Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Help the ESV Note-writers

Expand Messages
  • Vox Verax
    The English Standard Version s footnote at Mark 16:9 currently says, in the most recent digital edition (which is not the same as the most recent printed
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      The English Standard Version's footnote at Mark 16:9 currently says, in the most recent digital edition (which is not the same as the most recent printed edition, as far as I can tell) --

      "Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20."

      Now, I have given up hope that the ESV note-writers will ever give their readers a hint about the quantities or proportions of the manuscripts to which they refer; for whatever reason, they will (I believe) continue to refer to "Some" and "others" instead of "Two" and "over 1,700" and "six."

      But can we at least try to prevent the evasive expression "At least one manuscript" from entering into the ESV's print editions? I have already clearly conveyed to Grant O. that there is only one extant MS - Codex W - that has additional material after v. 14. Why should the ESV continue to obscure the readers' view of the evidence via these weasel-words? I encourage y'all, if you know of anyone involved with the ESV-editing (which, it seems, is perpetual): take a few minutes to advise them to rewrite the footnote at Mark 16:9 to make it more precise and less evasive and silly-sounding.

      (Of course I would also recommend removing the brackets, and treating the canonical text as the canonical text. But one thing at a time!)

      They could use a little help at Mark 9:29, too.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • George F Somsel
      James,   The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions.  By now you should know enough about
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        James,
         
        The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions.  By now you should know enough about textual criticism to know that one does not simply count the manuscripts on each side.  If you want to do that we could run off 10,000,000 copies of the NA27 and adjust the balance for you.
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 5:47 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Help the ESV Note-writers

         
        The English Standard Version's footnote at Mark 16:9 currently says, in the most recent digital edition (which is not the same as the most recent printed edition, as far as I can tell) --

        "Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20."

        Now, I have given up hope that the ESV note-writers will ever give their readers a hint about the quantities or proportions of the manuscripts to which they refer; for whatever reason, they will (I believe) continue to refer to "Some" and "others" instead of "Two" and "over 1,700" and "six."

        But can we at least try to prevent the evasive expression "At least one manuscript" from entering into the ESV's print editions? I have already clearly conveyed to Grant O. that there is only one extant MS - Codex W - that has additional material after v. 14. Why should the ESV continue to obscure the readers' view of the evidence via these weasel-words? I encourage y'all, if you know of anyone involved with the ESV-editing (which, it seems, is perpetual): take a few minutes to advise them to rewrite the footnote at Mark 16:9 to make it more precise and less evasive and silly-sounding.

        (Of course I would also recommend removing the brackets, and treating the canonical text as the canonical text. But one thing at a time!)

        They could use a little help at Mark 9:29, too.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.




      • Steven Avery
        Hi Folks, George, James, The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions. By now you should know
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Folks,

          George,
          James, The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions.  By now you should know enough about textual criticism to know that one does not simply count the manuscripts on each side.  If you want to do that we could run off 10,000,000 copies of the NA27 and adjust the balance for you.

          Steven
          George, by now you should know that manuscripts are hand-written copies. If you run off 10,000,000 copies on a printing press you add 0 to the manuscript count.  One if you do the exemplar by hand.

          This is not just an anecdotal definition, every full manuscript requires a specific decision making and a fair amount of dedication to bring it to completion.  Counts like 1700 to 6 on hand-written manuscripts should, in a sound genealogical word, have a lot of pizazz as one evidence pointing to the original text.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY


          From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
          The English Standard Version's footnote at Mark 16:9 currently says, in the most recent digital edition (which is not the same as the most recent printed edition, as far as I can tell) --

          "Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–220 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20."

          Now, I have given up hope that the ESV note-writers will ever give their readers a hint about the quantities or proportions of the manuscripts to which they refer; for whatever reason, they will (I believe) continue to refer to "Some" and "others" instead of "Two" and "over 1,700" and "six."

          But can we at least try to prevent the evasive expression "At least one manuscript" from entering into the ESV's print editions? I have already clearly conveyed to Grant O. that there is only one extant MS - Codex W - that has additional material after v. 14. Why should the ESV continue to obscure the readers' view of the evidence via these weasel-words? I encourage y'all, if you know of anyone involved with the ESV-editing (which, it seems, is perpetual): take a few minutes to advise them to rewrite the footnote at Mark 16:9 to make it more precise and less evasive and silly-sounding.

          (Of course I would also recommend removing the brackets, and treating the canonical text as the canonical text. But one thing at a time!)

          They could use a little help at Mark 9:29, too.

          Yours in Christ,
          James Snapp, Jr.
           
        • Vox Verax
          Dear George, GS: The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions. The canonical text of Mark,
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 14, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear George,

            GS: "The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions."

            The canonical text of Mark, which includes 16:9-20, has *not* been treated as the canonical text by the misinformed ESV-editors. Laboring under several misconceptions and burdened by false and inaccurate information, via their bracketing and separation of Mark 16:9-20 they are, I am completely convinced, deliberately building a guillotine for the passage. Daniel Wallace has suggested that the best policy may be to place these 12 verses in the footnotes, and Craig Blomberg (a member of the NIV's CBT) has conveyed that it remains in the text simply to avoid a firestorm of controversy.

            (I found it fascinating, listening to the non-sermon about Mark 16:9-20 that he delivered at "Scum of the Earth" church in Colorado on May 1, 2011, as Dr. Blomberg made it clear that he considers the passage spurious, and that he nevertheless acquiesces to its presence in the text. I really don't think things will continue in such a state of tension; I think that sooner or later, the translators will get tired of being accused of co-operating with a "tradition of timidity," and will excise the passage, unless they become better informed about the quality and extent of the evidence in its favor, and about the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and inadequacies in Metzger's descriptions of the evidence pertaining to the passage, which is probably as far as most Bible-translators have looked into the issue.)

            GS: "By now you should know enough about textual criticism to know that one does not simply count the manuscripts on each side."

            Thanks for enlightening me about this in your characteristically helpful way.

            Of course one should not *simply* count the MSS for each reading. One should not methodically treat the scope of support for a reading as irrelevant, either.

            But I am not writing about that today; I am writing about how text-critical evidence should (or, should not) be described in Bible translations produced for ordinary use. The descriptions of attestation for rival readings in most recent English Bible translations are inadequate, and often mislead the typical reader who assumes that the terms "Some" and "Others" convey that the support for each rival-reading is about the same; these terms are used to describe differing proportions of evidence that vary enormously. For example in the ESV's footnotes, "Some manuscripts" add all or part of Acts 8:37, and "Some manuscripts" add "and fasting" in Mark 9:29!

            While I don't want to entirely move away from the ESV's poorly written footnote at Mark 16:9, and while I am glad that the ESV's editors appear to have at least realized that the previous form of the footnote, which was allowed to stand for about 10 years with a false statement in it (specifically, that "A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14" -- illustrating the real level of research that has gone into the ESV's treatment of the ending of Mark), needed to be repaired, I think this may be a good moment to mention that the approach used in the NKJV is exponentially better than the approach used in the ESV, and that if the ESV's introduction included a few paragraphs about the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western texts, and if the ESV's footnotes named text-types instead of alluding to "Some" and "Other" manuscripts, then those footnotes would thus become more precise and informative.

            Now then: do you, George, really think that it is a reflection of sound scholarship and a writer's ability to convey facts with clarity to say "At least one manuscript" attests to a particular reading, when the writer knows very well that there is only one extant MS (Codex W) that does so?

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
          • George F Somsel
            I apologize for the lateness of my reply which was due to a computer malfunction following an electrical storm.    Mark is what is canonical—not the late
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 16, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I apologize for the lateness of my reply which was due to a computer malfunction following an electrical storm. 
               
              Mark is what is canonical—not the late addition of the long ending. Obviously I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I suggested we could print up NA27s to more than match your mss which support the long ending, but that was to make the point that sheer numbers do not count.  Once the wrong path is taken its length may be excessive and of no value whatsoever.
               
              george
              gfsomsel

              search for truth, hear truth,
              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              defend the truth till death.

              - Jan Hus
              _________

              From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:27 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Help the ESV Note-writers

               
              Dear George,

              GS: "The canonical text is treated as the canonical text regardless of your desire to canonize later additions."

              The canonical text of Mark, which includes 16:9-20, has *not* been treated as the canonical text by the misinformed ESV-editors. Laboring under several misconceptions and burdened by false and inaccurate information, via their bracketing and separation of Mark 16:9-20 they are, I am completely convinced, deliberately building a guillotine for the passage. Daniel Wallace has suggested that the best policy may be to place these 12 verses in the footnotes, and Craig Blomberg (a member of the NIV's CBT) has conveyed that it remains in the text simply to avoid a firestorm of controversy.

              (I found it fascinating, listening to the non-sermon about Mark 16:9-20 that he delivered at "Scum of the Earth" church in Colorado on May 1, 2011, as Dr. Blomberg made it clear that he considers the passage spurious, and that he nevertheless acquiesces to its presence in the text. I really don't think things will continue in such a state of tension; I think that sooner or later, the translators will get tired of being accused of co-operating with a "tradition of timidity," and will excise the passage, unless they become better informed about the quality and extent of the evidence in its favor, and about the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and inadequacies in Metzger's descriptions of the evidence pertaining to the passage, which is probably as far as most Bible-translators have looked into the issue.)

              GS: "By now you should know enough about textual criticism to know that one does not simply count the manuscripts on each side."

              Thanks for enlightening me about this in your characteristically helpful way.

              Of course one should not *simply* count the MSS for each reading. One should not methodically treat the scope of support for a reading as irrelevant, either.

              But I am not writing about that today; I am writing about how text-critical evidence should (or, should not) be described in Bible translations produced for ordinary use. The descriptions of attestation for rival readings in most recent English Bible translations are inadequate, and often mislead the typical reader who assumes that the terms "Some" and "Others" convey that the support for each rival-reading is about the same; these terms are used to describe differing proportions of evidence that vary enormously. For example in the ESV's footnotes, "Some manuscripts" add all or part of Acts 8:37, and "Some manuscripts" add "and fasting" in Mark 9:29!

              While I don't want to entirely move away from the ESV's poorly written footnote at Mark 16:9, and while I am glad that the ESV's editors appear to have at least realized that the previous form of the footnote, which was allowed to stand for about 10 years with a false statement in it (specifically, that "A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14" -- illustrating the real level of research that has gone into the ESV's treatment of the ending of Mark), needed to be repaired, I think this may be a good moment to mention that the approach used in the NKJV is exponentially better than the approach used in the ESV, and that if the ESV's introduction included a few paragraphs about the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western texts, and if the ESV's footnotes named text-types instead of alluding to "Some" and "Other" manuscripts, then those footnotes would thus become more precise and informative.

              Now then: do you, George, really think that it is a reflection of sound scholarship and a writer's ability to convey facts with clarity to say "At least one manuscript" attests to a particular reading, when the writer knows very well that there is only one extant MS (Codex W) that does so?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.



            • Jonathan C. Borland
              Dear George, Still you have competent scholars such as Metzger in his Canon of the NT saying that Mark 16:9-20 is canonical but not original. Sincerely,
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear George,

                Still you have competent scholars such as Metzger in his Canon of the NT saying that Mark 16:9-20 is canonical but not original.

                Sincerely,

                Jonathan C. Borland


                On Aug 16, 2012, at 8:41 PM, George F Somsel wrote:

                 

                Mark is what is canonical—not the late addition of the long ending.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.