Van Neste

Union University

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Titus

Ray Van Neste

Union University

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Philemon

Clinton E. Arnold

Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Hebrews

David W. Chapman

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

James

Grant R. Osborne

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

1 Peter

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

2 Peter

Doug Oss

Assemblies of God Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

1, 2, and 3 John

Robert W. Yarbrough

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Jude

Doug Oss

Assemblies of God Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Revelation

Dennis E. Johnson

Westminster Seminary California

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
Article Contributors

The following articles are included in the ESV Study Bible, written by the person(s) indicated after the title of each article.

Introduction: A User's Guide to the ESV Study Bible

Lane T. Dennis

Crossway Books and Bibles

Ph.D., Northwestern University

Wayne Grudem

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Overview of the Bible: A Survey of the History of Salvation

Vern S. Poythress

Westminster Theological Seminary

D.Theol., The University of Stellenbosch

The Theology of the Old Testament

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Introduction to the Pentateuch

Gordon J. Wenham

Trinity Theological College (Bristol)

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

Introduction to the Historical Books

David M. Howard Jr.

Bethel Seminary (St. Paul)

Ph.D., The University of Michigan

Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature

David J. Reimer

The University of Edinburgh

D.Phil., The University of Oxford

Introduction to the Prophetic Books

Paul R. House

Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The Time between the Testaments

J. Julius Scott Jr.

Wheaton College, retired

Ph.D., The University of Manchester

The Roman Empire and the Greco-Roman World at the Time of the New Testament

David W. Chapman

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Jewish Groups at the Time of the New Testament

John C. DelHousaye

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

The Theology of the New Testament

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Reading the Gospels and Acts

Darrell L. Bock

Dallas Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Reading the Epistles

Thomas R. Schreiner

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

God's Plan of Salvation

Mark Dever

Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Washington)

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

An Overview of Biblical Doctrine (13 Articles)

Erik Thoennes

Talbot Theological Seminary, Biola University

Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

An Overview of Biblical Ethics (13 Articles)

Wayne Grudem

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Daniel R. Heimbach

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Drew University

C. Ben Mitchell

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Tennessee

Craig Mitchell

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Interpreting the Bible: An Introduction

Daniel Doriani

Central Presbyterian Church (St. Louis)

Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Interpreting the Bible: A Historical Overview

John Hannah

Dallas Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Texas at Dallas

Reading the Bible Theologically

J. I. Packer

Regent College (Canada)

D.Phil., The University of Oxford

Reading the Bible as Literature

Leland Ryken

Wheaton College

Ph.D., The University of Oregon

Reading the Bible in Prayer and Communion with God

John Piper

Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

D.Theol., The University of Munich

Reading the Bible for Application

David Powlison

Westminster Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Pennsylvania

Reading the Bible for Preaching and Public Worship

R. Kent Hughes

College Church (Wheaton, IL), retired

D.Min., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

The Canon of the Old Testament

Roger T. Beckwith

Research scholar

D.D., The University of Oxford

The Canon of the New Testament

Charles E. Hill

Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando)

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

The Apocrypha

Roger T. Beckwith

Research scholar

D.D., The University of Oxford

The Reliability of the Old Testament Manuscripts

Paul D. Wegner

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts

Daniel B. Wallace

Dallas Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary

Archaeology and the Reliability of the Old Testament

John Currid

Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte)

Ph.D., The University of Chicago

Archaeology and the Reliability of the New Testament

David W. Chapman

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

The Original Languages of the Bible: Hebrew and Aramaic

Peter J. Williams

Tyndale House (Cambridge)

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

The Original Languages of the Bible: Greek

David Alan Black

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

D.Theol., The University of Basel

The Septuagint

Peter J. Gentry

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Toronto

How the New Testament Quotes and Interprets the Old Testament

C. John Collins

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Roman Catholicism

Gregg R. Allison

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Eastern Orthodoxy

Robert Letham

Wales Evangelical School of Theology

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Liberal Protestantism

Bruce A. Ware

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Evangelical Protestantism

Bruce A. Ware

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Evangelical Protestantism and Global Christianity

Harold A. Netland

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School

The Bible and Contemporary Judaism

Marvin R. Wilson

Gordon College

Ph.D., Brandeis University

The Bible and Other World Religions

Harold A. Netland

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School

The Bible and Islam

Timothy C. Tennent

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

The Bible and Religious Cults

Ron Rhodes

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary

History of Salvation in the Old Testament

Vern S. Poythress

Westminster Theological Seminary

D.Theol., The University of Stellenbosch

The ESV Study Bible benefited greatly from the work of a wide range of other contributors and consultants. The following list first indicates the specific kind of contribution, followed by a list of those who contributed or consulted in this area.
Other Contributors

Literary Features

Leland Ryken

Wheaton College

Ph.D., The University of Oregon

Maps

David Barrett (Bible Mapper)

Illustrations

Maltings Partnership (Derby, England)

Geography Editor

Barry J. Beitzel

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., Dropsie University

Archaeological and Architectural Reconstruction Editor

Leen Ritmeyer

Ritmeyer Archaeological Design

Ph.D., The University of Manchester

Old Testament Archaeology Editor

John Currid

Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte)

Ph.D., The University of Chicago

New Testament Archaeology Editor

David W. Chapman

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Cambridge

Assistant Editor for Research

Travis Buchanan

M.Div., Phoenix Seminary
Consultants

Old Testament Consultants

W. Brian Aucker

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

Kenneth Laing Harris

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

Paul R. House

Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

David J. Reimer

The University of Edinburgh

D.Phil., The University of Oxford

Gordon J. Wenham

Trinity Theological College (Bristol)

Ph.D., King's College, The University of London

New Testament Consultants

Darrell L. Bock

Dallas Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

John C. DelHousaye

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Grant R. Osborne

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Aberdeen

Robert H. Stein

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

Archaeological Consultant

James K. Hoffmeier

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Ph.D., The University of Toronto

Old Testament Charts and Timelines Consultants

W. Brian Aucker

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Edinburgh

Gregory R. Perry

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Union Theological Seminary (Richmond)

Paul D. Wegner

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., The University of London

Kenneth Laing Harris

Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The University of Liverpool

New Testament Charts and Timelines Consultants

James M. Hamilton Jr.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

John C. DelHousaye

Phoenix Seminary

Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Ethics Consultant

Robert A.J. Gagnon

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

Cults Consultant

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

Center for Biblical Apologetics

M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary


----------

