The Calvinist ESV: Matthew 5:22
#93: This isn't really about a Calvinist change in the ESV, but it's about the difference between the manuscripts the KJV is translated from and the manuscripts the more current versions are translated from, including the ESV.
Most versions translate Matthew 5:22 similar to the ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
But the KJV, which is based on different manuscripts, is one of the only ones to add "without a cause": "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
This difference matters for a few reasons.
Simply saying that it's wrong to be angry with another person is stricter and more condemning than saying it's wrong to be unfairly angry with someone for no reason. The stricter version makes something a sin that isn't really a sin.
And if someone thinks it's a sin to be angry with others for any reason at all, they might be too lenient towards sin, injustice, immorality, and unrighteousness. They'll be afraid of being angry with things we should be justly and righteously angry about, things we should hold others accountable for. Ultimately and ironically, the stricter version might create more tolerance of sin.
But worse than that, consider the consequence of the stricter version when it's applied to Mark 3:1-5. In this passage, Jesus asks the Pharisees if it's right for Him to heal a man on the Sabbath, but they were silent. And so He "looked around at them with anger." Jesus was angry with the Pharisees. (And He was also clearly angry when He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers in John 2.) Leaving out "without a cause" - as the ESV and others does (but not the KJV) - essentially makes Jesus a sinner who's liable to judgment.
Once again, I think the KJV proves it's the more reliable translation, that it's based on the more accurate manuscripts. It's not perfect, of course, because no translation is perfect. But it's more accurate and reliable than the other translations and doesn't damage God's Word the way the others do. But this is just my opinion.
A note about the ESV vs King James:
If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on: "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs" and "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text." The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, it sounds like, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not believe Genesis and the creation story was literal, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.
So when something says that the ESV has only made 6% changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available. It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as fact. Raises some red flags, doesn't it?
In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James. I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc. But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences like those above, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James). And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.
