The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version

Status
Not open for further replies.

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I would be interested to know if "churches" which authorise a particular version are also prepared to call it "the very word of God," or does their authorisation include the reservation to disagree with the text and interpretation of "the Bible?"
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks...I have Zeolla's book, but wasn't there someone out of Southeastern Seminary who was apart of a MT translation? I wish I could remember his name...

Robinson

Robinson is currently Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina.

The New Testament in the Original Greek
by Maurice A. Robinson (Author), William G. Pierpont (Author)

Robinson and Pierpont have applied many of the same methods of textual criticism to their task, but without the anti-Byzantine bias. Their method of "reasoned transmissionalism" is based on the wider scope of manuscript transmission throughout history. The preface of this edition explains the basic method by which the present editors have arrived at their basic text. The appendix contains Robinson's essay, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," which presents a rationale for and defense of the theory and methodology that has been applied in the preparation of this edition.

Robinson is no KJV only guy. The AV only folks chide him for having just as provisional and indefinite of a text as they claim the CT to be.
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Robinson

Robinson is currently Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina.

The New Testament in the Original Greek
by Maurice A. Robinson (Author), William G. Pierpont (Author)

Robinson and Pierpont have applied many of the same methods of textual criticism to their task, but without the anti-Byzantine bias. Their method of "reasoned transmissionalism" is based on the wider scope of manuscript transmission throughout history. The preface of this edition explains the basic method by which the present editors have arrived at their basic text. The appendix contains Robinson's essay, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," which presents a rationale for and defense of the theory and methodology that has been applied in the preparation of this edition.

Robinson is no KJV only guy. The AV only folks chide him for having just as provisional and indefinite of a text as they claim the CT to be.

Thanks...I knew there was a guy from Southeastern, but I was thinking of Hodges, for some reason - and I knew that he was not from Southeastern.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
There are only two translations: the TR (Received Text) or the Critical Text.

The former is from the Church and the latter is from outside the Church.

With all due respect...this is (and I wish I could find a friendlier word) naive.

The TR comes to us from Erasmus...AKA the Roman Catholic Church in the same century as its final apostasy (Council of Trent).

The KJV is 80% the Tyndal translation which was not a 'work of the church'. It was a work of that brilliant reformer William Tyndale working outside the auspices of the church (indeed he was hunted down as a criminal by the agents of the church for daring to translate the Bible into English).

It was the same institutional 'church' that was behind the KJV as was behind the RV.

The argument of the TR and its translations being works of the church versus modern versions and their non-church or secular origin rests on a tenuous foundation at best.

Regarding copyrights on translations, I despise them though they are a reality. The KJV was copywritten by the crown (and still is in Great Britian if my memory serves me). In the 17th Century, one of the tricks printers used to get around paying royalties to the crown was to publish the KJV as a 'commentary' by printing the Bible with study notes at the bottom of the page (commentaries were excepted from the copyright even if they contained the entirety of the Scripture). Those who purchased these would often have the bottom portion containing the notes cut off when they went to have their bibles bound (back then you bought the pages and took them to a binder to complete it).


This pertains to the history of the KJV, I am not talking about that, you misread my post.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Vulgate

All hail the Vulgate!
I know this was not said seriously, but wasn't the Vulgate the Bible of the Western Church for a thousand years. Don't we, therefore, have an obligation to take seriously the textual tradition St. Jerome used in making his translation?
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
Gil, Robert's arguments are weighty. In addition, almost every single manuscript that makes up either the TR or the CT had its origin in the church. Monks copied most of these manuscripts. Besides, you don't think that the scores of churches that have ordered and have an official translation in their church have spoken on this issue? Tenth Presbyterian Church, for instance, officially switched to the ESV, and even issued statements about it, officially endorsed by their session. Now, unless all church endorsements have to be from the entire denomination, then Tenth's position is clear and authoritative, as a church is authoritative. Besides, most if not all denominations in NAPARC have not made the KJV their official translation, either. So they haven't officially endorsed the KJV. I know that yours hasn't. Neither has the PCA or OPC.


Did Tenth Presbyterian Church order the ESV to be made and this within as a denomination (PCA)?

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 08:10:38 EST-----

MacArthur's elders have a doctrinal statement

The following is a study our elders at Grace Community Church put together regarding the King James Version.
Pulpit Magazine Blog Archive A Short KJV Detour (Part 1)
Pulpit Magazine Blog Archive A Short KJV Detour (Part 2)
Pulpit Magazine Blog Archive A Short KJV Detour (Part 3)
Pulpit Magazine Blog Archive A Short KJV Detour (Part 4)

In it, they list five options for understanding:

1. ”King James only”

2. “Majority Text only”

3. “Thorough going eclectic”

4. “Westcott Hort”

5. “Balanced eclectic”

They reject the "thorough going eclectic" as the provenance of liberal scholars. Option 4 they associate with many modern conservatives. After examining the arguments for #1 and #2, they come down on the side of the "Balanced eclectic" and reject the claims of KJV-only advocates as untrue.

The fifth approach to the problem of textual variation is the position actually espoused by many conservative theologians. This “balanced eclectic” approach holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias as to which manuscript family is most authoritative. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. This school basically suggests that each textual variant be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.

In the four articles, the elders of Grace Community Church examine nine of the arguments used by KJV only and Majority Text only advocates and offering their own responses.

Advocates of the “King James only” and the “Majority Text only” positions on the issue of textual variation have argued forcibly for their stance and have also sought to refute the Westcott Hort theory. The following summaries accurately portray frequently used arguments championing the King James Authorized Version of the Bible. Responses to each argument are presented from the “balanced eclectic” approach, held by the elders of Grace Community Church.

I don't know, Gill, but I would think that Grace Community is a real church and has taken a genuine pro-CT position, even supplying supporting arguments.

As I have suggested in other threads, the arguments for the majority text have dislodged my assumptions regarding the intrinsic superiority of the Alexandrian mss. However, it is a long way from admitting that the Alexandrian mss. have problems to suggesting that only the TR is the Word of God.

In the English language the Lord has seen fit to use the KJV, ASV, NIV, LB, NLT, CEV, NAS, RSV, ESV, HCSB, NKJV, etc. to bring people to himself.

Regarding your last point, Who in this thread is saying or "suggesting" that the TR is only the Word of God?

Tell me, Did Grace Community Church order the 1977 NASB (Pastor John MacArthur Bible) to be composed/made?
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
"In May 1946 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland received an overture form the Presbytery of Sterling and Dunblane, where it had been initiated by the Reverend G. S. Hendry, recommended that a translation of the Bible be made in the langage of the present day,..." The Preface to the New English Bible
Thus the Church was involved in bringing one translation, The New English Bible, into being and it ranks as one of the worst options available.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Gil,

Fair enough about the TR as the only Word of God comment. It has sometimes "sounded" to me as if KJV only advocates are suggesting that anything else is somehow not the Word of God. Your point is well taken, however.

Certainly Piper, 10th Presbyterian, Piper's church leadership, etc. have "endorsed" the work of translators (all churchmen) who worked cooperatively on the project of translating the Bible into idiomatic English using something OTHER than the TR (or the MT for that matter!).

I would be happy to discuss the issue differently if it were even possible to put this genie back in the bottle. However, at this point, we are blessed/cursed with a plethora of translations and no prospect of reversing that clock.

Besides, the efforts of an independent scholar like Erasmus to create a "critical text" using six late Byzantine mss. that were later codified and utilized by independent Luther to produce his German Bible, by a group to make the Geneva Bible, and by a team to translate the KJV and that of teams of scholars producing the HCSB, ESV, etc. using a "critical text" consisting of 5,700+ mss. may differ in scope and scale, but not in whether one is "inside" and the other "outside" the church.

I fail to get the church vs. non-church argument.

And, if we are speaking of Reformed luminaries, an unbroken chain of them (including Owen) felt free to correct the KJV when the textual evidence seemed to warrant it.
 
Last edited:

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
Dennis,

Who are these "translators (all churchmen) who worked cooperatively on the project of translating the Bible into idiomatic English?"

Good point, I would like to know who are these men or women (you never know, the NIV) who worked on the ESV?

Anyone?
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
ESV Translators

“The ESV publishing team includes more than a hundred people. The fourteen-member Translation Oversight Committee has benefited from the work of fifty biblical experts serving as Translation Review Scholars and from the comments of the more than fifty members of the Advisory Council, all of which has been carried out under the auspices of the Good News Publishers Board of Directors. This hundred-member team, which shares a common commitment to the truth of God's Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy, is international in scope and includes leaders in many denominations.” (ESV Preface.)
Translation Oversight Committee

1. Dr. Clifford John Collins, OT Chairman. Associate Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary; S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.Div., Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary; Ph.D., University of Liverpool.
2. Dr. Lane T. Dennis, Publishing Chairman. President, Good News Publishers-Crossway Books; B.S., Northern Illinois University; M.Div., McCormick Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Northwestern University.
3. Dr. Wayne A. Grudem. Professor and Chairman, Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; B.A., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Cambridge.
4. Dr. Paul R. House, OT Associate Chairman. Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry; B.A., Southwest Baptist University; M.A., University of Missouri-Columbia; M.Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
5. Dr. R. Kent Hughes. Senior Pastor, College Church in Wheaton; B.A., Whittier College; M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary; D.Min., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
6. Dr. Robert H. Mounce, NT Associate Chairman. President Emeritus, Whitworth College; B.A., University of Washington; B.D., Fuller Theological Seminary; Th.M., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
7. Dr. William D. Mounce, NT Chairman. Professor of New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; B.A., Bethel College; M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
8. Dr. J. I. Packer, ESV General Editor. Board of Governors and Professor of Theology, Regent College (Vancouver, BC); B.A., Oxford University; M.A., Oxford University; D.Phil., Oxford University.
9. Dr. Leland Ryken, Literary Chairman. Professor of English, Wheaton College; B.A., Central College; Ph.D., University of Oregon.
10. Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress. Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.S., California Institute of Technology; Ph.D., Harvard University; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Litt., University of Cambridge; D.Th., University of Stellenbosch.
11. Dr. Gordon Wenham, OT Associate Chairman. Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies, The College of St. Paul and St. Mary (Cheltenham, England); B.A., Cambridge University; M.A., Cambridge University; Ph.D., King's College, London University.
12. Dr. Bruce Winter. Warden, Tyndale House (Cambridge, England); B. A., University of Queensland; M.Theo., SEA Graduate School; Ph.D., Macquarie University.

Adjunct Members.

13. Rev. David Jones, ESV Associate Editor. Good News Publishers-Crossway Books.
14. Rev. E. Marvin Padgett. Vice President, Editorial, Good News Publishers-Crossway Books.

ESV Translation Review Scholars

1. Dr. T. D. Alexander. Director of the Christian Training Centre, Union Theological College Belfast; B.A., The Queen's University of Belfast; Ph.D., The Queen's University of Belfast.
2. Dr. Clinton E. Arnold. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Talbot School of Theology; B.A., Biola University; M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
3. Dr. William D. Barrick. Professor of Old Testament, The Master's Seminary; B.A., Denver Baptist Bible College; M.Div., San Francisco Theological Seminary; Th.M., San Francisco Theological Seminary; Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary.
4. Dr. Hans F. Bayer. Associate Professor of New Testament, Covenant Seminary; M.A., Ashland Theological Seminary; M.Div., Ashland Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
5. Dr. Gregory Beale. Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College; B.A., Southern Methodist University; M.A., Southern Methodist University; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
6. Dr. Ronald Bergey. Professeur d'Hébreu et d'Ancient Testament, Faculté libre de Théologie réformée Aix-en-Provence, France; B.S., Philadelphia College of Bible; M.A., Jerusalem University; Ph.D., Dropsie University.
7. Dr. Daniel I. Block. John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; B.Ed., University of Saskatchewan; B.A., University of Saskatchewan; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Liverpool.
8. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg. Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary; B.A., Augustana College; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
9. Dr. Darrell L. Bock. Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary; B.A., University of Texas at Austin; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
10. Dr. Irvin A. Busenitz. Vice President for Academic Administration, Professor of Bible Exposition and Old Testament, The Master's Seminary; B.A., Grace College of the Bible; M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary; Th.M., Talbot Theological Seminary; Th.D., Grace Theological Seminary.
11. Mr. Edward E. Chandler. Ph.D. (cand.) Catholic University of America; M. Div., Covenant Seminary.
12. Dr. Daniel L. Gard. Dean of Graduate Studies, Concordia Theological Seminary; B.A., Carthage College; M.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary; M.A., University of Notre Dame; Ph.D., University of Notre Dame.
13. Dr. Robert P. Gordon. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge University; M.A., Cambridge University; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
14. Dr. Gene L. Green. Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College; B.A., Wheaton College; M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
15. Dr. Michael Grisanti. Associate Professor of Old Testament, The Master's Seminary; B.A., Pillsbury Baptist Bible College; M.Div., Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Central Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary.
16. Dr. George H. Guthrie. Associate Professor of Christian Studies, Union University; B.A., Union University; M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
17. Dr. Scott J. Hafemann. Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Wheaton College; B.A., Bethel College; M.A., Fuller Theological Seminary; Dr. Theol., University of Tübingen.
18. Dr. Charles D. Harvey. [current position not on file]; B.A., Taylor University; M.Div., Reformed Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Edinburgh.
19. Dr. Richard S. Hess. Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary; B.A., Wheaton College; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Th.M., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College.
20. Dr. Harold W. Hoehner. Senior Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary; B.A., Barrington College; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
21. Dr. David M. Howard, Jr. Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; B.S., Geneva College; M.A., Wheaton College; Ph.D., University of Michigan.
22. Dr. Gordon P. Hugenberger. Senior Pastor, Park Street Church, Boston, MA; B.A., Harvard University; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Ph.D., College of St. Paul and St. Mary.
23. Dr. Philip Johnston. Professor of Old Testament, Wycliff Hall, UK; B.A., University of Cambridge; B.D., Queen's University, Belfast; M.Th., Queen's University, Belfast; Ph.D., University of Cambridge.
24. Dr. Reggie McReynolds Kidd. Associate Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL; B.A., College of William and Mary; M.A.R., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Duke University.
25. Dr. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi. Professor of Old Testament, Tokyo Christian University; B.A., Tokyo University of Foreign Studies; Ph.D., The Council for National Academic Awards.
26. Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger. Associate Professor of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Mag. et Dr. rer. soc. oec., Vienna University of Economics; M.Div., Columbia Biblical Seminary; Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
27. Dr. V. Philips Long. Professor of Old Testament, Regent College; B.A., Wheaton College; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
28. Dr. Ernest Lucas. Professor of Old Testament, Bristol Baptist College; M.A., Regent's Park College; Ph.D., University of Liverpool.
29. Dr. Dennis R. Magary. Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; B.A., Fort Wayne Bible College; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; M.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
30. Dr. Walter A. Maier, III. Professor of Old Testament, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana; B.A., Concordia College; M.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary; M.A., Harvard University; Ph.D., Harvard University.
31. Dr. J. Gordon McConville. Professor of Old Testament, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education; B.A., Cambridge University; M.A., University of Edinburgh; Ph.D., The Queen's University of Belfast.
32. Dr. Christopher Mitchell. Theological Editor, Concordia Publishing House; B.S., University of Wisconsin-Madison; M.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison; M.Div., Concordia Seminary; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
33. Dr. Leon Morris. Former Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia; B.Sc., Sydney University; Th.L., Australian College of Theology; B.D., London University; M.Th., [university not on file]; Th.D., Cambridge University.
34. Dr. Russell Nelson. Professor of Religious Studies, Concordia University College of Alberta; B.A., Concordia Senior College; M.Div., Concordia Seminary in Exile, St. Louis; Ph.D., Harvard University.
35. Dr. Raymond Ortlund, Jr. Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, GA; B.A., Wheaton College; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; M.A., University of California-Berkeley; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.
36. Dr. Douglas A. Oss. Pastor, Capital Christian Center, Salt Lake City, UT; B.A., Western Washington University; M.Div., Assemblies of God Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary.
37. Dr. John N. Oswalt. Research Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary; B.A., Taylor University; B.D., Asbury Theological Seminary; Th.M., Asbury Theological Seminary; M.A., Brandeis University; Ph.D., Brandeis University.
38. Dr. Iain Provan. Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies, Regent College; B.A., London Bible College; M.A., Glasgow University; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
39. Dr. Paul R. Raabe. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO; B.S., Concordia Teachers College; M.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary; M.A., Washington University; Ph.D., University of Michigan.
40. Dr. Thomas Renz. Professor of Old Testament, Oak Hill Theological College-London, UK; M.Div. (equivalent), Freie Theologische Akademie, Giessen, Germany; Ph.D., Bristol University.
41. Mr. Max Rogland. Ph.D. (cand.) Leiden University; B.A., B.Mus., University of Washington; M.Div., Covenant Theological Seminary.
42. Dr. Allen Ross. Former Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry; Th.D., Dallas Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
43. Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner. Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; B.S., Western Oregon University; M.Div., Western Conservative Baptist Seminary; Th.M., Western Conservative Baptist Seminary; Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary.
44. Dr. Moises Silva. Professor of New Testament Studies, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; B.A., Bob Jones University; B.D., Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Manchester.
45. Dr. Frank S. Thielman. Associate Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School; B.A., Wheaton College; B.A., Cambridge University; M.A., Cambridge University; Ph.D., Duke University.
46. Dr. Willem A. VanGemeren. Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies, Director of the Ph.D. in Theological Studies, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Diploma, Moody Bible Institute; B.A., University of Illinois, Chicago; B.D., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.A., University of Wisconsin; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin.
47. Dr. James W. Voelz. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary; A.A., Concordia College; B.A., Concordia Senior College; M.Div, Concordia Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University.
48. Dr. Dean O. Wenthe. President, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN; B.A., Concordia Senior College; M.A., University of Notre Dame; M.Div., Concordia Seminary; Th.M., Princeton Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Notre Dame.
49. Dr. Walter W. Wessel. Former Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary-West; B.A., UCLA; M.A., UCLA; Ph.D., University of Edinburgh.
50. Dr. Robert W. Yarbrough. Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; B.A., Southwest Baptist College; M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.

Advisory Council

1. Rev. Eric J. Alexander. Retired Pastor, St. George's-Tron Parish Church, Scotland, UK.
2. Dr. Don H. Argue. President, Northwest College, Kirkland, WA.
3. Dr. Hudson T. Armerding. President Emeritus, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL.
4. Dr. S. M. Baugh. Associate Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA.
5. Rev. Alistair Begg. Senior Pastor, Parkside Church, Bainbridge, OH.
6. The Rt. Rev. Bishop Wallace Benn. Bishop of Lewes, Church of England, Eastbourne, UK.
7. Dr. Harold O. J. Brown. Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
8. Lady Elizabeth Catherwood. Editor, London, UK.
9. Sir Fred Catherwood. President, Evangelical Alliance, London, UK.
10. Dr. Bryan Chapell. President, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO.
11. Dr. Edmund P. Clowney. President Emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA.
12. Dr. Jack Cottrell. Professor of Theology, Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Cincinnati, OH.
13. Dr. Jack Deere. President, Evangelical Foundation Ministries, Dallas, TX.
14. Rev. Jon M. Dennis. Associate Pastor, Holy Trinity Church, Hyde Park, Chicago, IL.
15. Dr. Ajith Fernando. National Director, Youth for Christ, Sri Lanka.
16. Rev. Dr. Paul Gardner. Vicar, St. Johns Church, Hartford, UK.
17. Dr. Timothy George. Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Birmingham, AL.
18. Dr. Scott J. Hafemann. Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL.
19. Rev. David Helm. Senior Pastor, Holy Trinity Church, Chicago, IL.
20. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry. Theologian and Founding Editor of Christianity Today, Watertown, WI.
21. Rev. Todd Hunter. National Director, Association of Vineyard Churches, USA, Anaheim, CA.
22. Dr. W. Bingham Hunter. Sr. Vice President for Education and Academic Dean, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
23. Rev. Phillip D. Jensen. Rector, St. Matthias Church, Sydney, Australia.
24. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Former Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
25. Dr. Kenneth Kantzer. Dean Emeritus and Distinguished Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
26. Dr. Robert Lewis. Teaching Pastor, Fellowship Bible Church, Little Rock, AR.
27. Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer. Pastor, Moody Church, Chicago, IL.
28. Rev. Ranald Macaulay. L'Abri Fellowship, Cambridge, UK.
29. Mrs. Susan Schaeffer Macaulay. L'Abri Fellowship, Cambridge, UK.
30. Dr. Dennis R. Magary. Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
31. Dr. Walter A. Maier III. Professor of Old Testament, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN.
32. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.
33. Dr. Joel H. Nederhood. Director of Ministries Emeritus, Back to God Hour, Grand Rapids, MI.
34. Rev. Raymond C. Ortlund. President, Renewal Ministries, Newport Beach, CA.
35. Dr. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, GA.
36. Dr. Douglas A. Oss. Pastor, Capital Christian Center, Salt Lake City, UT.
37. Dr. John N. Oswalt. Research Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Jackson, MS.
38. Dr. Dorothy Kelley Patterson. Assistant Professor of Women's Studies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC.
39. Dr. Paige Patterson. President, Southern Baptist Convention; President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC.
40. Dr. David Peterson. Principal, Oak Hill College, London, UK.
41. Dr. John Piper. Senior Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN.
42. Dr. Robert S. Ricker. President, Baptist General Conference, Arlington Heights, IL.
43. Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner. Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.
44. Dr. J. Julius Scott, Jr. Professor of Biblical and Historical Studies, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL.
45. Dr. R. C. Sproul. Chairman, Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL.
46. Dr. Joseph M. Stowell. President, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL.
47. Dr. Mark R. Talbot. Associate Professor of Philosophy, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL.
48. Dr. Willem A. VanGemeren. Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
49. Dr. John F. Walvoord. Chancellor, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX.
50. Dr. Gregory Waybright. President, Trinity International University, Deerfield, IL.
51. Dr. Luder G. Whitlock. President, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS.
52. Dr. Tetsunao Yamamori. President, Food for the Hungry, Scottsdale, AZ.
53. Dr. Robert W. Yarbrough. Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
54. Rev. John W. Yates II. Rector, The Falls Church, Falls Church, VA.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Broadman & Holman Editorial Team



Edwin A. Blum
General Editor/Translator; Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Basel; additional study, Rice University

Trent Butler
Editor/translator; B.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Vanderbilt University
Joshua

E. Ray Clendenen
Associate general editor/translator; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; M.A., Dropsie University; Ph.D., University of Texas at Arlington
Haggai, Malachi

Garry Fulton
Stylist; B.A., M.A., The Criswell College

Sheila E. Moss
Stylist; B.A., Trevecca Nazarene University; M.Ed., Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

David R. Shepherd
Executive Editor/Stylist; Publisher, Broadman & Holman; B.A., David Lipscomb University

David K. Stabnow
Old Testament editor/translator; M.Div., Bethel Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Lloyd W. Mullens
Managing Editor; B.A. Belmont University; additional studies, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary



Other Editors

Todd Beall
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Capital Bible Seminary; Th.M., Capital Bible Seminary; Ph.D., The Catholic University of America
Isaiah 36 - 66

Robert Bergen
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Hannibal-LaGrange College; M.Div., Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Samuel

Frank Carmical
Editor/Stylist; Founder & Evangelist for Harvester Ministries; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary

James Davis
Editor/Translator; M.Div., Th.M., Capital Bible Seminary; Ph.D. candidate, Dallas Theological Seminary

Barrett Duke
Vice-President of Research, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; M.A., Denver Seminary; Ph.D., Iliff School of Theology
Ezra

Joe A. Friberg
Old Testament editor/translator; B.S., The University of Texas at Austin; M.A., The University of Texas at Arlington; M.A. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Duane Garrett
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Baylor University
Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Hosea

Richard Hess
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Denver Seminary; M.Div., Th.M., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Exodus 22 - 40

Harold R. Holmyard
Old Testament editor/translator; Th.M., Grace Theological Seminary; Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary

David M. Howard
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament, Bethel Seminary; M.A., Wheaton College; Ph.D., University of Michigan

Tremper Longman III
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament, Westmont College; Ph.D., Yale University

Eugene H. Merrill
Old Testament editor/translator; Distinguished Professor of Old Testament studies, Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D. Columbia University; Ph.D. Bob Jones University

Calvin Miller
English Stylist; professor of Homiletics, Beeson Divinity School; M.Div., D.Min., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary


Frances Mosher
English stylist/secretary; B.S., The University of North Texas; additional studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

John Perry
English Stylist; B.A. cum laude, Vanderbilt University; additional studies, University College, Oxford, England

James Price
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Temple Baptist Seminary (Chattanooga, Tennessee); M.Div., Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dropsie University
2 Chronicles

Mark Rooker
Old Testament editor/translator; Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; M.A., Ph.D., Brandeis University
Leviticus

Joe M. Sprinkle
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Toccoa Falls College; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; M.Phil., Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Genesis 1 - 27

Kevin R. Warstler
Old Testament editor/translator; Th.M., Ph.D. candidate, Dallas Theological Seminary

R. Gregg Watson
Old testament editor; pastor, Brandon, Texas; M.Div., Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Marianne Wilson
English stylist/secretary; A. A., San Jacinto College; B.S., Southwestern College



Old Testament Translators

Martin Abegg
Director, Dead Sea Scrolls Institute & Associate Professor and Chair Religious Studies, Trinity Western University (Langley, British Columbia); M.Div., Northwest Baptist Seminary; M.Phil., Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Jeremiah 1 - 28

James Allman
Professor of Bible, Theology, & Biblical Languages, Crichton College; Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
Psalms 52 - 101

Stephen J. Andrews
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Phil., Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Zephaniah

Richard Averbeck
Professor of Old Testament & Semitics, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; M.Div., M.A., Grace Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dropsie College
Numbers 18 - 36

Bryan Beyer
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Columbia Bible College; M.Div., Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Jeremiah 29 - 52

Roy Brown
Retired professor of physics; programmer for Accordance; Ph.D., Baylor University (Physics); Post Doctoral Studies, Technion Israel Institute (Haifa)
Joshua

Hassell Bullock
Professor of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Ezekiel 1 - 25

Rick Byargeon
Pastor, Temple Baptist Church, Ruston, LA; M.Div., Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Ecclesiastes

Stephen Carlson
Lifeway Christian Resources; M.Div., Ph.D., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
Habakkuk

Rodney Cloud
Professor of Old Testament emeritus, David Lipscomb University; M.A., Harding Graduate School of Religion; M.A., Peabody College; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College

Dennis Cole
Professor of Biblical Archaeology, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Th.M., Western Convservative Baptist Seminary; Th.D., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Numbers 1 - 17

Jack Collins
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Covenant Theological Seminary; M.Div., Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary; Ph.D., University of Liverpool
Psalms 102 - 150

Iain Duguid
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Westminster Theological Seminary (Escondido, California); Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia); Ph.D., Cambridge University
Ezekiel 26 - 48

Archie England
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, North Greenville College; M.Div., Ph.D., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
Nehemiah


Art Farstad
HCSB project founder and first general editor (deceased); Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary

Alan Groves
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary; Ph.D. candidate, Free University of Amsterdam
Judges 1 - 21

Larry Helyer
Professor of Biblical Studies, Taylor University; M.Div., Western Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
2 Samuel

Paul House
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry; M.A., University of Missouri-Columbia; M.Div., Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Additional studies: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, Jerusalem; The Whitefield Institute, England; Oxford University, England
2 Kings

Walt Kaiser
President & professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; M.A., Wheaton College; Ph.D., Brandeis University
Lamentations

Brian Kelly
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Canterbury College (Canterbury, England); M.Phil., Trinity College (Bristol); Ph.D., University of Bristol (England)
1 Chronicles

George Klein
Professor of Old Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dropsie College
Zechariah

Kirk Lowery
Associate Director, The Westminster Hebrew Institute, Westminster Theological Seminary; M.Div., Talbot Graduate School of Theology; M.A., Ph.D., UCLA
1 Kings

Karen Maticich
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, International School of Theology; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University
Ruth, Esther

Janice Meier
Editor, Adult Sunday School Ministry Department, Lifeway Christian Resources; M.Div., Th.D., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Psalms 1 - 51

Stephen Miller
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Ph.D., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
Daniel

Jeff Niehaus
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Harvard University
Job


Richard Patterson
Retired professor of Old Testament & Hebrew; M.Div., Northwest Baptist Seminary; Th.M., Talbot Theological Seminary; Ph.D., UCLA
Amos

Michael Rydelnik
Professor of Jewish Studies, Moody Bible Institute; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; D.Miss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Joel, Obadiah

John Sailhamer
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Western Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., UCLA
Genesis 28 - 50

Philip Satterthwaite
Professor of Biblical studies, Biblical Graduate School of Theology (Singapore); Ph.D., Manchester University (England)
Deuteronomy 1 - 34

Richard Schultz
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Wheaton College; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; M.A., Ph.D., Yale University
Isaiah 1 - 35

Gary Smith
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dropsie College
Micah

Doug Stuart
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Harvard University
Exodus 1 - 21

Paul Wright
Professor of Old Testament & Hebrew, Jerusalem University College; Ph.D., Hebrew Union College
Nahum


New Testament Translators

David Allen
Professor of Homiletics, Criswell College; M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Texas at Arlington
Hebrews 11 - 13

Lawrence Burks
Pastor, Grand Avenue Baptist Church, Gainesville, Texas; M.A., Texas Christian University; M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; D.Min., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Colossians

Stephen Carlson
See under Old Testament for vita
Ephesians

Thomas Edgar
Professor of New Testament Literature & Exegesis, Capital Bible Seminary; Th M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
Romans 1 - 13

Art Farstad
See under Old Testament for vita

Zane Hodges
Retired professor of New Testament & Greek, Dallas Theological Seminary; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary
Luke, John, James

Peter Johnston
Professor at Nairobi Evangelical Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Canterbury University (England)
Mark, Galatians, 1&2 Timothy, Philemon, 1&2 Peter

Richard Melick
Provost & professor of New Testament & Greek, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (Mill Valley, California); M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
2 Corinthians

Robert Wilkin
Founder & Executive Director of Grace Evangelical Society; Th.M., Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
John


New Testament Reviewers

Clinton Arnold
Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Director of Th.M. Program, Talbot School of Theology; M.Div., Talbot School of Theology; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen
Ephesians, Colossians

Craig Blomberg
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Denver Seminary; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen
Mark

Steve Cox
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Erskin Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Jude

Ken Easley
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Revelation

Gene Green
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Wheaton College; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen
2 Thessalonians

George Guthrie
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Union University; Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Hebrews

Brent Kinman
Pastor, Castle Rock, Colorado; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Cambridge University
1 Corinthians

Andreas Kostenberger
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
John

Boyd Luter
Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, Dean of Faculty and Professor of Biblical Studies, Criswell College; Th.M., Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
Galatians

Michael Martin
Associate academic dean and professor of New Testament interpretation, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Thessalonians

Robert Mounce
Retired professor (Bethel college and Seminary), dean (Western Kentucky University), and college president emeritus (Whitworth College); B.D., Th.M., Fuller Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen; D.D. Seattle Pacific University
Matthew

Stanley Porter
Research Professor in New Testament, School of Humanities and Cultural Studies, University of Surrey Roehampton, UK; M.A., Claremont Graduate School; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Sheffield
Acts


Thomas R. Schreiner
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Th.M., Western Conservative Baptist Seminary; Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
1&2 Timothy, Titus

Robert H. Stein
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; B.D., Fuller Theological Seminary; S.T.M., Andover Newton Theological School; Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary; Additional studies: University of Tübingen

Chris Thomas
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Church of God School of Theology; Ph.D., University of Sheffield (England)
James

Alan Tomlinson
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
2 Corinthians

Curtis Vaughan
Professor emeritus, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; M.Div., Th.D. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Romans

Paul Wolfe
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Criswell College; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen
1&2 Peter

Robert Yarbrough
Professor of New Testament & Greek, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; M.A., Wheaton College; Ph.D., University of Aberdeen
1, 2, 3 John
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
We got the following groups;

Adjunct Members

ESV Translation Review Scholars

Advisory Council

Who were the actual translators?

Better Yet, Who work in each book from the RSV to ESV?

Since, the ESV comes from the Revised Standard Version (RSV)?
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Gil,

I'm not trying to argue the piety or general scholarly accomplishments of the ESV or HCSB translators vs. those of the KJV. In my mind, that is not the issue.

Our discussion has to do more with the underlying texts of the Hebrew and Greek rather than the expertise of the linguists. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB are ALL examples of "literal" translations into English. While anyone can quibble with a rendering here or there (and an honest student will admit that there are times when his/her favorite translation does not handle a rendering to that person's liking), all four of these translations are competently translated and "faithful" to the "original" texts from which they are translated.

Our point of departure has to do with which text is the "oldest and most reliable" one and which is intended by God's providence to be the basis for our translation into English.

Some of us on the PB . . .
* Are convinced that the TR is THE best text from which to translate the NT.
* Are convinced that the CT is THE best text from which to translate the NT.
* Are convinced that the MT is THE best text from which to translate the NT.

Judging by my time on the PB, while some of us may move from one of these three camps to another in response to arguments, it is HIGHLY doubtful if we will ever reach a consensus on this board.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
We got the following groups;

Adjunct Members

ESV Translation Review Scholars

Advisory Council

Who were the actual translators?

Better Yet, Who work in each book from the RSV to ESV?

Since, the ESV comes from the Revised Standard Version (RSV)?

With respect to the ESV . . .

The ESV publishing team includes more than 100 people. The twelve-member Translation Oversight Committee has benefited from the work of more than fifty biblical experts serving as Translation Review Scholars and from the comments of more than fifty members of the Advisory Council, all of which has been carried out under the auspices of the Good News / Crossway Board of Directors.

Saying that the ESV "comes from the RSV" is both true and misleading. The scholars did not begin their work de novo with a blank piece of paper and a Hebrew OT and Greek NT. That is certainly true. But, neither did they simply clean up the style of the RSV either. Rather, they accepted the RSV as a draft and went at it with all of the expertise of the scholars involved in the translation.

In the OT, that meant that there were times when the ESV translators threw out the conjectural emendations of the RSV translators in favor of the traditional Hebrew text. In the NT, it meant coming freshly to disputes such as the translation of the hilaskomai word group, i.e., expiation vs. propitiation. Since their goal was to do a literal and traditional translation in the KJV/RSV tradition, it meant that many wordings would stay the same.

The primary difference between the KJV and the ESV, however, relates to the underlying manuscripts, not to the language. Since the 1611 effort, the majority of scholars of all stripes have come to value the Alexandrian manuscripts (especially Aleph and B) as the "oldest and most reliable" copies of the NT. Because of my own doubts about the persuasiveness of this contention, I am impressed with the readings in the vast majority (upwards of 95%) of manuscripts, but not limiting myself to the half dozen Erasmus used.

That is why my primary Bible these days is a Reformation Study Bible (NKJV) which identifies the variants from the TR as to the Nestle/UBS text and the Majority Byzantine tradition.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
According to this Introduction to the ESV Bible the ESV came from Tyndale's NT and the 1611 KJV and it took 500 yrs.

The ESV Story. Timeless. Trustworthy. True.

How long did it take to translate the ESV Bible?
Would you believe it took nearly 500 years to translate the ESV Bible? That’s because the ESV builds on the great translations of the past—including William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.

But the ESV Bible also builds on the best Christian scholarship of the last 100 years. The result is a fresh and compelling Bible translation with a timeless quality, that’s trustworthy and true.

That’s why the ESV “sounds like” the Bible—with the kind of beauty, clarity, and dignity that we love to hear and read. That’s also why the ESV retains the Bible’s rich imagery and theological words—words like grace and justification and salvation—that are essential to our faith.

The result is a Bible that conveys the timeless quality of God’s Word and that remains trustworthy and true to the original words breathed out by God. As Moses wrote more than 3,000 years ago, the words of God are “your very life, and by this word you shall live” (Deuteronomy 32:47).

I don not find anything regarding the RSV having been used as the background, hmmm :think:
 

ThomasCartwright

Puritan Board Freshman
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version

(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)

We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

1.) Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

2.) Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

3.) But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4.) Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance." Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning." All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5.) Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!

6.) The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.

(Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)

You could also have added some others. From the 19th century come voices of warning such as Howard Agnew Johnston about the hope of finding Biblical truth from men of the character of Westcott and Hort,

It is impossible to cut between a man’s general attitude toward the word of God and his critical theories. We can not fail to see that a rationalist who rejects miracle, prophecy and inspiration, would bring a purely naturalistic theory to an examination of the Scriptures. The historic fact is that the conspicuous leaders among the critics have been rationalists, and a delicate sensitiveness to the truth cannot be divested of the feeling that their theories are the product, not so much of an honest seeking for the truth, as of a desire to destroy the evangelical faith by the constraint involved in the claim of scientific scholarship……It is nothing less than absurd to expect a man who denies the possibility of the miracles recorded in the Old Testament, and who denies the possibility of an inspiration by which men were led to predict future events, to enter upon a study of the Old Testament history and literature without being destructive of the very foundation of faith in the Bible as the word of God. But just such men are the leaders of this critical development. It need not be argued here that evangelical Christians cannot expect light from such sources, nor need it be argued that we must guard the more earnestly against the subtle encroachments which the enemies of what we believe to be the saving truth of God would fain make upon our faith .

Archbishop Trent warned of the dangers of a revision,

Nothing is gained on the one hand by vague and general charges of inaccuracy brought against our Version; they require to be supported by detailed proofs. Nothing, on the other hand, is gained by charges and insinuations against those who urge a revision, as though they desired to undermine the foundations of the religious life and faith of England; were Socinians in disguise, or Papists— Socinians who hoped that, in another translation, the witness to the divinity of the Son and of the Spirit might prove less clear than in the present— Papists who desired that the authority of the English Scripture, the only Scripture accessible to the great body of the people, might be so shaken and rendered so doubtful, that men would be driven to their Church, and to its authority, as the only authority that remained.
Salomon Caesar Malan also spoke out in 1869,

To hear some people talk, one really would think wisdom and knowledge had come with them into the world; until, whether from conceit on their part or from their “scientific” discoveries, we shall soon have nothing left either of the old world or of our old faith…. It is, no doubt, easy to talk of revising the Authorised Version. But, besides that in this case, as in most others, it is best to let well alone, the simple truth is that there are not now in England enough men able either to revise the English Bible without making mere patchwork of it, or to translate afresh and equally well from the originals. Revisers or translators, first, need be masters of Hebrew. But where are now-a- days in England the Hebrew scholars of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries? Their works then written in Latin enlightened Europe, took the lead in European scholarship, and still are the treasure-house of knowledge to which all must come.

The chaplain to the king of England and keeper of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s records, Henry John Todd warned in 1819,

For when we see men of the most latitudinarian principles uniformly pressing forward this dangerous proposal; when we see the most unbounded panegyrics bestowed on those, who have converted the Mosaic history into allegory, and the New Testament into Socinianism; when we see these attempts studiously fostered, and applauded, by the advocates for this projected [Bible] revision; we must conjecture, that something more is meant than a correction of mistakes, or an improvement of diction. Those doctrines, the demolition of which we know to be, in late instances, the grand object of such innovators when they propose alterations in articles of faith, or correction of liturgical forms, are surely in still greater danger when attempted, by the same men, under the distant approaches of a revision of our English Bible.

The Quarterly Review, July, 1820 also rebukes those who undermined the Hebrew Scholarship of the Authorized Version translators and called for a new version,

Had this gentleman (meaning Mr. Bellamy) consulted any historical authority, or in the slightest degree investigated the characters of our translators, he would have found that many of them were celebrated Hebrew scholars, and could not have failed to perceive that the sacred language was at that time cultivated to a far greater extent in England than it has ever been since….. The turn which religious controversy took at the birth of the Reformation compelled all learned men to take their authorities from the inspired text, and not from a Romish version.—In the year 1540, King Henry the Eighth appointed regular Hebrew Professors, and the consequences of this measure were instantaneous. In Queen Elizabeth's reign no person who pretended to eminence as a learned man was ignorant of this language, and so very common did it become, that the ladies of noble families frequently made it one of their accomplishments.

Under Queen Elizabeth and King James, who were not only the patrons of learning by their institutions, but examples of it in their own persons, Hebrew literature prospered to a very great extent, and under the last of these monarchs attained its greatest splendour. The Universities, and all public bodies for the promotion of learning, flourished in an extraordinary degree, and at this happy juncture our translation was made. Every circumstance had been conspiring during the whole of the preceding century to extend the study of Hebrew. The attempts of the Papists to check the circulation of the translations, the zeal of the Protestants to expose the Vulgate errors, the novelty of theological speculations to society at large, and even the disputes of the Reformed Churches, gave an animated vigour to the study of the original Scriptures which has never since been witnessed.

Also, can we please stop positing this myth that the Reformed Confessions regarded the TR and the CT as the Word of God. Martin Luther sparked the Reformation on three pillars: faith, grace and Scripture. The final pillar of Sola Scriptura predicated the Bible as the only objective Protestant source of all authority available and was to be regarded as God’s last Words to mankind. It effectively dethroned the pope and the Church and enthroned the Bible. The Reformers were cognizant that the reason for the darkness of the Medieval Period was a result of the Roman Church losing sight of the true text in the original languages. They were also equally clear that the dissemination of the Received Text through the printed editions had sparked the Reformation and not the rise of nationalism, corruption in the Roman Church, or even the Renaissance. Since the autographs were not available the Reformers knew that we must have a reliable tradition or bridge of some sort which connects us to the original autographs. This bridge must be undergirded with faith in a God who controls the flow of all historical events through the true Church and not apostate autonomous textual critics. The Reformers looked to ecclesiastical consensus in textual issues in the same manner they had in Canonical, Trinitarian and Christological issues.

The leading Reformers rejected Rome’s tradition and its corrupted texts, and held fast to the Received Text readings, which they knew evoked the wrath of Satan and had triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture. Rome using a handful of copies in which numerous variants existed in an attempt to refute the principle of Sola Scriptura. The Reformers were well aware of the corruptions of the texts of Alexandria and regarded the variant readings in the minority texts as either intentional or inadvertent corruptions. The seventeenth century Confessions focused in on the doctrine of providential preservation, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Helveticus Consensus Formula, as a direct response to the attack of the Council of Trent on the Received Text. Despite the revisionist argument that Calvin and Beza had no other option but to use the Received Text, the facts are that they did have alternative options but deliberately rejected them. They may not have had the quantity of evidence, but they were aware of the diversity of the variant readings thrown up by the textual critics today. Instead, they chose the path of Sacred Criticism which simply studied the texts to see what was received by the Church through history rather that the “restoration” of the text by Enlightenment Criticism. They recognised that copies and editions differed because of variants, but trusted the Holy Spirit and the common faith of God’s people. Beza made it clear, “that he was very unwilling to amend the basic text and was interested largely in readings which confirmed it .”

So strictly did the Reformers see this issue of providential preservation through the “perpetual consensus of the Church universal” that in Geneva, Calvin refused to ordain a minister, Sebastian Castellio who, despite being orthodox in all other matters, rejected the Song of Solomon within the canon of Scripture. It is true, that unlike Luther, John Calvin did not initially uniformly base his readings on the text of Erasmus and “had an affinity for a renegade edition published by Simon de Colines (1534).” This text included a number of variant readings from critical text manuscripts and from Rome’s Complutensian . However, in later life Calvin rejected this view to return to the TR preferring the common readings by faith.

This denial of the historic and Biblical view of preservation is a new view in Reformed circles and has been popularized by leading Neo-Evangelical Dallas Theological Seminary professor, Daniel B. Wallace whose textual heroes includes “Jerome and Origen for their handling of the textual variants in the pursuit of truth” and who says, “the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture.” Ironically, Wallace fails to discern that this denial is itself a theological presupposition of his textual criticism, and thus a wholly self-defeating claim.

Despite the claims to the contrary here on PB, doctrines are affected by the CT/TR debate. Can we please have some common sense and basic scholarship before posting these puerile claims. The contemporary leading textual critic, Bart Ehrman accepts that doctrine has been affected by these variant readings,

Let me make one further comment about this whole matter of different manuscript readings…. The textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of many of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New Testament: the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, the prologue of the Fourth Gospel, the baptismal accounts of the Synoptics, the passion narratives, and other familiar passages in Acts, Paul, Hebrews, and the Catholic epistles. In some instances, the interpretations of these passages were understood by scribes who “read” their interpretations not only out of the text but actually into it, as they modified the words in accordance with what they were taken to mean…. Naturally, the same data relate to the basic doctrinal concerns of early Christians—theologians and, presumably, laypersons alike: Was Jesus the Messiah, predicted in the Old Testament? Was Joseph his father? Was Jesus born as a human? Was he tempted? Was he able to sin? Was he adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism? At his resurrection? Or was he himself God? Was Jesus one person or two persons? Did he have a physical body after his resurrection? And many others. The ways scribes answered these questions affected the way they transcribed their texts. And the way they transcribed their texts has affected, to some degree, the way modern exegetes and theologians have answered these questions .


The Unitarian, George Vance Smith who took part in the 1881 Revision boasted of some of these examples with the most devastating admission to those who promote the Westcott and Hort doctrine,

Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view; — in other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision. How far this assertion is correct, the careful reader of the foregoing pages will be able to judge for himself. To the writer any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case, for the following reasons:

(1) The only passage in the New Testament which seemed like a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, has been removed by the revisers as spurious.

(2) The sole Deity of the Father has been re-affirmed in a remarkable case in which the authorised version had singularly misrepresented the original words. 'The only God ' of John v. 44, affords evidence equally strong and clear with that of John xvii. 3, that the writer of this Gospel could not have intended to represent Jesus, the Christ, or Messiah, or even the Logos in him, as God in the same high sense of Infinite and Eternal Being in which He is so.

(3) The character of the baptismal formula is greatly altered by the simple substitution of the word 'into' for 'in' shewing us that there could never have been, as people have commonly supposed, any ecclesiastical magic in the phrase 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' seeing that this phrase is not to be found in the New Testament at all, and that the words simply express a change of mind, on the part of the convert, from disbelief or denial to the profession of the allegiance which constituted discipleship.

(4) One remarkable instance in which the epithet ' God ' was given to Christ (1 Tim. iii. 16) has been excluded from the text, and others of similar kind are admitted by the Revision to be uncertain.

(5) The only instance in the New Testament in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ

(6) The word “Atonement” disappears from the New Testament, and so do the connected phrases, ‘faith in his blood,’ and ‘for Christ's sake.’ These so commonly used expressions are shewn to be misrepresentations of the force of the original words, such alterations evidently throwing the most serious doubt upon the important popular doctrine of which they have hitherto been amain or indispensable support.

Daniel Wallace admits examples of doctrine that he is uncertain over because of variants,

I do think that there are many textual variants that need to be wrestled with so that we can know how to live and how to act. Should we fast as well as pray when performing exorcisms? Should women be silent in the churches or not? Is eternal security something that Christians have or not? Are we still under the OT law? How should church discipline be conducted—viz., should I address someone who has not sinned against me or am I allowed to confront only those who have sinned directly against me? These are issues that are directly affected by the textual variants and they require some serious thinking and wrestling with the data. So, I would say that to the extent that these variants do not represent the original text, to the same extent they are not what God intended.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
A. W. Pink observed,

The Papacy was shrewd enough to recognize that the authority of God’s Word must be undermined and its influence upon the nation weakened, before she had any hope of bringing it within her deadly toils. There is nothing she hates and dreads so much as the Bible, especially when it is circulated among the common people in their own tongue, as was clearly shown in the days of Queen Mary, of infamous memory. The organization of the Bible Societies, with their enormous output, was a rude shock to Rome, but she promptly countered it through “Modernism,” by discrediting the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The promulgation of the so-called "Higher Criticism" has done far more for the spread of infidelity among the masses than did the coarse blasphemies of Tom Paine; and it is among those who have no settled convictions that Rome wins most of her converts !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top