Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
The ESV is a fine translation in many ways. I use it for reference at times. However I am not convinced that it uses the correct textual approach or presuppositions.
As far as modern NT critical scholarship, (on which the ESV is based) I am not convinced that modern scholarship is working based on correct presuppositions. I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity. Such stalwarts as Metzger and Hort state this view clearly in their books which explain and defend their textual work.
The theory of corruption and restoration seems to contradict the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, it discards out of hand the diligent text-critical work done by the 4th century Church (note, the church, not the secular academy, that is significant,) and overturns it completely based on scanty evidence, (when we obviously don't have the same number, quality, or variety of manuscripts available today that the 4th century Church had. We've only been able to dig up a couple codices and some random fragments from that era.)
One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.
I am open to being proven wrong, if there are valid arguments. The problem is that I have not run across any convincing arguments in Metzger. He doesn't even really address the important observations and critical academic work done by Dean John Burgeon, who was speaking from a more ecclesiastically oriented perspective. It does not make for a convincing case when you simply reject an opposing argument out of hand instead of disproving it.
Now, who wants to show me why I'm wrong on this? Anyone?
As far as modern NT critical scholarship, (on which the ESV is based) I am not convinced that modern scholarship is working based on correct presuppositions. I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity. Such stalwarts as Metzger and Hort state this view clearly in their books which explain and defend their textual work.
The theory of corruption and restoration seems to contradict the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, it discards out of hand the diligent text-critical work done by the 4th century Church (note, the church, not the secular academy, that is significant,) and overturns it completely based on scanty evidence, (when we obviously don't have the same number, quality, or variety of manuscripts available today that the 4th century Church had. We've only been able to dig up a couple codices and some random fragments from that era.)
One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.
I am open to being proven wrong, if there are valid arguments. The problem is that I have not run across any convincing arguments in Metzger. He doesn't even really address the important observations and critical academic work done by Dean John Burgeon, who was speaking from a more ecclesiastically oriented perspective. It does not make for a convincing case when you simply reject an opposing argument out of hand instead of disproving it.
Now, who wants to show me why I'm wrong on this? Anyone?