Falling in love with the ESV

[tellville]

For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?

I miss the good ol' Latin Vulgate only days.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Thank you Pastor McFadden for those useful thoughts. I would suggest that the very problem with modern translations has to do with the fact that the Church has abrogated its responsibility as the depository of truth, and has given this responsibility over to organizations that are not under the direct authority of the Church. You seem to think that because this practice is in existence that it is the right thing to do? I cannot make out exactly what you meant when you wrote:

Interesting point. However, regardless of the merits of the case, publishing houses (e.g., Zondervan, Crossway, et. al.) publish our Bibles today. As far as translations, even the ones done under quasi ecclesiastical auspices seem to be done by para-church organizations.

Just because Zondervan/Crossway and others publish our Bibles does not necessarily mean that they should translate or publish them.

You then wrote:

I thought your concerns were not primarily textual??? For the benefit of those on the PB who have not taken Greek and Hebrew, the same argument about the differences from the Textus Receptus could be made against the NIV, NASB, and virtually EVERY English translation other than the KJV, NKJV, and any "majority text" English translation. So, unless you want to turn this into a KJVO or TR superiority thread, the 8,000 differences between the Nestle-Aland (the text behind virtually ALL of the English translations on the market OTHER than the KJV and NKJV) are irrelevant to the "brief history" of the RSV.

I do not wish to make this thread over into a TR vs. CT debate. Thus, I only noted it in passing, and mentioned that my primary interest is not in the Greek texts at this time. I am also aware of the TR/CT ban, and I did not wish to break it. The differences in the Greek text are not irrelevant - because these differences show up in the translations in the RSV and KJV. However, because of the ban I did not wish to pursue this subject any further.

You wrote:

Again, it depends on how you define conservatives. People like Grudem and Piper used the RSV often. They did NOT approve of the liberalizing tendencies nor the proclivity for willy-nilly conjectural emmandations. Hence, the ESV.

Sure, it depends upon how you define "conservatives." Since the subject concerns Bible translations, then one would define a "conservative" as one who upholds the Traditional text in Greek/English. Consequently, some whom we might label as "liberal" in other categories of Theology may show up as "conservatives" here. Others who may show up as "conservatives" in other categories of Theology may show up as "liberals" here.

You mentioned Grudem and Piper as "conservatives" who "used the RSV often" but if we are counting heads, then here is a short list of "conservatives" who used the KJV or Geneva Bible:

John Owen, John Bunyan, Richard Sibbes, Thomas Goodwin, Samuel Rutherford, William Gurnall, John Flavel, Thomas Boston, James Ussher, George Gillespie, William Twisse, Cornelius Burgess, William Gouge, Robert Harris, Thomas Gattaker, Edward Reynolds, John Arrowsmith, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy,William Greenhill, Joseph caryl, John Dury, Thomas Hill, Dr Edmond Staunton, Anthomny Burges, Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, John Wallis, John Brown of Haddington, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Isaac Watts, John Newton, John Howe, Thomas Chalmers, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, John Gill, and C.H.Spurgeon

I could go on for pages listing all the "conservative" scholars who used/endorsed the KJV/TR. C. H. Spurgeon is most notable, because the "downgrade" controversy had much to do with the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism.

However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.

Next,

Again, you can only call this "liberalizing" if you apply it to almost all modern English translations OTHER than the NKJV. Regardless of the liberalism in the NCC (which I fully agree with you about), how can we blame them for doing with the Marcan ending what the "conservative" translations also do? If would be like suggesting that eating steak is a liberalizing trend since people in the NCC also eat steak.

I call it "liberalizing" because all of the modern translations are based off of a Greek text that follows liberal principles. It may be a shock to you but the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASV all follow the "liberalizing" tendencies of the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism.

More importantly, however, none of these translations were authorized by the True Church, and none of them were translated under the authority of the True Church. The NCC is not a church. The International Bible Society is not a church. The Lockman foundation is not a church. Zondervan and Crossway Books are not churches. Nor are any of these organizations answerable to the True Church - but simply to their own selves.

Next,

Exactly! That is why Packer, Grudem, and Piper got so excited about the ESV project and why Mohler cites it as one of his three trusted translations (ESV, NASB, and HCSB). It took the traditional beauty of the KJV, carried out the task according to the opinion by the vast majority of textual critics of both liberal and conservative stripe that the Nestle-Aland Greek text was an improvement over the Textus Receptus, and removed the liberal bias that "corrupted" the RSV.

I will not be drawn into a TR/CT discussion. The Critical Text was not an attempt to "improve" the Textus Receptus, but to do away with the TR altogether and replace it with the CT. It is impossible to eliminate the liberal bias of the RSV because the liberal bias is founded within the Greek text which they used to translate: NA17. The ESV translators did nothing different when they used Nestle-Aland 26 to "correct" the RSV. Packer, Grudem, and Mohler all had a hand in the translation of the ESV in one way or another.

Here is an article concerning the ESV that I think all should read:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf

I think the article addresses well the rest of your post. Before I respond again to a post of yours I would like for you to certify that you have read it in full. Otherwise, I will simply be cutting and pasting from the article, and you will save me (and yourself) a lot of time by first reading it.

Thanks again for the thoughts,

Rob

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 03:30:15 EST-----

For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?

I miss the good ol' Latin Vulgate only days.

 

[Galatians220]

Rob, thank you. A thousand thank-yous.

I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, et alia. They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.

Yikes, Margaret! One could just as easily apply your logic and say that "it's really too bad about poor schlubs like" Augustine, Boethius, Benedict, Boniface, Bede, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, Luther (he quoted from the Vulgate throughout his life and ministry) that had to content themselves with "flawed, badly written Bibles" like the Vulgate to "read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls."

I'll bet you can even find people genuinely converted to Christianity who used the Living Bible! Since when did an imperfect translation keep God from acting in a sovereign manner?

That is no excuse for not continuing to work as hard as possible to produce the best Bible translation possible. Those who hold to the CT view sincerely believe that they are doing just that. Just as the KJV was (in your view) evidently an improvement over the Vulgate and even the Geneva Bible, isn't it possible that the ESV is an improvement (at least in our generation) over the KJV? And, might we have an even more faithful translation in decades to come than any of them produced so far?

Frankly, I find the arguments for the majority text more powerful than they taught me in college and seminary (thank you Jerusalem Blade for confusing me so good!). So, my 1599 Leather Bound Geneva Bible (Calvin Legacy Edition) sits comfortably between my ESV Study Bible and UBS Greek New Testament on my desk. And, a framed leaf out of an original 1599 Geneva Bible adorns the wall behind my desk next to the Synod of Dort poster.

Dennis, you know how much I've enjoyed your posts and your tremendous sense of humor. You are one of a kind in that area! (Well, you and Bawb...) But I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations. What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, today I'm going to start revising God's word?

That appalls me. It always has and it always will.

I was converted while reading the NIV; I know God can work sovereignly as to that. But as I dug ever deeper and wanted to know Him better, I gradually and eventually embraced TR versions, in my case, the KJV and the 1599 Geneva.

Thanks to all of these Bible versions, we have a Tower of Babel instead of being able to say definitively, "Thus saith the Lord..." I'll be going to a women's Bible study tonight at which the ladies will have 6 different Bible versions and time will be spent saying, "Carrie, what does the NIV say?" and "Jennifer, how about the New King James Version?" One woman besides me will have a KJV, but we won't be asked what it says. Whatever, dudes.

Who was the first one who sought to "reinterpret" what God said? Back in Genesis it happened, I think.

I could go on, but I have to get to work.

Dear brother in Christ, thank you for all of the wonderful things I've learned from you and all the laughs, and I hope this all continues. But we're going to have to just leave this one alone and be "happy polar opposites.."



Blessings to you always,

Margaret

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob - I hear what you are saying and I agree that some of the things you have said are troubling. But there are others who have countered these arguments to some degree I think. I don't have the authority or knowledge to judge your arguments, nor the opposing arguments. So with that said I'm not going to call my side on the issue.

You seem to have given this some serious thought and research. Based on that assumption, why do you feel the ESV has been so well received in the reformed community? I've asked this question already within this thread but I'd like to hear what you have to say. With the concerns you have raised it seems odd that the ESV has been so warmly embraced. If there is warrant in what you argue I don't see how we can chock it up to great marketing. The reformed community surely is one of the least susceptible people groups when it comes to advertising. I qualify this last statement by limiting it to matters of faith and academics. I'd like to think we reformed folk usually see the error coming and rarely get surprised by such things as sub par translations or shoddy theology.

Hi:

I appreciate your thoughtful and careful attitude. I think I answered some of this in the above. However, I think your questions need more of an answer.

I think that there are many people in conservative circles who will uncritically follow the recommendations of those who have "big names" within conservative Christianity. Thus, "If J.I. Packer says so, then it must be true," is a problematic mentality within the Church in general. I believe that this is why the Bible often refers to us as "sheep," because we have a strong tendency to follow the recommendations of our Pastors/Shepherds. When it comes to men with strong "conservative" reputations, then I believe such tendencies tend to multiply exponentally.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are solid there is little trouble - the Bible extols such as shining like the stars forever.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are mixed: conservative in some areas liberal in others, then there is much confusion. Consider the church in Corinth or in Galatia as examples of such.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are liberal, then there is much concern for the Church in general. False teachers who outwardly look good, but inwardly are ravenous wolves are everywhere cautioned about in Scripture.

Paul, whose example of Pastoral Piety is only exceeded by our Lord Jesus Christ, extolled the Bereans because they sought to examine everything Paul said according to the Scriptures. The Apostle John encourages the Church to examine every spirit to see whether they are from God.

Thus, I would encourage you to examine why "conservative" scholars would recommend the ESV. I would encourage you to seek out both the "pros" and "cons" of the translation, and make an informed decision for your own self. I would definately not recommend that you go by your feelings alone on this subject, because feelings can be deceiving. If your "feelings" are not flowing from sound Orthodox doctrine derived from the Scriptures, then I would suggest that your feelings on that particular subject do not come from the Spirit of God.

Hope this helps,

Rob

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Excellent Post Rob.

 

[DMcFadden]

Rob,

Thanks for the irenic and thoughtful reply. Here are some elaborations on my thinking . . .

You seem to think that because this practice is in existence that it is the right thing to do?

No! I was trying to say that insofar as the church has seemed to wholesale abandon publishing (even the KJV is produced under secular publishing auspices), the point is rather moot. If all translations (incuding the KJV) are physically produced by non ecclesiastical agencies and companies, why pick on any one of them? Chances are that your copy of the KJV was printed by a secular company.

I o not wish to make this thread over into a TR vs. CT debate. Thus, I only noted it in passing, and mentioned that my primary interest is not in the Greek texts at this time. I am also aware of the TR/CT ban, and I did not wish to break it. The differences in the Greek text are not irrelevant - because these differences show up in the translations in the RSV and KJV. However, because of the ban I did not wish to pursue this subject any further.

Rob, I have great respect for the majority text arguments and have struggled in this area myself. A 1599 Geneva Bible sits on my desk next to an ESV study Bible. My point was that if your "primary" concern was NOT the TR vs. CT debate, then pointing out at length that RSV differs from the TR is irrelevant -- so does virtually every other Bible used by evangelical and Reformed churches other than the KJV and NKJV. It would only be a point for your argument if the RSV differed from the other modern translations in underlying text, which it does not.

I could go on for pages listing all the "conservative" scholars who used/endorsed the KJV/TR. C. H. Spurgeon is most notable, because the "downgrade" controversy had much to do with the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism.

However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.

We are evidently equivocating on our use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal." If using a CT translation makes one a liberal, then the list of "conservatives" could fit in a good sized national park visitor's center.

Frankly, when we define our words so stringently as to exclude almost everyone, then the terms lose some of their validity as descriptors. Calling MacArthur, Grudem, Piper, et. al. "liberals" just does not seem to make any sense to me.

I AM moved by the opinion of men, otherwise, I would not read ANYone. Why bother with any theologians if we don't expect to be challenged to interact with the text more seriously and to come away more faithful to the Lord and to his word?

I do have great sympathy with your underlying argument about the perniciousness of WH presuppositions and their corrupting influence upon Bible translation, hence my concessive comments about the arguments. But one could just as easily argue about some of Erasmus' presuppositions which were also suspect. And, why is the KJV any more sacrasanct than the Geneva which was actually used by numbers of the English Reformers before the KJV achieved acceptance. Prior to the ban on publishing the Geneva in 1644, it was the de facto Bible of Reformation Christianity in English.

It is impossible to eliminate the liberal bias of the RSV because the liberal bias is founded within the Greek text which they used to translate: NA17. The ESV translators did nothing different when they used Nestle-Aland 26 to "correct" the RSV. Packer, Grudem, and Mohler all had a hand in the translation of the ESV in one way or another.

Since you define "liberal" as any CT translation, your statement stands and I have nothing to say in response.

Before I respond again to a post of yours I would like for you to certify that you have read it in full. Otherwise, I will simply be cutting and pasting from the article, and you will save me (and yourself) a lot of time by first reading it.

That's OK, Rob. I have read a number of resources from the Trinitarian Bible Society and will not be devoting any time to it in the near future (VERY full day at work) so I am happy letting our interaction stand as it is. You expressed yourself fully and well, identifying and defending your point of view. I simply disagree with your central point.

 

[fredtgreco]

I don't want to get into a textual debate, and I am not really a modern translation kind of guy, but I would just caution against using the "liberalizing tendencies" of moderns who use the ____ (NASB, NIV, ESV, etc).

That argument cuts both ways. For virtually every hyper-dispensational, ultra-separatist, seminary hating nut job out there uses the KJV. And defends it as the "only Bible." Does that make the KJV a nut job translation? Obviously not! Same principle goes for other translations.

 

[TimV]

However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.

I sure am, otherwise I'd be living under a bridge. I just had to make a decision whether to cut down a 5000 dollar palm tree or to treat it with chemicals, so I called a lady who owns a palm nursery and followed her advice.

And that's the thing that bugs me most about the issue we're skirting. I can personally contact three top scholars who say something the Edersheim wrote is simply wrong. I could contact the top 1000 people in the field and they'd all say the same thing, and STILL someone out there would defend one statement Edersheim made that was sloppy. It's just not reasonable.

And let's be straight up about this. There is no where in the Bible where you can claim to speak for God on the issue of ESV vs. KJV. And no large denomination of Reformed or (I think) even broadly evangelical churches take your position on these things, which should give you pause for thought.

I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations. What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, today I'm going to start revising God's word?

That appalls me. It always has and it always will

For one, the guy who put a couple texts together and made something different than any of the texts he had to work with. After several dozen changes and decades later it came to be called the TR

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

 

[CalvinandHodges]

However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.

I sure am, otherwise I'd be living under a bridge. I just had to make a decision whether to cut down a 5000 dollar palm tree or to treat it with chemicals, so I called a lady who owns a palm nursery and followed her advice.

And that's the thing that bugs me most about the issue we're skirting. I can personally contact three top scholars who say something the Edersheim wrote is simply wrong. I could contact the top 1000 people in the field and they'd all say the same thing, and STILL someone out there would defend one statement Edersheim made that was sloppy. It's just not reasonable.

And let's be straight up about this. There is no where in the Bible where you can claim to speak for God on the issue of ESV vs. KJV. And no large denomination of Reformed or (I think) even broadly evangelical churches take your position on these things, which should give you pause for thought.

I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations. What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, today I'm going to start revising God's word?

That appalls me. It always has and it always will

For one, the guy who put a couple texts together and made something different than any of the texts he had to work with. After several dozen changes and decades later it came to be called the TR

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

Hi Tim:

I am sorry that we did not get a chance to finish our discussion on the other thread on Rev. 22:19.

I might want to mention to you that there is a difference between taking and examining advice given, and slavishly following the statements of another. I think your example of the Palm tree bears out such a distinction.

Insofar as your Edersheim example: People have a right to think as they like. There were 1000's of theologians who opposed Martin Luther at the beginning of the Reformation - did that deter him from posting the 95 thesis, or, attending the Diet of Worms?

God created us reasonable creatures - what is so wrong with encouraging people to use their own minds, and come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence given? You may come to different conclusions than I, and that is perfectly fine with me. If the whole world thought as I did, then I would suspect that there is something wrong with the world!

From the way you presented the history of the TR I seriously suspect that you know very little about it.

Pastor Greco:

You have given me a very good reminder, and I thank you for it. I think that there are some caveats here that need some light of day.

First, the KJV has been around for centuries. The nuts that you mention have only popped up in the last several decades. To draw a distinct line between the KJV and these nuts is not as obvious as the history may allow.

Second, One can draw a line between the translators of the RSV and the Greek text used in its translation as a "liberalizing trend." I was not impunging the character of those who use the RSV, NASB, NIV, or ESV, but I am questioning the wisdom of those who took the RSV and sought to make it more conservative in the ESV translation.

Third, the point I made concerning the lack of Church authority in the modern translations is a very real and important truth.

Finally, we should be consistent with our views of Biblical Christianity as they are embodied in our Subordinate Standards. I have sought to evaluate the ESV along these lines, and I am very disturbed by what I have found.

Blessings to you and yours this New Year,

Rob

 

[TimV]

Insofar as your Edersheim example: People have a right to think as they like.

They can, but take certain risks.

There were 1000's of theologians who opposed Martin Luther at the beginning of the Reformation - did that deter him from posting the 95 thesis, or, attending the Diet of Worms?

Interesting comparison between the OPC, PCA, ARPC etc.. and 16th century Catholicism. Both oppose/opposed a true minority opinion because of holding great error?

God created us reasonable creatures - what is so wrong with encouraging people to use their own minds, and come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence given?

It shows a lack of respect for others who know more and a special kind of arrogance all too often in cases like we're discussing.

First, the KJV has been around for centuries. The nuts that you mention have only popped up in the last several decades. To draw a distinct line between the KJV and these nuts is not as obvious as the history may allow

.
The Munster Rebellion took place 10 years after Germans got the first version of AV in their own language. Cause and effect? Or something more complicated? Blaming a Bible translation on mega trends in the church...Hmmm...

 

[Stomata leontôn]

I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.

But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to delete those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.

Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the tiny Johannine Comma ).

Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Very interesting Peter

 

[greenbaggins]

I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.

But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to delete those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.

Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the tiny Johannine Comma ).

Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?

Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."

 

[Stomata leontôn]

I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.

But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to delete those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.

Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the tiny Johannine Comma ).

Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?

Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."

So there are more than one editions of the ESV? Interesting. Somebody must have complained about the omissions already, which were then emended, and that would explain why no one mentioned them here.

The edition I checked was a copy in the library. If any one is very interested, I can go back and check which edition it was. But I think the answer to my question must be that there are more than one edition of the text.

If that be the case, then the text behind the current ESV would be much the same as the TR, since the missing pieces will have been supplied from it.

Thanks.

 

[greenbaggins]

I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.

But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to delete those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.

Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the tiny Johannine Comma ).

Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?

Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."

So there are more than one editions of the ESV? Interesting. Somebody must have complained about the omissions already, which were then emended, and that would explain why no one mentioned them here.

The edition I checked was a copy in the library. If any one is very interested, I can go back and check which edition it was. But I think the answer to my question must be that there are more than one edition of the text.

If that be the case, then the text behind the current ESV would be much the same as the TR, since the missing pieces will have been supplied from it.

Thanks.

Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.

Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.

My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)

Thank you very much!

 

[greenbaggins]

Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.

Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.

My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)

Thank you very much!

The Eclectic Text itself prints these texts in the critical apparatus, and in the case of the ending of Mark, in double square brackets, just like the ESV does. That's what an apparatus does: it lists all the variants along with all the manuscripts that contain said variant so that the person reading it can make an informed decision on what he believes the original text to be.

The ESV says this: Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20, regarding the conclusion to Mark's Gospel.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.

Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.

My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)

Thank you very much!

The Eclectic Text itself prints these texts in the critical apparatus, and in the case of the ending of Mark, in double square brackets, just like the ESV does. That's what an apparatus does: it lists all the variants along with all the manuscripts that contain said variant so that the person reading it can make an informed decision on what he believes the original text to be.

The ESV says this: Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20, regarding the conclusion to Mark's Gospel.

That's a milder note than the one in the earlier NGSB-ESV that deleted it. (The note in the original NGSB (NKJV) supports Mark's Epilogue as original and inspired.) Thanks.

 

[GTMOPC]

This thread was about falling in love with the ESV. How far have we strayed from the original topic dear brothers?

I said earlier I am not an authority on the topics of translation, Hebrew/Greek, or anything in a related scholarly nature. In that spirit I heartily concede all discussion of said topics to those qualified.

I can however say the following with no reservations. The KJV can not be questioned or abrogated by the ESV or any other translation. It has been blessed by God and it has stood the test of time and faith. We are the better for having the KJV, no question about it.

The ESV is here to stay and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. Does that make it acceptable? Of course not. But it does say something about it's validity. It has been embraced by a large percentage of the reformed community whether that is due to marketing schemes or personal interest in its success. It has been profitable to the Church or I don't believe it would still be in use.

Whether you agree with the above comments I've made is left up to you. But we should realize that neither translation is going to cancel out the other. (Will the ESV die with a loss of popularity? I won't offer any prediction on that matter, who knows?) Therefore I think that it is expedient that we lay down our arms and return to the topic at hand. It's not that I think we have become uncharitable with one another. It's just that I feel you will agree with me that this war will not end in this thread.

At any rate I've profited from everyone's input. And if the above is not enough warrant to return to the original topic then I'll just say you guys went above my head!

 

[Grymir]

Hi again. I noticed you are going to Moody. These kind of discussions will train you for the real world. This is nicey-nice. People here have to play nice because of the rules of The Puritan Board. When you are surrounded by the forces of darkness on all sides in the world, where they don't play nice, just keep on doing what you are doing and you will be victorious. Jesus will deliver you, and you find his word in your Bible. Depend on it and use it well. It's not called the Sword of the Spirit for nothing.

 

[GTMOPC]

Tim - Thanks very much for the encouragement! I've been greatly edified by the 'nicey-nice' talk on the PB. For me the PB has been both a tool and a blessing. I'm not sure if you were insinuating that my going to Moody puts me in a position where people don't play nice or not. But if you were you are right. For the most part the staff has been very sympathetic to my reformed standing. However many of the students don't even know the word 'propitiation' is in the Bible and the slightest mention of sovereign election starts a war (that has no rules!). I maintain that they are reformed in their doctrine of salvation (at least) even though they use Ryrie extensively! Also, if it hadn't been for the PB'ers alerting me to who he was and what he taught who knows where I may have ended up! I might have bought the Ryrie Study Bible or something! YIKES!

Oh and by the way, my last post wasn't motivated by a desire to end the conversation just to stay on topic. All the viewpoints I've heard here will definitely influence my study this spring in my Bible Intro class where the history of the Bible will be addressed in-depth.

Thanks again to everyone!

 

[Grymir]

Oh no, When I saw the Moody line, I figured you would be training for the ministry. That's when you'll go through what I said. But I didn't know how Moody was. When I went to school it was like that, but it's great training.

 

[GTMOPC]

Oh I see. You are surely right about that. One must look ahead in anticipation! Opportunity beckons.