I like the English Standard Version (ESV)--in fact, it's probably my favorite Bible translation--but no translation is perfect. No translation can ever be perfect, simply by the nature of translation, but they can always be better. I'm creating this post to track the mistranslations I find in the ESV. Maybe if enough people point these out to Crossway, they'll make the appropriate corrections.
The most common mistranslations are when the translators render the original Hebrew and Greek according to what they believe the author meant instead of what the author wrote, veering into dynamic equivalence, which is always dangerous. It predisposes the reader to the doctrinal biases of the translators instead of letting the text speak for itself.
Monogenes in John 1:14
μονογενής (monogenes) is translated as "only Son" instead of "only begotten". This is a very minor mistranslation, since Yeshua is clearly a son, and if the only begotten is male, then he is also the only son. However, a determined miscreant could misconstrue "only Son" to mean that there might be a divine daughter who was excluded from the text. The ESV should just stick to the literal meaning of "only begotten" or "only offspring".
Ethnos in 1 Corinthians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 10:20, 1 Corinthians 12:2
ἔθνη (ethne, plural of ethnos) is translated as "pagans" instead of "nations" or "Gentiles". In almost every case, the ESV translates this word as Gentiles. They translate it as "pagan" when they believe Paul is specifically referring to religious practices instead of ethnic identity, but this is anachronistic in that Paul probably made no such distinction in his own mind, and it distorts Paul's meaning in these passages.
In the case of 1 Corinthians 12:2, I believe it definitely distorts Paul's meaning. The word pagan comes from a Latin word that essentially meant "country bumpkin", but in English it has come to mean "idol worshiper" or "idolater". Insert that, instead of pagan, into the text and you will start to see why it's a poor translation.
You know that when you were idolaters you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led.
Of course they were led astray to idols. That's the very definition of idolater. But Paul didn't use the word that he uses elsewhere in this same letter for idolater: εἰδωλολάτρης (eidolatres, 1 Corinthians 5:10-11, 6:9, 10:7). If he meant idolater, he would have written eidolatres, but he wrote ethnos, which means Gentiles, not idolaters. Here is how the ESV should read instead:
You know that when you were Gentiles you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led.
In other words, when the Corinthian believers gave up their idols and put their faith in Yeshua instead, they not only stopped being idolaters, but they stopped being Gentiles. As Paul wrote in Ephesians 2, they were made citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel. Not Jews, but Israelites. Former Gentiles.
Diatheke in Hebrews 9:16-17
διαθήκη (diatheke) is translated as "will" instead of "covenant". Diatheke really does mean "last will" in Koine Greek, but the Septuagint used this word instead of συνθήκη (suntheke, agreement or treaty) to translate the Hebrew brit because a covenant is much more than an agreement between two parties. A covenant is a formalized relationship that can only be ended by death and, unless explicitly stated otherwise, it is inherited by the descendants of the parties. In that it specifies blessings and curses for survivors, a covenant is very much like a last will, but a covenant is not the same as a last will.
The ESV doesn't translate diatheke as "will" anywhere else in the Bible and translates it as "covenant" seven times in Hebrews 9. Yet in verses 16-17 it suddenly switches to "will", an idea that is completely foreign to the author's intended meaning. Let me put the context into bullet points to illustrate what I mean:
- v11-12 - Christ came as a new kind of high priest and shed his own blood to inaugurate his service into the Heavenly Tabernacle.
- v13-14 - The blood of goats and bulls cleanse the flesh, but Christ's blood cleanses the conscience.
- v15 - Through his death, Christ became the mediator of a new covenant, which is inherited by all those who are redeemed by his death.
- v16-17 - Every covenant (not "last will") is established by the death of a sacrificial victim and only takes effect at that death.
- v18-20 - The Sinai covenant was inaugurated with the blood of calves and goats.
- v21-22 - The same blood purified the Tabernacle, its vessels, and the people.
- v23-24 - Christ's blood purifies the heavenly counterparts.
The mention of inheritance in v15 might put the translators in mind of last wills, but inserting that into this passage is bizarre and derails the text into an irrelevant tangent. It is completely unjustifiable. The entire passage is comparing the Sinai Covenant with the New Covenant. Verses 16-17 are talking about the inauguration of the New Covenant, not the activation of a last will. Verses 18-20 prove this by comparing it to how the all other covenants, especially Sinai, are established.
When the Bible describes a person dividing up his possessions among his descendants, it talks about blessings, not diatheke (e.g. Genesis 49:28). The Bible never talks about "last wills" in this way, but inherited covenants are on every other page.
Sunagoge in James 2:2
συναγωγή (sunagoge) is translated as "assembly" instead of "synagogue". The word does mean assembly, so I would not call this a mistranslation if the ESV was consistent in translating συναγωγή as assembly. However, it uses synagogue in all of the other 55+ instances in the New Testament. They appear to have deliberately chosen "assembly" in James 2:2 in order to hide the fact that James describes Christians as meeting in synagogues.
