 |
|
Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
A Disputatio From the Past
11/16/2011 - James White
This discussion keeps coming up, so, I am thankful I was given permission to post a brief written "disputatio" between myself and Douglas Wilson on the topic of the "Ecclesiastical Text." Though we were limited to very brief statements (115 words) I think even this little discussion illustrated the problems with the Ecclesiastical Text theory. It sounds great, but there is one big problem: it cannot answer specifics about texts (sort of necessary for knowing the text of the NT!) and it just doesn't ground itself in history. In any case, I think this took place somewhere around 1996 or so (just going off the top of my head). Here's the full text:Volume 10, Issue 1: Disputatio
Discerning the Manuscript Traditions
Douglas Wilson and James White
"I am of NIV," some say. Others say, "I am of NASB." Still others say, "I am of KJV." Is it simply enough to respond to these various armies that they may water, but God gives the increaseso quit squabbling? If the translation one uses does matter, which should it be? And which of the ancient manuscripts should be used as a base for translation? In what follows, Douglas Wilson, editor of Credenda/Agenda, and James White discuss whether one manuscript is superior to another and how we might know that one is superior.
James White is the author of the book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, and the book, Letters to a Mormon Elder. He is the Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries.
DW: The historic Protestant position on the manuscript tradition of Scripture is that God had divinely inspired the writing of the autographs and had providentially preserved the tradition of the apographs down to the present time. But with the advent of modernity, this simple faith was not scientific enough and independent textual critics began to work with the Scriptures as though they were just another collection of ancient books, subject to the same treatment. Conservatives like B.B. Warfield were concerned about these unbelieving encroachments, and so resolved simply to defend the autographs alone, a well-meaning but disastrous strategy. While rejecting the know-nothing approach of fundamentalism, historic Protestants need to return to the reformational doctrine of sola Scriptura.
JW: The central issue for any believing Christian when it comes to the text of the Bible is this: what did the original authors write? We must remember that the ultimate goal is to know what John or Paul wrote, not what a scribe, or group of scribes, or even a group of theologians, think they wrote. We must never forget that at times in the history of the Church certain texts have become enshrined by tradition rather than by force of historical verity. To be truly Reformed is to always test one's traditions, and this is no less true when we examine the issue of text types and manuscript traditions.
DW: Agreed. But if we are able to know what the original autographs contained, and we do not have the autographs themselves, then we must have a reliable tradition or bridge of some sort which connects us to the original autographs. Since we agree that such a traditional bridge is necessary, then the debate concerns which manuscript tradition, and not whether we will have a manuscript tradition. It concerns which scribes are reliable, not whether intervening scribes are necessary. This means the "force of historical verity" is simply another way of referring to accurate tradition. And it appears to me that when we use this "force" as the standard, the textus receptus measures up quite well.
JW: Some have counted as many as one hundred different editions of the TR, so which one is being referred to is a major question. The most popular TR differs from the Majority Text in over 1,800 places, and contains obvious errors (such as those at Luke 2:22 or 2 Timothy 2:19). The early editions of the TR (the editions of Erasmus) were created on the same basis as modern texts, as Erasmus' own comments make clear. The TR is an "artificial" text, just as all modern texts, in that there is not a single manuscript in the tradition that reads word-for-word as the TR.
DW: If a problem with the TR is variant readings, then how does it help to expand the field so that we have thousands more variant readings? The "errors" you cite are a wonderful example of the power of paradigms. How is "Christ" instead of "Lord" a mistake? Or Mary's purification? The issue is not whether careful scholarship goes into the formation of the text, but rather who is qualified to do that scholarship, and who is responsible for authoritatively receiving it. The Church has been entrusted with the oracles of God, not autonomous scientists. We have agreed that a traditional manuscript bridge is necessary. Who stands guard at the bridgethe Church or autonomous science?
JW: It is a myth that the TR is the "received text." The Church has never convened and compared one tradition against another and made that determination. Yet, there are many parallels between the arguments once used by Rome in favor of the Vulgate and the arguments used by some to support the TR. As to the errors cited, the issue is simple: just as I don't accept the Vulgate's renderings due to their "common use" for centuries, so I ask of the TR the same question: is that what Luke or Paul originally wrote? In both places, the TR gives a reading that stands against even the Majority Text. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
19:38:20 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
I Am Definitely Looking Forward to Listening to This One
11/07/2011 - James White
(Though I confess...the comfy chair thing is not something I would ever want to be forced into!)
09:32:31 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
Doulos in a Possible ESV Revision
10/23/2011 - Alan Kurschner
Rod Decker expresses his thoughts on the ESV possibly rendering doulos to "bondservant" instead of the current rendered "slave."18:17:15 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
The Dan Wallace V. Bart Ehrman Debate: Round 2
08/16/2011 - James White
It has been a little over three years since Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman debated on the subject of the text of the New Testament in New Orleans. I was very thankful to have his exchange with Bart to listen to in preparation for my own debate with Ehrman. A second debate has now been scheduled for October 1, 2011. I am really looking forward to hearing this one as well. There are many aspects of Ehrman's presentation that need to be challenged, and challenged strongly. I hope and pray Dan Wallace will bring those challenges out with great clarity, with the Lord's help.The debate sold out in a matter of days. So they have moved to a larger facility. If you are anywhere near the location of this debate, I'm sure you will find it to be most stimulating. I would love to go myself, but finances are finances. I do hope to get the chance to debate Bart Ehrman again in the future.
08:50:54 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
Fine-Tuning Inerrancy: A Response to Hobbins
07/19/2011 - Jamin Hubner
The Hebrew scholar John Hobbins that I've often enjoyed (and time to time critiqued) has written a post entitled "Evangelical teachers have forgotten what inerrancy means." He makes a number of interesting (and false) assertions that merits response. ...[Click Here to Continue Reading]
16:47:17 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
Lecture on the Reliability of the New Testament
06/14/2011 - Tur8infan
In the video embedded below, Dr. White provides some important information on the question of the reliability of the New Testament, particularly in view of the manuscript variations. -TurretinFan12:57:06 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
Canon and Criticism: TR Onlyism and the Canon of Scripture? - Part I
03/31/2011 - Jamin Hubner
Pastor Jeff Riddle (jeffriddle.net) has made a few interesting assertions (one's I have honestly never heard of before) that needs some immediate attention:Commitment to the traditional text results in a stable, fixed, and reliable text (a closed canon). Commitment to the ongoing editions of the modern critical text results in an unstable, ever-changing text (what is essentially an open canon). (Here)
I believe the departure from the traditional text matters. It matters because the traditional text is superior to the modern critical one. It matters because the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture is at stake. It matters because doctrinal issues of the authority and canon of Scripture are at stake. (Here)
In theory then, anyone who isn't a Textus Receptus advocate (like Riddle) does not (or cannot?) believe in a "closed canon." Is that what is being said? And, when did the "canon" become "closed" according to Riddle?
If Dr. Riddle could answer these two questions, and just generally explain what connection he is making between the "traditional text" and the canon of Scripture, that would be very helpful.
23:33:32 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle Part IV
03/22/2011 - Jamin Hubner
Pastor Jeff Riddle's third and final objection to the ESV is the following:3. The ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text....
The final challenge comes in the fact that the ESV is not based on the traditional texts of Scripture that were used by the Protestant Reformers in their vernacular translations (the Masoretic text of the OT and the received text of the NT). For the NT, most significantly, the ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text as found in the UBS 4th ed. and the Nestle-Aland 27th ed.
This means that as one reads through the ESV he will find translations based on texts that diverge from the Tyndale-Geneva-King James Version tradition.
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
23:01:12 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle - Part III
03/22/2011 - Jamin Hubner
Pastor Riddle's second objection to the ESV is:The ESV is not, in fact, a new translation but an evangelical revision of a notoriously liberal translation.
A close inspection of the preface to the ESV is revealing. Though it claims to stand in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations, it is clear that the ESV actually issues from a far more liberal source. On one hand, the ESV wants to claim a place in the tradition of the classic English translations of the Protestant Reformation, but, on the other, it must admit that its roots are actually in later Protestant liberalism.
Obviously, Riddles believes that all of the Reformed and Reformed Baptist endorsers (here) are unaware of this claim, or, that they are aware of it but don't see it as significant. That's quite an assertion.
But why is it said that the ESV is "not, in fact, a new translation," but based on previous translation? As if by "new translation" someone is suggesting that the ESV has been translated from the Greek and Hebrew from scratch. That's not true and no one is making that claim, though that may be the understanding of the masses. Dozens of popular English translations are not "new" in the sense of being translated from scratch, even with the "new" in their names. They are based off of previous translations because there's just no point in starting completely over. So it goes without saying that the ESV - just like the NASB, NRSV, TNIV, NKJV - are not freshly new translations, unless the preface of the ESV clearly says it isn't based off of something prior to it (like the NET, NIV, etc.).
Again, the preface captures the ESVs awkward stance: The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. So, in truth, the ESVs lineage is through the infamous English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971.
It is unclear what is meant by "awkward stance." What is awkward? How does this sentence in the preface to the ESV differ at all in awkwardness from the preface of other translations etc.? We're not told.
The old RSV was roundly condemned by evangelicals when it first appeared. The most criticized passage was Isaiah 7:14 in which the RSV translated the Hebrew word almah as young woman rather than virgin. Conservatives, no doubt rightly, took this as a not so subtle undermining of the doctrine of the virginal conception of Christ. When the NT portion of the RSV was completed in 1946, Westminster Theological Seminary Oswald T. Allis wrote a stinging critique of the work titled Revision or New Translation? (P & R, 1948).
Is Riddles suggesting that the translators of the RSV didn't believe in the virgin birth, or that they intentionally translated it so that it would undermine the virgin birth? If so, more facts obviously have to be presented than just the general sowing seeds of doubt...
Granted, the ESV has corrected passages like Isaiah 7:14 (i.e., it reads virgin and not young woman). Still, the fact that the ESV springs from the RSV cannot be an irrelevant consideration. If one compares the ESV and RSV, he finds that the translations are very often is full agreement with one another. Some have suggested that despite corrections like that made with Isaiah 7:14, the ESV still retains some doctrinally questionable renderings from the RSV. Alan J. Macgregor cites the following passages as examples: Micah 5:2; Isaiah 53:9; 1 Corinthians 3:3-4; 1 Corinthians 7:36-38; Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; and Revelation 19:8) (see Macgregors Three Modern Versions, pp. 55-58). Lets take Micah 5:2 as an example:
KJV: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
RSV: But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.
ESV: But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days.
Note that the ESV follows the RSV verbatim except for the insertion of the word too. The doctrinal issue here would have to do with the change of from everlasting to from ancient days. Macgregor concludes, the liberal rendering of the RSV is retained in full, so undermining the Deity of Christ, reducing Him to a created being who has a point of origin! (Three Modern Versions, p. 56).
In case anyone was wondering, the NASB and NIV say:
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." (NASB)
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (NIV)
Macgregor's conclusion is simply wrong. None of these translations undermine the deity of Christ or say that Jesus was created, nor do they demonstrate a "liberal" tendency.
First of all, it is one thing to say there are "questionable" translations, and another to say a translation undermines the deity of Christ. Riddle says the former, Macgregor affirms the latter, though I suspect they both agree with each other.
Second, there are good reasons from the text itself (מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃, ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος in LXX) to translate it as "ancient times" (NIV), "days of eternity" (NASB), or "ancient days" (ESV). The specific [noun, corrected 3/25/11] for "day" (yom) is used, which is why the RSV, ESV, and NASB are generally more "literal" or "word for word" than the KJV at this point. Why, then, does the KJV and other versions say "everlasting"? Because that's more of the general meaning of the verse - assuming that their specific interpretation is true (more on this in a moment).
Since Riddle makes the specific charge that "changing" (nothing was really changed - unless we first assume the KJV is normative) "from everlasting" to "from ancient days," statistical analysis is helpful at this point. Below are the ESV renderings of the word for "ancient" (עולם) and then the KJV renderings:
As you can see, the ESV translators prefer to use the word "ancient" about 3 times more than the KJV translators (13/437 vs. 5/439) in their rendering of this Hebrew word in the entire OT. Thus, on a purely statistical basis, the use of "ancient' days in Micah 5:2 is probably explained by the fact that the ESV translators simply tend to use the word "ancient" often - not just in texts about the deity of Christ, but in the general OT. Of course, if we are to assume a conspiracy theory to begin with, then we should assume that the reason for all of those 8 additional renderings (13 vs. 5) is to undermine some important doctrine of Christianity (e.g. deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.). But, that obviously assumes that all of the other 12 instances besides Micah 5:2 are talking about such a doctrine (which not all of them are), and assumes many other things.
In short, the objection is largely speculation. If one refuses to do exegesis and isolates the phrase in Micah 5 from the rest of Scripture and from other translations, well yes, I suppose one could make an argument that the verse seems to say Jesus came from a point in time where there were "days." Just as an aside, that is what Jehovah's Witnesses do to this verse and countless others - though with a slightly different angle. Their translation (NWT) says "whose origins" - just like the ESV, RSV, NIV, and Holman Standard. The KJV and others say "from goings forth." Because the NWT appeal to their translation of this verse to support their position that Jesus was created, King James Only advocates often automatically assume that the mindset of the ESV, NIV, and Holman Standard translators is the same as cult groups because they assume that their interpretations of the translations are right. The unstated suggestion, then, is that there is an effort, either intentional or unintentional, to undermine the heart of Christianity through such translations.
But, again. Is there really a collective effort of trying to undermine the deity of Christ? And do these translations really assert that Jesus is created - if that is how it is to be interpreted?
The ESV Study Bible note on Micah 5:2 is very important. It highlights the fact that the rendering of the text largely depends on how one understands what is being asserted:
The Messiah's reign is at God's behest (for me), and his coming forth (or origins; plural of Hb. motsaah, coming out) is from of old, from ancient days. This has been taken to indicate either an ancient (Davidic) lineage or eternal (and therefore divine) origin of the predicted Messiah. The first time-related expression (from of old; Hb. miqqedem) generally refers to ancient historical times (e.g., Neh. 12:46; Ps. 77:5, 11; 78:2; 143:5; Isa. 45:21; 46:10) but can also refer to eternity past (e.g., Ps. 74:12; Hab. 1:12). The second time-related expression (from ancient days; Hb. mime olam), however, refers to ancient historical times both in Micah (7:14; cf. 7:20) and elsewhere (Deut. 32:7; Isa. 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mal. 3:4); thus this text is referring to the Messiah's ancient Davidic lineage, confirming that the ancient covenantal promises made to David still stand.
Thus, Macgregor and Riddle's argument (like the previous one about the publisher of the ESV) is irrelevant. The ontological, eternal and divine origin of the Messiah isn't even being discussed - the Messiah's physical, earthly lineage is.
Therefore, if anything, Micah 5:2 (and no doubt, a great portion of the other aforementioned list of verses by Riddle and Macgregor) is just another reason to use multiple translations, not dismiss the ESV.
There are other issues related to the ESVs general translation philosophy which Macgregor pinpoints. Despite the fact that it is championed by gender complementarians, it appears that concession is sometimes made to the gender neutral lobby (Macgregor, p. 54). Oddly enough, some of the old RSVs gender specific renderings (composed before the ascendency of academic feminism) are made gender neutral in the ESV. Here are three examples from Romans (emphasis added):
Romans 2:28:
RSV: For he is not a real Jew.
ESV: For no one is a Jew.
Romans 3:4:
RSV: Let God be true though every man be false.
ESV: Let God be true though every one were a liar.
Romans 3:28:
RSV: For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
ESV: For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
How does Riddle know these renderings are the result of giving-in to a gender-neutral lobby? I mean, is Riddle really suggesting that every time a translator decides to say "parent" instead of "father" or "mother" and "person" instead of "he" or "she," that person is translating it for no other reason than to accommodate to liberal politics?
Such an idea simply isn't true. If one wants to provide a more dynamic translation, she might use "one" in place of "him" or "he" if the meaning of the verse clearly applies to both genders - like the verses in Romans listed above. Now, as Grudem and others have pointed out, most people would understand that such a particular verse was applying to women as much as men (since "man" and "he" is often generic terms for a human person), so there is no point is sacrificing grammatical accuracy for interpretational accuracy. That's a good point.
But, we have to remember that the point of rendering it gender-neutral doesn't always have to do with politics, but with interpretation. That is, such a dynamic translator would say "I don't want to risk the possibility that some people will understand this verse to apply to men only and not women, so I'm going to write 'person' instead of 'him,'" or, "I don't want anyone to think this proverb applies to mothers and not fathers, so I'm going to put 'parent.'" Such an accommodation may not be necessary for most people since they already know it applies to both men and women, but it might be for some people, and that's why the gender-neutral translation stands.
Of course, in some cases, the thought is "We want to make friends with the evangelical egalitarians and feminists, so we're going to write 'parents'." In that case, the translation is politically driven and not textually, contextually, or exegetically driven. (The TNIV is guilty of this the most)
So like many case studies, it's a case-by-case study. It is often difficult to tell when a translator is simply rendering a text because it makes sense and is easy to understand, or rendering it for strictly political reasons. My guess is that the ESV didn't change many of those gender-neutral renderings because it doesn't effect the meaning of what's being said, not because they're liberals, supporting liberals, or what have you. Thus, Riddle and Macgregor have to prove that such translations (e.g. the Romans texts in the ESV) are politically and not interpretationally driven, not merely assert it. They have to show that the board and translators of the ESV rendered such texts in the way they did as a direct result of being liberal or trying to be politically correct. It is not enough to simply say or suggest that "where the RSV and ESV are the same, it's all a liberal translation and is therefore illegitimate and/or questionable."
Finally, despite its claim in the preface to be an essentially literal translation, the ESV often makes use of dynamic equivalent methods, as does the RSV. One example cited by Macgregor is the rendering of the phrase evn th/| paliggenesi,a| (literally in the regeneration) in Matthew 19:28 as in the new world (though a note in the ESV provides the literal rendering).
When the ESV preface said "essentially literal" translation, it didn't mean "exhaustively literal" translation. Is that not clear? So, why, then, does Riddle give an example of when the ESV is dynamic and not literal, as if that somehow undermines the purpose of ESV in anyway? It proves nothing. If anything, it proves that the preface is right - the ESV is essentially a literal translation, and not always, absolutely, or exhaustively literal, which means there are plenty of exceptions to being literal. Citing the exceptions tends to commit the fallacy of composition (something is true of the whole because something is true of some of the parts).
Dynamic renderings in an essentially literal translation (or any translation) is not automatically a bad thing anyway. For example, in the case of II Tim. 3:16, the rendering of θεόπνευστος is probably more accurate in the ESV:
All Scripture is breathed out by God (ESV)
All Scripture is inspired by God (NASB)
In attempting to be more literal, the NASB says "inspired," trying to maintain a one-for-one word equivalency. But "breathed-out by God" is probably more accurate in capturing the real meaning of the Greek word, even though it supplies an additional English word.
More examples could be given. But again, this doesn't mean the purpose of the ESV is wrong, deceptive, or inaccurate. Unless it can be demonstrated that in the entire ESV text there are more cases of dynamic translation than literal translation, Riddle does not have much of an argument. I mean, one could also cite examples in the KJV or NASB where the text is more dynamic than literal (e.g. Jeremiah 12:2 in KJV). But that doesn't prove that both translations are not literal on the whole, it only shows that they are not literal in those cases.
14:28:13 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle - Part II
03/21/2011 - Jamin Hubner
Riddle begins his essay "Three Basic Challenges to the ESV":Crossway publishers continue their very successful (dare we say relentless) marketing of the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible. Crossway editor Justin Taylors recently featured a new video on his blog in which various leaders explain why they trust and appreciate this translation. The ESV is, without doubt, the translation of choice among those whom Colin Hansen has described as the young, restless, and reformed.
The average reader would probably wonder about the kind of people who support the ESV after reading this introduction. Riddle retains the quotes on "various leaders" so people are not quick to think he agrees with this label. He then says "young, restless, and reformed" prefer the ESV over all the others. It's not clear what is meant by this or who these restless young people are. But what is clear is that doubts are being cast regarding the support group and reading audience of the ESV.
But, what's the truth? Below are a few who endorse (not merely use) the ESV:
- John Piper
- Albert Mohler Jr.
- Wayne Grudem
- J.I. Packer
- Mark Dever
- Philip Graham Ryken
- Ligon Duncan
- G.K. Beale
- S. M. Baugh
- Darrel Bock
- Daniel Wallace
- Robert W. Yarbrough
- R.C. Sproul (see also, his "Why We Use the ESV.")
John MacArthur also has several editions of his study Bible in the ESV (here).
Obviously, one could spend hours listing the credentials of each of these pastors, scholars, authors, seminary presidents, etc. Yet, we realize that truth is not dependent on how much support it receives in the church or academic community. But the simple fact is that the title "various leaders" is accurate, not dubious. The supporters of the ESV are some of the greatest conservative Reformed and Reformed Baptist pastors and teachers alive. That's just a fact, and there's no sense in blurring it.
Riddle goes on:
Here, however, are three basic challenges that might give one pause before jumping on the ESV bandwagon:
1. The ESV has a National Council of Churches copyright.
If you turn in a copy of the ESV to the bottom of the copyright page, you will find this note:
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
The note is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean that the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches holds the copyright to the RSV, upon which the ESV is based, or does it mean that the NCC retains, as well, some rights to the ESV? What agreement did Crossway reach with the NCC in order to revise the RSV and create the ESV? Did they pay them a one-time fee? Or, does the NCC receive ongoing royalties from sales of the ESV? On this point Alan J. Macgregor queries:
Does this mean that every time a believer purchases an ESV Bible, he is financially supporting the National Council of Churches? (That body denies most of the fundamental doctrines of the Evangelical Reformed Faith). There are still many professing Evangelical and Reformed groups and publications, all enthusiastically encouraging us to buy and use this new version. The separation principles commanded in the Scriptures, and which our discerning forefathers solemnly held to, seem to have been discarded and forgotten (Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV [The Bible League, 2004]: p. 50).
There are a number of things to point out in this first objection to the ESV.
First, the organization or person who holds the copyright of a translation doesn't automatically determine the quality or truthfulness of the translation. It doesn't matter who currently holds a copyright to any volume, it doesn't change the content of the work itself. If the KJV was copyrighted by Neo-Nazis, Wheaton College, or Walmart, it wouldn't change the KJV. The KJV is still what it is, just like the ESV is what it is, and that's all that matters.
But not according to Riddle, who raises the question about whether those who purchase the ESV support a liberal organization. If the purchasing the ESV somehow supports something bad, how can we justify buying it? This is obviously a slippery argument, and it's been around for a while (see video here, "ESV Bible is Revised RSV owned by Apostate NCC"). But if it's going to be made it should be applied fully and consistently. So, for example, what if it could be demonstrated that King James Bibles use paper and binding materials produced from slave labor? Buying the KJV would "financially support" the oppression of human beings, would it not? What about the machines used to print the KJV; what if those companies were sympathetic to homosexual rights? Buying King James Bibles would certainly be unacceptable practice - if Macgregor and Riddles were consistent. Apologetics organizations should be banned from purchasing all materials on Mormonism, Catholicism, Christian liberalism (since that would all be supporting such groups). And no Christian would ever be justified in purchasing books that are published by Islamic organizations (so much for Dr. White's research!). If Riddles and Macgregor want to make the charge that buying the ESV supports a liberal organization, how much greater would they be opposed to buying books that come from purely secular organizations and publishers who directly oppose Christianity! One would literally have to empty entire church libraries because somehow, somewhere, some liberal or non-Christian group received a cut from the profit of retail sales.
It's evident how silly this is, and how it can't be maintained consistently. It assumes a double-standard and says nothing substantive about the ESV text itself, which should be the focus of the debate. And, out of all the people to make the association argument (or fallacy rather), King James Version advocates should be the last given that the "King James" in the "King James Bible" was probably homosexual (See Scott, James I: The Fool as the King, 108, 11, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382, cited in White, KJO Controversy, 301)
Even if there is some contractual arrangement whereby the NCC received an upfront lump payment and does not receive royalties for individual ESV sales...
What Riddles is referring to is a remark by Wayne Grudem, at least according to a blogger who emailed him:
"We bought the rights to the old RSV from the NCC in a one-time payment several years ago. The funding for that came from private sources, not from any ESV salesNot one cent goes to the NCC from ESV sales, and it never will."
If this is what Grudem said and Grudem is telling the truth, then the Riddle's and Macgregor's objection is generally irrelevant. Riddle seems to suspect this by saying "Even if there is some [lump payment]...challenge #2 remains." This will be addressed next...
17:16:18 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -
|