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

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

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

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

Greetings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

CalvinandHodges,

What is your view on the NKJV?

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

HUH????? Are you saying Crossway Bibles and Goodnews Publishing is owned by the NCCUSA? I hope you're talkin' jibberish.

__________________
Bob Vigneault C.O.L, L.E., G.E, Dr.O.P., O.U.T.
The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog)
Deacon/Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Me. And since there are no MT translations available, I use the NKJV. I like the ESV a lot myself . . as a translation, that is . . I just prefer the MT to NA27 for presuppositional reasons.

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

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

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

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

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

__________________
Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
Members of Redeemer Church ARP, Blacksburg Va.
http://www.redeemerblacksburg.org/

I want to see that validated. I'm not buying the assertion. Show me.

Based on the RSV text

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

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

ESV copyright info:

Also see this:

__________________
Andrew

Source:

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

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

Hay:

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

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

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

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

Read this article and weep:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_90989211

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


Blessings,

-CH

It is my understanding that there is no relationship now. They ESV folks did pay the NCC to use the RSV, but after the initial deal there is no longer a relationship. Crossway purchased full rights to use the RSV. So although it did bring profit to the NCC originally, they no longer are tied to them.

I'm having a heard time following this argument over the loud clippety-clop of those hobby horses.

Do you mean the last several posts didn't answer your request?

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

I'm satisfied but I think brother Wieland is still trying to form an unholy alliance between the ESV and the NCCC. Thank you for the links and documentation.

Greetings:

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

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

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

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=41504103537

I think the comments on it are quite apropos.

Blessings,

-CH

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

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

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

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

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

No. Crossway owns the rights to the text."

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

From the article cited above:

So . . perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.

I agree, but not because the discussion has strayed from the OP, but because the OP sets up a false dilemma. One may hold to the superiority of the AV AND the Byzantine text-type.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Well, the RT and the MT are not the same thing -- as I'm sure you're aware. There are some like myself who prefer the MT to the RT.

Regrettably, yes, the MT and RT have been made opponents by modern scholars; whereas anyone willing to look at the issue carefully will observe that the MT is merely ms. evidence which bears witness to the RT, the ecclesiastical text. It is only the crude notion of making a witness a judge, which leads to the absurd situation created by modern scholars. Whereas the traditional reformed position is, that the church has the spiritual ability to discern the Scriptures. William Perkins: "hence we may gather that the church of God hath a gift to discern scripture from that which is no scripture." (Revelation, 265.)

There are variants in the RT that aren't supported by the MT (ecclesiastical text). That's all I'm saying. What is it about this that's "absurd"?

There seems to be some confusion in terminology. The MT is the majority text as contained in the Byzantine family of mss. It is merely ms. evidence. The ecclesiastical text is the text received by the church through the ages. The one is witness, and the other is judge. It is absurd to make one witness the sole witness and ultimate judge of the matter.

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

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

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

Oh no. Not Theodore Letis.

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

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

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard, Husband of Danielle since 7/11/09 (I married up!)
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
MEMBER: Wallace PCA in College Park, MD as of 10/18/09
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
Now announcing: Life | Doctrine | Music - join the message board now! Site launch with streaming radio coming in 11/09!

Greetings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

-CH

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

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Mr. Wieland's signature line, shall we say, Ironic?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

In Essentials unity?

Blessings,

-CH

Why would you say God and the Church reject it. If God rejected it why is it here? If the Church rejected it, why are many churches using it today?

As far as questioning and changing the Word of God, couldn't the same thing be said of the KJV? Wasn't that version a change from previous versions? And didn't it add question to the Word of God through its marginal readings?

Hating the ESV is essential?

CT

So now the ESV is the 'Devil's Bible'?

Are you related to Gail Riplinger in any way?

No, H-man..... I found it ironic too.

I don't get it. Where's the irony?

__________________
Matthew Vaughan
Presbyterian Reformed Church, Northern Va.
Warrenton, VA

You will find that in the Old Testament God allowed Israel to forget about and add to Scripture. God rejects many things and yet allows them to continue to exist.

I believe what the man was trying to point out is the fact that the Alexandrian mss. were rejected by the church in or prior to the 7th century. The fact that many churches and pastors support them today does not make them authentic. Modern evangelical churches are teaching a great number of things which were condemned by the church in the past.

I don't see any of the modern translation guys actually dealing with the facts. You may think the claim that the Alexandrian mss are corrupt is goofy prima facie, but the KJV fellas are making a pretty good case in the various discussions that have been popping up lately.

I appreciate Calvin and Hodges post. It is harsh, but we need thick skins. I'm looking for someone on the ESV side who has a compelling argument.

Greetings:

If you all had read my first post, then you will know that it is the Greek and Hebrew text that underlies the RSV, ESV, NASB that is rejected - the Critical/Alexandrian texts.

It is these texts, as they are the foundation of the above versions, that have been rejected by God and the Church. To ask the question as to why God would allow corrupt mss to be translated into English or any other language the answer is twofold:

1) To show which are approved and which are not - similar to 1 Cor. 11:19.

2) One could also ask, "Why does God allow the Devil to exist?" Unless you don't believe that the Devil really exists?

In speaking about the Byzantine/TR John Owen writes:

We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared. In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves, Owen, John, Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text, Banner of Truth Trust, 1995, Vol. 16, pg. 357.

It is an historical fact that the Church has consistently rejected the Alexandrian Varients/Critical text throughout history. That Erasmus was conscious of the fact that he had few mss to work with, and that he was well aware of the Vaticanus (B) mss, but rejected it as corrupt. In essence God providentially preserved His text from the corruptions found in the Alexandrian Varients - as Owen noted above.

Blessings,

-CH

I was under the impression that the Alexandrian Text is the only type of manuscripts that we have proof of existing up through the fourth century. And that from the fifth to eighth century it is found to be in the majority. It was not until the ninth century that the Byzantine text-type became predominant.

To follow your logic of the Church rejecting families of manuscripts, wouldn't it make more sense to reject the Byzantine since the first four centuries have no proof of such a text-type at all? And even after that it is found in the minority until the ninth century? Doesn't this show that it is not the favored text of the early Church.