KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am wondering if there is anyone on the puritanboard who is for the superiority of the Byzantine Text Type (MT or Byzantine Superiority positions) who is not KJV-Only?

By KJV-Only I mean those who (1) hold that the KJV is without error in its translation and (2) in every single case of varients in the manuscripts; the KJV has infallibly went with the correct reading.

Most of the scholarly work cited here by KJV defenders in defense of one form of the Traditional Text or the other, is by men who would not have held to either of the 2 points above (i.e. Farstad, Pickering, Robinson, Burgon).
 
Greetings:

I do not defend the KJV when it is in error. It is a translation, and, as a translation it has many fine points to it. I actually think the Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV - Does that make me a Geneva Bible Onlyist? No. I think the Geneva Bible has errors in it as well.

When the WCF talks about the "providential preservation" of the mss it is referring the the Hebrew and Greek and not a translation of them into English:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages; are therefore authentical, chapter 1, section 8.

There can be no doubt that the WCF is talking about the Byzantine mss as it was/is found in the Textus Receptus. The Alexandrian Variants were known by the Church since the 7th-8th Century, but were consistently rejected by the Church as corrupt.

Erasmus, for example, was well acquainted with the Vaticanus (B) mss. But he never used it in his early Greek texts. It was considered a corrupt mss, and to use a corrupt mss would be a degradation to the text. In his 5th edition he used one reading from the Vaticanus, but his 5th edition was never used by anyone.

The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.

What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.

As for me, since there are better translations in English out there, the purchase of the ESV, or any other such text, is neither expedient nor necessary.

Blessings,

-CH
 
What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.


HUH????? Are you saying Crossway Bibles and Goodnews Publishing is owned by the NCCUSA? I hope you're talkin' jibberish.
 
I am wondering if there is anyone on the puritanboard who is for the superiority of the Byzantine Text Type (MT or Byzantine Superiority positions) who is not KJV-Only?
Me. :D And since there are no MT translations available, I use the NKJV. I like the ESV a lot myself . . as a translation, that is . . I just prefer the MT to NA27 for presuppositional reasons. :p
 
Me. :D And since there are no MT translations available, I use the NKJV. I like the ESV a lot myself . . as a translation, that is . . I just prefer the MT to NA27 for presuppositional reasons. :p

I must say that i really like the NKJV because in the margins they include more textual variants than other versions. You can read the majority text (Farstad style) with a NKJV if you read the margin textual notes. Or you could read the critical text, or you could read the TR straight in the text.

Maybe i should be a NKJV-Onlyist since the word of God is preserved in that version...if you include textual variant margin notes. One way or another it's preserved in there. Is the critical text right?...it's in there. Is the majority text right?...it's in there. Is the TR right?...it's in there.

That reminds me of a Prego commercial ("it's in there").
 
Greetings:

I do not defend the KJV when it is in error. It is a translation, and, as a translation it has many fine points to it. I actually think the Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV - Does that make me a Geneva Bible Onlyist? No. I think the Geneva Bible has errors in it as well.

When the WCF talks about the "providential preservation" of the mss it is referring the the Hebrew and Greek and not a translation of them into English:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages; are therefore authentical, chapter 1, section 8.

There can be no doubt that the WCF is talking about the Byzantine mss as it was/is found in the Textus Receptus. The Alexandrian Variants were known by the Church since the 7th-8th Century, but were consistently rejected by the Church as corrupt.

Erasmus, for example, was well acquainted with the Vaticanus (B) mss. But he never used it in his early Greek texts. It was considered a corrupt mss, and to use a corrupt mss would be a degradation to the text. In his 5th edition he used one reading from the Vaticanus, but his 5th edition was never used by anyone.

The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.

What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.

As for me, since there are better translations in English out there, the purchase of the ESV, or any other such text, is neither expedient nor necessary.

Blessings,

-CH


I knew th ESV was based on the NRSV text but I didn't know the NCC still owned it. Whoa!:eek: :wow:
 
Based on the RSV text

The Historic Legacy of the ESV
The ESV stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression.

The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text. Archaic language was brought to current usage and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the translators’ goal was to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.
 
ESV copyright info:

Copyright Information
The "ESV"; and "English Standard Version" are trademarks of Good News Publishers. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Good News Publishers.

When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation.

Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.

Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to Good News Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA.

Permission requests for use within the UK and EU that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to HarperCollins Religious, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, HammerSmith, London W6 8JB, England.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

Good News Publishers (including Crossway Bibles) is a not-for-profit organization that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the good news of the gospel and the truth of God's Word, the Bible.

Also see this:

ESV Copyright and Permissions Information
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®
Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
a division of Good News Publishers
All rights reserved.

The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

The ESV text may be quoted for audio use (audio cassettes, CDs, audio television) up to two hundred fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

Notice of copyright must appear as follows on the title page or copyright page of printed works quoting from the ESV, or in a corresponding location when the ESV is quoted in other media:

“Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

When more than one translation is quoted in printed works or other media, the foregoing notice of copyright should begin as follows:

“Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from . . . [etc.]”; or,
“Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from . . . [etc.].”

The “ESV” and “English Standard Version” are registered trademarks of Good News Publishers. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Good News Publishers.

When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation.

Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.

Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to Good News Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA or [email protected].

Permission requests for use within the UK and EU that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to HarperCollins Religious, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB, England.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

Good News Publishers (including Crossway Bibles) is a not-for-profit organization that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the good news of the gospel and the truth of God’s Word, the Bible.
 
Source:

The English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books, had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day's strategy. During the course of the evening it became clear their concerns with the NIV extended beyond gender issues. The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version, first published in 1952 by the National Council of Churches and recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.

Some months later, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations with the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. An agreement was reached in September 1998 allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary to rid it of de-Christianing translation choices.
 
ESV copyright info:



Also see this:



The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

So what exactly, if any, is the relationship of the ESV with the NCC now?
 
Hay:

I think the NKJV is a good translation mostly because, as I understand it, the translators kept with the Byzantine mss.

As far as the ESV is concerned - all you have to do is look at the inside page of your Reformation Study Bible ESV and you will find this note:

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

Crossway, Good News and others are just publishers. They pay the NCCC for the use of the text. I believe the NCCC also gets a commission on every ESV purchased.

Read this article and weep:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989211

The NCCC was going bankrupt until it received a royalty check from a conservative publishing company.


Blessings,

-CH
 
Last edited:
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

So what exactly, if any, is the relationship of the ESV with the NCC now?

It is my understanding that there is no relationship now. They ESV folks did pay the NCC to use the RSV, but after the initial deal there is no longer a relationship. Crossway purchased full rights to use the RSV. So although it did bring profit to the NCC originally, they no longer are tied to them.
 
I'm satisfied but I think brother Wieland is still trying to form an unholy alliance between the ESV and the NCCC. Thank you for the links and documentation.
 
Greetings:

What I find offensive about the RSV and ESV is not only that they enrich the NCCC, but that both of them are non-Byzantine in nature. They both are derived from the Critical Text/Alexandrian mss that have been consistently rejected by the Church since they were first created.

Crossway Books denies paying yearly royalty fees to the NCCC, but they will not disclose the agreement they have with the NCCC concerning the use of the RSV. I have inquired this of them and have not received a response as of yet to date.

Sermon Audio has an interesting discussion of this by Dr. Letis:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=41504103537

I think the comments on it are quite apropos.

Blessings,

-CH
 
I actually contacted Crossway about the relationship they have with the NCCC.

Their response, was that the paid NCCC a one time undisclosed amount for the use of the RSV text.

Crossway owns the full copyright to the ESV and no proceeds from the sales of ESV bibles goes to the NCCC.

Below is the relevant Q&A from the Crossway.com Web site...

"Does Crossway pay royalties to anyone for use of the ESV text?

No. Crossway owns the rights to the text."

I know some KJV-Only folks (none here) that have been informed about the status of the ESV's copyright but yet continue to propagate the myth that each purchase of the ESV sends funds to the NCCC. This is slander.
 
From the article cited above:

The $625,000 check from Crossway Books received this summer carried with it a bit of irony. Well before Edgar was elected to the NCC's chief executive post in late 1999, the council had sold special rights to its Revised Standard Version Bible to Crossway. That publisher edited "a derivative" version for a theologically conservative market--the English Standard Version. Other publishers with rights from the NCC use the updated NRSV translation.

Rather than stringing out royalty checks over the term of the ten-year contract, Crossway negotiated a large advance payment. "It's a Win-win situation for us both," said John Briscoe, NCC director of development. The sum in turn enabled the NCC to erase a debt owed to Church World Service arising from their organizational separation last year, said Briscoe. "Now, we have no squirrelly footnotes in our auditor's report on this long-term [ten-year] obligation to CWS," he said. "Having a clean, clean audit is a critical part of rebuilding confidence from our [member] communions, foundations and donors."
 
I agree, but not because the discussion has strayed from the OP, but because the OP sets up a false dilemma. One may hold to the superiority of the AV AND the Byzantine text-type.
Well, the RT and the MT are not the same thing -- as I'm sure you're aware. There are some like myself who prefer the MT to the RT.
 
Well, the RT and the MT are not the same thing -- as I'm sure you're aware. There are some like myself who prefer the MT to the RT.

Regrettably, yes, the MT and RT have been made opponents by modern scholars; whereas anyone willing to look at the issue carefully will observe that the MT is merely ms. evidence which bears witness to the RT, the ecclesiastical text. It is only the crude notion of making a witness a judge, which leads to the absurd situation created by modern scholars. Whereas the traditional reformed position is, that the church has the spiritual ability to discern the Scriptures. William Perkins: "hence we may gather that the church of God hath a gift to discern scripture from that which is no scripture." (Revelation, 265.)
 
Regrettably, yes, the MT and RT have been made opponents by modern scholars; whereas anyone willing to look at the issue carefully will observe that the MT is merely ms. evidence which bears witness to the RT, the ecclesiastical text. It is only the crude notion of making a witness a judge, which leads to the absurd situation created by modern scholars. Whereas the traditional reformed position is, that the church has the spiritual ability to discern the Scriptures. William Perkins: "hence we may gather that the church of God hath a gift to discern scripture from that which is no scripture." (Revelation, 265.)
There are variants in the RT that aren't supported by the MT (ecclesiastical text). That's all I'm saying. What is it about this that's "absurd"?
 
There are variants in the RT that aren't supported by the MT (ecclesiastical text). That's all I'm saying. What is it about this that's "absurd"?

There seems to be some confusion in terminology. The MT is the majority text as contained in the Byzantine family of mss. It is merely ms. evidence. The ecclesiastical text is the text received by the church through the ages. The one is witness, and the other is judge. It is absurd to make one witness the sole witness and ultimate judge of the matter.
 
It is my understanding that there is no relationship now. They ESV folks did pay the NCC to use the RSV, but after the initial deal there is no longer a relationship. Crossway purchased full rights to use the RSV. So although it did bring profit to the NCC originally, they no longer are tied to them.

Right. Somewhere on its website, it says that the ESV translation is owned by Crossway publishers, not the National Council of Churches. That latter group still owns the rights to the RSV. The website specifically says that the NCC does not receive any royalties from sales of the ESV.

So, if you buy an ESV, you're not supporting the liberals at the NCC.
 
Greetings:

What I find offensive about the RSV and ESV is not only that they enrich the NCCC, but that both of them are non-Byzantine in nature. They both are derived from the Critical Text/Alexandrian mss that have been consistently rejected by the Church since they were first created.

Crossway Books denies paying yearly royalty fees to the NCCC, but they will not disclose the agreement they have with the NCCC concerning the use of the RSV. I have inquired this of them and have not received a response as of yet to date.

Sermon Audio has an interesting discussion of this by Dr. Letis:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=41504103537

I think the comments on it are quite apropos.

Blessings,

-CH


Oh no. Not Theodore Letis. :p

I'm an Byz/Maj advocate, but I *love* the ESV. I wish they'd kept the Holman Christian Standard Bible using the Byz text like they were originally going to, instead of switching it to the NA27. I think we can use a good Byz/Maj translation other than the NKJV.

With Robinson, I believe that although 88% of the text in both families agree, no one will suffer any ill effects by using a non-Byz text.
 
Crossway Books

Greetings:

OK. Crossway Books has paid the NCCC a flat fee of $650,000 for the use of the RSV over the next ten years. So, purchases of the ESV over that ten year period will go to re-finance the original purchase of the rights to the RSV.

What happens at the end of the 10 years? Will Crossway pay another $650,000 to the NCCC for another 10 years? This is a direct financing of the NCCC for years to come - at a time when the NCCC was going bankrupt. In my opinion this is unconscionable. Where is the outrage about this?

"It is ok to buy the ESV - Crossway Books has only made a flat fee payment."

This is not acceptable. If you decry the failing of our society, but you support a "conservative" publishing company that finances those who are undermining it, then you are either a fool or a hypocrite.

A fool - because you do not accept the logical consequences of your actions.

A hypocrite - because you know the logical consequences of your actions and you don't care enough to do something about it.

Someone here said, "I love the ESV..."

Then you love something that has been rejected by God and the Church. You are on the side of the Devil who questions and changes the Word of God.

This is probably the harshest post I ever wrote, but I believe it needed to be said.

Blessings,

-CH
 
Blessings to you brother. You have discharged your duty with great passion. You have made a complete catharsis regarding your opinion and conviction pertaining to the ESV. Not everyone here will agree with you. Please find satisfaction that you have given your warning and said your piece. Now let's leave this argument for others to read and form their own convictions. You have brought this discussion to a level and tone that will not benefit the spirit of the board if it gets any more bold. Let's not persist. Your protest has been noted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top