JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
The late Dr. Ted Letis, a true text scholar with Ivy League credentials debunks the myth that the ESV is a faithful translation. I encourage you all to give this a listen.
The So-Called English Standard Version
- Thread starter JOwen
- Start date
- Status
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
John, if you could PM me I will see what I can do about getting you a print version.
Damon Rambo
Puritan Board Sophomore
O.K., I will listen: but before I do, this guy isn't a KJV pusher, is he? Because the ESV is so superior to the KJV, in regards to faithfulness to the Greek, that to even say otherwise is preposterous. And I am SO tired of listening to KJV only cultists, or, mildly less annoying, KJV preferred people, that prefer the KJV simply because it's Shakespearean, Elizabethan language, "sounds better" (though they would never admit to such).
So, is the guy endorsing a better version (HCSB, NET, etc)? Or is he pushing a KJV only/preferred adenda?
So, is the guy endorsing a better version (HCSB, NET, etc)? Or is he pushing a KJV only/preferred adenda?
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Pastor Lewis,
I believe that if the Textus Receptus people would put out a faithful modern translation, we could solve this problem today. The thing is that TR people will say that ANY translation is unfaithful as long as it is not based on the TR. I am a TR guy that prefers the ESV to the NKJV for a number of reasons...
So where is this translation? The church needs it.
I believe that if the Textus Receptus people would put out a faithful modern translation, we could solve this problem today. The thing is that TR people will say that ANY translation is unfaithful as long as it is not based on the TR. I am a TR guy that prefers the ESV to the NKJV for a number of reasons...
So where is this translation? The church needs it.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
For my part I am not a KJV only guy. I prefer the Byzantine text and therefore use the New King James. Greek text aside I like the New American Standard Bible too.
JOwen
Puritan Board Junior
Ya, that's not laced with bias at all. Give it a listen, then we can talk. Letis was a Ph.D from the University of Edinburgh with top notch credentials. Disagree or agree, he has very intelligent things to say. You must be a very good Greek scholar to insist that the ESV is SO superior to the KJV. We neophytes who only have 4 semesters of Greek could learn much from you I think.
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
He seems to be saying two things:
1. The only manuscripts that are legitimate are the ones that went into the Latin Vulgate and its Eastern equivalent, which he dubs the "definitive canonical" versions of the Word; and
2. The RSV, and by extension the ESV, are particularly dubious, because they are based on early manuscripts that do not fit the qualification above.
1. The only manuscripts that are legitimate are the ones that went into the Latin Vulgate and its Eastern equivalent, which he dubs the "definitive canonical" versions of the Word; and
2. The RSV, and by extension the ESV, are particularly dubious, because they are based on early manuscripts that do not fit the qualification above.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Doesn't follow.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
It was never part of canon.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
I am extremely confused by what you are asking here. Are you asking me to explain your argument? That will be difficult, since I apparently don't understand it.
If one argues that the Vulgate is legitimate then it would seem to follow that the Apocrypha should be in modern translations. This is problematic to me.
Edit: We seem to have cross posted, and I still don't understand your point. But no worries, I'm content to leave it be. I'm fairly certain of my view and there are other people with whom I can discuss this.
Last edited:
Hungus
Puritan Board Freshman
I could, but I would have to listen to him again. Is that what you are asking me to do?
It appears the argument for the KJV is because the Greek texts used to translate Latin Vulgate should be the only Greek texts used for any translation. Thus according to the ESV is wrong because it does exclusively used the Greek texts that the Latin Vulgate used. The Latin Vulgate also contains the Apophrica, and since its translation contained the correct Greek texts, we must be wrong not when we do not include in our translations the apophrica since the apophrica was from the same correct texts.
Just not understanding the logic in his argument. x texts were used in y translation then those texts are the correct texts for z translation. X texts also contained q books, since x texts are the correct texts because that is what the Fathers used, and since x texts also contained q books, then q books must also be correct.
We in the reformed community have rejected q books, even though they were used by some church fathers, thus why does one portion of x texts become superior while some of the same x texts but q books have been rejected.
Finally, I thought one of the main arguments against the CT over the MT was because the CT aligned more closely to the Latin Vulgate.
Last edited:
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
I am extremely confused by what you are asking here. Are you asking me to explain your argument? That will be difficult, since I apparently don't understand it.
If one argues that the Vulgate is legitimate then it would seem to follow that the Apocrypha should be in modern translations. This is problematic to me.
Edit: We seem to have cross posted, and I still don't understand your point. But no worries, I'm content to leave it be. I'm fairly certain of my view and there are other people with whom I can discuss this.
I think Dr. Letis' point was that the manuscripts that went into the Vulgate are the correct manuscripts to base our translations on. It doesn't necessarily follow that all of the books included in the Vulgate are the correct books.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
Explain the argument further please.
I am extremely confused by what you are asking here. Are you asking me to explain your argument? That will be difficult, since I apparently don't understand it.
If one argues that the Vulgate is legitimate then it would seem to follow that the Apocrypha should be in modern translations. This is problematic to me.
Edit: We seem to have cross posted, and I still don't understand your point. But no worries, I'm content to leave it be. I'm fairly certain of my view and there are other people with whom I can discuss this.
I think Dr. Letis' point was that the manuscripts that went into the Vulgate are the correct manuscripts to base our translations on. It doesn't necessarily follow that all of the books included in the Vulgate are the correct books.
Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification!
Damon Rambo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ya, that's not laced with bias at all. Give it a listen, then we can talk. Letis was a Ph.D from the University of Edinburgh with top notch credentials. Disagree or agree, he has very intelligent things to say. You must be a very good Greek scholar to insist that the ESV is SO superior to the KJV. We neophytes who only have 4 semesters of Greek could learn much from you I think.
I have only taken 2 years of Greek (apparently, the same as yourself). However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see an unrecognized perfect tense verb, or a passive verb translated as an active.
The fact is, that the ESV relies heavily on texts which are neglected by other versions, KJV included. The Septuagint, for instance, which was quoted by Jesus and the disciples, but was ignored by some translators. Apparently, they know more than Christ.
MODERATOR'S HAT ON:
Can we possibly have one thread on textual/translation issues that does not quickly descend into schoolyard name-calling?
Jerrold - you could be a bit more circumspect in the OP, and avoid shock bomb throwing.
Damon - you can avoid acting as if you have definitively answered translation issues. As a pastor who uses the ESV, and has 20+ years of Greek experience (including an MA in Classical Greek from a top 5 university), I can say that your blanket statement is not true.
Keep it civil, or this thread dies a quick death.
Can we possibly have one thread on textual/translation issues that does not quickly descend into schoolyard name-calling?
Jerrold - you could be a bit more circumspect in the OP, and avoid shock bomb throwing.
Damon - you can avoid acting as if you have definitively answered translation issues. As a pastor who uses the ESV, and has 20+ years of Greek experience (including an MA in Classical Greek from a top 5 university), I can say that your blanket statement is not true.
Keep it civil, or this thread dies a quick death.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
No, what we are asking is that you substantiate your large claims. Is that an absurd request?
CT
Ummm...so it's just the typical TR vs. CT debate? If so,there doesn't seem to be anything new.
Robert, the point that many are making is this:
Unsubstantiated assertions from either side provide no light but plenty of heat. Heat causes otherwise fruitful discussions to degenerate into "Are so, Are not" volleys that have no value, and are, quite frankly, an embarrassment to the PB. Please refrain from making assertions without providing some kind of substantiation. There is no need for a detailed list, but how about some examples from off the top of your head?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Actually in this particular case it was flamethrowing name calling from the CT side that helped this particular conversation devolve (I have seen both sides start the fights on PB).
Your analysis bears closer scrutiny, however, on substantial grounds. It is not simply a bipolar argument. In my time on PB, I have not seen many true "KJV only" folks in the cultic sense. Those who prefer the KJV seem to do so in part, as you suggest, for reasons of how they see God choosing to preserve his Word. But, they also do so because they seem to think that the Byzantine tradition is a more reliable one on scholarly grounds. Those who adopt the CT also do so for reasons of scholarly conviction AND because that is how they see God choosing to preserve his Word. A growing number of folks reject both the TR with its half dozen Erasmian mss AND the NA/UBS textual tradition with its putative text that actually never existed in written form at any time in the past. They favor the Byzantine tradition of 95% of the mss extant which is neither TR nor CT.
I will grant you that we seem to get almost as exercised over this one as Baptism and theonomy. However, it need not be so. Let's extend one another a bit of charity and admit that one's motives may be sound even if one's argument is ultimately proven to be erroneous.
In my experience it is VERY difficult to throw off the traces of the vast numbers of textual critics of left (Ehrman) and right (Wallace) who agree with the NA/UBS text. However, some of the arguments put forth on the PB have convinced me to look at the other side with a great deal more sympathy.
- Status
