The English Standard Version - RSV in new garb(age)

[Jerry]

Personally' date=' I like reading the Apocrypha, but I certainly don't agree with [any translation'] placing it as if equal to the canonical scriptures.

Wow, do you enjoy reading other myths and false religious works? There is sooo much in the Apocrypha that contradicts the Bible.

[John the Baptist]

firmly believe God has preserved His infallible, inspired, pure and complete words in the King James Bible.

Well, Will I cannot agree as you know with this. I agree with some your comments about the ESV, Translators should have translated according to the Hebrew Text. But inspiration I believe took place in the 1st Century and before that with the Old Testament. Yes God has preserved His Word in the many manuscript copies we have which I believe have a high degree of accuracy.

God Bless
John

[Behold the Lamb]

Wow, do you enjoy reading other myths and false religious works? There is sooo much in the Apocrypha that contradicts the Bible.

I like it for its historical content. There's a reason that up until the late 1800s protestants also read it for it's informational qualities. But I liken it to any other extra-biblical, manmade book, such as the Writings of Josephus for example. Not really into the attempted "prophetic" things in it. Like I said, I like the historical content as well as some of the stuff from Wisdom of Solomon. I think this passage makes a great point, and it is supported by Romans 1:19-23.

"Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster; But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world. With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them how much mightier is he that made them." -Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-4

I think that's a beautiful passage, and I enjoy some of the other things written in Wisdom of Solomon. But at the same time, it's quite a different experience from reading the words of God. You just have to read it with the same mindset you would if you were reading anything else written by men: With discernment and with the fact that men are very good at getting things wrong in mind.

Anyway, the main reason I started reading the Apocryhpa was so that I would have a better understanding of where Catholics get some of their outlandish beliefs, so that when given a chance to talk with one, I would be able to better talk with them and help them to see the truth, without looking ignorant of their beliefs myself. The only thing is, there is no basis for most of their kooky beliefs even in the Apocrypha! I don't know where that get a lot of that from.

[brandplucked]

Hi John. Yes, I know you do not agree with me. And I also know that you yourself do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is now the complete and 100% true words of God.

As for your "high degree of accuracy", there are many others who are a bit more honest in their evaluations. Here are a few of their own quotes.

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

[Jerry]

The only part of the Apocrypha that is even vaguely historical is the first two books of Macabees. Of course, when they portray Antiochus Epiphanes dying three different ways you really have to question its historical accuracy!!

[Guest Guest]

[quote="brandplucked"][quote="Behold the Lamb"]

But by putting the words KJV 1611 AV in there, isn't that adding? In regards to the KJV 1611, I have a sincere question here, and it's not meant to be taken sarcastically: True 1611 KJVs/AVs include the Apocrypha, which are the "extra books" included in Catholic Bibles. They weren't removed from the King James version I believe until sometime in the late 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong), and there are still KJVs today that include the Apocryphal books. My question for those of you who only use the King James version is this: How do you feel about the removal of those books from the KJ, or for that matter, about the fact that they were there in the first place? Again, just a sincere question that I've always wondered but never had the chance to ask.[/quote]


Hi behold. I hope this helps explain some of this for you.
WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."

The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

Martin Luther, whose German Bible version also included the Apocrypha between the Testaments, just like the King James Bible, said in a note on the Apocrypha: "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."

It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.

The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.

Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, ?Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: ?It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!?

Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.?

The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, ?Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.?

Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)

QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?

The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including Miles Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1537, Taverner's Bible 1539, the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible of 1560.

Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the Westminster divines wrote,

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (WCF 1:3).

Even today the same "Evangelical" Publishing Houses who print the NIV, NASB, ESV continue to publish Bible versions that contain the Apocryphal books. Zondervan publishers, who put out the NIV, also publish a combined New American Standard Bible - The Message edition that includes the Apocrypha. The New Living Translation (based on the same Westcott-Hort N.T. texts as the NASB, NIV, ESV) from Tyndale Press also contains the Apocryphal books. Zondervan also publishes the New Revised Standard Version, the RSV, and the New American Bible, all three of which contain the Apocrypha. You can even get a Today's English Version Catholic edition 1992 put out by the same American Bible Society, and it contains the whole of the Apocryphal books in its pages.

It is more than a little hypocritcal of those who promote the modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard etc. to condemn the King James Bible of having at one time placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the two Testaments, when the very texts used as the basis for these modern translations contained the same Apocryphal books MIXED AND MINGLED among the other O.T. Scriptures themselves, and most "evangelical publishers" continue to this day to publish Catholic and Protestant editions that still contain these books.

Will Kinney[/quote]

WOW!!! Thank you so much, brandplucked, for this information. I just thought that I would check this thread, as I have not had an opportunity to get on OB in a few days. This is incredible! You should sincerely think about a writing career as a Christian...or maybe you do this already? This is brilliant! I have never heard it explained so thoroughly before. This is definetly something that all people (Christian or non-Christian) should be aware of! Bravo! :amen: :goodpost:

candlellight

[brandplucked]

Hi candlelight. I'm very glad to hear the article was of some benefit to you. It is a compilation of many articles that can be found on the internet. I just kind of put it all together in one place with some of my own research into the matter.

God bless,


Believing The Book,

Will K