puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
If only it were that simple...but it's not.
Missing verses from ESV and other Bibles
- Thread starter Claudiu
- Start date
- Status
If only it were that simple...but it's not.
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Thank you all for all the good book and site recommendations
White's book is not a very reliable presentation in my humble opinion. See Theodore Letis' review here. (Sorry for the odd format--it would be nice if it were all on one site).
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white01b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white02b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white03b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white04b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white05b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white06b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white07b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white08b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white09b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white10b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white11b.gif
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Responding only to the title of this thread:
It isn't that the ESV (and other Bibles) are missing verses... it is that other versions added them.
It isn't that the ESV (and other Bibles) are missing verses... it is that other versions added them.
The reason why modern translations of the Bible such as the NASB do not have the verses you mentioned is because the KJV and modern translations of the Bible were not translated from the same Greek manuscripts.
Some Greek manuscripts contain the verses you mentioned and some do not.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Put in simple bullets . . .
* The vast majority of the 5,700+ manuscripts of the Greek NT are of what is now called the Byzantine type (aka "Majority").
* In 1516 Erasmus published a "critical text" of the New Testament using six of these (in this case late) manuscripts that were available to him. This was the basis for Luther's translation, the Geneva Bible, and (ultimately) the KJV.
* In the middle of the 19th century, two manuscripts of Egyptian provenance were discovered. One was called Sinaiticus (for the location of the moastery where it was found, aka Aleph) and the other Vaticanus (for the location where it was re-discovered in storage, aka B). They are commonly dated to the 4th century.
* Many scholars quickly concluded that the two Egyptian manuscripts (aka Alexandrian) were the "oldest and most reliable" copies of the Greek NT. Even though they differ from each other in more than 3,000 places, they have received pride-of-place among most NT scholars of all stripes (right to left).
* The early scholars who used the Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and most reliable" published a critical text that was strongly Alexandrian (i.e., it relied upon Aleph and B).
* In the last decades NT scholars have adopted a more eclectic approach, assessing each textual variant on its own merits, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, and attempting to determine by means of internal and external criteria what is the most likely reading of the original at that juncture in the text.
* ALL of the major modern English translations (except the NKJV) are based on this reasoned ecclecticism that is now reflected in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition of the Greek NT.
* A vocal minority of scholars prefer the Majority Text (not exactly the same as the KJV) and often recommend the NKJV as a translation. More than removing the "thees" and "thous," it "corrects" the text of the Erasmian text in line with the MANY more manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. Maurice Robinson is one of the most articulate living defenders of this majority text view (other names associated with it were Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad).
* An even more vocal (and much smaller) minority still defends the KJV as the most accurate Bible. Many base their defense upon notions of divine preservation. Some go so far as to say that where the KJV differs from the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, the KJV translators were providentially protected from error and directed toward the reading that the Lord wanted in his Bible. James White is one of the most articulate Reformed objectors to the KJVonlyists.
* If you are a KJV onlyist, then your only English option is the . . . KJV (duh!).
* If you subscribe to the arguments for the majority textual tradition, then you probably be happiest with the NKJV.
* If you hold to the vast majority of scholars today, you will chose among the MANY translations based upon an ecclectic critical text. Here your choices will be determined more by translation theory than by original Greek. The NAS is regarded as the most literal (to a fault) formal correspondence ("word for word") translation (in the same "family" would be the ESV, RSV, and HCSB); the "dynammic equivalent" (recasting grammatical forms into modern idiomatic English) family is most often represented by the NIV, TNIV, or NLT; the paraphrases include the Living Bible, TEV, and The Message.
I prefer the NKJV, the ESV, and the HCSB (one excellent translation from the majority and two from the eclectic tradition). Blessedly, the Reformation Study Bible (edited by Sproul) comes in both the ESV and the NKJV versions!!!
* The vast majority of the 5,700+ manuscripts of the Greek NT are of what is now called the Byzantine type (aka "Majority").
* In 1516 Erasmus published a "critical text" of the New Testament using six of these (in this case late) manuscripts that were available to him. This was the basis for Luther's translation, the Geneva Bible, and (ultimately) the KJV.
* In the middle of the 19th century, two manuscripts of Egyptian provenance were discovered. One was called Sinaiticus (for the location of the moastery where it was found, aka Aleph) and the other Vaticanus (for the location where it was re-discovered in storage, aka B). They are commonly dated to the 4th century.
* Many scholars quickly concluded that the two Egyptian manuscripts (aka Alexandrian) were the "oldest and most reliable" copies of the Greek NT. Even though they differ from each other in more than 3,000 places, they have received pride-of-place among most NT scholars of all stripes (right to left).
* The early scholars who used the Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and most reliable" published a critical text that was strongly Alexandrian (i.e., it relied upon Aleph and B).
* In the last decades NT scholars have adopted a more eclectic approach, assessing each textual variant on its own merits, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, and attempting to determine by means of internal and external criteria what is the most likely reading of the original at that juncture in the text.
* ALL of the major modern English translations (except the NKJV) are based on this reasoned ecclecticism that is now reflected in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition of the Greek NT.
* A vocal minority of scholars prefer the Majority Text (not exactly the same as the KJV) and often recommend the NKJV as a translation. More than removing the "thees" and "thous," it "corrects" the text of the Erasmian text in line with the MANY more manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. Maurice Robinson is one of the most articulate living defenders of this majority text view (other names associated with it were Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad).
* An even more vocal (and much smaller) minority still defends the KJV as the most accurate Bible. Many base their defense upon notions of divine preservation. Some go so far as to say that where the KJV differs from the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, the KJV translators were providentially protected from error and directed toward the reading that the Lord wanted in his Bible. James White is one of the most articulate Reformed objectors to the KJVonlyists.
* If you are a KJV onlyist, then your only English option is the . . . KJV (duh!).
* If you subscribe to the arguments for the majority textual tradition, then you probably be happiest with the NKJV.
* If you hold to the vast majority of scholars today, you will chose among the MANY translations based upon an ecclectic critical text. Here your choices will be determined more by translation theory than by original Greek. The NAS is regarded as the most literal (to a fault) formal correspondence ("word for word") translation (in the same "family" would be the ESV, RSV, and HCSB); the "dynammic equivalent" (recasting grammatical forms into modern idiomatic English) family is most often represented by the NIV, TNIV, or NLT; the paraphrases include the Living Bible, TEV, and The Message.
I prefer the NKJV, the ESV, and the HCSB (one excellent translation from the majority and two from the eclectic tradition). Blessedly, the Reformation Study Bible (edited by Sproul) comes in both the ESV and the NKJV versions!!!
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
The KJV and NKJV represent the Byzantine manuscripts while the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. represent the Alexandrian manuscripts...the difference between them does not effect a single point of biblical doctrine.
My point being...whether someone falls out on the Byzantine (Traditional Text) side of the isle or the Alexandrian (Critical Text), the fact that these represent two completely different textual traditions and yet contain every single doctrine of the Christian faith is a sign of God's providential preservation of the text.
Not that this point solves the problem of variants but it does put it into perspective. On the other hand, when Bart Erhman says the textual variants overthrow divine inspiration of Scripture he is "taking a trip into cloud land".
My point being...whether someone falls out on the Byzantine (Traditional Text) side of the isle or the Alexandrian (Critical Text), the fact that these represent two completely different textual traditions and yet contain every single doctrine of the Christian faith is a sign of God's providential preservation of the text.
Not that this point solves the problem of variants but it does put it into perspective. On the other hand, when Bart Erhman says the textual variants overthrow divine inspiration of Scripture he is "taking a trip into cloud land".
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
To the OP. I find the NKJV especially helpful in identifying variant readings in its notes. It will show the differences between the Received Text (KJV-NKJV basis), Critical Text (NA-UBS), and Majority Text (generally Byzantine).
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree. I believe every English speaking Christian should own a NKJV just for the footnotes if nothing else (I don't say that to knock the translation...but in the event the NKJV isn't the reader's version of choice). It makes most of the primary textual variants and their general sources easily discernible in a non-biased way.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, this has been knocked around hasn't it? 
The answer is that the Confession does not teach that preservation requires word for word certainty regarding every manuscript variant but that the word has been "kept pure in all ages".
Now what does that mean? The confession goes on to say..."are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
How pure has the text been preserved in all ages? To the degree that in all ages the text has been sufficiently preserved so as to be authentic. The final word in all controversies of religion.
When one states that not a single doctrine is called into question by the problem of manuscript variants, this is in conformity with the Confession's statement about the text being "kept pure in all ages".
To press against that too hard will undermine the Confession and the Scriptures themselves. If "kept pure in all ages" requires 100% textual accuracy, then the word was made impure shortly after it was committed to writing as no two manuscripts are 100% identical.
In regards to the Westminster divines, I find it highly unlikely that "kept pure in all ages" meant to them what some TR advocates claim it means. For instance, in some of the writings of a few of the Westminster Divines I have found statements made in favor of a particular textual variant that is not a Traditional Text reading.
Calvin (yes, I know, he predates the Westminster assembly) in numerous places in his commentaries differs with Traditional Text readings and sometimes to the point of absurdity. For instance, he says this of 1 John 2:14...
"14 'I have written unto you, fathers' -- These repetitions I deem superfluous; and it is probable that when unskillful readers falsely thought that he spoke twice of little children, they rashly introduced the other two clauses. It might at the same time be that John himself, for the sake of amplifying, inserted the second time the sentence respecting the young men, (for he adds, that they were strong, which he had not said before) but that the copyists presumptuously filled up the number."
He makes this claim based upon his evaluation of the internal evidence with no manuscript support whatsoever. (I don't agree with him on this verse as I believe any arguments regarding variants must be made from actual extant manuscripts.) Calvin does this sort of thing in numerous places throughout his commentaries. Would you therefore say that Calvin did not believe the Word of God has been "kept pure in all ages"? From his own writings in numerous places he clearly defends the purity and authority of the Scriptures while at the same time makes arguments like I just demonstrated. He did not see the two as a contradiction and neither do I.
I don't know if you find that a compelling explanation or not but there it is.
My apologies if I am getting this thread
The answer is that the Confession does not teach that preservation requires word for word certainty regarding every manuscript variant but that the word has been "kept pure in all ages".
Now what does that mean? The confession goes on to say..."are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
How pure has the text been preserved in all ages? To the degree that in all ages the text has been sufficiently preserved so as to be authentic. The final word in all controversies of religion.
When one states that not a single doctrine is called into question by the problem of manuscript variants, this is in conformity with the Confession's statement about the text being "kept pure in all ages".
To press against that too hard will undermine the Confession and the Scriptures themselves. If "kept pure in all ages" requires 100% textual accuracy, then the word was made impure shortly after it was committed to writing as no two manuscripts are 100% identical.
In regards to the Westminster divines, I find it highly unlikely that "kept pure in all ages" meant to them what some TR advocates claim it means. For instance, in some of the writings of a few of the Westminster Divines I have found statements made in favor of a particular textual variant that is not a Traditional Text reading.
Calvin (yes, I know, he predates the Westminster assembly) in numerous places in his commentaries differs with Traditional Text readings and sometimes to the point of absurdity. For instance, he says this of 1 John 2:14...
"14 'I have written unto you, fathers' -- These repetitions I deem superfluous; and it is probable that when unskillful readers falsely thought that he spoke twice of little children, they rashly introduced the other two clauses. It might at the same time be that John himself, for the sake of amplifying, inserted the second time the sentence respecting the young men, (for he adds, that they were strong, which he had not said before) but that the copyists presumptuously filled up the number."
He makes this claim based upon his evaluation of the internal evidence with no manuscript support whatsoever. (I don't agree with him on this verse as I believe any arguments regarding variants must be made from actual extant manuscripts.) Calvin does this sort of thing in numerous places throughout his commentaries. Would you therefore say that Calvin did not believe the Word of God has been "kept pure in all ages"? From his own writings in numerous places he clearly defends the purity and authority of the Scriptures while at the same time makes arguments like I just demonstrated. He did not see the two as a contradiction and neither do I.
I don't know if you find that a compelling explanation or not but there it is.
My apologies if I am getting this thread
Last edited:
wturri78
Puritan Board Freshman
I've never used the HCSB, but have found the NKJV and ESV very easy to read, and the translation differences between them often help to bring some clarity to the meaning of the text.
I do not believe that the KJV translators were providentially prevented from making errors. However the notes in the Reformation Study Bible were divinely kept free from error. This is the view of the vast majority of a few people
- Status
Similar threads
