ESV Study Bible – No Girls Allowed
Introducing the ESV Study Bible.
2,752 pages, 2 million words, 20,000 notes, 80,000 cross-references, 200+ full-color maps, 40 all-new illustrations, over 50 articles, more than 200 charts.
And no women.
For the last few months Crossway have been pumping out the PR about the upcoming ESV Study Bible which is published later this month. And it does look impressive. The maps, which have been overseen by the brilliant Leen Ritmeyer look particularly good.
But looking down the list of the 95 contributors, one thought struck me: they’re all blokes.
That’s right, this is a man’s Bible, developed by men, for men. Women may be allowed to read this Bible, but they cannot contribute to it. And, presumably, they are not allowed to read it aloud in church. Unless they’re wearing a headcovering.
Here’s more about how the people were chosen:
“They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible.”
And ‘third’ because they all had testicles.
OK, I think we get a sense of where this Bible is coming from. This is the Anti-NRSV, right? Put this Bible next to the HarperCollins NRSV Study Bible and they would probably repel each other, like magnets. Or perhaps it would result in some Biblical black hole with matter and anti-matter colliding.
I get the constituency here. We’re talking conservative. But even so.. no women? Not even someone drawing the maps? Worse still, there’s a kind of silence about it on the Crossway site. I tried to see if anyone had left any comments about the issue and this is what I got: 
It’s a sign! So I think we can see where this thing is heading.
The conservative slant is backed up by the samples. The intro to Jonah, for example, raises the possibility that the book might be a story or an allegory, before summarily booting them into touch, plumping for historicity and making the rather bold statement that “Jesus, moreover, treated the story as historical when he used elements of the story as analogies for other historical events (see Matt. 12:40–41).” One might argue that just because Jesus used the book to make an analogy, doesn’t necessarily mean that he viewed it as history. He was, after all, quite good at using stories to make points.
There’s also something of a problem with the sheer hyperbole about the thing. Here’s an endorsement from C. J. Mahaney, President, Sovereign Grace Ministries:
“I can’t imagine a greater gift to the body of Christ than the ESV Study Bible.”
You can’t imagine a greater gift? What, nothing? What about, oh I don’t know, an end to persecution of Christians around the world. That would be quite a good gift for the ‘body of Christ’ wouldn’t it? Or the second coming, maybe. But no, neither of them are quite as good as the ESV Study Bible. Especially the Calf Bound edition.
Look, I think it’s going to be a really good version. It’s had an incredible amount of thought and careful design, the samples look great and the maps and diagrams are brilliant. So I’m bound to end up getting one.
But its conservative bias is probably going to irritate me as much as the liberal bias of the HarperCollins does.
So, if you’re listening Hodder, bring on the NIV Study Bible update. And get some women involved!
Posted: October 2nd, 2008 under Stuff.
Comments: 11
Comments
Pingback from That’s life … » Blog Archive » Men’s Bible?
Time October 3, 2008 at 8:26 am
[...] read more — http://www.nickpage.co.uk/?p=225 [...]
Comment from David | beplayful
Time October 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm
This is a hilarious article, thanks for making me smile and brightening my day.
I’d be really curious to see how a Bible was cross-referenced if the cross-referencing was done entirely by women.
Comment from Jason Reid
Time October 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm
That was a a quality rant – I hope it doesn’t spoil me next time I pick up my precious thinline ESV. It good to have you blogging again by the way.
Comment from Danelle
Time October 28, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I know nothing about this blog and only happened to stumble across it whilst comparing prices for the ESV study Bible. I’m horrified and mildly annoyed that you wasted so many words on a non-issue. I’m a woman and I don’t care that only men contributed to the ESV. It’s not a gender competition or even a gender issue, is it?! It’s about Christians getting stuck into the Word of God, growing in godliness, their relationship with God and unity in the Spirit. Unfortunately you missed a great opportunity to contribute to those Biblical and infinitely more worthy topics in your post.
Comment from annie
Time November 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm
the thing is nick, us women are all too busy to be writing books about the bible… that’s the real reason why we didn’t get involved. Obviously, I was asked… nay, begged, to contribute, but i said: hey guys – i’ve just got too much on right now – try again in a few years time.
Comment from Sam Marsh
Time December 24, 2008 at 1:22 am
[...] It’s an awesome set of stats. But as Nick Page points out in his hilarious (but semi-serious) rant on the issue, there is one less sparkling one: “… looking down [...]
Pingback from Nick Page » Just the three new Bibles then…
Time April 18, 2009 at 12:34 pm
[...] And, whisper it gently, but some of the contributors are women. [...]
Comment from Claire
Time July 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm
AMEN! Why distract from this work that so glorifies God and his precious word. That’s where your focus should be. Turn past the contributor’s page and read His word!
Comment from Scott Lumsden
Time October 19, 2009 at 2:06 am
just got the study bible and had the same thought. “you’ve got to be kidding me, no women?!” what a tragedy.
i get the “essentially literal” thing, i get the this is not the NRSV, but what’s wrong with “essentially theological”–meaning, can you make the women should be silent argument after reading Judges (Deborah) or how about the inclusion of Rahab and Tamar in Matthew’s (challenging orthodoxy and practice), Lydia, Paul’s quarreling women (in leadership?) in Philippians, etc.
i’m over my disappointment, just sad really that supposed Christian leaders would limit this wonderful new effort by only hearing from one half of the assembly.
(and to the person above who says–get over it, just read it–that’s the problem. the bible doesn’t say “just read it” it says meditate on it night and day ps. 1–so i’m not to turn off my mind when my eyes rise from the page–i’m called to churn and wrestle with its contents–and in the process work out my own salvation in Christian communion. so sorry, i don’t buy the “nothing to see here, get over it” argument).
Comment from Tim
Time October 27, 2009 at 1:21 pm
This is hilarious!
Comment from Alan in Belfast
Time October 2, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Similarly, women can do children’s talks for kids at primary school … in fact, pretty much up to puberty. But after that, a lot of big events only invite male speakers to speak to the teens and over. Could it be something to do with the pitch at which they speak? Or am I just talking bollocks again?!