NASB / ESV Revisions??

[Pilgrim]

The MacArthur Study Bible on 1 Sam 13:1:

The original numbers have not been preserved in this text. It lit. reads, "Saul was one year old when he became king and ruled two years over Israel." Acts 13:21 states that Saul ruled Israel 40 years. His age at his accession is recorded nowhere in Scripture. Probably the best reconstruction of vv. 1,2 is "Saul was one and (perhaps) thirty years old when he began to reign, and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then Saul chose for himself three thousand men of Israel..."

NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible:

The words "thirty" and "forty-" do not appear in the Hebrew text (see NIV text notes). The Hebrew reads, "Saul was a year old [lit. 'son of a year'] when he became king, and he reigned over Israel two [lit., 'and two'] years." This reading yields an impossible sense, unless it is assumed that the narrator was not speaking of Saul's physical age but of something else. One possibility is that there was a year between Saul's anointing [10:6] and his confirmation as king (11:15-13:1). The two years may then refer to the length of Saul's reign up to his definitive rejection by God in chapter 15.... It is also possible that the "and" before "two" indicates that another number (such as "twenty"...) has been lost through textual transmission. After chapter 15, Saul remained on the throne but was no longer the rightful king in God's eyes.

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[bookslover]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by larryjf
That's why the Hebrew texts are generally Diplomatic Editions as opposed to Eclectic Editions as we find in the NT texts.

And it doesn't really speak to the fact that the NASB and ESV do use different underlying texts for both the OT and NT.

If the NASB doesn't plan to have a revision after the next generation of texts it may go by the way-side.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by larryjf]

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English. Be that as it may, NASB is absolutely of no value whatsoever from the pulpit in my opinion. It has its uses in translation for study, but its overly wooden style doomed it as a popular English version.

That, and bad timing. The NASB (entire Bible) was published in 1973, I believe. Just 5 years later (1978), the NIV juggernaut began (it became the first English translation to outsell the KJV). Five years is not a long time for a Bible translation to build market share, so the NASB never had a chance. Plus, as you say, it's ridiculously wooden style.

Ironically, the NASB received a second life - people used it as a "check" on the NIV.

Then, the NASB came out with its updated edition; doomed again - the ESV appeared. The NASB just can't catch a break...

By the way, about a year ago, I bought, in a used book store, a copy of the ASV of 1901 - published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society! Go figure! (It's not a study Bible - just the text). Paid only about $2 for it. I wanted one just because the ASV is so hard to find anymore, and it was an admired translation in its day, I believe.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I hope you folks will let a King James Version lover put his two cents in here. I want to draw attention to the ESV’s rendering of Matthew 1:7, 10, putting Asaph in place of Asa and Amos instead of Amon in these verses. While almost all the modern versions have marginal notes saying “the Greek reads Asaph….and Amon” only the ESV, its older sister the NRSV, and the Catholic NAB had the nerve to render it so in the translation. What’s up with this? Below I excerpt a passage I posted in another thread going into some detail in the matter. The implications of this reading are serious. Sorry that it’s a little long….maybe I should have said my 15¢!

-------------------------

In the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, James A. Borland has an essay, “Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy” [reprinted from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:

<blockquote>Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.</blockquote>

He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,

<blockquote>In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…

In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, The New Testament and Criticism (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” JETS 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.</blockquote>

He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,

<blockquote>Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide,” Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.

In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs.

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1897)]

I. The Case of Asa and Amon

One example of current import is found in the readings of Matthew 1:7, 10. These texts contain part of the kingly genealogy of Christ. Many conservative commentators seem almost oblivious to the problem [and in a footnote he lists a number]. But scholars who do not adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy do not pass up a chance to point out what they consider to be a fallacy in Matthew’s autograph. The majority of all MSS read Asa (Asa; v. 7) and Amon (Amon; v. 10), easily recognized as two kings of Judah who were ancestors of Christ. Matthew’s point is to demonstrate our Lord’s royal lineage. But the United Bible Societies’ text instead chooses alternate readings based on the “better” manuscripts as well as some very subjective internal considerations. They substitute for the kings Asa and Amon the names “Asaph” and “Amos,” a psalmist and prophet respectively. They reason that “the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred.” [B.M. Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (NY: United Bible Societies, 1971), p.1] Prior to that confident assertion, Bruce Metzger and others, claimed that “most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting Asaph.” [Ibid.]

What is the composition of this “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” in favor of the Asaph blunder? Heading the list are the fourth and fifth century codices, Aleph B and C. Next come the minuscules of families 1 and 13 and two eleventh- and twelfth-century cursives, 700 and 1071, followed by fourteenth-century manuscript 209. Among the versions are several Old Latin MSS (notably k, Bobiensis, a fourth or fifth century production), along with others of the seventh century and beyond. The Coptic, following the basic Egyptian text of Aleph and B, agrees; and the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian translations, each perhaps related to Caesarean origins (of f1 and f13), indicate Asaph also. In the Harclean Syriac it merits only a listing in the margin. In summary, barely more than a dozen Greek MSS carry the Asaph reading, followed by a few Old Latin MSS, the Coptic and several minor versions.

On the other hand, the expected reading of Asa is found in literally hundreds of Greek witnesses beginning with uncials E K L M U V W G D and P. These MSS date from the fifth through the tenth centuries and no doubt represent a wide geographic distribution, including Washingtoniensis (the Freer Gospels of the fifth century) and Regius (L), which in Metzger’s opinion has a good type of text, “agreeing very frequently with codex Vaticanus.” [Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), p. 54] In addition, hundreds of cursives lend their support including numbers of those known “to exhibit a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition.” [Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. xvii] These would include 33 (the queen of the cursives and constant ally of Aleph and B) and other minuscules beginning with the ninth century. To this may be added the entire bulk of cursive manuscripts that must represent nearly every geographical point where Greek was studied and copied throughout the middle ages and demonstrates an unbroken continuity of evidence sorely lacking in the paucity of material supporting the Asaph reading.

The lectionaries too stand solidly behind Asa, as do a number of Old Latin MSS including the notable fourth-century Vercellensis. the entire Vulgate is another early and uniform witness to Asa—as are the Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian versions of the Syriac. To these may be added both Ephiphanius and Augustine of the first quarter of the fifth century. Only a preconceived notion as to which witnesses are best would cause anyone to deny that the truly “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” favors the traditional reading of Asa.

If such is the case, then Asaph should be viewed as an early scribal blunder injudiciously copied into (fortunately) only a handful of Greek MSS. The evidence for Amon versus Amos in Matthew 1:10 is somewhat similar. It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew 'ãsã' and 'ãsãp' or between the even more distinguishable ‘ãmôn and ‘ãmôs. Not only would he have known the names of Israel’s kings by memory, but he probably would have used the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in securing the names he used.

Lest one thinks this all amounts to academic irrelevance, we should be aware that the Revised Standard Version places the prophet’s name Amos in the text of Matthew 1:10 with the note “other authorities read Amon.” The Catholic New American Bible (1970) reads Amos without explanation. The American Standard Version, the RSV and the New American Standard Bible each read Asa for Matthew 1:7 but append a note indicating that the Greek reads Asaph. But where does the reading for Asa come if not from the Greek? The ASV and NASB do the same for Amos in Matthew 1:10, and the Jerusalem Bible is similar. At the least, this nomenclature is certainly inconsistent with the usual way of introducing a textual variant. We might well believe that Matthew got his kings, prophets and psalmists a bit confused! (excerpted from pp. 46-52)</blockquote>

Thank you for bearing with this longish but significant portion of essay. He goes on with another example, but so as not to stretch my availing myself of the “fair use” policy of copyrighted material I will refrain.

If you will look at the lately much vaunted ESV, you will see that in Matthew 1 it reads both Asaph and Amos instead of the kings! It was in Letis’ audio sermon on the ESV that I learned it had been adapted from the old RSV; on the acknowledgment page it reads,

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

I would certainly hate to have to explain my way out of these false readings in the ESV to a class of bright teenagers!

Letis was of the mind that the royalties from our purchases of ESVs go the National Council of Churches, to further its agendas. Are we in accord with its agendas?

-----------------

Steve

[Edited on 10-14-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

 

[beej6]

Methinks we are straining out gnats here (Matt 23.24, but not the KJV ;-)), but I confess to be a poor layman who uses the ESV as his primary translation. The notes for the verses in question follow:

(Matthew 1:7) Asaph is probably an alternate spelling for Asa; some manuscripts read Asa; also verse 8
(Matthew 1:10) Amos is probably an alternate spelling for Amon; some manuscripts read Amon; twice in this verse

So the ESV uses an alternate spelling.

I prefer to think of the NRSV as the ESV's 'crazy cousin' ;-). The RSV was a decent translation which had the misfortune of (again) much ado about nothing re: Is 7.14. and of being the first new translation/revision in the modern era. On the other hand, that controversy eventually led to a proliferation of newer translations, including the NIV - not saying that said proliferation is better necessarily.

No, I don't agree with Letis' view re: the NCC. Copyright laws mean that the ESV and RSV are two different works. I doubt that Crossway are donating to the NCC.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

BJ,

I think you're partly right. As noted below, it appears that Good News Publishers/Crossway does not pay royalties to the NCC; though that would be because it has purchased the rights to use the RSV text.

Regarding the discrepancies being due to "probable" alternate spellings, that is like some future scholars saying "stone" might be an alternate spelling for "storm," and "down" for "drown". It doesn't wash. The differences are due to different words.

I found what is below in comments after Letis' lecture (in MP3) on the ESV, Letis himself making one of them.

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

John Hooper from South Carolina (6/23/2004)

“Interesting”
I found this lecture quite interesting. Letis was misinformed though when he stated that proceeds from the ESV go to the National Council of Churches. Crossway states on its faq page (http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.faq) that it does NOT pay any royalties to anyone for the ESV text. They own all the rights to the text. For more information on textual base and translation style see: http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.philosophy


Theodore P. Letis (8/4/2004)

“Correction”
Mr. Hooper from South Carolina is unfortunately, misinformed. He derives his information from the official website of the ESV publishers, Crossway. I, on the other hand, derive my information directly from the National Council of Churches, who do, indeed, own the copyright to the old RSV--the basis of the ESV--as can be clearly seen from the copyright page of the ESV itself where this is made perfectly clear. That a licensing fee must be paid for the use of copyright material is standard procedure in the publishing world. That Crossway has such a contract with the National Council of Churches has also been confirmed to me, as I have said, directly by the NCC themselves. Hence, Crossway does financially benefit the NCC.


Gene from U.S.A. (7/29/2005)

“Very True! --And A Clarification”
I contacted the Crossway ESV site by email. The responding associate editor stated that there are NO ongoing royalty payments involved. However, he did admit that Crossway "purchased from the NCC full rights to use the RSV in developing the ESV..." He did not state the amount of funds involved obviously, but considering the market size of this kind of project, it is probably safe to assume a tidy sum. Why would a supposedly conservative translation group seek a translation source from the most rank liberal organization in the country? Dr. Letis makes the point that secular corporate ownership of the Bible translation business is a factor. It's hard to disagree….

-----------

I apologise, BJ, for remarking negatively about your primary translation. It's just that these textual issues are so important to some of us.

Steve

 

[BuddyOfDavidClarkson]

Amen! I'd be embarrassed to preach from anything other than the NASB and constantly have to point out poor renderings. By the time you straighten up all the other versions, you have the NASB.

My pastor has preached all his life from the NASB. I have taught all my life from the NASB. MacArthur favors the NASB.

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by larryjf
That's why the Hebrew texts are generally Diplomatic Editions as opposed to Eclectic Editions as we find in the NT texts.

And it doesn't really speak to the fact that the NASB and ESV do use different underlying texts for both the OT and NT.

If the NASB doesn't plan to have a revision after the next generation of texts it may go by the way-side.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by larryjf]

Actually, I think it does speak to the issue. Fewer variants in Hebrew mean fewer variants in English. Be that as it may, NASB is absolutely of no value whatsoever from the pulpit in my opinion. It has its uses in translation for study, but its overly wooden style doomed it as a popular English version.

I have seen several preachers, including my current pastor, preach quite effectively using the NASB. It is certainly better than the dumbed down NIV where the pastor has to, almost on a weekly basis, point out poor renderings.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[beej6]

Steve, I don't accept your apology, not because I'm hard-headed, but because it's not necessary <smile>. I'll grant your point to the spellings, simply because I'm no expert on textual criticism, but you can rest assured that at least this poor layman's confidence in Jesus' genealogy is not shaken by either spelling <grin>.

David, is Sproul preaching from the NASB? I could have sworn he preaches from the ESV. Not that that matters in the long run - my pastor preached from the NASB and that's fine. I find it less graceful than the NKJV which I was "raised" on (all ten years ago now).

 

[nicnap]

This is in jest (sort of)...for those who advocate the CT....isn't it great that you all have to look forward to finding "more" of God's Word so you all can look for the revised versions of your "new fangled" translations? ...just thought I would stir the pot and then go back to my usual lurking.

Score a cheap one for the TR guys.

 

[beej6]

ah ha Nick!

 

[nicnap]

Though....

I am a TR guy; I just don't do much debate about it here...Steve (a.k.a. Jerusalem Blade) does a splendid job.

Ok, back to lurking.