ESV: Apologetic trash
Gavin Rumney has an interesting post about the ESV’s (English Standard Version’s) introduction to the book of 2 Peter. The ESV has been jokingly referred to as the ‘Evangelical Standard Version’, reflecting its character as a conservative and reactionary translation of the Protestant Bible.
Gavin outlines one way in which the ESV’s introduction to 2 Peter attempts to influence or control the manner in which the Bible is read – in a manner which obfuscates or misrepresents the view of the great majority of biblical scholars concerning 2 Peter. Have a read of Gavin’s post over at Otagosh, ‘Comforting Waffle from the ESV’, in which he delivers these delightful turns of phrase in describing the ESV and its unscholarly production:
“… misleading apologetic trash about 2 Peter doesn’t only appear in fringe sectarian magazines, but even inside the covers of “respectable” Bible translations – the ESV being a case in point.”
“… This is whistling in the dark, hoping the peons in the pews won’t dig beyond shallow reassurances. Ignorance is bliss.”
“The idea that our New Testament in its present form goes all the way back to the time of the apostles is wishful thinking at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst…”
“… The ESV publishers claim higher ground, but seem up to their eyeballs in the same boggy swamp.”
“… why should anyone believe – let alone promote – nonsense in order to make it into something it’s not.”
The Dunedin School 
The attack on the ESV Study Bible is itself the “Apologetic trash”! If people would read the WHOLE of the ESV Study Bible Introduction to 2 Peter, they can see for themselves. To quote another Study Bible (The NLT Study Bible)…”intellectualism devoid of love is a barren thing, and Christian theology [so-called] has no right to outrun the “faith once delivered to the saints,” these Epistles will remain uncomfortably, burningly relevant.” (E.M.B. Green; The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude) *We should also note, that one of the key subjects of the text of 2 Peter is apostasy and the apostate nature of those that deny the truth of the Scriptures!
Fr. R.
PS…Rather than seeking the ancient and biblical historical ideas, with evidence and logic, those who “scoff” at the Scripture, belittle and make fun of the truth. Herein is the road to apostasy, and finally the apostate! The reader should see what is the reality of the Dunedin School, and compare.
I have no problems with locating NT texts early (40-80CE) along with other texts such as Odes of Solomon, Didache, Egerton Gospel, Thomas, even 1 Clement. I always found NT dating as too neat and orderly for my taste and clearly designed to protect a certain view of Jesus that makes him fit a more modern bourgeois liberal world view. But I agree strongly with Gavin that trying to read 2 Peter as evidence of a closed NT canon in apostolic times is utter rubbish. In the West, the NT as we know it only emerged in the 15th century when Laodiceans was consigned to the appendix of the Vulgate. If we leave aside Laodiceans then the NT becomes roughly established in the 4th-5th centuries and even then the Ethiopian and Armenian and Assyrian/Church of the East NT canons stayed outside the ‘ecumenical’ consensus of the 5 Patriarchies
Of course one must ask (and never really get an answer) how the Letter of 2 Peter became Canon? Even with Marcion we see someone, who though incorectly, favored the NT Text. He also used a literal approach to scripture interpretation. But then thank God we have the better minds and faith of Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. Here we have the reality and truth of orthodoxy, and the teachings of the Church.
Even in 2 Peter itself, we see the illustrating of warnings, and exhortations from the OT history itself. While the writer himself foretelling the conditions of “the last days”, “the day of judgment”, “the day of the Lord”, and “the day of God”. And of course we note the similarity to the teaching in ‘Jude’.
Finally, it is the content of the text, that brings us to Christian truth and reality! Here is the Apostolic authority, the Church and the certain ‘ring of truth’. As J.B. Phillips used to say.
Fr. Robert (Anglican)
As to the authenticity and canonicity of 2 Peter, it is most non-Catholic scholars that class it pseudonymous. However, many R. Catholic scholars past and some present defend its authenticity.
The list of the external evidence, Origen records the controversy (Eusebius, HE 6, 2, 58), but places the Epistle in his canon of Holy Scripture, PG 12, 857, and quotes from it six different times in his writings, sometimes naming St. Peter as the author. Bishop Firmilian, a contemporary of Origen, mentions in a letter to St. Cyprian, that St. Peter wrote an epistle against the heretics, which can only refer to 2 Peter , P. 75, 6. St. Athanasius quotes it twice, De Trin. dial. 1 ; Contra Arian. or. 3; Bishop Methodius of Olympus, Frag. de Resur.; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. 2:9, 13; St. Basil, Adv. Eun. 5. Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius, HE 6< 14, 1, wrote a commentary on all seven Catholic Epistles, a work which has not come done to us. 2 Peter is listed as one of the inspired books of the NT in the canons of SS Athanasius, PG 26, 1176; and Cyril of Jerusalem, PG 33, 500; of Codex Claromontanus, and Codex Mommsen; of the Councils of Laodicea, and of Carthage, Dz 92; of Popes SS Damasus, Dz 84, and Innocent 1, Dz 96. Jerome acknowledges all seven Catholic Epistles as Scripture, Ep. ad Paulin. 53, 9; but menitions the controversy. Didymus of Alexandria wrote a commentary on 2 Peter, which has survived in a Latin translation.
The internal evidence favors authenticity. As to both 1st and 2 Peter. As the writer claims to be 'Simon (Symeon) Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ', (1:1); and mentions he was present at Christ's transfiguration, (1:16-18). And of course chapter (3:1). Not to mention again the OT history, and the internal spiritual truth within, the doctrinal content which is "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (3:18), and "Jesus Christ, our God and Savior." (1:2)
"I am warning you ahead of time, (prophetic witness), dear friends. Be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the errors of these wicked people and lose your own secure footing. Rather, you must grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
All glory to him, both now and forever! Amen." (2 Peter 3:17-18, NLT)
Fr. R.
ESV-onlyists annoy me. That Bible paraphrase is written for Calvinist and Reformed folks by Reformed/Calvinist folks.
Rod,
I am myself hardly an ESV only, I just quoted from the NLT. And would it help or hinder if I did my “own” translation? I could, as I read both Greek and Hebrew, but it is better to be part of the “Catholic” (universal) family of faith, and use Bible traslations we all know and use. And this includes the ESV!
I think it would help if every Christian knew Hebrew and greek. That way they could read God’s word for themselves instead of having the elites in the academy and in the pulpit how to read the Bible.
I do remember a certain Jim West and yourself condemning me for resisting the Reformers’ violence simply because I did not read Zwingli in his original language. How ridiculous to argue for that one way, and not the Bible as well. Knowing the original language of the Bible changes everything. Knowing the original language of Zwingli helps a little, but does not change historical facts such as his struggle with certain religious groups.
Just a note here as to the ESV publishing people. There are a few Irish types aboard… Dr. T.D. Alexander, Director of the Christian Training Centre Union Theological College Belfast. He also has his Ph.D., from The Queen’s University of Belfast. And Dr. Philip Johnston took both his B.D. and M. Th., from Queen’s in Belfast. As too, Dr. J. Gordon McConville, his Ph.D. from Queen’s. All three are part of the ESV translation team. The team is an impressive list! Here are some scholars and scholastic types.
And as The ESV Study Bible people say themselves: “God still uses imperfect and inadequate things to his honor and praise.”
Fr. Robert (Anglican)
Yes, the ESV is a fine rendition of the King James Version bible. See, all of these standard versions of the Bible, even the NRSV, claim to be faithful to the text and the KJV. That is bs! You cannot serve two masters, it is either God’s word or man’s word, right? So logically, if sola scriptura is true, God’s word ideally should come first, and not some translation that we try with a false sense of humility have fidelity to, i.e., the KJV.
Rod,
You have given us more logical fallacy! But we will leave that for the moment. I, like many pastors and ministers, can read Hebrew and Greek, but most of the time it is best to use just a faithful translation to preach, teach and express God’s Word. The great spiritual and religious history of the King James Bible stands on its own!
*Personally I love the masters of Greek Word studies, like EW Bullinger, and William Barclay. There are many other “scholars” here, but I quote them since they were also “pastors”. I don’t have to agree with everything they said or believed either. But I take note of their scholarship, and also their faith! The man of God must always have faith! (1 Tim. 6:11-12…really thru to verse 16.)
Perhaps Pastor Jim West will give us some OT Hebrew word study insight? Stay around Rod, and maybe you might learn something more?
Fr. Robert
“You have given us more logical fallacy!”
–Again with the attacking of my intellect, Fr. Robert. But why?
“Stay around Rod, and maybe you might learn something more?”
–Another arrogant presupposition that really does cuts off all sorts of dialogue.
“The great spiritual and religious history of the King James Bible stands on its own!”
–Hearsay. Hey, that’s a fallacy! argumentum ad verecundiam
The original manuscripts are far superior to any translation. Therefore, the original language must be taken out of the hands of the elite academics and pastors and placed in the hands of the people. What made the Reformers and Counter-Reformers great was that they went back to the original texts, and not the Vulgate for the answers to their questions of their day and age, while promoting and providing biblical texts in their communities’ vernacular.
Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant.
Yes, Tertullian, Christian can love each other and have sincere theological disagreements.
No Rod, you attacked yourself. Though perhaps “attack” is too strong a word. I would prefer the term “revealed” yourself. At least as I said, your “logical fallacies”. We all make them sometimes, as human beings, and sinful one’s at that. I must confess why you want to spar with me? I guess because I am a “Churchman” and historical Anglican? I represent the “pastors” you speak of no doubt, least to your mind perhaps. This appears to be more than just some theological disagreement also. As our friend is seeing.
Fr. R.
Fr. R.,
I have no qualms with you being a churchman and historical Anglican. I do not know where you got that idea. I have no idea who you represent and I have other ideas of pastors who come to mind, trust me, I grew in baptist churches where the pastor had too much authority for his own good.
I am trying to have a conversation. If you go back to read my comments, you will see no ill will towards yourself or your tradition. I have only maintained a hardline questioning the factors behind today’s Bible translation, as I will continue to do so. Walking into your everyday Christian bookstore, and looking at the sheets where each translation is compared, I can say with confidence that all the comparisons are fooey. And even my beloved NRSV is written and editted by committees and approved by editorial boards that try to be faithful to the Authorized Version, which I continue to question, and will continue to do so.
If you have ever read my blog, I am a big proponent of building bridges between the academy and the church. I do not, sir, have a problem with pastors. I even work in a church and love it. Perhaps you should re-read the comments I have made.
Truth and Peace,
Rod
Rod,
You are not going to build bridges between the academy and the church, by attacking the best of the Churches human translations of the Word of God, or simply Bible. Again the KJV, as all the best so-called literal translations, are always going to be flawed. Every preface to these Bible translations admits human frailty, and even perhaps error. But this is not intentional!
Fr. R.
Fr. R.,
KJV onlyists do not work to build bridges. KJVOs have only worked to destroy the Church, creating divisions with their bibliolatry. The Church is not founded upon a written text, we are not people of the book as Muslims call us. We are people of the Word, God made flesh, Christ Jesus.
Rod,
Historic Christians and Anglicans are people of both the Word and Spirit of God. And we should note that the Holy Spirit himself possesses God’s self-representation in the flesh, in the incarnation itself of the Logos and Son of God. We see this in scripture with the Virgin Birth of Christ, thru the womb of St. Mary the Virgin and Mother of the Lord. (St. Matt. 1: 23 / St. Luke 1:26-55) Scripture is rather too the Spirit’s testimony concerning this Word made flesh…St. John 1: 14, etc.
You are making a straw-man with me at least, as concerns the KJV. I am no “onlyist” here. I doubt not that there are many KJVO people, but this is not really the issue.
Fr. R.
The Reformers logic was pretty simple, when you attacked the real Catholic & Apostolic Church, you attacked the living God! (1 Tim.3:14-16 /1 Cor. 3:16-17 /Eph. 2: 18-22).
Fr. R.
The church is not God; I will leave it at that.
This was not the belief of the Reformers! They sought to “reform” the Church of God on earth, not tear it down. For them the Church was the incarnational progression of the Risen Christ, the Body of the Risen and Ascended Christ! (St. Paul’s Letters of Ephesians and Colossians)
Fr. R.
“The Reformers logic was pretty simple, when you attacked the real Catholic & Apostolic Church, you attacked the living God! (1 Tim.3:14-16 /1 Cor. 3:16-17 /Eph. 2: 18-22).”
If you could perhaps provide a sufficient quote from one or two of the Reformers themselves, that would help me to understand your statement.
I have no idea what that quote means, however, or has to do with the ESV or Bible translations having to depend on a false sense of obligation to the KJV.
Rod,
Well sense you show distain or at least dislike for Luther and Calvin, and it appears all of the Reformers. And again no real knowledge of them? Where do we begin? It is more than some simple quote. Perhaps you should read the book, A Reformation Debate, between John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto. This would be a good place to start. And all the good English Bible Translations seek to be faithful and literal to the Hebrew and Greek originals, which the KJV sought to do also. But let me recommend a fine book: ‘A Visual History of the English Bible, by Donald L. Brake, (BakerBooks, 2008).
Finally, theology as the Reformers taught comes from the Text, and not the other way around. So to read the Biblical Text, is as even with Barth, to read the Word of God. But it must be done with humility and faith. Here Zwingli said too, always the Text!
Yours,
Fr. Robert
@Fr. Robert,
It is unfortunate that once again you must use insults toward my intellect. But I would expect nothing less from you. To claim that I have no real knowledge, and then cite a secondary is nothing more than a contradiction of the past arguments where you told me to look to the primary source (rather than a secondary source) is nothing short of amazing.
I must end this conversation. I pray that someday you will learn to halt your attacks, or reserve your attacks for arguments made, and not the person making them. Polycarp knows exactly what I’m talking about.
See, how the Christians love each other.
@Fr. R.,
I do not know why you are talking about the virgin birth and the incarnation now. Those are way off topic from the discussion concerning the ESV (and other english translations) and the committees’ allegiance to the KJV. Maybe you are trying to test my doctrine or giving up by changing the subject.
Pingback: The Prologue of the Gospel of John Calvin « Political Jesus
Rod,
Christian and Catholic doctrine are a unity and whole. The scripture text of which you negate in reality, touches this everywhere. The Incarnation is tied together with the biblical text of which it both speaks and gives witness in the Church collective and individual. Sadly both you and Polycarp have but a broken sense of this unity in my opinion. I speak in a biblical and theological manner. This is not a personal attack at all. You both seem to be speaking from your own subjective experience most of the time. And yes, the true Christian witness is always a biblical, theological witness, but from the place of the Church Catholic and historical. You and Poly never seem to grasp this in any exegetical way? I fear this is because of both your lack of the doctrine of God Triune and Trinity. Again, this is in the depth of both ‘Covenant and Communion’, to use Pope Benedict’s thought. We simply must start with the doctrine of God always! And again, this is the place where Barth begins.
Yours In Christ,
Fr. Robert
So now I don’t believe in the Trinity! Wow, Fr. R., never knew someone as judgmental as you. Oh, geesh. You are a joke, I am serious. You are man unfamiliar with my theology, making these theological leaps. Classic, both sad and hilarious at the same time.
Laughing out loud, at your ignorance.
OH geesh.
Polycarp has already informed me of your emails you send to him in your inbox concerning my “liberalism.” Perhaps the wrong inbox is being filled, my friend.
Some church man.
Rod,
Read and think mate before you write! I never said “you” did not believe in the Trinity. But you never speak of it, so I consider this a great lack in your methods and belief, etc. This is really simply a problem with many so-called Evangelicals today. They give lip service to the doctrine of the Trinity of God, but they don’t really understand it or have a spiritual and working place for it. In practice this is a denial really. This is my point.
Fr. R.
Fr. R.,
Your responses are just making me chuckle even harder. Especially given the large amounts of work I have done and will continue to do on the Trinity. Keep up this comedy routine.
Oh, and I am neither a liberal or evangelical. People in both camps really try hard to claim me as their own and try so much to keep me away at the same time. I could care less.
Now you are just exposing your penchant for comedic flair. Keep up the work!
Yes Rod,
Just what are you? One must have theological definition. All you can bring now is ad hom? Very sad mate!
Fr. R.
PS..Also can you speak for yourself, without bringing Polycarp in with you. He admits to not believing in the Trinity of God. Cool the ad hom too! I have not done so.
I can speak for myself and I’m sure Polycarp can speak for himself.
I’ll cool the ad hom if you cut it out with all your baseless accusations (me being non-trinitarian/not-trinitarian enough).
Also, I bring up Poly because you have judged me, and wrongly so, and therefore I do deserve to defend myself, with your head-hunting of liberals as if they were people who have some disease. An arrogant opinion and a very unfounded one at that.
Perhaps you should walk and talk with people before you label them. But I digress.
Where do I stand?
Do you have five hours to give?
Rod,
You are speaking to something to which you and Poly have spoken. I have never “called” you a liberal full forth. But yes, I sense it in your speech and words sometimes. It is you that are always “attacking” history and the historical Church of God. And I shall never forget your ad hom with Jim West (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli)…very poor!
Fr. R.
@Fr. R.,
Hilarity ensues at your accusations of my “liberalism.”
Oh, I only wish my opponents at the school I attend could see your commentary on myself.
What grins they would have.
Geesh.
method mate , method…equals doctrine
Really?
Interesting. Just interesting.
Rod,
I am a priest and pastor, I would give you 5 months, 5 years, ad inf.. And yes, one of the problems with the blog is the lack of undersatnding. E-mail is much better!
Fr. R.
Ha!
My audience understands my blog, otherwise I would quit while I still could.
Oh, another veiled attempt at insulting my intelligence.
Obviously.
Well Rod,
You can always e-mail me if ya care? Though we are very different on almost every presupposition.
Best,
Fr. Robert
I’ll save myself the time, the effort, and from the polemics, thank you.
Yes Rod,
Sounds like the best thing. But grace & mercy…
Fr. R.