This KJVO article has ruined the ESV for me :-(

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
I grew up with and love the KJV but I'm not an onliest. I read the NKJV, NASB, RSV and the ESV. I had begun to like the flow of the ESV and was picking it up more and more. Then I read this article here on a KJVO site. At least the verses in question are included in brackets in my NASB and NKJV. To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind. I haven't checked my RSV yet but I assume they were ommitted there as well. I can live with the brackets and/or footnotes, but removing the verses completely ? Inexcusable AFAIC.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind. I haven't checked my RSV yet but I assume they were ommitted there as well. I can live with the brackets and/or footnotes, but removing the verses completely ? Inexcusable AFAIC.

The online version has them as footnotes.
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
Why aren't you angry at the KJV and NASB for adding verses?

Just pointing out that one's prior assumptions affect the way one looks at editorial decisions. I too would prefer brackets or footnotes, because I like to know the choices being made, but I don't think it's an absolute necessity.
 

Jeff Burns

Puritan Board Freshman
The errors in that article are legion. No one who holds to the CT over and against the TR would argue that Matthew penned two different copies of Matthew. To say that there are 2 streams of transmission is also foolish. There are hundreds of streams of transmission. Some terminate with the Byzantine text type, some do not. I wouldn't let such poor arguments dissuade you from using the ESV.

At least the verses in question are included in brackets in my NASB and NKJV. To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind.

I also prefer to have them there in the text in italics and double brackets. But we should respect the translators and compilers of the ESV for sticking to their guns on this issue and not pandering to emotionalism (as is manifested quite clearly in the article you linked to) and poor scholarship. The fact that the Comma Johanneum (and other later additions) made it into the text should boggle your mind more than the fact that the ESV left it out.
 

Christopher88

Puritan Board Sophomore
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

I was looking some of these verses that the website was claiming was marked out. The ones I checked to see, its true.

Can any bible scholars point to any validation on why the AV1611 is more reliable than the ESV?


I know in my former baptist college, all the professors were AV guys.


My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team. Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?
 

J. Dean

Puritan Board Junior
I always want to ask KJVO people which KJV they hold to, as the KJV has undergone significant revisions over time. I remember reading that the first major revision occured not fifty years after the publication of the 1611 version.

Or that MANY KJVO people by their own admission have stated that some passages are better translated in other versions such as the NASB and the ERV. I've heard this in sermons and lectures given by KJVO people more than once, and it's left me puzzled.

It's sad, because the KJVO crowd has caused me in many ways to start bristling whenever people run back to the KJV. They've ruined my appreciation for that old text by their incessant, shortsighted antagonism toward anything not having "thee" and "thou" in it.
 

Jeff Burns

Puritan Board Freshman
I was looking some of these verses that the website was claiming was marked out. The ones I checked to see, its true.

No one who advocates the CT would deny that those verses are left out. They would argue though that they never should've been included in the first place.

My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team. Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?

Before this thread desintegrates into another discussion of the merits of the AV over all other translations, suffice it to say that the NASB and ESV are incredibly accurate to the original languages (with the NASB having a slight edge over the ESV). The problem is the difference in the basis for what we're calling "the original languages." AV guys hold that the TR is the most accurate representation of what was contained in the autographs. Critical Text guys strongly disagree. There's merits to both sides. A few places to begin reading:

Home Page

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/pdfs/BibleText.pdf

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. I'm not a KJVO person and I too don't want this thread to go to that debate. I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me. The NASB, my main study resource, including them in brackets is the better alternative AFAIC.

Aside from my appreciation of the literary quality of the KJV, the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit, regardless of the textual source from which it was translated. I've only just begun to scratch the surface on the TR versus CT debate, so I'm not really qualified to speak to it intelligently.

I've read criticisms of W&H as well as articles defending them and I don't have a firm position yet. Could it be the author of confusion who created all of this debate ? Praying that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of my understanding and thankful for this board where intelligent discourse on these issues can be found.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Jimmy, as has been pointed out, a particular verse being included or excluded is not a foregone conclusion. It depends on the manuscript tradition. You seem to be starting from the assumption that if a verse is IN the KJV version, then other versions are EXCLUDING it, rather than the KJV ADDING it. This is not a valid assumption. Even for KJV advocates, they would need to prove, in any instance, that the manuscripts favor its inclusion rather than simply assuming it. Scribes tended to add things to manuscripts. There are accidental omissions, of course, but the tendency was to add something to make it jibe with something else. In very few cases would a scribe deliberately omit something because he didn't like it. That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate (always recognizing that there are exceptions to the rule, and that a host of other factors also come into play).
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit
Really? Perhaps in Britain, Australia, English Canada, and the States... but the world of Bibles is bigger than English. Also, how given the size of populations, I'm pretty sure one can make the case that more people have been converted under the Studium Biblicum Version in China (given population size) than in the Anglophone community between 1700 and 1980 (I use 1980 as the end of the dominance of the KJV).
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit
Really? Perhaps in Britain, Australia, English Canada, and the States... but the world of Bibles is bigger than English. Also, how given the size of populations, I'm pretty sure one can make the case that more people have been converted under the Studium Biblicum Version in China (given population size) than in the Anglophone community between 1700 and 1980 (I use 1980 as the end of the dominance of the KJV).
Point taken. I guess I tend to look at life/things from my own particular place in space and time. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to broaden my perspective.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team. Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?

Could your provide evidence for the bolded part in your post, especially since the Roman Church condemned it. Names would be helpful. I know that unbelievers and Catholics have worked on the CT which underlies the ESV, but I've never heard such a charge leveled against the AV translators. The TBS has a good article demonstrating the inadequacies of the ESV: The English Standard Version. The logical contradictions in it and the NASB are enough to discredit both for me.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
If you would like a thorough treatment of the issue from the perspective of someone involved with the NASB, James White, a Reformed Baptist, has a great affirmation of the critical text (the basis of the ESV, NASB, and so on): Alpha and Omega Ministries

However, you have to remember that the prevailing opinion among most Bible scholars (judging by where translation effort and so on has been centred for some time) is that the generally older texts in the Alexandrian tradition more accurately reflect the original text than the Byzantine text. There is very little evidence, and relatively few people that argue (though there are some) that verses like "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (I John 5:7, KJV) were in the original text. Erasmus himself had trouble finding any copy of it to add to the Textus Receptus (Erasmus is a Catholic humanist who compiled the text that the KJV is based on).

There are some here who use and defend either the King James Version, the Textus Receptus (the text the KJV is based on), or the Majority Text. However, I recommend reading James White's book to get the opinion in favour of the critical text as well.
 

thbslawson

Puritan Board Freshman
I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me.

Again, you're assuming that those verses should have been there in the first place. Why are you not equally irritated that the KVJ added verses? Is this a less serious offense than removing them?
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me.

Again, you're assuming that those verses should have been there in the first place. Why are you not equally irritated that the KVJ added verses? Is this a less serious offense than removing them?
I don't "know" that the KJV added them. Unless I'm misunderstanding the confroversy, some of the ancient manuscripts contain the verses while others do not ? Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate

Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate

Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?
 

Jeff Burns

Puritan Board Freshman
That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate

Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?

"Prefer the shorter reading, since scribes more often added to the text than omitted words. However, this principle must be used cautiously, since scribes sometimes omitted material either accidentally or because they found something to be grammatically, stylistically, or theologically objectionable in the text." David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Baker Books, Grand Rapids. 1994) p. 35.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.

Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
The TBS has a good article demonstrating the inadequacies of the ESV: The English Standard Version.
Just read the TBS article. I'm no ESV fanboy, but that article has a lot of the same less-than-helpful information as the article Jimmy originally posted (i.e. verses left out, words changed, etc.). Both articles fail to account for the presupposition that the so called "excluded verses" ought to be there in the first place. They also fail to establish any basis for why the MT and TR ought to be the gold standard for Bible translation. Furthermore, they say some really ignorant things toward the end of the article:

"People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new version once they see that it is merely a slightly revised edition of the RSV." So by that standard, John Piper, RC Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, and a slew of other men and women are not concerned with the truth of the Bible. Wow. That's a startling revelation!

They also say, "Since Crossway does not have the financial backing of the publishers of the NIV, there does not seem to be much of a future for the ESV." Yea... umm. That's kind of hard to believe when a huge majority of those in the reformed community have adopted the ESV as their standard translation, including the entire OPC (officially I might add).

The logical contradictions in it and the NASB are enough to discredit both for me.

Could you please give some examples of logical contradictions in the NASB? I'd love to see some.

Ps 119:9, denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin. Our way doesn't start out pure as implied in verse 9 of the NASB, but starts out corrupt. We are to purify/cleanse our way.

Prov 8:22 & Micah 5:2, denial of the eternality of Christ. Wisdom, Christ, wasn't created.

Letis also covers some of the issues with the ESV: The So-Called English Standard Version (and Bible Manuscripts, Texts, Separation, etc.) - SermonAudio.com

The foundation for removing the verses is based on the subjective practice of modern textual criticism. And yes it's quite possible for a group of godly men to be fooled on certain issues. How many godly Christians bought into some form of evolution towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century?
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
The article you pointed to argues that the "omitted" verses are such good verses. How could we leave them out? Don't we want such verses in our Bibles, given how good they are?

That's a lame argument. It's the equivalent of saying that if you think of a good line that explains the gospel well it ought to be added to the Bible because it's a good line. No. That's not our criteria.

There are some good arguments for the KJV. But that article doesn't use any of them.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate

Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?

"Prefer the shorter reading, since scribes more often added to the text than omitted words. However, this principle must be used cautiously, since scribes sometimes omitted material either accidentally or because they found something to be grammatically, stylistically, or theologically objectionable in the text." David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Baker Books, Grand Rapids. 1994) p. 35.

This doesn't actually answer his question. Saying scribes more often added to the text than omitted words doesn't demonstrate that in fact they did this. In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted. It is an assumption of modern textual criticism. Because of its inherent arbitrary nature, as are all tenets of modern textual criticism, one could also assume the opposite is true and be just as justified in their position as the modern textual critic. It should be remembered that the origin of the canons of modern textual criticism are not Christian, but have their foundation in German rationalism which originates from atheism and these canons assume apriori a non-supernatural view of scripture.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted.

Actually, that's not the reason: the reason is that the earlier manuscripts tend more often to have things omitted.

Again, historically a lot of the controversy over the TR is that all of the textual decisions for it were made by its compiler: Erasmus. He did a fairly good job, yes, but he a) didn't have the larger pool of manuscripts that we now have with which to make these decisions b) had a very clear theological agenda.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted.

Actually, that's not the reason: the reason is that the earlier manuscripts tend more often to have things omitted.

Again, historically a lot of the controversy over the TR is that all of the textual decisions for it were made by its compiler: Erasmus. He did a fairly good job, yes, but he a) didn't have the larger pool of manuscripts that we now have with which to make these decisions b) had a very clear theological agenda.

Provide objective evidence for the bolded.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate

Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?

This is a general assumption of textual criticism and the thinking is that the older text is closer to the original and thus less likely to have been altered. This is is certainly a good theory, but by no means normative. As Dr. Maurice Robinson points out, propronents of the critical text need to provide a satisfying explanation for why the church at some point completely abandoned the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type. They have yet to provide such an explanation, and just because they are older does not adequately explain why there are so few examples of the Alexandrian text. The Hebrew texts are much older and yet much more plentiful.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Even for KJV advocates, they would need to prove, in any instance, that the manuscripts favor its inclusion rather than simply assuming it.

Pastor Keister,
I think you have heard the arguments. There is evidence for why things have been left in even if the Older Two Manuscripts exclude them from Alexandria. There is more evidence from the Majority that they belong. At least as I understand it. The Church Fathers and their quotes from the scripture are closer to the Majority text. The older are not necessarily the most accurate. You know the arguments. At least I would hope so.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.

Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.

Not to mention that part of Erasmus' NT was back-translated from the Vulgate anyway (the latter part of Revelation was not available to him).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top