Thank you. Always interested in textural topics. I am looking forward to your view on the Evangelical Heritage Version of the Bible. Keep on keeping on. God's peace be with you.
It's too soon, I suspect, to assess the E.H.V. except cautiously. One has to live with versions a bit to become aware of their strengths and deficiencies. I find that the R.S.V.-2nd C.E. grows upon me with time, whereas the E.S.V., Catholic or Protestant editions, seems to dim in worth, by comparison. Both, of course, are much superior on literary grounds than the vast majority of modern versions, which lack the dignity and tang of Bibles based on the R.S.V.
Couldn't the ending of Mark be preserved in a sense in Luke and Matthew anyways? I do not see how you can defend the ending that we have as original to Mark since it is so markedly different in style, and it contains some mad teachings about drinking poison and immunity to snakes that seem incredibly ill-advised to take on board as canonical. Plus, if losing the ending is a problem, what do you make of Jeremiah's sermons dictated to Baruch, of which it says in Scripture itself were thrown into the fire? That manuscript was lost and the one that replaced it was not identical to the one burned by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:32). It says "similar words were added", but we do not know what the shorter version said exactly. It is true that we do not have the original NT manuscripts, but I guess I don't really see that as a problem since there are enough variations to reconstruct the original anyways, and with a high degree of probability. It doesn't sound like you are saying the Textus Receptus is inspired, since you acknowledge its deficiencies, so why not go with the originals? It is not like we have lost any important teaching of Scripture by jettisoning the wacky ending of Mark and the beautiful, but highly questionable story in John 7:51-8:11. Some Lutherans like to appeal to Mark 16:16 for obvious reasons, but there are other texts that seem equally clear on this in any case, so its not like we lose anything. Plus, the longer ending of Mark still attests to the widespread belief in baptismal regeneration in the early church, which still counts for something.
Honestly I don’t see how you think that the ending of Mark justifies drinking poison. It clearly is teaching that if someone attempts to poison you, God will protect you from the poison. Same thing with the snake. The point is that if a poisonous snake bites you God can keep you from dying from the bite. The scriptures say “thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.
astronomer, even though jeremiah's scroll was thrown into the fire, the bible clearly says in the verse you quoted that the same words were written down again. so nothing was lost.
If one really comes to an evil pass where one has to use the E.S.V. (a pox thereupon!), the Catholic Edition is much, much better to use than any of the Protestant editions of it, with or without the Apocrypha. The Catholic Edition expunges many of the worst features of the E.S.V. as first and later published for Protestant use. It restores passages to where they belong, for one major thing. It opts for orthodox readings when the Protestant E.S.V. defiles them. And on and on and on. In these regards it does a lot of helpful and orthodox things to the E.S.V. that, similarly, the much better Second Catholic Edition does for the Revised Standard Version to make the R.S.V. in its R.S.V.-C.E. much preferable to the usual Protestant editions of it.
Even in commending those Catholic editions, I still stick to the Authorised "King James" Bible (sith its Apocrypha) and secondarily to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner BIble. Those two are better and still are than even the best of the modern versions.
Actually, despite so many protestations that the divergences are few in number, they are numerous enough to make it necessary to publish at least a booklet-length publication adequately to list them all and to make essential comments about the differences. The Trinitarian Bible Society's pamphlets (including the excellent ones about the R.S.V., upon which the E.S.V. is based) are a good starting point to grasp the extent and importance of these matters.
The N.T. book of the Acts of the Apostles is one that can be especially distressing to read in the so-called "Critical Text", such passages being especially numerous. To cite the full quantity of mangled verses takes far too much listing them to do so in the space of comments like these. One can cite some that are particularly galling, but that only gives a slight view of just how appalling these differences can be when they affect so much of a text as the Critical Text affects Acts. I'll provide a couple, but in a context like this, to go on and on just belittles the issue, since it is the cumulative effect of the mangled verses that can make Acts. for example, so appalling in the Critical Text. Even if the E.S.V. is not so relentlessly "critical" in its readings as the American Standard Version (A.S.V.), there still is too much of that to make reading the E.S.V. Protestant text so edifying as translations done from the purer Received Text. I realise at this point that I need to find a time free enough to continue here, so I shall come back to this in a comment on my own comments when I can amplify this with some salient examples from the many that one could cite. TO BE CONTINUED.
Textual criticism aims at getting at the earliest texts (among other things.) It ought to be borne in mind what an autograph is exactly may be difficult to determine in cultural contexts of oral traditions. I would encourage Dr. Cooper to speak more on what textual criticism is not. As a discipline textual criticism is not attempting to settle theological differences. Some members of faith traditions (and in particular the more learned members of their clergies) understand textual criticism but oftentimes will employ that knowledge to theological ends. For the most part (though we all bring our baggage with us) textual critics aim at discovering, elucidating and reconstructing what was the intended and received meanings of texts in their contemporary cultures. Such attempts are not aimed at undermining received wisdom. From the textual criticism point of view God's inspired Word as preserved in the apographa is safe. It is not textual critics who roll up ancient scrolls and beat the faith out of believers.
If you could get your hands on one, I suggest you try and find an American Standard Version of 1901. That bible, with its many references, is a splendid example of a critical text pre-Schofield version. No futurist bias is a good thing! It uses as its base the Westcott and Hort 1881 Critical Text. Fantastic! I searched for one and got it! Never letting it go either!
I am not sure whether you addressed that to me or to someone else. I do have several editions of the Revised Version and of the American Standard Version alike. I've even read the entire A.S.V. (plus the R.V. Apocrypha).
I seem to recall that R. Grant Jones made a video about the E.H.V., maybe only one of his less comprehensive ones to tide over whilte waiting to write something further later on. At any rate, it's a starting point.
Thanks again. A Catholic here and you were not wrong that there is now a Catholic version of the ESV withall the Catholic books. This was a work of Bishops and scholars in the Catholic Church in India ( and has some differences from the Anglican version of the ESV). Agree with you on the RSV 2nd CE. However, that is published by Ignatius and maybe they haven't made it easy to license liturgically - although they did do so for the personal ordinatriate provided for ex - Anglican /Episcopal congregations. Anyway, the marketing push is on in the US for this ESV catholic version (as my inbox attests). I also agree with your underlying view on texts. And so I also like the NKJV (as well as the KJV). On the woman taken in adultery appearing in John, I believe Jerome's theory is that this appeared in one of the synoptics but was removed by copyists out of "scandal" but was put back into John's Gospel at some point as part of what was handed done by the Apostles. Hard to say.
I find that when a "Catholic Edition" of a modern Protestant Bible version exists, the Catholic alternative is always (in my experience, so far) the better choice. The Catholic editions are superior, less gtven to speculative readings, and more cautious. I am NOT Romish Catholic myself. I am Lutheran. Still, Catholic Biblical scholarship seems to avoid the extremes of mainline Protestant work in these versions. What is good or at least decent, ends up improved and more responsible. I don't care one bit that "Protestant" is not operative in these improvements. I take them where I find them. The R.S.V. Second Catholic Edition ends up being the best modern alternative that there is, and hopefully it will displace the "regular" R.S.V. and N.R.S.V. network of inferior Protestant pathbreakers which pose so many problems in using them.
It's better than that NIV disaster, but why not just use the Authorized Version? Seems a major (if not the main) reason for the EHV was not wanting to admit their mistake in dumping the King James in the 80's in favor of the NIV.
@@hansimgluck4965 My gripe about the King James translation is that is has wording which can be confusing for (or worse, woefully misunderstood by) the average reader. Let me give you some examples... In the KJV, the word "conversation" is used. However, the word "conversation" in 1611 had a different meaning than it did now. "Conversation" in modern parlance means a talk between people; in 1611, your "conversation" was your behavior. Here's another: In I John 3:6, the way it reads gives the impression of perfectionism ("Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not"), and indeed people who adhere to perfectionist doctrine love this translation of the verse. The problem is that the Greek should be more properly translated "does not keep sinning" in the sense of perpetual, impenitent sin. Do you see the problem? I could name more things, but I think that makes the point. I'll freely admit that part of my apprehension in lifting the KJV over and above all translations is due to my time in a KJV-Only fundamentalist Baptist church for several years of my youth. It didn't help that the KJV was a preferred translation for Word of Faith preachers as well. Obviously, I'm aware that not every KJV reader falls into traps like these, and I appreciate the prose utilized in its delivery, but I have a hard time saying it's the best translation.
Yes, all those things are true. But it's worth learning the little differences in the Jacobean English. Among other reasons, it's the only way of conforming the English language to the Greek in terms of singular versus plural second person pronouns. In terms of priorities, retaining the basic integrity of the grammar is certainly paramount - then we can go from there to teach and learn about the little differences between the Jacobean and the street English.
I don't disagree in principal, but I also favor updated Bible translations to meet with changing language usage. Because there are a great number of people out there who, for whatever reason, don't have an interest in learning older English.
The apographs are the copies , and this is what the modern CT guys are using . Erasmus only had a handful of them when he was working on his critical first edition . God has preserved all that we have , why would you seek to limit the work to the TR when there has ben more advancement?
All the early Church Fathers until the 6th/7th cenury quoted Alexandrian readings of the scripture, which are the basis of modern critical editions. The first church father to quote Byzantine renderings was John of Chrysostom. There is overwhelming historic evidence that the Alexandrian manuscripts are closer tot he autographs.
According to Miller's study, the advantage of the Traditional Text over the "Neologian" before Origen was actually 2:1, setting aside Justin Martyr, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. If these four are included, the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.33:1 since the confusion which is most obvious in Origen is already observable in these men. From Origen to Macarius Magnus the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 A.D. it is back up to 2:1.[101] Please note that the Traditional Text was always ahead, even in the worst of times. www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_4.html
Alad Murad, > That is simply false. If this is the sort of claim you lead with, I have to conclude that you are very unfamiliar with the relevant materials.
I have various editions and corrected printings, etc., of the E.S.V. translation. However, it is the one with which you are less famililar that I like best, namely that Catholic Edition of the E.S.V. It eliminates a large proportion of those malodourous deviations from the Majority Text that are so disturbing. Some remain, but not a lot, at lease not a lot of the most egregious ones which vary from the Textus Receptus and from the Clementine Vulgate. I still, though, like you, much prefer the N.K.J.V., which RETURNS to the T.R. And, anyway, I use the A.V. (K.J.V.) most of all.
I agree. I only use modern versions when reading for special need. Habitually, it is the K.J.V., the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, and the N.K.J.V. that I consult by far most of the time.
The world is burning outside and people are fighting to the death in streets over toilet paper: Jordan Cooper is in his study room expressing his views about textual criticism.
All the more reason I appreciate it here in NYC as I am isolated in my apartment with just enough fever over the past week to be isolated but not problematic enough to be tested. And thank God no other symptoms other than a scratchy throat and feeling tired by 5. Keep it coming Jordan!
You can find the entire text of the EHV on Bible Gateway.
Thank you. Always interested in textural topics. I am looking forward to your view on the Evangelical Heritage Version of the Bible. Keep on keeping on. God's peace be with you.
It's too soon, I suspect, to assess the E.H.V. except cautiously. One has to live with versions a bit to become aware of their strengths and deficiencies. I find that the R.S.V.-2nd C.E. grows upon me with time, whereas the E.S.V., Catholic or Protestant editions, seems to dim in worth, by comparison. Both, of course, are much superior on literary grounds than the vast majority of modern versions, which lack the dignity and tang of Bibles based on the R.S.V.
Couldn't the ending of Mark be preserved in a sense in Luke and Matthew anyways? I do not see how you can defend the ending that we have as original to Mark since it is so markedly different in style, and it contains some mad teachings about drinking poison and immunity to snakes that seem incredibly ill-advised to take on board as canonical. Plus, if losing the ending is a problem, what do you make of Jeremiah's sermons dictated to Baruch, of which it says in Scripture itself were thrown into the fire? That manuscript was lost and the one that replaced it was not identical to the one burned by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:32). It says "similar words were added", but we do not know what the shorter version said exactly. It is true that we do not have the original NT manuscripts, but I guess I don't really see that as a problem since there are enough variations to reconstruct the original anyways, and with a high degree of probability. It doesn't sound like you are saying the Textus Receptus is inspired, since you acknowledge its deficiencies, so why not go with the originals? It is not like we have lost any important teaching of Scripture by jettisoning the wacky ending of Mark and the beautiful, but highly questionable story in John 7:51-8:11. Some Lutherans like to appeal to Mark 16:16 for obvious reasons, but there are other texts that seem equally clear on this in any case, so its not like we lose anything. Plus, the longer ending of Mark still attests to the widespread belief in baptismal regeneration in the early church, which still counts for something.
Honestly I don’t see how you think that the ending of Mark justifies drinking poison. It clearly is teaching that if someone attempts to poison you, God will protect you from the poison. Same thing with the snake. The point is that if a poisonous snake bites you God can keep you from dying from the bite. The scriptures say “thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 that doesn't really make sense
astronomer, even though jeremiah's scroll was thrown into the fire, the bible clearly says in the verse you quoted that the same words were written down again. so nothing was lost.
@@craigime You never heard a sermon that went on to long?
Are you familiar with the Illinois Lutheran conference? They are KJV only Lutherans. I too read and have a more TR preference
Ecclesiastical Text yes!!
If one really comes to an evil pass where one has to use the E.S.V. (a pox thereupon!), the Catholic Edition is much, much better to use than any of the Protestant editions of it, with or without the Apocrypha. The Catholic Edition expunges many of the worst features of the E.S.V. as first and later published for Protestant use. It restores passages to where they belong, for one major thing. It opts for orthodox readings when the Protestant E.S.V. defiles them. And on and on and on. In these regards it does a lot of helpful and orthodox things to the E.S.V. that, similarly, the much better Second Catholic Edition does for the Revised Standard Version to make the R.S.V. in its R.S.V.-C.E. much preferable to the usual Protestant editions of it.
Even in commending those Catholic editions, I still stick to the Authorised "King James" Bible (sith its Apocrypha) and secondarily to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner BIble. Those two are better and still are than even the best of the modern versions.
@@geraldparker8125 exactly what readings do the ESV defile?
Actually, despite so many protestations that the divergences are few in number, they are numerous enough to make it necessary to publish at least a booklet-length publication adequately to list them all and to make essential comments about the differences. The Trinitarian Bible Society's pamphlets (including the excellent ones about the R.S.V., upon which the E.S.V. is based) are a good starting point to grasp the extent and importance of these matters.
@@geraldparker8125 to say that it "defiled" certain readings is a strong accusation...give me a few examples
The N.T. book of the Acts of the Apostles is one that can be especially distressing to read in the so-called "Critical Text", such passages being especially numerous. To cite the full quantity of mangled verses takes far too much listing them to do so in the space of comments like these. One can cite some that are particularly galling, but that only gives a slight view of just how appalling these differences can be when they affect so much of a text as the Critical Text affects Acts. I'll provide a couple, but in a context like this, to go on and on just belittles the issue, since it is the cumulative effect of the mangled verses that can make Acts. for example, so appalling in the Critical Text. Even if the E.S.V. is not so relentlessly "critical" in its readings as the American Standard Version (A.S.V.), there still is too much of that to make reading the E.S.V. Protestant text so edifying as translations done from the purer Received Text. I realise at this point that I need to find a time free enough to continue here, so I shall come back to this in a comment on my own comments when I can amplify this with some salient examples from the many that one could cite. TO BE CONTINUED.
Textual criticism aims at getting at the earliest texts (among other things.) It ought to be borne in mind what an autograph is exactly may be difficult to determine in cultural contexts of oral traditions.
I would encourage Dr. Cooper to speak more on what textual criticism is not. As a discipline textual criticism is not attempting to settle theological differences. Some members of faith traditions (and in particular the more learned members of their clergies) understand textual criticism but oftentimes will employ that knowledge to theological ends. For the most part (though we all bring our baggage with us) textual critics aim at discovering, elucidating and reconstructing what was the intended and received meanings of texts in their contemporary cultures. Such attempts are not aimed at undermining received wisdom. From the textual criticism point of view God's inspired Word as preserved in the apographa is safe.
It is not textual critics who roll up ancient scrolls and beat the faith out of believers.
If you could get your hands on one, I suggest you try and find an American Standard Version of 1901. That bible, with its many references, is a splendid example of a critical text pre-Schofield version. No futurist bias is a good thing! It uses as its base the Westcott and Hort 1881 Critical Text. Fantastic! I searched for one and got it! Never letting it go either!
I am not sure whether you addressed that to me or to someone else. I do have several editions of the Revised Version and of the American Standard Version alike. I've even read the entire A.S.V. (plus the R.V. Apocrypha).
Please do a review of the Evangelical Heritage Version
It's pretty good, all told, albeit with some problems of its own. I have consulted it, but am still cautious about how far to go with it.
I seem to recall that R. Grant Jones made a video about the E.H.V., maybe only one of his less comprehensive ones to tide over whilte waiting to write something further later on. At any rate, it's a starting point.
Thanks again. A Catholic here and you were not wrong that there is now a Catholic version of the ESV withall the Catholic books. This was a work of Bishops and scholars in the Catholic Church in India ( and has some differences from the Anglican version of the ESV). Agree with you on the RSV 2nd CE. However, that is published by Ignatius and maybe they haven't made it easy to license liturgically - although they did do so for the personal ordinatriate provided for ex - Anglican /Episcopal congregations. Anyway, the marketing push is on in the US for this ESV catholic version (as my inbox attests). I also agree with your underlying view on texts. And so I also like the NKJV (as well as the KJV). On the woman taken in adultery appearing in John, I believe Jerome's theory is that this appeared in one of the synoptics but was removed by copyists out of "scandal" but was put back into John's Gospel at some point as part of what was handed done by the Apostles. Hard to say.
I find that when a "Catholic Edition" of a modern Protestant Bible version exists, the Catholic alternative is always (in my experience, so far) the better choice. The Catholic editions are superior, less gtven to speculative readings, and more cautious. I am NOT Romish Catholic myself. I am Lutheran. Still, Catholic Biblical scholarship seems to avoid the extremes of mainline Protestant work in these versions. What is good or at least decent, ends up improved and more responsible. I don't care one bit that "Protestant" is not operative in these improvements. I take them where I find them. The R.S.V. Second Catholic Edition ends up being the best modern alternative that there is, and hopefully it will displace the "regular" R.S.V. and N.R.S.V. network of inferior Protestant pathbreakers which pose so many problems in using them.
I have an EHV New Testament. Thus far, I'm very pleased with it.
It's better than that NIV disaster, but why not just use the Authorized Version? Seems a major (if not the main) reason for the EHV was not wanting to admit their mistake in dumping the King James in the 80's in favor of the NIV.
@@hansimgluck4965 My gripe about the King James translation is that is has wording which can be confusing for (or worse, woefully misunderstood by) the average reader. Let me give you some examples...
In the KJV, the word "conversation" is used. However, the word "conversation" in 1611 had a different meaning than it did now. "Conversation" in modern parlance means a talk between people; in 1611, your "conversation" was your behavior.
Here's another: In I John 3:6, the way it reads gives the impression of perfectionism ("Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not"), and indeed people who adhere to perfectionist doctrine love this translation of the verse. The problem is that the Greek should be more properly translated "does not keep sinning" in the sense of perpetual, impenitent sin. Do you see the problem?
I could name more things, but I think that makes the point.
I'll freely admit that part of my apprehension in lifting the KJV over and above all translations is due to my time in a KJV-Only fundamentalist Baptist church for several years of my youth. It didn't help that the KJV was a preferred translation for Word of Faith preachers as well. Obviously, I'm aware that not every KJV reader falls into traps like these, and I appreciate the prose utilized in its delivery, but I have a hard time saying it's the best translation.
Yes, all those things are true. But it's worth learning the little differences in the Jacobean English. Among other reasons, it's the only way of conforming the English language to the Greek in terms of singular versus plural second person pronouns.
In terms of priorities, retaining the basic integrity of the grammar is certainly paramount - then we can go from there to teach and learn about the little differences between the Jacobean and the street English.
Here's an interview you might like:
th-cam.com/video/2ctIimkeu9Q/w-d-xo.html
I don't disagree in principal, but I also favor updated Bible translations to meet with changing language usage. Because there are a great number of people out there who, for whatever reason, don't have an interest in learning older English.
The apographs are the copies , and this is what the modern CT guys are using .
Erasmus only had a handful of them when he was working on his critical first edition . God has preserved all that we have , why would you seek to limit the work to the TR when there has ben more advancement?
The King James Bible should be on your list also.
All the early Church Fathers until the 6th/7th cenury quoted Alexandrian readings of the scripture, which are the basis of modern critical editions. The first church father to quote Byzantine renderings was John of Chrysostom. There is overwhelming historic evidence that the Alexandrian manuscripts are closer tot he autographs.
Umm... John Chrysostom died in 407.
Could we please not just throw inconvenient facts around like that as though they were facts? It's so triggering.
According to Miller's study, the advantage of the Traditional Text over the "Neologian" before Origen was actually 2:1, setting aside Justin Martyr, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. If these four are included, the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.33:1 since the confusion which is most obvious in Origen is already observable in these men. From Origen to Macarius Magnus the advantage of the Traditional Text drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 A.D. it is back up to 2:1.[101] Please note that the Traditional Text was always ahead, even in the worst of times. www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_4.html
Alad Murad,
>
That is simply false. If this is the sort of claim you lead with, I have to conclude that you are very unfamiliar with the relevant materials.
I have various editions and corrected printings, etc., of the E.S.V. translation. However, it is the one with which you are less famililar that I like best, namely that Catholic Edition of the E.S.V. It eliminates a large proportion of those malodourous deviations from the Majority Text that are so disturbing. Some remain, but not a lot, at lease not a lot of the most egregious ones which vary from the Textus Receptus and from the Clementine Vulgate. I still, though, like you, much prefer the N.K.J.V., which RETURNS to the T.R. And, anyway, I use the A.V. (K.J.V.) most of all.
why are deviations from the majority text "malodourous"?
I agree. I only use modern versions when reading for special need. Habitually, it is the K.J.V., the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, and the N.K.J.V. that I consult by far most of the time.
you didn't really say much of anything
Letis doesn’t come to a position
The world is burning outside and people are fighting to the death in streets over toilet paper: Jordan Cooper is in his study room expressing his views about textual criticism.
All the more reason I appreciate it here in NYC as I am isolated in my apartment with just enough fever over the past week to be isolated but not problematic enough to be tested. And thank God no other symptoms other than a scratchy throat and feeling tired by 5. Keep it coming Jordan!
I hope you feel better soon!
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of the Lord endures forever.