The Reformation Study Bible ESV, 2005 Edition

A review of the Reformation Study Bible, copyright 2005 (ISBN: 9781596381384). This older, lighter and thinner edition of the Reformation Study Bible features the 2007 ESV text formatted into two text columns. The paper is not very opaque and ghosting is troublesome. But the print is darker than that in the 2013 edition of the Reformation Study Bible, and I greatly prefer the two-column format to the very wide single-column format currently in print. The 2005 edition of the Reformation Study Bible is far smaller and more portable than the 2013 edition; but the 2005 edition’s study notes are often shorter, and it offers none of the topical articles and creedal material featured in the later edition.

At about the 19:47 point, I show how to identify the ESV text edition by examining a few verses in Genesis.

Detailed Contents

00:00 Dimensions, margins, layout, font (four charts)
00:32 A look at the box
01:15 Size compared to the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
01:30 Size compared to the 2013 Reformation Study Bible (NKJV)
01:55 Page layout
03:20 The font in the text
04:01 The center column references
04:20 Column order versus page order references (as in the Allan 62 Longprimer)
04:50 The page-bottom notes
05:04 Paper qualities
05:40 Show-through (ghosting) is annoying
05:55 The text is NOT line-matched
06:05 The “newsprint” effect
06:52 Print non-uniformity (fading)
07:10 Book and section introductions
09:15 The words of Christ are in black ink
09:42 The concordance
10:00 A reading schedule, 14 blank pages, and eight glossy, color maps
11:05 The vinyl, paste-down liner and the burgundy genuine leather
11:30 The ribbon marker and the tail band
11:55 The Bible lies open in Genesis
12:45 The associate editor was Keith Mathison, who wrote a book on postmillennialism
13:29 The copyright page and various ISBNs
15:50 A close-up look at the typeface
16:40 Font compared to that in the Orthodox Study Bible
17:13 Font compared to that in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
17:48 Font compared to that in the 2013 Reformation Study Bible (NKJV)
18:28 Font compared to that in the Allan 62R, and a few words in opposition to study Bibles and in favor of one-volume commentaries
19:47 How to tell which ESV text edition you have (2001, 2007, 2011, or 2016)
22:37 The note at Genesis 6.2. Who were the sons of God?
23:36 The footnote at 2 Peter 3.9, “not wishing that any should perish”
25:03 The introduction to 2 Peter … did Peter write that book?
25:31 The introduction to the book of Revelation on the millennium
27:27 The 2005 edition of the Reformation Study Bible had more theological notes than the 2013 edition
28:11 Summary: one major difference between the two editions of the Reformation Study Bible is the additional study material included in the 2013 edition

[ThriftStoreBibles]

Found a hardcover copy like new for $2 today. I appreciate your review which had made me aware of this Bible! Glad to know the 2005 has more theological notes since that's primarily what I want it for.

[bbnoblebright]

These are some of the most thorough and thoughtful review videos on YouTube.

[andyheller]

I have this edition also and I liked the double column format. The new editions are single column. The newer ones are better made though. Very good review here. I enjoy these very much and learn a lot.

[michaeljoewilson]

I have that bible in hard cover, I love the dark print, also printed in the USA. I wish the 2013 had the darker printing like the 2003. Also, this was the Bible that my dad was reading as his personal devotions when he went home with the Lord.

[MAMoreno]

The 2011 ESV is the only one I particularly like. Earlier editions were essentially just the RSV with a thin coat of Evangelical paint, and the 2016 edition botches Genesis 3. The 2011 edition is just different enough from the RSV to warrant its own existence.

[wayne]

Thanks for the review of the ESV Reformation Study Bible 2005 edition. I love this Bible except for the show through. I also prefer biographical entries in Bible concordances which the ESV Concordance does not have. Have you done a review of the ESV Study Bible?

[wayne]

For comparison, will you be doing a review of the ESV Gospel Transformation Study Bible - 1st edition?
Also, for our Pentecostal friends, the ESV Fire Bible is an amazing production - well printed and annotated (would love to see you review of the ESV Fire Bible)!

[laoptimized]

i didn't realize someone could do such an in depth and detailed review on a bible, amazing. One thing that i don't understand is when i am reading the foot notes (2005 edition) for example page 16 Genesis 4:9 "Where is Able", See note 11:5, what is the see note referring to? I see the same thing throughout the entire bible now its bugging me hahha. Is there a separate book that has these notes? i have been looking but have not seen a mention of it. Appreciate your time.

[pmachapman]

I agree with a point you made that the earlier KJV bibles did center column cross-references better. The format you featured in the video from the Reformation Study Bible works well enough in a single column format (like the ESV Study Bible), but leaves much to be desired in a double column format. The very worst cross-reference layout is in modern ESV bibles, like the Systematic Theology Study Bible, where they are dumped in an ignominious pile at the bottom right of the page.

[gbantock]

I have this earlier edition of the Reformation Study Bible (E.S.V.) as well as the later one (in the N.K.J.V.). I keep the earlier one one in the kitchen, for "quick reference" and the later one near my armchair, where I would do deeper study. It is convenient to have both. If I were to go to a lay Bible study group, I would take the earlier one along, as it is more portable. I prefer the N.K.J.V. translation, but the E.S.V. translation is more elegantly worded. If I had to choose between them, though, it is the later edition (with the N.K.J.V.) that I would opt for.

[ZachHobbsy]

Do you know the dimensions of the original bible from '95 in this line (New Geneva Study Bible)?

[robertflower]

Great review! Esv is smaller then N.k.j.v. what is the reason? Both look good, maybe good to get both of them?

[Anthonyvelez]

What would you choose esv study bible vs mccarther study bible vs rc sproul study bible???

[bstring]

Hey thanks for the video! I’m reading a lot from the esv recently and getting annoyed with it’s Yoda like wording I am. Although I been eyeballing the esv English-Greek reverse interlinear and that seems very valuable as a study tool since it has the transliteration Of Greek and strongs concordance I think. Have you seen this or reviewed a similar type of study tool? I seen the jay p greens one you did and the Internet works fine but I like having a book, in case if a zombie apocalypse of course. Thanks again

[RyanGill]

I own 2 editions of this in black leather. One, like pictured here, has the maps in the back and tremendous show-through. The other, ISBN 978-0-87552-786-4, is a bit different. It features no maps (I believe this was originally printed with no maps, the maps to be added in 2008), and considerably less bleed-through. It is also much thicker, featuring thicker pages than the near T. P. thickness of thr 2008 edition. My wife thinks the print in the thinner one is a bit darker, but I'm willing to trade the darkness, thinness, and maps for less bleed-through. The thicker paper also seems to be of a higher quality. It is the Bible I take with me to Sunday morning worship, though I am neither Reformed nor Presbyterian. (We attend a Calvinistic, credobaptist Covenant Theology church.)

[ashleycapulso]

the 2005 reformation study bible has more notes than the recent ones?

[edwardgraham]

The ESV text itself would have been updated 3 times since that Bible was done. That's I'd one of the hard things with using the ESV, you have to be buying a new Bible ever r Dr k often. Can you imagine buying one of those $150-200 ones and then it'd useless because it's been updated, no less than 4 times in the 19 years of its existence.