KJV vs. NKJV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are a few things I found.

Calvin, as noted earlier, mentions variants and does not reject them on the grounds of minutiae preservation in the text he is using.

Watson, body of divinity says
"Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue." But this is in a section talking of the general preservation of Scripture for the church of God throughout all ages, not just in the latter days. So if taken to mean "minutiae" preservation, it proves too much.

Matthew Henry likewise mentions variants and does not reject them on the grounds of minutiae preservation.

Jonathan Edwards put textual critical works in his "Catalogue" and mentions variants in his "Notes". He certainly had a high view of the preservation of Scripture.

Charles Hodge in his commentary on Romans uses other Greek texts aside from the TR of his day, though he clearly believed in the authority of the Scriptures as the perfect rule of faith and obedience and subscribed to the Westminster Confession completely.

A.A. Hodge Commentary on the Confession
Clarifies what he believes the Confession means in chapter 1 by saying "essential purity" of the Scriptures.

Lastly, if the Westminster Divines meant by "kept pure" that it had been transmitted in the minutiae, this also proves too much, because they say it had been "kept pure", not "made pure", and it has been admitted that historically the church may have had the "preserved" word of God, but not the "minutiae preserved" word of God.

I see some people take Owen to believe in minutiae preservation. I will see if I can find quotes from him on this.
 
Logan, here is something on Owen excerpted from an earlier post:


The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, said he found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:​

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​

* Owen’s Divine Original: This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.​

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a very strong case could be made for that position also.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from the bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.​

[end excerpt]
--------

I’m preparing to respond to your previous posts, Logan, but can’t post right away as I am so busy.
 
If you want an update to the KJV, Charisma House is doing the heavy lifting now and expects to come out with their product in a few months.

Charisma House, the book group of Charisma Media, announces an updated translation of the King James Version, under the name Modern English Version (MEV). Accurate :: Modern English Version

The MEV is the most modern translation produced in the King James tradition in 30 years. This word-for-word translation maintains the beauty of the past yet provides fresh clarity for a new generation of Bible readers.

The MEV also accurately communicates God's Word anew as it capitalizes references of God, maintaining reverence of the scripture.

“To Bible readers who value biblical truth, the MEV literally translates God's Word in a way that preserves the message but remains readable for today's world," said Tessie DeVore, executive vice president of Charisma House. "And because of this, we anticipate that the MEV will have broad ecumenical and consumer acceptance."

Editors of the MEV Bible translation represent institutions such as the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Harvard University, Oral Roberts University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Yale University
.

"Something" tells me that it will not be catching on quickly in the churches represented on the PB. :stirpot:
 
Steve,



I read through "The Divine Original" this afternoon. It is well worth the read and not as difficult as some of Owen's writings.

While Owen uses some strong language to defend the originals against the charge of the corruption, I was surprised to see (as you mention) that he also acknowledged the variants ("lections", he called them) and even said they "deserved to be considered". The main intent of his writing was to assure people that the huge collection of variant readings that had been made (the "Appendix", he called it), did not invalidate the legitimacy or purity of Scripture. Nowhere did I read Owen rejecting variants based upon the TR (or common text) being the only true text, presuppositionally or otherwise. In other words, I find my view of Scripture's preservation to be in exact accordance with what he presents here.

After this I then went back and read the prefatory note, which agrees with my findings, saying:
The Publisher said:
It will be new, moreover, to many readers, who have hitherto assumed as true the charge against Owen of ignorant antipathy to the duties and advantages of sacred criticism, when they are told that he not only admitted the existence of various readings, but held that if any others could be discovered from a collation of manuscripts, they "deserved to be considered;" differing in this respect from Dr Whitby, who, at a later period, in 1710, published his "Examen Variantium Lectionum," in opposition to Mill's edition of the New Testament, taking up ground from which Owen would have recoiled, and insisting that every word in the common text stood as originally written. Owen acknowledged and proclaimed the fact, that in spite of all the variety in the readings, not a single doctrine was vitally affected by them. In regard to them, he objected to the unnecessary multiplication of very trivial differences,---an objection of no moment, stated in a single sentence, and never afterwards pressed. He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies essentially different from any now extant....Owen's main objection, however, reproduced frequently in the course of his tract, was against the attempt to amend the text by mere conjecture.

Now Owen contends for various reasons to trust the Scriptures, the very first reason the "providence of God", then "care of the church", the many copies, etc., but then says
Owen said:
Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New...[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered. Men must here deal by instances, not by conjectures
[here he refers to conjectures of people as to what the original must have said based on things like ancient translations]
All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.

Note again the Puritan's understanding of "letter and tittle" does not apparently mean in the minutiae, but in doctrine and truth.

Now these manuscripts in the "Appendix" were not just from the TR were they?, They were, as I understand, the collation of every variant reading, even obvious "mistakes" as Owen complains about. He goes at great lengths to say essentially "let's get the number down, every variant, every obvious scribal mistake, and especially corrupt manuscripts need not be considered."

I agree.

Further, I believe the quote from Letis regarding Owen to be at the least, misleading. At the worst, false.

For example, the "first and most honest course fixed on" is from this paragraph in Owen's "Epistle Dedicatory":
Owen said:
Among other ways that sundry men have fixed on to exercise their critical abilities, one hath been the collecting of various lections both in the Old Testament and the New. The first and most honest course fixed on to this purpose, was that of consulting various copies, and comparing them among themselves, wherein yet there were sundry miscarriages, as I shall shew in the second treatise. This was the work of Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others, some that came after them finding this province possessed, and no other world of the like nature remaining for them to conquer, fixed upon another way, substituting to the service of their design, as pernicious a principle as ever I think was fixed on by any learned man since the foundation of the church of Christ, excepting only those of Rome. Now this principle is that, upon many grounds, which some of them are long in recounting, there are sundry corruptions crept into the originals, which by their critical faculty, with the use of sundry engines, those especially of the old translations are to be discovered and removed.

Owen is not talking about "minor variants between the various editions of TR" as Letis claims, he is talking about the critical work done in comparing between various Greek manuscripts (of which Erasmus, among others, is an example), and says that this type of comparison (manuscript against manuscript) is the "honest course". Unless this "Appendix" Owen talks about was only TR manuscripts, Letis' assertion is false.
 
As argued on numerous other threads, the TR position does not claim there are no genuine variants or that the task of textual criticism is redundant. The TR position is opposed to specific types of criticism which either omit parts of the text or replace it with other readings. The problem is not with textual criticism but with the exalted claims which are made for it by some of its practitioners. Modesty towards and reverence for the sacred word requires that it be handled with more care.

The reformed tradition maintained the FULL text of Scripture and required that it be understood it in its FULLEST sense. There was no concession to minimalism. One will find numerous examples in reformed commentaries and sermons where the Masoretic and Received Texts are expounded together with their variants.

I reiterate, the problem is not that there are recognised variants, but with how the variants are used. It would be well if the method of Calvin, Owen, Henry, et al., were adopted.
 
Rev Winzer,

Thank you, I can agree to that position and would love to see more care taken in textual criticism. It should be the church herself that is making the comparisons. What I can't see is the preservation in the "minutiae", or that the TR is all that is meant by Scriptures being preserved, or that the TR (which one?) should be defended against any variant.

Incidentally, what you say is the "TR position" does not seem to be Steve's or Bryan's positions, as I understand them.
 
When the TR is rejected in favour of another text, those who maintain the FULL text are constrained to defend the TR against its opponents.

It is necessary for the good soldier to tenaciously maintain the front line for the sake of the whole territory, but the front line of a battle is not the whole territory being defended.
 
Hello Logan,

I must admit I was perplexed when I read your remarks on the views of Ted Letis and John Owen; I thought to myself, “Can I really have been such a careless student of these things to so misunderstand what was being said?” And so it was ad fontes (back to the sources) for me!

To start with the most recent, and work my way back on your posts. In your post #124, I would agree with you when you say Owen was of a mind to consider certain variants; in his own words (and these pertain to Hebrew variants in OT texts), “If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered” (emphasis added; p 359). The Appendix you mentioned was of the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta, a massive work by Anglo-Catholic Brian Walton listing all variant readings from all available mss extant then, and Owen was willing to consider all of them – as in “at least look them over” – and show that they did not vitiate the position he defended regarding the Reformation Bible and its attack against the claims of Rome to be the sole arbiter of both Biblical text and the meaning thereof. He was not afraid of them.

Logan, you made this statement:

Note again the Puritan’s understanding of “letter and tittle” does not apparently mean in the minutiae, but in doctrine and truth.​

This statement warrants some comment, and also qualification, from me. When I use the phrase “preservation in the minutiae” it does not mean that there may not be minute differences in the Greek TR mss, such as in spelling or other relatively insignificant ways. It also does not mean that there may not be slight differences in meaning, as in Romans 7:6 (which EF Hills brought up in his writings). It does mean that in multitudes of both small and large places throughout the NT text the readings of the common text are maintained. To show you a couple of places in Owen where he more narrowly defined his meaning of what you term “letter and tittle”, I submit these two excerpts:

The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority (emphasis added; pp 349, 350).​

And again,

That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance, is acknowledged. The proof of it lies within the reach of most, in the copies that we have ; and I shall not solicit the reputation of those who have afforded us others out of their own private furniture. That they have been all needlessly heaped up together, if not to an eminent scandal, is no less evident. Let us, then, take a little view of their rise and importance.

That the Grecian was once as it were the vulgar language of the whole world of Christians is known. The writing of the New Testament in that language in part found it so, and in part made it so. What thousands, yea, what millions of copies of the New Testament then in the world, all men promiscuously reading and studying the Scripture, cannot be reckoned. That so many transcriptions, most of them by private persons, for private use, having a standard of correction in their public assemblies ready to relieve their mistakes, should be made without some variation, is [not to be expected. From the copies of the first ages, others in the succeeding have been transcribed, according as men had opportunity. From those which are come down to the hands of learned men in this latter age, whereof very few or none at all are of any considerable antiquity, have men made it their business to collect the various readings we speak of; with what usefulness and serviceableness to the churches of God others that look on must be allowed their liberty to judge. We know the vanity, curiosity, pride, and naughtiness of the heart of man ; how ready we are to please ourselves with things that seem singular and remote from the observation of the many, and how ready to publish them as evidences of our learning and diligence, let the fruit and issue be what it will. Hence it is come to pass, not to question the credit of any man speaking of his manuscripts, which is wholly swallowed in this Appendix, that whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle, could be by any observed, wherein any book, though of yesterday, varieth from the common received copy, though manifestly a mistake, superfluous or deficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, yea, barbarous, is presently imposed on us as a various lection (emphasis added; p 363).​

I think it may be ascertained that here it does mean the minutiae of grammar and syntax, and not the figurative “in doctrine and truth”.

You may note also that he talks about unacceptable variances from “the common received copy”, which would be the received text which the Reformers held up against the “Imperial” tradition of Rome, to overthrow their seeking to lord it over the consciences of men.

Indeed, as you rightly say, the “lections” in the Appendix were not all of the TR, but were of every extant variant available to Mr. Walton. Owen gives us a further look at his view of the contents of the Appendix:

As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God (pp 363, 364).​

He again emphasizes that these “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”.

As he ends the section, Chapter III, “Of various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament”, he begins Chapter IV with these words,

Having now declared in what sense, and with what allowance as to various lections, I maintain the assertion laid down in the foregoing treatise concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we enjoy the whole revelation of his will in the copies abiding amongst us. . . (p 367).​

Be assured he was not talking of the copies Rome was attempting to foist upon the world!

I don’t think I differ much from Rev Winzer’s view, except that I may be a little more liberal (in the modern sense) than he, and not nearly as pithy.

Are you aware, Logan, that Calvin’s view changed as he grew older? Early on he used Simon de Colines’ “renegade edition” (with 150 new readings in it), but most probably returned to Stephanus’ third edition (1550), the “common text” of Owen (see “Theodore Beza As Text Critic”, in Letis, The Majority Text).

In his book, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind, Letis has interesting chapters which touch on the Hodges, and Warfield. He was an historian of the Reformation Biblical texts, and has some very interesting work, though I do not agree with all he writes.

I think I will close my post here, though I want to remark on your statements re Erasmus, and other matters, but that will have to wait for another post.
 
Last edited:
Steve,

Respectfully, I think you misunderstand Owen. Perhaps Reverend Winzer can confirm this as I will admit that Owen sometimes confuses me.

In the first quotation, he uses the phrase "least iota or syllable" to speak of the inspired originals, and from there makes a distinction between them and the preserved text we have. (Unless you are just pointing out that Owen can use the word "iota" as meaning the smallest variation).

In the second quotation, he complains that "whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle" that departs from the common text is presented as equally valuable. He is saying some of them are unacceptable (because clearly scribal error, printing errors, and the like), but nowhere claims they are unacceptable simply for departing from the common text (as I pointed out, he says they deserve to be considered).

In the third quotation he is continuing his complaint against the undiscerning consideration of any variation, and many of these “ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading”, so that those left should be reduced in number and considered. He is not saying that nothing that departs from the common text should be cast aside, otherwise why even compare?

I maintain that Letis' assertion (specifically, what is quoted below) was false, for claiming that Owen, in the quotations he used, was specifically speaking of the TR (Letis inserted "TR" into Owen's quotations, which was certainly misleading, though I wouldn't claim deliberate). I'm pretty sure the quotations I already brought up from Owen prove as much.

Letis said:
Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)
 
John Owen, Works 16:300-301:

the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose... It is true, we have not the Autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists; but the Apographa or "copies" which we have contain every iota that was in them.

Owen made it clear (1) that he contended for the complete preservation of the writing as equally of the doctrine, and (2) that he considered this writing to be preserved in the copies which were available in his own time.

Both the advocates and opponents of the "TR" in the 19th century popularised the name and used it to designate the traditional text underlying the reformation versions of Scripture. Prior to that time writers would rarely have spoken about the "TR" by name. It is one of those post-factum terms. The concept is present without the name by which it came to be recognised.
 
Owen made it clear (1) that he contended for the complete preservation of the writing as equally of the doctrine, and (2) that he considered this writing to be preserved in the copies which were available in his own time.

Definitely. But Owen also made it clear that he believed certain lections (even those yet to be discovered) deserved to be considered, even while complaining against those that were clear mistakes or derived from ancient translations. I know Owen wouldn't have used "TR", but I am contending Letis is incorrect in asserting that Owen claimed that only variants within the various TR editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, etc. should be considered.

Would you agree that this statement by Letis is incorrect?
"Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination..."
 
So what Owen then seems to be saying is(point me out if i'm wrong)

i) that the Word or Words of God have been preserved in their entirety in The T.R (keep to The N.T. for arguments sake)

ii) that there are variant readings within this Family ( albeit ever so slight )

iii) that The Word of God is contained & preserved in its entirety within the pale of these Manuscripts & variations

iv) therefore because of reason iii) these Manuscripts & variations deserve to be considered

well why didn't you good folk just say this from the beginning! now since the manuscripts
that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?

# my Spyware is detecting a thread Hijacking attempt #
 
Robert,

I don't think that is quite correct. Consider this quote:

Owen said:
Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New...[listing of some] If any others can be gathered, or shall be hereafter, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered...All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.

If Owen believed copies yet to be gathered should be considered, then he cannot be strictly said to be working within the variants of TR manuscripts.
 
Logan,

To be fair, I must say that perhaps I have very poorly represented Dr. Letis' view with my meager quote of him; so to give you a fuller idea of what he said – and its context I give a link to that section of his book I quoted from: Theodore P. Letis on John Owen vs Brian Walton (be sure to start at the top).

Sorry if I have contributed to misunderstanding.
 
Good words from Martin Lloyd-Jones from 1961 on the subject:

I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the Bible.... The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language—particularly the archaic terms. What does your modern man...know about justification, sanctification, and all these biblical terms? And so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick, and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorized Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologize for saying a word in favor of the Authorized Version? Well, whatever you may think, I am going to do it without any apology.

The Authorized Version and New Translations
 
Logan,

To be fair, I must say that perhaps I have very poorly represented Dr. Letis' view with my meager quote of him; so to give you a fuller idea of what he said – and its context I give a link to that section of his book I quoted from: Theodore P. Letis on John Owen vs Brian Walton (be sure to start at the top).

Sorry if I have contributed to misunderstanding.
Steve, I have complete faith and confidence that the text is inerrant in the original manuscripts but how do you 'answer' this fact, I assume it is fact, by Daniel Wallace ?

. Because he was in a rush, he could find only one copy of the book of Revelation. And that copy lacked the last leaf, Rev 22.16-21. What was Erasmus to do? He decided to back translate those final six verses, from Latin into Greek. And as good as Erasmus’ Greek was (he was considered the premier Greek scholar of the sixteenth century), he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS (except, of course, for one that was a copy of Erasmus’ printed text). The most remarkable text is Rev 22.19: “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Copied from ; https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-KJV-rv-elegance-accuracy
 
he still created seventeen (17) variant readings that have not been found in any Greek New Testament MSS

While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.
 
While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.

Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?

I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written.

Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.


Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.
 
While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.

Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?

I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written.

Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.


Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.

I don't have the link at the moment, perhaps Steve does, but Dr. Maurice Robinson, who is professor of Greek at Southeastern Seminary, has documented these variances. They have occurred because the CT is essentially an "eclectic" text, meaning that it was produced from a composite of manuscripts, mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Because these two manuscripts disagree so frequently, often the reading that is chosen is one that is a hybrid of the two, resulting in readings that have no precise textual basis in any manuscript anywhere. It is this critical, eclectic text, as published by Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies, that is the basis for most modern versions.
 
Ah, if that is the case (textual reconstruction) then I agree that is a problem. I think Owen would criticize that harshly as well.
 
I believe Bill is largely correct in his description of the CT having readings that are not in any extant manuscript/s - however this is not really a major problem. Rather than trying in this forum to describe why this is not a major problem, I haven't really been following the discussion, and I'm afraid I won't have time to enter into it much, may I reccomend a book?

Rethinking Textual Criticism, this includes a paper by Maurcie Robinson, and others who favour CT with a conclusion by Mosis Silva. It is a very good read, very informative and helpful for anyone interested in textual (lower) criticism, regardless of your position before or after reading it.
 
While this may indeed be true, it certainly pales in comparison to the thousands of variant readings that have not been found in any Greek manuscript that are present in the Critical Text.

Bill, is this true that there are thousands of variations in the CT not found in any Greek manuscript or did you mean there are thousands of variations from say, corrupt manuscripts?

I ask as one who does not know Greek and only knows about the CT from what others have written.

Steve, I don't think you have been unclear or contributed to any misunderstanding. I just don't see how Letis can be correct given other things Owen said in the very same chapter. Given my most recent quote from Owen, for example. It appears Letis only read parts of what Owen said and incorrectly extrapolated from there.


Jimmy, the paper by Wallace may have some good things but there is also much that is inaccurate and he says a lot that reveals his bias. I didn't find it to be very helpful, personally.

I don't have the link at the moment, perhaps Steve does, but Dr. Maurice Robinson, who is professor of Greek at Southeastern Seminary, has documented these variances. They have occurred because the CT is essentially an "eclectic" text, meaning that it was produced from a composite of manuscripts, mainly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Because these two manuscripts disagree so frequently, often the reading that is chosen is one that is a hybrid of the two, resulting in readings that have no precise textual basis in any manuscript anywhere. It is this critical, eclectic text, as published by Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies, that is the basis for most modern versions.
Thanks for that on D. Wallace, I only know him from the credentials as an author and expert in the Greek by reputation.

If I recall correctly, Dr, James White, in a youtube video stated something along the lines of 'there is no extant Greek text of the NT that is not an eclectic text'. I cannot recall if it was the debate with Jack Moorman, or the one with D.A. Waite, one or the other.
 
'there is no extant Greek text of the NT that is not an eclectic text'.

True, but when your basis is a manuscript family that is virtually in complete agreement, this eclecticism has little effect. On the other hand, when your basis is a manuscript family that disagrees to the degree that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do, then eclecticism is a problem.
 
Would you agree that this statement by Letis is incorrect?
"Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination..."

Letis may have been working with a broad definition of the TR, especially since Beza had worked with a wide range of Byzantine type readings and even some Western variants.

Codex Alexandrinus, after laying dormant for a short time, was starting to receive unorthodox attention, especially owing to the Socinian controversy. Owen took part in this controversy and contributed a solid defence of the orthodox faith. His rejection of indiscriminate readings undoubtedly included many from the Alexandrine family which were thought to undermine the biblical testimony for the divinity of Christ, among other things.
 
now since the manuscripts
that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?

The problems of translation have been mentioned earlier. As to the text underlying the translation, the problem is in the claim of the NKJV to follow in the line of earlier revisions. Those earlier revisions only touch on superficials. The NKJV does more. It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.
 
I believe Bill is largely correct in his description of the CT having readings that are not in any extant manuscript/s - however this is not really a major problem. Rather than trying in this forum to describe why this is not a major problem, I haven't really been following the discussion, and I'm afraid I won't have time to enter into it much, may I reccomend a book?

Rethinking Textual Criticism, this includes a paper by Maurcie Robinson, and others who favour CT with a conclusion by Mosis Silva. It is a very good read, very informative and helpful for anyone interested in textual (lower) criticism, regardless of your position before or after reading it.[/QUOTE

With all due respect, I fail to see how this could not be a major problem. If the Bible is inspired in the original texts, and a particular reading has no basis in the original text, how then can it be considered to be inspired?
 
now since the manuscripts
that underly The KJB /AV are the best, what is your objection to the NKJV ?

The problems of translation have been mentioned earlier. As to the text underlying the translation, the problem is in the claim of the NKJV to follow in the line of earlier revisions. Those earlier revisions only touch on superficials. The NKJV does more. It sometimes translates a different underlying text. So what it claims and what it delivers are two different things.

Rev. Winzer, it would be very helpful if you could point out instances where the NKJV uses a different text from the TR? I have been using both the AV and the NKJV and this would be helpful for me to know.
 
As much as I respect you, Rev. Winzer, this is an assertion that simply cannot be proven, at least as far as the NT is concerned.

It is easily proven. Luke 1:35 is an obvious example. For those who may not know Greek I will simply quote the translations.

English Standard Version (ESV)
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[a] will be called holy—the Son of God.
[a] Some manuscripts add of you

Authorized Version
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

New King James Version
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top