I recently acquired an ESV Study Bible (hardback) for use in studying what Evangelicals teach. I expected the study notes to be slanted towards standard evangelical perspectives, and such is the case. Here's a statement from the ESV Study Bible about its theological perspectives:
View attachment 359495
I think it is rather cringeworthy considering that it comes from a school of religious thinking that advocates in favour of
Sola Scriptura.
Indeed, for Sola Scriptura to work in the manner intended by most of the Magisterial reformers (with the exception of Luther, who rather disagreeably interpolated “alone” into Romans and wanted to omit James, Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse from his vernacular translation of the Bible, but was persuaded otherwise by Philip Melancthon), the Scriptural translation must be as neutral as possible.
We also see an example of this bias in the sixth of the 39 Articles of Religion, which rejected a doctrinal interpratation of the so-called Deuterocanon (which is Protocanon as far as the Orthodox are concerned) while retaining them for moral edification in the cycle of scripture lessons of the Anglican Divine Office, and the omission of these books from most published copies of the King James BIble despite the fact that no KJV is technically complete without them. These books contain views which challenge doctrinal positions embraced by many, but not all Protestants, for example, they support the idea of prayer for the dead, which has also been endorsed by CS Lewis and is a common practice among many, perhaps most Anglicans (who now constitute the largest Protestant denomination, and which several provinces of which have thankfully discarded the 39 Articles or else effectively reinterpreted them in a manner less problematic using the writings of the Tractarians of the Oxford Movement led by Edward Pusey).
Thus i think most Protestant theologians from mainstream traditional liturgical churches would, at present, prefer objective translations of Scripture, insofar as this is possible.
As an Orthodox however, I question whether such an objective translation is possible or desirable. I feel that where multiple Scriptural readings exist, those which were favored by the Early Church Fathers or which conform to their hermeneutical principles or which are more obviously Christological in the case of the Old Testament are the most desirable (for this reason I do not entirely reject the Masoretic Text, despite my strong preference for the Septuagint, because while the Septuagint contains more Christological readings than the Masoretic, the Masoretic has some Christological readings the Septuagint lacks, for example, Psalm 1:12, and my preference would be to hybridize on this basis, and for this reason I also prefer the Byzantine and the somewhat obscure Western text type over the Alexandrian text type in most cases (although I am not entirely convinced the Longer Ending of Mark is entirely authentic, but i hate to take the risk of removing something, however, the disputed nature of it is something I feel should be stressed in light of the problems caused for the practice of the Christian religion by the Snake-Handling Pentecostals of Appalachia, who interpret certain verses in the Longer Ending of Mark as being some sort of commandment to sacramentally mess around with venomous snakes and scorpions in order to demonstrate they have received the Holy Spirit, which results in occasional serious injuries.
