tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post5943494144003992092..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Ozoliņš: Observations on ESV Old Testament Translation NotesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72088080616619146092021-09-13T14:16:59.617+01:002021-09-13T14:16:59.617+01:00The above comment was posted by me.The above comment was posted by me.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58997440437931749232021-09-13T14:13:46.071+01:002021-09-13T14:13:46.071+01:00I think that both the problem of inconsistency and...I think that both the problem of inconsistency and the problem of confusing lay people with technical terms could be resolved if the ESV would make their little section on "Textual Footnotes" in their preface more extensive, and including in it a glossary of terms, which the footnotes would all have to be re-edited to conform to consistently.<br /><br />It would still inevitably be the case that the nuances of evaluating the different textual witnesses would be beyond most lay people (or pastors for that matter). But it would still be helpful to have the information presented, and to be able to decipher what it at least means in a basic way.<br /><br />In my opinion, the variations within the Masoretic tradition that Kennicott, et al, compiled are still helpful, and the move away from reporting these is unfortunate. If the ESV does make changes to its textual notes, hopefully they will still provide information about those intra-MT variants. This could be done without giving the exact number of manuscripts attesting a given variant though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892282540175412003noreply@blogger.com