ESV with the Apocrypha

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JFox1, Oct 12, 2008.

  1. JFox1

    JFox1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice thing about it is it contains both full versions of Esther from the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic texts.
     
  3. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    but why include those in a real Bible? I am disappointed.
     
  4. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a genealogy of versions which derived from the KJV (showing the place the Apocrypha has had or not had).

    I left off some of the less influential branches.

    [​IMG]
     
    #4 SummaScriptura, Aug 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2012
  5. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    The world, and the Word, did not start in 1611.
     
  6. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    What on earth could be your point, I don't know nor care. Stir little pot, stir!
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    1611 KJV originally had them, as did other English versions...

    Would have preferred Oxford to publish it as a seperate edition, like they did for the NRSV!
     
  8. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your post that was presenting several translations that had the extra non-biblical books in them and some that had. You said you left off the less influential was. The list started in 1611. The implication is that Bibles before 1611 were not that important. My point is that history of the Bible is important to the discussion and that begins prior to King James authorizing a less than perfect translation that is now worshipped by so many people.

    The ESV is a good translation. The non-biblical books have no place being included in a trustworthy translation.
     
  9. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that is what was done. I know of no other edition than Oxford's that includes them. It is easy to buy a copy of the ESV which excludes the disputed books of the Old Testament.
     
  10. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for clarifying your point.

    You know that no KJV-worhipper would give 2 cents about the ASV, RSV or ESV, right? No one is promoting KJV worship here. The KJV is a classic, however, and should not be dismissed.

    I was only giving the most recent English-language history of the Bible with Apocrypha. But you're right I should have included the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible.

    That the disputed books of the Old Testament are "non-Biblical" is an assertion I hope you are prepared to enlighten us on.
     
  11. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    They are not divine, and contain passages contrary to sound doctrine. That is why they were not included in Jewish Scriptures and were not included in the canon until later. They do however support many of the RCC heresies.
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    they were seen by the reformers as useful for historical events, NOT for faith and practices!
     
  13. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I'm not a kid anymore, so I cannot blindly follow you just because you say so. So, you will have to cite examples which you have researched yourself. Please, no quotes from secondary sources. Your own evidence will be appreaciated.
    Oh, when were they added precisely?
    There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament. They were written by Jews before the time of Christ.
     
  14. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    [SIZE=-0]Some Catholic doctrines supported by the Apocrypha are:[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-0]a. Purgatory - II Maccabees 12:39-45[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-0]b. Salvation by Almsgiving - Ecclesiasticus 3:30[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-0]Other things found in these books are the justification of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46), slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-28), and reincarnation (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).

    I don't know anything about this website other than this page, but it describes some of the issues with the Apocrypha: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/111-the-apocrypha-inspired-of-god
    [/SIZE]
     
    #14 mesly, Aug 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2012
  15. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to reply to your assertions, IF they WERE YOUR asserions, but as it is I think I would be rebutting a website you looked up instead.

    If would kindly quote a passage and explain how it is you feel the passage teaches something false I promise, I WILL reply (but one at a time).

    Its just I don't want to spend the time and effort on something you probably won't read in order to a reply to something you yourself have spent almost no time and effort on.

    But if you do not reply, I understand, you reject the Apocrypha because you want to and so you found a website that would tell you its bad. That's fine. But you understand that's not exactly the way conversation takes place, right?
     
    #15 SummaScriptura, Aug 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2012
  16. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    I received a review copy of this edition from Oxford University Press some time back. Here are my scans:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I discovered both the New English Translation of the Septuagint and the ESV with Apocrypha were put out by Oxford with the same dimensions, I asked a local bookbinders to put them in one volume since I was using them everyday.

    Here are the negatives and the positives of the two together:

    Here's the negatives,

    1. The Oxford ESV is printed on paper that has quite a bit of bleed-through
    2. The version of Tobit in the ESV is the more common traditional, shorter recension, and Sirach lacks the recovered Hebrew fragments, both of which
    3. The ESV Apocrypha is a VERY light revision of the RSV Apocrypha, mainly they've updated the English a bit
    4. The ESV Apocrypha drops the translation of the much longer Hebrew text of Psalm 151, (from the DSS) which the RSV had
    5. Neither the ESV nor the NETS have a thorough cross-referencing system

    Here's the postives,

    1. The RSV Apocrypha was/is for the most part a great translation of those books
    2. The NETS contains both a translation of the longer and shorter versions of Tobit
    3. The ESV with Apocrypha contains both the Hebrew and full Greek versions of Esther, (not the cut & paste fiasco created by Jerome)
    4. Having the ESV and the NETS in one volume simply makes comparing the English translations of the MT and LXX a joy, which more than outweighs the above-mentioned negatives
     
  18. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    For this experiment, I was more concerned with whether this would be a practical undertaking more than I was concerned with aesthetics. I therefore took a fairly cheep route-- hard bound. It turned out very well I feel. I have had a nice time using the two books in conjunction with one another. I've so far resisted the temptation to redo it in pig skin! :laugh:


    [​IMG]
     
    #18 SummaScriptura, Aug 2, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2012
  19. SummaScriptura

    SummaScriptura
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. mesly

    mesly
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Summa,

    You’re making assumptions. My assertions are not derived from a website, but rather the text quoted from the website are in line with my position. My original response was not to address whether or not I accepted or rejected the Apocrypha, but rather to your statement that, “There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament. They were written by Jews before the time of Christ. “

    I interact with Catholics all of the time and when pressed to use “scripture” to defend their beliefs, many will site passages in the Apocrypha, such as what I quoted from that website. Let’s look at two of the passages that I sited:

    II Maccabees is used a proof text to support praying for the dead and ultimately the belief in purgatory:

    This text alone doesn’t teach the complete Catholic doctrines of purgatory or praying for the dead, but by reading it you can see where the Catholic church has used this passage to conflate that doctrine.

    Now let me quote the other passage that I sited:

    This verse, taken as-is, is used by the Catholic church to support taking alms for the forgiveness of sins.

    Given this evidence, how can you support your statement that, “There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.“?
     
    #20 mesly, Aug 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...