Surprised by the ESV

[Notthemama1984]

So I am reading the Lord's prayer in the ESV and notice that they leave off the ending in Matthew's account. They do not have anything in brackets. They do provide a note, but that is it.

Is it becoming customary for newer translations to simply omit questionable texts?

I had always thought brackets or italics was the customary way of pointing out problem texts.

 

[Skyler]

If it's a longer text (say, the ending of Mark), then sure. But if it's short enough to fit in the footnote, and the translators are pretty sure it's spurious, they probably leave it in the footnote. To be fair, that's hardly "omitting" it.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Maybe "omit" is too strong. I knew one or two word changes were usually footnoted, but was surprised that a 15 Greek word sentence was footnoted. That is why I was asking if the standard had been changed.

 

[Pilgrim]

In this case, the ESV very likely follows the RSV, a liberal version of which it is a light revision. The RSV dates from the '50's so it's not that new.

The NASB was more conservative in bracketing verses that the critical text omits and leaving more of them in the text. The RSV/ESV NIV and other modern translations will sometimes put whole verses in the margin, giving rise to a situation in which the text skips from say v. 38 to v. 40, putting v. 39 in the margin.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

Maybe "omit" is too strong. I knew one or two word changes were usually footnoted, but was surprised that a 15 Greek word sentence was footnoted. That is why I was asking if the standard had been changed.

It seems that there is no "standard." Every translation committee does what is right in their own eyes.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

It seems to me that those who are convinced that the traditional end of the Lord's Prayer is no part of scripture should likewise omit it from their public recitation of the Lord's Prayer in their worship services. I've seem one OPC church do this (reading it from the ESV) but that was the only time I've ever seen that.

 

[Marrow Man]

It seems to me that those who are convinced that the traditional end of the Lord's Prayer is no part of scripture should likewise omit it from their public recitation of the Lord's Prayer in their worship services. I've seem one OPC church do this (reading it from the ESV) but that was the only time I've ever seen that.

Just thinking out loud here: do most churches say "Our Father, which art in heaven" or "who are in heaven" (the former is KJV, the latter is in the RSV)? What about those that say "trespasses" instead of "debts" (the latter is in the KJV again; I'm not sure of the origin of former). Granted this is not the same thing as leaving off the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, but would these be viewed as "changes" by some? Probably not.

To answer your question, it could be argued that the OPC church in question was not being entirely confessional, since they were neglecting Q. 107 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I learned the KJV way and have always recited it that way.

 

[Pilgrim]

It seems to me that those who are convinced that the traditional end of the Lord's Prayer is no part of scripture should likewise omit it from their public recitation of the Lord's Prayer in their worship services. I've seem one OPC church do this (reading it from the ESV) but that was the only time I've ever seen that.

Just thinking out loud here: do most churches say "Our Father, which art in heaven" or "who are in heaven" (the former is KJV, the latter is in the RSV)? What about those that say "trespasses" instead of "debts" (the latter is in the KJV again; I'm not sure of the origin of former). Granted this is not the same thing as leaving off the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, but would these be viewed as "changes" by some? Probably not.

To answer your question, it could be argued that the OPC church in question was not being entirely confessional, since they were neglecting Q. 107 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

I don't know the percentage of those that would use "which art in heaven" vs. who. I've heard both. I too have wondered about "trespasses" instead of "debts." I grew up United Methodist and we always said "trespasses." I seem to recall the evangelical Wesleyan church I went to after my conversion saying "trespasses" too. Every Presbyterian church I've ever attended has said "debts" and I stumbled over it a good many times at first because of that. I don't think I've ever seen "trespass" in any widely used Bible translation and have wondered if the origin is in some old prayer book or book of church order. I've never been to an Anglican or Lutheran service so don't know if they say "trespasses" or "debts."

With regard to Q. 107 of the WSC, it would seem that an argument that omission of the sentence in question is unconfessional would also necessitate making the case for the use of the KJV in confessional churches, or at least a version like the NKJV that largely uses the TR as its textual basis. If it is unconfessional to omit "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" then why preach and teach from a Bible version like the ESV that puts it in the margin and thus by implication is itself "unconfessional?" The mainline liberals that produced and used the RSV rejected biblical authority to varying degrees, not to mention confessional authority, and repeated the old words because it was in their church order and was traditional. Changing the words then and now in the more liturgical liberal churches would no doubt elicit a much stronger response in many cases than would the preaching of rank heresy.

Interestingly, because so much of the language of the Standards reflects the KJV, the OPC printed the KJV text in their version of the Westminster Standards even though few OPC churches appear to use it on a regular basis.

 

[Skyler]

I always get mixed up when a congregation recites the Lord's Prayer because I never know if it will be "trespasses" or "debts".

 

[Peairtach]

Tim

Just thinking out loud here: do most churches say "Our Father, which art in heaven" or "who are in heaven" (the former is KJV, the latter is in the RSV)?

"who are in heaven" or "who is in heaven"? Is this a pointer to the Trinity? Probably not.

Chris

Every Presbyterian church I've ever attended has said "debts"

If they use "trespasses" their Episcopalian or worse.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It seems to me that those who are convinced that the traditional end of the Lord's Prayer is no part of scripture should likewise omit it from their public recitation of the Lord's Prayer in their worship services. I've seem one OPC church do this (reading it from the ESV) but that was the only time I've ever seen that.

Just thinking out loud here: do most churches say "Our Father, which art in heaven" or "who are in heaven" (the former is KJV, the latter is in the RSV)? What about those that say "trespasses" instead of "debts" (the latter is in the KJV again; I'm not sure of the origin of former). Granted this is not the same thing as leaving off the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, but would these be viewed as "changes" by some? Probably not.

To answer your question, it could be argued that the OPC church in question was not being entirely confessional, since they were neglecting Q. 107 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

You bring up an excellent point that I will start a new thread about since this is in translations/manuscripts.

 

[Peairtach]

1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer

Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.

[For thine is the kingdom,
the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.]
Amen.

Of course in the KJV the word "trespasses" is used to explain "debts" after the prayer.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.( Matt 6:9-15)

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. (Luke 11:2-4)

 

[Marrow Man]

"who are in heaven" or "who is in heaven"? Is this a pointer to the Trinity? Probably not.

I meant to say "who art in heaven". It is not (supposed to be) a pointer to the Trinity since only the Father is being addressed. With me, I somehow fell into the the habit of saying "who" instead of "which." To my (American) ear, "who" sounds more personal than "which."

 

[bookslover]

...it could be argued that the OPC church in question was not being entirely confessional, since they were neglecting Q. 107 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

If the biblical text is correct at this point and if the confession is wrong at this point, go with the biblical text. The Bible has authority over the confession.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I am not a big fan of the ESV because it is really just a rehash of the RSV, which was roundly rejected by conservative evangelicals for good reason. I think the only reason that so many reformed folk use it is because of the great people who were behind its creation and who continue to endorse it. I have a tremendous amount of respect for these people, however they are not God and are thus not infallable in thought or action. As far as the Lord's Prayer, it was originally written in Greek of course and so all translations are subject to the prejudices of the various translators involved. Even if you believe that the last part of the prayer isn't original, does it really alter the text? Since there is really no way to know with absolute certainty what is in the original, it seems that is does less harm to leave it in than to take it out because leaving it in increases the glory given to God while removing it diminishes it. Regardless, the ESV is still not nearly as bad as some other versions. I am including the Lord's Prayer as rendered in The Message to illustrate this point.

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Message =

 

[athanatos]

while removing it diminishes it.

Why would not having something that wasn't originally there... diminish His glory?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would agree that if it was not originally there, than it should be removed. Unfortunately, the science of textual criticism is far from exact and so we cannot be certain if it was in the original or not. My point was simply that it is more damaging to the text to remove something that was originally there than it is to add something that was not, provided that the addition is in full agreement with the passage and the whole testimony of scripture. Obviously adding the phrase "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever, amen." is completely in line with the meaning of both the immediate passage and the bible as a whole. Please understand that I am in no way advocating the addition of anything to scripture, I am simply saying that since we cannot be certain, it is better to leave it in.

 

[SolaGratia]

Here is an interesting article:

Is the Doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 a late addition?

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

This powerful doxology to the Lord's prayer has been falsely characterized as a late addition on the basis of just TWO manuscripts which are earlier by just ONE or a HALF century. The two earliest witnesses of Matthew 6:13, Sinaiticus (4th century) and Vaticanus (4th century), omit the doxology. The third earliest witness of Matthew 6:13, Codex Washingtonensis (4th/5th century) includes the doxology. Despite there being other witnesses testifying against the inclusion of the doxology, the earliest witness that does testify for its inclusion is predated by only two witnesses that are earlier by not even a full century. The doxology exists in the majority of Byzantine texts.

Codex Washingtonensis is housed at the Freer Gallery, Sackler Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. and the passage of the Lord's Prayer can be viewed at the website of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: Manuscript GA 032 - CSNTM

Since uncials can be difficult to read, a photograph of the leaf containing the Lord's Prayer has been reproduced here (for nonprofit educational fair use purposes) with the prayer underlined and the doxology in particular underlined in blue. The words of the Lord's Prayer in Codex Washingtonensis matches the words of the Textus Receptus word for word, letter by letter for the most part.




Please click on the image to see the full size view

John Chrysostom (347–407) expounded the doxology in his homily, Homily 19 on St. Matthew, at paragraph 10 [Download a PDF of the Lord's Prayer portion of the Homily HERE]. Surely, this 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople would have had earlier manuscripts than what we have today.

The omission of the doxology could be sufficiently explained as an early attempt to harmonize the prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 with another version of the Lord's prayer in Luke 11:2-4. If the doxology were added later, there should be versions of the prayer in Luke with the doxology. Such cannot be found in the body of manuscript evidence.

Sources:
Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006).
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_032/CodexW_016a.jpg)

Link: Is the Doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 a late addition? - King James Version Today

 

[matthew11v25]

The HCSB uses brackets, leaving many sections in the text (eg matt 6, end of mark, etc).

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ----------

in my opinion removing the verses from the text vs leaving them there with brackets is a big difference. For example, I think for many on a bible reading plan it is difference between reading the section or not reading it at all (my guess would be that most readers dont check the fine print at the bottom).

 

[jwithnell]

my guess would be that most readers dont check the fine print at the bottom

Since I don't know the original languages, I pay close attention to any notes regarding the translation of the text, particularly when there are difficulties.

 

[Philip]

What about those that say "trespasses" instead of "debts" (the latter is in the KJV again; I'm not sure of the origin of former).

Book of Common Prayer---most likely deriving from either Coverdale or the Bishops' Bible. Though the AV was the standard version of the Scriptures for the CofE after competing with the Geneva Bible up to the Civil War, the 1662 revision of the BCP continued to use older translations. At least in the case of the Psalms this was because the translation used was metrical, and thus ideal for singing (Anglican Chant is a form of music that continues to fascinate me).