# Question for Byzantine Text Users



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 2, 2011)

Are there any Byzantine-Text supporters here or elsewhere who at the same time prefer a modern translation (NKJV, Third Millennium, Jay Green's updates of the KJV) to the original AV?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 2, 2011)

I use the NKJV, and the following:

Amazon.com: The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: The Byzantine Greek Text & Verb Parsing (9783941750241): Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont, John Jeffrey Dodson: Books

Amazon.com: The New Testament in the Original Greek (Greek Edition) (9780759800779): Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont: 
Books

A collection of interviews you may find useful:
View attachment 2356

AMR


----------



## TimV (Oct 2, 2011)

> Are there any Byzantine-Text supporters here or elsewhere who at the same time prefer a modern translation (NKJV, Third Millennium, Jay Green's updates of the KJV) to the original AV?



Probably 99% of them! As a PS the AV isn't totally Byzantine. There are lots of people in a related category who'd love a Byzantine majority text translation.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 2, 2011)

I would. It's a shame that they keep translating and revising the same thing. I'd be all for a mainstream MT translation of some kind, WEB notwithstanding.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 2, 2011)

I have a muddled view of the issue:

* The case made for a handful of Alexandrian mss leaves me cold, particularly in light of the wide differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
* Claims made for TR superiority and exclusivity fall flat when one considers the efforts of Maurice Robinson and his critical Majority text with its many variants from the TR.
* I very much like the NKJV as a translation sticking closer to the Byzantine text that notes the variants in both the Critical Text and the Byzantine.

I am using the KJV this year in honor of the anniversary, but may add both the ESV and NKJV next year for most Bible reading.


----------



## MW (Oct 2, 2011)

If one is going to be precise about the original he should take care that the translation is formally equivalent to it, e.g., by reproducing the singular and plural distinction. Even William Hendriksen made provision for it.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 2, 2011)

Rev. Winzer has a point. Guess we should use the TMB then? J/k (as I know your views on the AV), but does anyone here know why a modern language rendition has never tried some kind of distinction? Even the JW's in their abomination tried, though with you (singular) and YOU (plural). I think some of the independent translations do you (singular) and you* (plural).


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 2, 2011)

The Holman Christian Standard was originally conceived as being a new translation based on the Majority Text, but then Arthur Farstad died and they switched to the critical text. I still love the NKJV though.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 3, 2011)

Hi:

In answer to the OP - the NKJV uses the Critical text to question such passages as the long ending of Mark, and 1 John 5:7-8. As such I would use it as a secondary source rather than a primary one. It is better than the NIV, ESV, etc..., and I would use it to transition someone from the modern translations to the KJV.

When it comes to Jay Green's translations - I would not use them at all. This is because the Bible is the particular treasure of the Church, and it is the responsibility of the Church to translate the Greek and Hebrew into the vulgar languages. The Bible was not given for an individual to translate, nor to a publishing company, nor to a Bible society. It is the Church's responsibility to translate the Bible, and those who do it to honor God must do it under the authority of the Church.

The KJV was translated under the authority of the Church of England, and it is the only Bible that has the distinction as being translated under Church authority. The RSV was translated under the authority of a liberal church.

I do not believe that the KJV is inerrant, and it has translation errors in it.

The Majority text is not a good Hebrew/Greek text to do a translation - as it leaves out passages that should be in the Scriptures - such as 1 John 5:7.

I think that there is call for a new translation to be done. This translation should be done under the authority of the Church, and, it should use Stephens 1550 as its base - modified only by the other Byzantine mss.

In my humble opinion!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 3, 2011)

I wouldn't say that the NKJV uses the critical text to "question" passages such as the long ending of Mark. In fact, the footnote for the ending of Mark says this, "Mark 9-20 is bracketed in the NU-Text as not original. It is not contained in Codex Sinaticus or Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them." This sounds more like full disclosure than questioning to me. That is one of the reasons I like the NKJV, it is the only version of the bible that lets you know all of the different textual variations that exist. Anytime the TR upon which it is based varies from either the critical text or the majority text, there is a footnote. This way, you can decide what is the best reading instead of someone else telling you.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 3, 2011)

Hi:

Bill:

I hear and understand your point. I am partly sympathetic to it. Nevertheless, it seems to me that to let people know about all of the different textual variations - especially variations that have been rejected by the Church - does put into question the text of Scripture.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

> The KJV was translated under the authority of the Church of England, and it is the only Bible that has the distinction as being translated under Church authority. The RSV was translated under the authority of a liberal church.



You are claiming that the Marion exiles were sinning by translating the Geneva Bible. Isn't that out of line even for you?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 3, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Bill:
> 
> ...



I do think that you make a good point. It is ashamed that people don't have the same confidence in the Bible that they once did. Unfortunately though, that ship has sailed and the best way we can refute error is with truth and not by avoiding the issue. At least the footnotes in the NKJV aren't misleading like those in the NRSV or NIV. Both of those footnote Mark 9-20 as "The earliest and best manuscripts do not contain Mark 9-20." This is completely misleading because it leaves out the fact that only three manuscripts out of hundreds do not contain these verses.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 3, 2011)

> This way, you can decide what is the best reading instead of someone else telling you.



I have some issues with this reasoning. The word of God should not be trivial, people who do not have a good understanding of the textual traditions should not be left to "decide" which reading they "prefer". I can see footnotes being place in Greek Texts if a "reasonable" case can be made that a variant reading might be possible considering the weight for variant readings might be somewhat equal. But I certainly do not agree with the amount of footnotes placed in new versions (including the NKJV). (I suggest reading the Revision Revised by John Burgon for an overview of the variant readings and omissions introduced in the CT)

The problem I have with the NKJV inserting footnotes when their text disagree with the NU-Text is that if they are really sincere about the Byzantine Priority philosophy, they should be opposed to the the philosophy used by the CT editors. Those who hold to the CT do so mainly because they believe the Byzantine text has been "conflated", if you hold to the opposite view which say the Byzantine Text is the most reliable text why would you insert footnotes pointing to a text that uses a contradicting philosophy in their method of editing. To this seems oxymoronic in my opinion.


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> if you hold to the opposite view which say the Byzantine Text is the most reliable text why would you insert footnotes pointing to a text that uses a contradicting philosophy in their method of editing. To this seems oxymoronic in my opinion.



You lost me. If we have 250 Byzantine texts of Rev 22:19 and in all except 4 the word *tree* is used and the KJV uses the teeny, tiny minority Bzyantine *book*, why in the name of anything reasonable shouldn't the NKJV point that out??????????


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 3, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> > This way, you can decide what is the best reading instead of someone else telling you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you in principle, but you have to understand that the academic consensus for the superiority of the Alexandrian text types is virtually monolithic. Therefore translations such as the NKJV which are based on the Byzantine text types must mount a near heroic defense of their use. This is the main motivation for the extensive footnotes, both as a means of acknowlegding some issues in the TR, and therefore diffusing criticism, and also as a means of shedding some light on the footnotes that exist in other translations, such as in the ending of Mark.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 3, 2011)

> You lost me. If we have 250 Byzantine texts of Rev 22:19 and in all except 4 the word tree is used and the KJV uses the teeny, tiny minority Bzyantine book, why in the name of anything reasonable shouldn't the NKJV point that out??????????



Read my previous post, I did say that if "reasonable" case can be made I do not have any issues with variant reading being added in footnotes. Should I point out to the hundreds of changes that have been made without a "reasonable" case in the CT?


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

Who on earth are you to decide what's reasonable and what isn't?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 3, 2011)

> Who on earth are you to decide what's reasonable and what isn't?



I could throw that question back at you. As I said I suggest you read "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon and if you can refute his arguments I'm all ears.

My point here was that the NKJV uses the MT for translation but used the CT for footnotes which in my view was oxymoronic considering the contradicting philosophy used to edit those texts.


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

> My point here was that the NKJV uses the MT for translation but used the CT for footnotes which in my view was oxymoronic considering the contradicting philosophy used to edit those texts.



The NKJV uses the TR for translation, not the MT.

---------- Post added at 06:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 AM ----------




> My point here was that the NKJV uses the MT for translation but used the CT for footnotes which in my view was oxymoronic considering the contradicting philosophy used to edit those texts.



The NKJV uses the TR for translation, not the MT.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> If one is going to be precise about the original he should take care that the translation is formally equivalent to it, e.g., by reproducing the singular and plural distinction. Even William Hendriksen made provision for it.


 


PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I think some of the independent translations do you (singular) and you* (plural).


I think this is an excellent point (and we use the ESV in our church). One of my tasks as a preacher is to point out the singular/plural distinction, but it would be great if that was obvious from the English Bible text itself. It woudl seem to me that the you / you* method would be an easy fix.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 3, 2011)

> The NKJV uses the TR for translation, not the MT.



How does this address the point I made about the using the CT for footnotes? Those who prefer the MT or TR would agree that the Byzantine Texts is trustworthy and would reject the conflation theory brought forth by Hort.


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

> How does this address the point I made about the using the CT for footnotes? Those who prefer the MT or TR would agree that the Byzantine Texts is trustworthy and would reject the conflation theory brought forth by Hort.



It wasn't meant to address any point other than the point it was addressing. Specifically your claim that the NKJV uses the MT for translation, which is incorrect.


----------



## KMK (Oct 3, 2011)

fredtgreco said:


> I think this is an excellent point (and we use the ESV in our church). One of my tasks as a preacher is to point out the singular/plural distinction, but it would be great if that was obvious from the English Bible text itself. It woudl seem to me that the you / you* method would be an easy fix.



It only fixes the problem where the Bible is read individually. It doesn't fix the problem where the Bible is read aloud which, according to our standards, is an important part of worship. Why not keep the thee/thou distinction and change the 'wots' and the 'twains' etc.?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2011)

KMK said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is an excellent point (and we use the ESV in our church). One of my tasks as a preacher is to point out the singular/plural distinction, but it would be great if that was obvious from the English Bible text itself. It woudl seem to me that the you / you* method would be an easy fix.
> ...


Because the thee/thou distinction is now foreign to us. If we can get along in everyday speech and every other writing in modern life with you/you, then I think we can get along in Bible reading, especially if we had some help in the written text. After all, we get along just fine with an even more important issue - English has no aorist tense. Should we come up with a special language addition so we can tell the difference between a Koine imperfect and aorist?


----------



## bug (Oct 3, 2011)

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Whilst I can certainly see the attrction of doing something like this, I have to wonder if it is truly formaly equivelant to transalate to distiction like this that does not exist in the goto language, if the singular you and plural you is the same word in the goto language then it is formally *equivelant* to translate the greek singular and plural as 'you.' As english uses the words around to determine if the pronopun is plurla or not, then we can still determin it, on the odd occasion when we cannot why not simply use a footnote, as it would appear bible translators have always done. 

By the way I am an MT man who favours the NKJV, just getting back to the OP. I favour it because it does away with the archaic language and syntax that I do believe is a barrier to people picking up the bible and reading it, I also favout it because it is brave enough to point out textual variants in footnotes. I have never seen that practise undermine someones confidence in God's word, but I had opportunities to talk about the tenacity of scripture and God's wonderful providence of his word in a way that edifies the saints. Now all that being sad, I love and preach from the AV because that is the chosen bible of the church I am called to minister at.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 3, 2011)

Hi:

I do not know anyone who does not know the definitions of "Thee" and "Thou." Do you?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 3, 2011)

> but you have to understand that the academic consensus for the superiority of the Alexandrian text types is virtually monolithic



Should defenders of the amillennial eschatological view insert footnotes of the Dispensational interpretations when defending their view since it is the predominant view today?

Majority opinion (even of academics) should never be use as a measure of truth; I would have hoped that history would have taught us that lesson already. 

You should never compromise by trying to reconcile 2 opposing view. Again my point here is that either you believe the Byzantine Text is superior than the handful of older Uncials used by the editors of the CT, or you believe the Byzantine Text has been conflated and therefore you are left to try to figure out what the correct reading should be by using the handful of older contradicting Unicials. 

Most of the variation between the TR and the CT comes from the fact that the editor of the CT have decided to ignore the vast majority of Byzantine MSS because they hold to this “conflation” theory (I’m not saying there are not a few exceptions). Therefore when working on a translation using the philosophy that the Byzantine Text is superior, why would you insert footnotes with variant reading when the vast majority of Byzantine MSS are in agreement against a handful of contradicting Unicals?

in my opinion if you hold to the Byzantine Priority view you should only have footnotes when there are notable variations within the body of Byzantine MSS. If not then your translation is no different than those using the CT and inserting footnotes when the Byzantine Text disagree.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I do not know anyone who does not know the definitions of "Thee" and "Thou." Do you?
> 
> ...


Yes, I do. Not everyone in modern America is familiar with the Bible, or 16the century literature. Do you know a large number of people outside the Reformed Church?


----------



## KMK (Oct 3, 2011)

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



This is a very good point. I agree with what you say except for the part about "the thee/thou distinction' being 'foreign'. I think that is an overstatement.

However, even if the case is conceded, there is an English word that more precisely imparts the plural 'you' and that is the word 'y'all'. 



> 1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of you: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of y'all.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 3, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I do not know anyone who does not know the definitions of "Thee" and "Thou." Do you?
> 
> ...



Yes, many. Frankly, most young folks today don't understand that there ever was a difference between nominative and objective pronouns. Its all "you" to them.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 3, 2011)

Hi:

Really? I find that hard to believe. So, "thou shalt not kill" is unintelligible to young folks?

Hmmmmm.

-Rob


----------



## bug (Oct 3, 2011)

Yes many, including many foreigners attending our churches who struggle enough with modern english, it is almost as if we expect them to learn tow langauges sometimes.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 3, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Really? I find that hard to believe. So, "thou shalt not kill" is unintelligible to young folks?
> 
> ...



No. What they don't know is the difference or disctinction between "thee" and "thou."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 3, 2011)

Thee, Thou was foreign to the average illiterate person in 1611 London as well. It takes all of 5 seconds to explain the difference. Kids are smart enough to figure it out.


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2011)

fredtgreco said:


> If we can get along in everyday speech and every other writing in modern life with you/you, then I think we can get along in Bible reading, especially if we had some help in the written text.



My point was only to show that precision with the original reading should be supported by precision with translation of that reading. If people can "get along" with imprecision in the translation, then it is somewhat imbalanced to make so much fuss over the original. As for thee/thou, it continues to be used in religious contexts, so it is not redundant. No matter how small the context may be, a word is meaningful if it is used in context.


----------



## TimV (Oct 3, 2011)

If one believes in the concept of "vulgar" then precision dictates not using thee and thou.


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2011)

TimV said:


> If one believes in the concept of "vulgar" then precision dictates not using thee and thou.



Your use of "vulgar" confirms that a word used in a narrow context can still be understood notwithstanding the changes that word has undergone. The Bible is literature, not spoken language. The "vulgar" literature continues to use the pronominal distinctions long after they have fallen out of use in every day speech. There is a proper convention in English for distinguishing between singular and plural second person pronouns. Accuracy of translation demands the use of conventional language for conveying the meaning of the original.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 3, 2011)

The problem with "thee" and "thou" is that most people think it is merely archaic; it was not until I started really studying the issue that I realized "thee/thou" was singular, and "ye/you" are plural. Others think it is "respectful" address to God or a superior (Darth Vader - "What is thy bidding, my master.")

The modern mind does not conceive of "thee or thou" the way the 1611 translators and their predecessors did. *I* have no problem with the language of the AV, but I would probably prefer a you/you* distinction for the general audience. A quick mention before a sermon would remind the congregation of the asterisk.

Let me also say this is why I like the NKJV; like the translators of the AV, this one seems to be translated in a way it was understandable, but not common. It is not dumbed down, and not so common speech that it will die out and quickly need multiple revisions. An occasional update is fine, but the NKJV seems to have a timelessness in a way the KJV had at its time. Neither is street speech, but both in their times can be understood by the "average Joe."


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2011)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> The modern mind does not conceive of "thee or thou" the way the 1611 translators and their predecessors did. *I* have no problem with the language of the AV, but I would probably prefer a you/you* distinction for the general audience. A quick mention before a sermon would remind the congregation of the asterisk.



The fact is, the Bible must be interpreted according to the grammatico-historical method. Grammar is not something to be invented. Creating a new grammatical convention only narrows the possibility for understanding. Let the people learn English. It won't harm them. If they are desirous of knowledge they will appreciate the opportunity. If they don't want to learn there is no new invention in the world which will overcome it. There is no good to be gained by creating new conventions; it can only lead to more confusion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> PointyHaired Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> > The modern mind does not conceive of "thee or thou" the way the 1611 translators and their predecessors did. *I* have no problem with the language of the AV, but I would probably prefer a you/you* distinction for the general audience. A quick mention before a sermon would remind the congregation of the asterisk.
> ...


Matthew,

Could not one have made the same point about the AV? It certainly introduced "new conventions" that were not present in the Geneva, Tyndale or other English Bibles. Why would those particular new conventions (which replaced conventions not nearly as old as the AV) be more desirable?


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2011)

fredtgreco said:


> Could not one have made the same point about the AV? It certainly introduced "new conventions" that were not present in the Geneva, Tyndale or other English Bibles. Why would those particular new conventions (which replaced conventions not nearly as old as the AV) be more desirable?


 
Are you thinking of Hebraisms, etc.? These are idiomatic, and part of the commitment to formal equivalence. I don't think anyone would class them as new grammar. The use of thee/thou, though mostly out of use in common speech at the time, was retained for the purpose of accuracy.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Oct 9, 2011)

Has anyone read Gary Zeolla's book on Bible Translations? I know he is a Byzantine Text supporter, and a pretty enthusiastic NKJV proponent. I downloaded the Kindle preview which piqued my interest more. For anyone who has read him, does he present a good Byzantine-Priority argument?


----------



## KaphLamedh (Oct 10, 2011)

*Tyndale + Matthew Bible*

Well, I used NASB for long time and also KJV. I tried to use ESV, but always I found NASB easier to read. I bought Tyndale's New Testament in modern spelling and somehow it feels better than KJV...I don't know why, maybe I feel so much sympathy for William because his martyrdom. There are some verses that are interesting in Tyndale's NT, like 2.thess. 2:7 in comparison to KJV. There is New Matthew Bible Project (google it...). It is interesting that Tyndale uses word Easter in many places instead of Passover and he also uses word "congregation" while KJV uses "church". For me who's native language is not English word "congregation" is better than "church", because it is "warm" word, while church is something ("too") big...
Tyndale used Bysantine texts BWT


----------



## Phil (Oct 19, 2011)

"Let the people learn English." Sorry--that's not biblical or confessional.

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2011)

Phil said:


> "Let the people learn English." Sorry--that's not biblical or confessional.



The statement was made in the context of a discussion on "English" Bible versions. Obviously it is referring to English speakers learning English. 1 Corinthians 14 requires one to speak in a known language, not to accommodate speech to a half-known language.


----------

