ESV a better Reformed translation?

[dudley]

To me, a Reformed Translation would be one in which the Translators were Reformed. For instance, the KJV was translated by men who all subscribed to the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church.

Is there a modern translation where all of the translators subscribe to a Reformed Confession? I don't think so.
Interestingly, as our culture puts more emphasis on academics than on confession we can easily find the educational attainments of the contributing translators of the ESV, but the confessional subscription is left out presumably as something unimportant.

I agree with Lary. Since I became a Protestant in 2006 I have been reading mostly the KJV. My Episcapalian friends gave me the KJV when I joined the Episcapal church. I have kept it as my number one bible since. It was translated by the Reformed Protestant thinkers and the language I think is beautiful. As a Presbyterian I value my KJV.

 

[Kiffin]

According to the Westminster Confession, this is not an inserted verse.

I'm sure the WCF writers assumed it wasn't an insertion since they included it in the confession. But because they used it as a prooftext doesn't prove that it wasn't a later insertion.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Maybe the "missing" words and verses are actually inserted words and verses in the other versions.

They are:

"8:37 omit verse {A}
Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, 74 א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, h copsa, bo eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, h vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression."

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 315.

According to the Westminster Confession, this is not an inserted verse. WCF 28:4, "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ..." Proof texts: Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 37, 38. A reformed confession surely serves as an historical marker for evaluating what is and what is not a reformed translation.

Are the "proof texts" part of the confession, or an added help to understanding the Confession? Seem to remember reading that the proof texts were not standardized and were added later.

 

[MW]

Are the "proof texts" part of the confession, or an added help to understanding the Confession? Seem to remember reading that the proof texts were not standardized and were added later.

They are not a "part" of the confession in terms of adoption or subscription, but there are two considerations which show they are a part of the confession in terms of evaluating the reformed tradition. First, in general, the reformed view of "verbum Dei" teaches that what is founded on the word of God is the word of God in a secondary sense. This makes the scriptural basis a fundamental aspect of theological formulation. The Scripture proof process reflects the exegetical tradition and the exegetical tradition is built on the text of Scripture. Secondly, more specifically, the divines of the Westminster Assembly were bound by vow to scriptural authority in all deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based.

 

[nicnap]

They are:

"8:37 omit verse {A}
Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, 74 א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, h copsa, bo eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, h vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression."

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 315.

This isn't the place for it, but Metzger often assumes too much, and is merely setting out his presuppositions. He accepts many of his positions without warrant.

 

[au5t1n]

I assure you, ALL Bible translations are Reformed!

I beg to disagree...

If there is even a remotely reasonable translation inside, I am quite sure it firmly teaches election, covenant theology, the regulative principle, etc., whatever anyone may have intended. Believe me, I am no fan of "translators" playing games with the words of Scripture either.