Esv

[notforgotten]

I have a copy of the NKJV but not the study Bible.

My major difficulty with the NKJV is that it still retains use of the Textus Receptus as the basis for NT translation. I find the TR provides an inadequate base for NT translation (I read and have taught NT Greek). I prefer the Critical Text of the USB Greek NT, that is used by other modern translations such as the ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc.

Oz

Thank you. I just wanted a quick opinion. Didn't mean to take you guys away from the topic of the Esv. Peace.

 

[OzSpen]

The ESV

JM,

It is to be expected that the Trinitarian Bible Society (the link you gave) would oppose the ESV as the TBS is a staunch supporter of the KJV.

It is unlikely that the TBS would give information such as that contained in this article, 'What is the Textus Receptus?'

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you. I just wanted a quick opinion. Didn't mean to take you guys away from the topic of the Esv. Peace.

If you want to assess the veracity of the Textus Receptus, here are a few links:

• 'What is the Textus Receptus?'
• 'The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?' Daniel Wallace
• Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?
• Bruce M. Metzger 1992. The Text of the New Testament. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

May you have a God-blessed day.


In Christ,
Oz

 

[hedrick]

Why might one say that the ESV didn't use as much new scholarship as the NRSV? I've read lots of reviews, but not found any good summaries. However the following brief comment expresses something I've seen fairly widely: Rawson Street: NRSV v. ESV. The NRSV has done a better job of fixing up misleading wording. But there is also a theological difference. The ESV sticks with Protestant tradition even when many feel there's good reason to change. This is where I'm finding a hard time getting a good summary. It's the kind of thing that I (and possibly Unix) typically encounter when looking at individual passages. The ESV isn't nearly as bad in this respect as the NIV. For that I have documentation: The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation. There are also systematic differences in the OT, with ESV tending to show passages as understood by Christians, and NRSV showing them as intended for the original audience. This is not a denial that the OT refers to Christ, but rather understands that they also had references to things at the time the prophets wrote. E.g. Is 7:14, in addition to being used by the NT for Christ, clearly referred to a woman at the time. It is unlikely that that woman had a virgin birth, nor does the Hebrew suggest it That doesn't deny that the passage is also legitimately used to refer to Christ.

My preference in both respects is the approach of the NRSV.

 

[hedrick]

[*]Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?
[/LIST]

Ugh. This article perpetuates the usual misunderstanding that the issue is Jesus' resurrection. It's not. That is in Mark without the additional ending(s). 16:9 ff adds post-resurrection appearances.

 

[OzSpen]

Why might one say that the ESV didn't use as much new scholarship as the NRSV? I've read lots of reviews, but not found any good summaries. However the following brief comment expresses something I've seen fairly widely: Rawson Street: NRSV v. ESV. The NRSV has done a better job of fixing up misleading wording. But there is also a theological difference. The ESV sticks with Protestant tradition even when many feel there's good reason to change. This is where I'm finding a hard time getting a good summary. It's the kind of thing that I (and possibly Unix) typically encounter when looking at individual passages. The ESV isn't nearly as bad in this respect as the NIV. For that I have documentation: The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation. There are also systematic differences in the OT, with ESV tending to show passages as understood by Christians, and NRSV showing them as intended for the original audience. This is not a denial that the OT refers to Christ, but rather understands that they also had references to things at the time the prophets wrote. E.g. Is 7:14, in addition to being used by the NT for Christ, clearly referred to a woman at the time. It is unlikely that that woman had a virgin birth, nor does the Hebrew suggest it That doesn't deny that the passage is also legitimately used to refer to Christ.

My preference in both respects is the approach of the NRSV.

How many evangelical scholars were on the NRSV translation committee? I think it is just as valid a question to ask: How many liberal scholars were on the ESV translation committee?

 

[OzSpen]

Ugh. This article perpetuates the usual misunderstanding that the issue is Jesus' resurrection. It's not. That is in Mark without the additional ending(s). 16:9 ff adds post-resurrection appearances.

It is not a misunderstanding. The resurrection appearances and the nature of those resurrection appearances are related to Jesus' resurrection. If you don't believe me, take a read of John Dominic Crossan (Jesus Seminar) and his view of the post-resurrection appearances. They were apparitions/visions/trances/altered states of consciousness for him. I can give you the bibliographic references if you need them.

 

[Keachian]

Ugh. This article perpetuates the usual misunderstanding that the issue is Jesus' resurrection. It's not. That is in Mark without the additional ending(s). 16:9 ff adds post-resurrection appearances.

I would say even the argument of "it has bad theology" is a bad one. The MSS evidence and internal grammar of Mark indicate that all endings we have past 16:8 are later additions, I would probably side with the likes of deSilva that we are to "conclude" mark meeting the risen Lord in our Christian life, though this may be a bit sketchy an interpretation

 

[OzSpen]

I would say even the argument of "it has bad theology" is a bad one. The MSS evidence and internal grammar of Mark indicate that all endings we have past 16:8 are later additions, I would probably side with the likes of deSilva that we are to "conclude" mark meeting the risen Lord in our Christian life, though this may be a bit sketchy an interpretation

In my article at,

• Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?,

I concluded that these verses should not be in Scripture, based on the MSS evidence.

 

[Keachian]

In my article at,

• Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?,

I concluded that these verses should not be in Scripture, based on the MSS evidence.

Why appeal to "It's bad theology" because if it is Scripture then our theology must be subject to it rather than dictating to it. (I am aware that it is a blog comment conversation you had for the most part) MSS evidence should be the go to reason full stop.

 

[OzSpen]

Why appeal to "It's bad theology" because if it is Scripture then our theology must be subject to it rather than dictating to it. (I am aware that it is a blog comment conversation you had for the most part) MSS evidence should be the go to reason full stop.

Who said that 'it's bad theology'?

It's not in the earliest MSS and it is not Scripture. That's my point about Mark 16:9ff.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Who said that 'it's bad theology'?

It's not in the earliest MSS and it is not Scripture. That's my point about Mark 16:9ff.

The Scofield Bible has a useful note at Mark 16 explaining why in fact it may be regarded at trustworthy.

 

[Keachian]

The Scofield Bible has a useful note at Mark 16 explaining why in fact it may be regarded at trustworthy.

Now the Scofield Bible notes are not worth the paper that they are printed on, I'm not talking just in this instance, the whole system of theology Scofield presents is flawed and unbiblical

 

[Keachian]

Who said that 'it's bad theology'?

It's not in the earliest MSS and it is not Scripture. That's my point about Mark 16:9ff.

You first reply contained; "I believe this section teaches false doctrine" having reread your reply I have corrected myself from what I thought was your leading objection to the longer ending. I still think it is bad hermeneutics to declare a passage bad theology, saying it is not found in the early MSS is enough and giving an exegesis of what Mark's point might be if he ended at 16:8 would be ample for the defense of the decision to not have 16:9ff

 

[OzSpen]

The Scofield Bible has a useful note at Mark 16 explaining why in fact it may be regarded at trustworthy.

I find it unhelpful when you make a statement about what is in The Scofield Bible and then don't quote what it states. My copy of the Scofield Bible (which is not one that I use) provides the footnote at Mark 16:9:

The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.

That doesn't indicate to me that it says anything about being trustworthy.

Or perhaps you have a Scofield study Bible to which you are referring.

I urge you next time to provide the evidence by stating it.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You first reply contained; "I believe this section teaches false doctrine" having reread your reply I have corrected myself from what I thought was your leading objection to the longer ending. I still think it is bad hermeneutics to declare a passage bad theology, saying it is not found in the early MSS is enough and giving an exegesis of what Mark's point might be if he ended at 16:8 would be ample for the defense of the decision to not have 16:9ff

Did I use the language of 'bad theology'?

 

[Keachian]

Did I use the language of 'bad theology'?

There's really not much difference between "false doctrine" and "bad theology" if anything "false doctrine" is a stronger condemnation of the teaching contained therein, or is this not your view?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I find it unhelpful when you make a statement about what is in The Scofield Bible and then don't quote what it states. My copy of the Scofield Bible (which is not one that I use) provides the footnote at Mark 16:9:

That doesn't indicate to me that it says anything about being trustworthy.

Or perhaps you have a Scofield study Bible to which you are referring.

I urge you next time to provide the evidence by stating it.

Oz

It is an early reading.

 

[Keachian]

It is an early reading.

The grammar is somewhat non-markan

 

[OzSpen]

It is an early reading.

Please copy for our information what your copy of the Scofield Bible states. That's all I'm asking.