# Possible variant in ESV Reformation Study Bible



## MLCOPE2 (Nov 29, 2009)

As I was reading through Philippians this morning I came across a variation in english in two esv bibles. I have both an esv thinline and the esv reformation study bible. In the thinline the rendering of Phil. 3:3 is "For we are the circumcision..." however, the rendering from the RSB is "For we are the _real_ circumcision...". The ESV Study Bible does not add the word _real_, not do any online versions, nor are there any notes that this could possibly be a variant in the original manuscripts. 

My question then is why does the RSB add the word _real_? Is it justified? and could it possibly change the meaning of the text?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 29, 2009)

MLCOPE2 said:


> As I was reading through Philippians this morning I came across a variation in english in two esv bibles. I have both an esv thinline and the esv reformation study bible. In the thinline the rendering of Phil. 3:3 is "For we are the circumcision..." however, the rendering from the RSB is "For we are the _real_ circumcision...". The ESV Study Bible does not add the word _real_, not do any online versions, nor are there any notes that this could possibly be a variant in the original manuscripts.
> 
> My question then is why does the RSB add the word _real_? Is it justified? and could it possibly change the meaning of the text?



This difference does not reflect an addition by the RSB folks, but is instead a reflection of the fact that the 2007 update of the ESV removed "real" from the earlier 2000,2001 version of the ESV. My RSB uses the earlier text - and I'm sure yours does to. My ESV Study Bible, which uses the 2007 text, does NOT contain "real". I'm guessing your thinline also uses the updated text.

The RSV, of which the ESV is more or less an revision, contained the words "true circumcision" - "true" does not appear in the NA27 Greek text, but the word was added (in my opinion) to emphasize what Paul was getting at there- to distinguish the use of the name "the circumcision", referring to the Jews from "the (true) circumcision", or the family of God, those who are in Christ. The addition of the word, then, would be under the 'dynamic equivalence' translation philosophy. When the ESV text was updated in 2007, it seems that "real" was removed - I presume, to be more in line with a word-for-word philosophy. Whether one thinks "real" is justifiable is going to be determined by whether one thinks dyanmic equivalence is justifiable. 

So there's nothing untoward, I don't think, not at all. Note: the NASB, which most would regard as a very word-for-word translation, includes "true".


----------

