Another Misleading Footnote - First Nations Version

           This is not a review of the First Nations Version of the New Testament, the work of translators such as Terry Wildman and Gordon Campbell, Alvin Deer, Antonia Belindo, Bryan Jon Maciewski and others which was released in 2021.  Today I want to simply point out that despite being recommended by scholars such as Matthew Schlimm (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary) and  L. Daniel Hawk (Ashland Theological Seminary), the First Nations Version perpetuates false information in its footnote at the end of Mark 16:8.  

The footnote says, "Most ancient manuscripts end at this verse.  Some others include verses 9-20 as we have in this translation."

            The problem is that only two ancient Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at the end of 16:8.  And the "some" is over 1,650 Greek manuscripts.  In addition, earlier witnesses such as Tatian's Diatessaron and Irenaeus (in about 180) support the inclusion of verses 9-20; Irenaeus explicitly cited Mark 16:19 in his third book of Against Heresies.

            I don't know why it seems so hard for some people to write an accurate footnote.  The possibility occurs to me that if they were accurate and let readers know how lopsided the external evidence is in favor of including Mark 16:9-20, readers would stop trusting the scholars who want to erase the passage from the Gospel of Mark.  I suspect that some people are rejecting Mark 16:9-20 not because of the evidence but because they don't like what this Scripture says - they don't like the idea that baptism normally is a step into salvation instead of a consequence of salvation; they want Jesus to say "He who believes and is saved shall be baptized" instead of "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  Or perhaps they don't like reading an endorsement of glossolalia from the lips of Jesus because they believe that sort of thing isn't for modern-day Christians.  Whatever the reason, the headings and footnotes in a lot of modern versions at Mark 16:9 are pitiful.  A half-truth is a whole lie.  FIX YOUR FOOTNOTES, Bible publishers.  Crossway and Holman and Zondervan, I'm talking to you.  You can do it if you want to.

News: New Translation from Crossway and Holman

The NOT -
deluxe leatherbound edition

            As Christians around the world celebrate the resurrection of Christ this weekend, two major publishing-houses have announced the end-result of an ongoing co-operative project:  the New Orthodox Translation.  This new Bible version was designed to combine the best features of Crossway’s English Standard Version and Holman’s Christian Standard Bible, while responding to Dan Wallace’s challenge to break free of a “tradition of timidity” in evangelical translation-work.

            In a press release prepared for this occasion, co-editors Wayne Grudem, Dane Ortlund, and Lane T. Dennis announced, “We are delighted to introduce a version designed for the changing needs of modern readers.  The New Orthodox Translation enhances the Bible-reading experience by presenting readers with a full range of textual options.  Over 20,000 translational and textual footnotes in the NOT New Testament maximize readers’ choices, making Bible-reading a deeply subjective and personal experience, like it was for readers in the first century.”

            Here is the publisher’s description of some of the special features of the New Orthodox Translation:

● Each printed copy comes with a code that allows the reader to download a digital file of the Bible to almost any electronic device.  The file will automatically update every time ten members of the NOT’s 100-member translation-team meet to adjust the text.  

● The 29th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, whatever it turns out to be, will be adhered to in the updates.  Readings that the Nestle-Aland compilers have introduced without any Greek manuscript support are already in the text.  Some readings with only one Greek manuscript in their favor have also be adopted, following the precedent set by the TNIV and 2011 NIV.  In addition, in passages where the Complex Bias Generated Method suggests that all extant variants are not original, non-extant readings may be introduced.    

● Because the practice of giving preference to the shorter reading has been thoroughly validated in recent years, a bold new approach has been taken regarding contested passages such as Matthew 6:13b, Matthew 17:21, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:34a, and Acts 8:37.  These passages are excluded completely in the New Orthodox Translation, regardless of the high number of manuscripts that include them and the age of the patristic evidence that supports them.  Verse-numbering has been restructured accordingly.           

            ● Perforated pages at the end of Mark and near the beginning of John chapter 8 in the NOT give readers the option of removing two large passages which most of the NOT’s translators (such as Craig Blomberg and Andreas Köstenberger) consider spurious in light of Clement of Alexandria’s non-use of the passage in his commentary on Mark. 

● The NOT, like the ESV, boldly informs its readers that Amos and Asaph were ancestors of Jesus, confirming Bruce Metzger’s assessment that the original text of Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 contains an error.  In addition, as a display of scholarly transparency and non-timidity, errant readings in some passages are mentioned in footnotes (cf. Matthew 13:35 and Mark 6:22 in the CSB). 

● All footnotes that refer to manuscripts simply say “Some manuscripts,” in order to rectify the confusing excess of precision that has plagued footnotes in other versions.

The announcement of the release of the NOT mentioned that the editors, being vigilant against the mixture of authentic Scripture and uninspired material, are opposed to the inclusion of the books of the Apocrypha in future editions, diverging from the approach of the evangelicals in charge of the ESV and NET.  

The New Orthodox Translation’s joint publishers hope that this new translation will serve Bible-readers for years to come alongside other reliable frequently revised versions.  The NOT may also provide Bible publishers with the means to test how far they can take textual alterations without alienating their customers from the ESV and CSB, both of which will continue to be printed for the foreseeable future.    

Complimentary thumb-indexed review copies of the NOT New Testament are expected to be delivered to various preachers and seminary professors around the country this Easter, especially in Dallas, Texas and Wheaton, Illinois.  Online orders for the NOT can be made now.  Options for bindings include calfskin, bonded leather, baby harp sealskin, seared olivewood, brushed titanium-tungsten alloy, and a wide assortment of colors and patterns in Leatherish™ softcover.  More details can be found at the New Orthodox Translation’s website (click here). 

Luke 24:47 and the ESV

          In Luke 24:46-47, according to the ESV, as Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the gospel, He gave the church its agenda for evangelism:  He commanded them to regard ethnic differences as no barrier to brotherhood, and to invite all people to surrender to God in light of the reconciliation brought about by Jesus Christ:  “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

          At least, that’s what the ESV said in 2001, and in several editions that were released since then.  Now in 2016, Crossway is releasing a “Permanent Text” edition of the ESV – and it has introduced a few changes in the text.  One of them is in Luke 24:47:  instead of referring to “repentance and forgiveness of sins,” Jesus now refers to “repentance for forgiveness of sins.”  This is not a matter of translation-methods; the change in English reflects a decision to favor the Alexandrian reading εις (for) instead of the reading that is found in all other transmission-streams, and in almost all Greek manuscripts:  και (and). 

          A recent announcement at Crossway’s website listed the changes to the text, and announced that this is how all copies of the ESV are going to be from now on.  This is the “Permanent Text of the ESV Bible, unchanged forever, in perpetuity.”  The problem, as far as Luke 24:47 is concerned, is that the ESV’s Oversight Committee’s decision to prefer εις (for) instead of και (and) is incorrect. 

          Three ancient Greek manuscripts support εις:  Papyrus 75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus.  But, as Daniel Mace (a researcher and Bible translator in the 1700’s) noted, no manuscript is as old as common sense.  The scholars who produced the ESV did not rigidly follow these witnesses.  In Luke 23:34, P75 and Vaticanus do not have Jesus’ statement, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but the ESV has these words.  In Luke 24:32, P75 and B do not have the words εν ημιν (“within us”) but the ESV does.  In Luke 23:29 and 24:49, P75 does not have the word ιδου (“behold”), but the ESV does.   

          Meanwhile, support for και is found in the writings of Cyprian (in the mid-200’s) and Eusebius (early 300’s), and in the ancient codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, and Washingtonensis, plus over a thousand later manuscripts.  Και is also supported by the Old Latin version which predates the 380’s, as well as by the Vulgate, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, the Armenian version (made in the early 400’s), the Ethiopic version, and the Palestinian Aramaic version, and in Augustine’s Sermon 2291.  The diversity of these witnesses is impressive. 

          Secondary support for εις is found in the Peshitta version, and in five Byzantine manuscripts, which Wieland Willker identifies as minuscules 1253, 1519, 2445, 2796, and 2808.  To a great extent, where the Byzantine Text disagrees with the Alexandrian flagship-manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, these five witnesses favor the Byzantine reading.  In genetic terms, these five manuscripts are not close relatives of P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. 

          In a manuscript that contains line after line of Byzantine text, if the text suddenly and momentarily deviates from the usual Byzantine text, we are probably not seeing the sudden intrusion of a secondary exemplar, as if a copyist possessed a second exemplar but only used it once.  Instead, we are observing a scribal error.  When the same rare reading that appears sporadically in Byzantine witnesses also appears in genetically unrelated witnesses, it suggests that the same scribal error has independently recurred.  To express this as a text-critical canon:  Agreement among witnesses which lack a genealogical connection is likely the result of coincidental independent error.

From 2001-2015, the ESV said "and" in Luke 24:47,
as shown on page 236 of the ESV Reader's Gospels.

          That is what we are looking at in these five Byzantine manuscripts.  The mechanism that caused their copyists to deviate from the Byzantine text also caused an early copyist to create the reading found in P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.  The mechanism is simple:  harmonization.  

          If it were possible to introduce the compilers of the Nestle-Aland text to the variant-unit in Luke 24:47 and describe only the variants, without saying which witnesses supported which reading, the verdict would be clear:  “repentance for forgiveness of sins” is a harmonization to the phrase in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, where the authors refer to “baptism of repentance for [that is, εις] forgiveness of sins.”  The word “for” (εις) also precedes “forgiveness of sins” in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.  These passages are far more likely to have been recalled by copyists than Acts 5:31, where “and” (και) precedes “forgiveness of sins” but the words “to Israel” also appear between the reference to “repentance” and the reference to “forgiveness of sins.”  Compared to the passages in the Gospels, Acts 5:31 is not much of a parallel.  (Bruce Terry misquoted Acts 5:31 in his attempt to defend the decision of the UBS4 Committee.)  

          So, while I am glad that the ESV Permanent Text edition did not make any drastic changes to the text, this particular last-minute alteration in Luke 24:47 is incorrect; the reading και should have been retained.  The Gideons Edition of the ESV remains the best available edition of the ESV.

(I note, in passing, that the UBS Greek New Testament in 1966 had και in the text, the 1984 NIV had “and” in the text, and Michael Holmes also adopted και in the 2010 SBL-GNT.)

Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible® (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved.