English Bible translations based on the majority text?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can download J. P. Green Sr's Modern King James and his Literal Translation of the Bible on E Sword. He was not a TR guy as I knew him but he was close. He would claim to be MT guy I believe.

Yes, I knew J. P. Green Sr.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
What would be the difference between a NKJV and a modern King James version or something like this?: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...entury-king-james-version-kj21-hardcover.html

Wasn't that the main purpose of the NKJV (or at least one of them)?
Click to expand...
NKJV is more in line with a fresh translation using the same textual basis as the KJV, whereas KJ21, UKJV, AKJV, etc. are just lightly modernized language while trying to not really translate any more than the KJV if possible.
 
danekristjan said:
I agree. If you have the NKJV, you have a faithful translation with essentially a picture of the entire textual landscape. In the main body you have the text of the TR, and in the footnotes the places of difference in the critical and majority texts. A very useful too.
Click to expand...
Dane, I agree the NKJV textual notes give you a picture of the entire textual landscape. That said these were done before Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority Text research. I'm unsure if they are a little out of date for that reason. Thoughts?
 
J.L. Allen said:
Myself and a few others hold to the TR position. What I've noticed though, is that most of the guys use the NKJV primarily. The MT guys really enjoy it and advocate for its use. I primarily use the KJV but always have my NKJV nearby for different translation methods (modern definitions from a translation committee in our time). I think they prefer it for the text notes, which give a pretty clear assessment of what the MT says without going to the Greek.
Click to expand...
Just genuinely interested - do you hold to the full TR including 1 John 5:7?
 
Stephen L Smith said:
Dane, I agree the NKJV textual notes give you a picture of the entire textual landscape. That said these were done before Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority Text research. I'm unsure if they are a little out of date for that reason. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
That's a good point, but there have not been any significant changes in the text in that time that would affect the text. All of the major textual variants have been studied, debated, and documented in printed form since the reformation. So outside of the nitty gritty, you have everything you need in the NKJV for textual representation in my opinion.
 
Taylor said:
I think he means, "Do you believe the TR in its entirety—including its unique readings, such as 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 16:5 and 22:19—is the correct text?"
Click to expand...
Oh ok. Yes, I'm confident the TR in its entirety is the correct text.
 
Taylor said:
I think he means, "Do you believe the TR in its entirety—including its unique readings, such as 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 16:5 and 22:19—is the correct text?"
Click to expand...

J.L. Allen said:
Oh ok. Yes, I'm confident the TR in its entirety is the correct text.
Click to expand...
Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.

Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L Smith said:
Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.

Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.
Click to expand...
In the NT times, was the text stable when you had the Masoretic and LXX traditions? (I ask this as a question for my own learning)
 
Stephen L Smith said:
That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.
Click to expand...
I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).

Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.

Edit edit: I would mentioned though that I am finding the NKJV a very good translation. There are times when the ESV almost states things like Yoda and other times when it does not seem to do a great job bringing out the full meaning from the Greek. I find in these situations that the NKJV translations seemed to do a better job (balancing the literal and dynamic aspects). That said, I am sure there are places where the reverse is true as well.
 
Last edited:
retroGRAD3 said:
I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).

Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.

Edit edit: I would mentioned though that I am finding the NKJV a very good translation. There are times when the ESV almost states things like Yoda and other times when it does not seem to do a great job bringing out the full meaning from the Greek. I find in these situations that the NKJV translations seemed to do a better job (balancing the literal and dynamic aspects). That said, I am sure there are places where the reverse is true as well.
Click to expand...
Any example of this ESV NKJV contrast?
 
John Yap said:
Any example of this ESV NKJV contrast?
Click to expand...
Yes, just recently I came across this one:

Mark 7: 25-28

ESV
But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

NKJV
For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.”

In the NKJV, it says "kept asking" and in the ESV it says "she begged him". My pastor preached on this last Sunday and said the Greek word here is a continuous action, so "kept asking him" would be the better translation I would think. Whereas the ESV simply states, she begged him. This could mean it was a continuous action, but it could also leave the door open for a one time event (with the way this story is stated in Mark at least).

Also, in the ESV it states "dogs". In the NKJV it states "little dogs". A friend recently told me the word here would better be translated "puppies" into English from the Greek. If that is so, then again, I think the NKJV gets closer to the mark (no pun intended). As someone who doesn't know Greek, I find it useful to get as close to what the Greek is actually trying to get across, and I realize now that a completely literal translation may not always be the best thing (although I think it's a good thing to shoot for). In this instance "little dogs" is softer than just saying "dogs". Please don't hear me trying to charge Jesus with being rude to the women either, I don't think this even with the word dogs. However, if the original Greek is puppies, then obviously the original writers were trying to communicate a specific picture as well.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Yes, just recently I came across this one:

Mark 7: 25-28

ESV
But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

NKJV
For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.”

In the NKJV, it says "kept asking" and in the ESV it says "she begged him". My pastor preached on this last Sunday and said the Greek word here is a continuous action, so "kept asking him" would be the better translation I would think. Whereas the ESV simply states, she begged him. This could mean it was a continuous action, but it could also leave the door open for a one time event (with the way this story is stated in Mark at least).

Also, in the ESV it states "dogs". In the NKJV it states "little dogs". A friend recently told me the word here would better be translated "puppies" into English from the Greek. If that is so, then again, I think the NKJV gets closer to the mark (no pun intended). As someone who doesn't know Greek, I find it useful to get as close to what the Greek is actually trying to get across, and I realize now that a completely literal translation may not always be the best thing (although I think it's a good thing to shoot for). In this instance "little dogs" is softer than just saying "dogs". Please don't hear me trying to charge Jesus with being rude to the women either, I don't think this even with the word dogs. However, if the original Greek is puppies, then obviously the original writers were trying to communicate a specific picture as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight. I agree with you in this instance.

Pardon I didn’t mention but I was more interested in the Yoda character you mentioned. And I know this is subjective so would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers
 
John Yap said:
Thanks for the insight. I agree with you in this instance.

Pardon I didn’t mention but I was more interested in the Yoda character you mentioned. And I know this is subjective so would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers
Click to expand...
Oh with the Yoda reference, sometimes (not always) when I read passages in the ESV it seems like I am speaking the way Yoda does and it is very difficult when I am reading out loud.

Example of Yoda speaking:
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).

Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.
Click to expand...
Jason,

I wouldn't at all claim that there is an inspiration of the TR editors/scholars. That would imply further revelation and, ironically, defeat the confessional stance on preservation (at least held by TR/MT advocates). However, we do believe that the word of God, as found in the TR, is the evidence of God's preservation of the inspired autograph in the apographs. It's a matter of God not only inspiring the text in the first place, but working through history by his providence to see that his Word is not perverted or lost.

I don't doubt that Bible-believing conservatives who hold to a CT position question the preservation of the text. I'm sure they are godly, too. The issue taken with that is the apparent inconsistency with the claim as it's been evaluated on the other side (more on that below).

Muslims actually find the CT position to confirm much of their opposition to the faith. You can read articles written by Dr. Jeff Riddle on that subject. Plus, the TR claims of preservation are distinctly Christian and are not like the claims Muslims make about the Quran.

Stephen L Smith said:
Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.

Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.
Click to expand...
Stephen,

I'm glad the "haze" is clearing on the topic. The CT position has had quite the public relations campaign, so to speak. I love Ryan! That guy is a dear brother and passionate about the topic without lacking grace towards others. The defenses for those texts are worth covering in detail. Unfortunately, I'm unable to dive into that at this time. I hope a more capable brother can address those things for you.

As to James White, see what I wrote to Jason.

The main consistency issues with the CT claims of preservation have to do with direction of reasoning. All of us (CT, TR, MT) make a deductive claim: God inspired the autographs of the NT. The difference comes after that. One side (CT) attempts to inductively reach their deductive claim. The other side deduces their view of preservation from the deductive claim.

That said, I don't think the critical text itself should be thrown out or that archaeological pursuits are folly. We should value these things. We should value all those manuscript witnesses and pieces of history that are directly connected to our brothers and sisters before us. It's that the TR position does not use those things as the lens to look at the rest of the manuscript evidence. Rather, it is that those things further build confidence in what we already have.
 
J.L. Allen said:
Jason,

I wouldn't at all claim that there is an inspiration of the TR editors/scholars. That would imply further revelation and, ironically, defeat the confessional stance on preservation (at least held by TR/MT advocates). However, we do believe that the word of God, as found in the TR, is the evidence of God's preservation of the inspired autograph in the apographs. It's a matter of God not only inspiring the text in the first place, but working through history by his providence to see that his Word is not perverted or lost.

I don't doubt that Bible-believing conservatives who hold to a CT position question the preservation of the text. I'm sure they are godly, too. The issue taken with that is the apparent inconsistency with the claim as it's been evaluated on the other side (more on that below).

Muslims actually find the CT position to confirm much of their opposition to the faith. You can read articles written by Dr. Jeff Riddle on that subject. Plus, the TR claims of preservation are distinctly Christian and are not like the claims Muslims make about the Quran.


Stephen,

I'm glad the "haze" is clearing on the topic. The CT position has had quite the public relations campaign, so to speak. I love Ryan! That guy is a dear brother and passionate about the topic without lacking grace towards others. The defenses for those texts are worth covering in detail. Unfortunately, I'm unable to dive into that at this time. I hope a more capable brother can address those things for you.

As to James White, see what I wrote to Jason.

The main consistency issues with the CT claims of preservation have to do with direction of reasoning. All of us (CT, TR, MT) make a deductive claim: God inspired the autographs of the NT. The difference comes after that. One side (CT) attempts to inductively reach their deductive claim. The other side deduces their view of preservation from the deductive claim.

That said, I don't think the critical text itself should be thrown out or that archaeological pursuits are folly. We should value these things. We should value all those manuscript witnesses and pieces of history that are directly connected to our brothers and sisters before us. It's that the TR position does not use those things as the lens to look at the rest of the manuscript evidence. Rather, it is that those things further build confidence in what we already have.
Click to expand...
I guess a question I would have to ask is why do you believe it is the TR that is uniquely persevering God's word? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it not just as valid as the CT guys saying it is in fact the CT that preserves the text because you can see how things have developed but also how similar it is throughout time. Also, I have never found Jeff Riddle very convincing. I watched an online debate James White and him did and he was shown (in my opinion) to be very inconsistent. Basically he has one set of arguments day 1 and then completely switched his approach on day 2.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I guess a question I would have to ask is why do you believe it is the TR that is uniquely persevering God's word? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it not just as valid as the CT guys saying it is in fact the CT that preserves the text because you can see how things have developed but also how similar it is throughout time. Also, I have never found Jeff Riddle very convincing. I watched an online debate James White and him did and he was shown (in my opinion) to be very inconsistent. Basically he has one set of arguments day 1 and then completely switched his approach on day 2.
Click to expand...
The CT criteria for what belongs and what doesn't is mostly not affirmed by those who oppose the position. The internal and external evidence claims prioritize the Alexandrian text with Codex Vaticanus held as most valuable. Older is necessarily better unless it is outside the Alexandrian text-types. This leads to two codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) given, I believe, undue priority. It's not that the CT is void of the Word of God. We just reject the claims that would give it priority.
 
J.L. Allen said:
I love Ryan! That guy is a dear brother and passionate about the topic without lacking grace towards others.
Click to expand...
I have had some great email fellowship with him. He was at MARS with my pastor.
J.L. Allen said:
The main consistency issues with the CT claims of preservation have to do with direction of reasoning. All of us (CT, TR, MT) make a deductive claim: God inspired the autographs of the NT. The difference comes after that. One side (CT) attempts to inductively reach their deductive claim. The other side deduces their view of preservation from the deductive claim.
Click to expand...
Could you expand a little more on this?
J.L. Allen said:
The internal and external evidence claims prioritize the Alexandrian text with Codex Vaticanus held as most valuable. Older is necessarily better unless it is outside the Alexandrian text-types. This leads to two codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) given, I believe, undue priority. It's not that the CT is void of the Word of God. We just reject the claims that would give it priority.
Click to expand...
In that case why do you prefer the TR over the Byzantine Priority text?
 
Here is a historical book that deals with the topic. Dean Burgon

https://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/u...gon-and-jay-green-sr-2-hardcover-volumes.html
Unholy Hands on the Bible, Volume I

When the English Bible (the King James Version) was revised in 1881, the revision (the Revised Version) abandoned the Greek text of the New Testament that had been used until then, not only for the English Bible, but also for all the Bibles of the Reformation, e.g., Luther’s Bible, and the Dutch Bible authorized by the Synod of Dordt. The revision chose much of the newly chosen eclectic Greek text advocated by the textual scholars, Westcott and Hort. All subsequent English versions, except the New King James Version, the Modern King James Version, The Literal Translation of the Bible, and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible have used the Westcott-Hort (W-H) text, regarding the Greek Text of the KJV as an inferior text.
From Engelsma’s Review of This Book:
''One godly scholar opposed the change at the time of the revision in the late 19th century the English textual scholar, John W. Burgon. Burgon defended the Greek text of the KJV, which he called the Traditional Text and which is referred to today as the Majority Text (which has some 1,500 mostly minor differences with the Textus Receptus), as the authentic text of the New Testament Scripture. He criticized the W-H text as false and dangerous.''
[Unholy Hands on the Bible is basically the complete works of Burgon on the issue of the Greek text of Holy Scripture. It is, therefore, a powerful defense of the KJV and a devastating attack on all modern English translations of Scripture with the exception of the versions mentioned above.
''The work is not intended for the ordinary church member. It virtually demands some knowledge of the Greek. But preachers who are committed to the complete inspiration of Scripture should avail themselves of it, especially those who assume that the W-H text is the best text, and those who suppose that there is no significant doctrinal difference between the texts. It should be in the libraries of seminaries that hold the doctrine of verbal inspiration, and therefore have deep concern for the authentic text of the New Testament. It should be consulted in the classes on textual criticism. Reformed and Presbyterian churches that have removed the KJV from pew and pulpit and replaced it with the NIV would do well to reconsider in the light of the solid scholarly work and sharp warnings of Burgon. Ministers in the Protestant Reformed Churches and in other denominations that retain the KJV will learn that there are reasons for this retention in the Greek text, and will be able to teach their people the serious faults of the modern versions.
Included are an edited version of Burgon’s [volumes in] defense of the Greek text of the KJV, The Traditional Text of the New Testament, and an edited version of his main critique of the English Revised Version of 1881, The Revision Revised. The book also includes his careful, convincing treatments of controversial passages in the area of textual criticism and English translations. There is his God Manifested in the Flesh on II Timothy 3:16 (the W-H text and the modern English versions omit ‘God’ in this text). There is his study of John 7:53-8:11 (omitted in the modern versions), The Woman Taken in Adultery. There is his The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark (also omitted in the W-H text and in [many of] the modern versions).
...
 
Stephen L Smith said:
I have had some great email fellowship with him. He was at MARS with my pastor.

Could you expand a little more on this?

In that case why do you prefer the TR over the Byzantine Priority text?
Click to expand...
I'd definitely ask him about these things, too. He knows more than I do on the subject.

However, I'd like to give an answer to your questions starting with the TR over the MT. My main objection (softly made) against adopting the MT as the primary text is their criteria of the most manuscripts for a given reading. (To the MT folks, if I'm missing thrust of this argument, please tell me). Regarding that argument, we've lost manuscripts over time due to the volatility of the world affairs and natural disasters. So, we have had more manuscripts in our possession (some of which were used in different editions of the TR) that have since been lost. Granted, we also find new manuscripts, too. Consistently speaking, that could change what reading is then favored at whatever section. The TR weighs those things differently (even, dare I say, critically) with the assumption of stability already being accomplished. No knew manuscript would or should overturn what the has had throughout the ages.

As for the inductive and deductive part: The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking. This does not mean there is exhaustive knowledge of how the text was preserved throughout history, but that it was preserved, and we don't need to attempt to recreate it to get to the autographs. In more modern times, the same methods for recreating any historical text inductively were also applied to the Bible and still are largely. How many copies are known and used by the Church, collated, weighed, and compared (this is an area of agreement, but again, criteria is different). Inductively, older is generally better (assuming that older must mean accurate). Sometimes it's trying to piece things together through the assumption that language was more primitive in one century over another and sometimes not. In other words, a pious scribe must have cleaned this portion up by changing the original wording. As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text). This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.
 
J.L. Allen said:
I'd definitely ask him about these things, too. He knows more than I do on the subject.

However, I'd like to give an answer to your questions starting with the TR over the MT. My main objection (softly made) against adopting the MT as the primary text is their criteria of the most manuscripts for a given reading. (To the MT folks, if I'm missing thrust of this argument, please tell me). Regarding that argument, we've lost manuscripts over time due to the volatility of the world affairs and natural disasters. So, we have had more manuscripts in our possession (some of which were used in different editions of the TR) that have since been lost. Granted, we also find new manuscripts, too. Consistently speaking, that could change what reading is then favored at whatever section. The TR weighs those things differently (even, dare I say, critically) with the assumption of stability already being accomplished. No knew manuscript would or should overturn what the has had throughout the ages.

As for the inductive and deductive part: The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking. This does not mean there is exhaustive knowledge of how the text was preserved throughout history, but that it was preserved, and we don't need to attempt to recreate it to get to the autographs. In more modern times, the same methods for recreating any historical text inductively were also applied to the Bible and still are largely. How many copies are known and used by the Church, collated, weighed, and compared (this is an area of agreement, but again, criteria is different). Inductively, older is generally better (assuming that older must mean accurate). Sometimes it's trying to piece things together through the assumption that language was more primitive in one century over another and sometimes not. In other words, a pious scribe must have cleaned this portion up by changing the original wording. As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text). This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
What would you call what Erasmus was doing, assuming you won't say he was not "recreate(ing) it to get to the autographs"?
 
John Yap said:
What would you call what Erasmus was doing, assuming you won't say he was not "recreate(ing) it to get to the autographs"?
Click to expand...
Erasmus was going ad fontes for the purpose of a new Latin translation and at the very least get to the Greek underlying the Vulgate. He wanted to have an edition of the Greek NT for the West to refer to. So he collated mss from various church libraries and the Eastern churches.
 
J.L. Allen said:
As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text).
Click to expand...
In one sense I fully agree. Higher criticism assumes a naturalistic approach to Biblical doctrine, and much modern textual criticism also assumes a naturalistic approach. As a matter of interest it is worth listening to the debate on Eph 3:9 between James White [JW] and Jeff Riddle [JR]. When JW tried to argue one uses a scholarly textual criticism to determine the text of ancient writers such as Plato, JR correctly argued that the Bible is not a naturalistic book - it is a supernatural book. That said I think the argument is a bit more nuanced. The KJV has a number of text notes that suggest certain phrases or verses are not part of scripture. See for example the KJV notes at Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. The KJV also appears to question parts of 1 John 2:23. Modern translations (including the NKJV) do not question this. I have previously mentioned Beza's textual emendation at Rev 16:5. My point is - do the KJV translators engage in some naturalistic textual criticism and doubt some passages of scripture with these changes/ footnotes? Someone like JW is quick to capitalise on these KJV textual issues.
J.L. Allen said:
This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
See my comments above.

Coming back to the Eph 3:9 debate between JW and JR. I think JR was right to point out JW naturalistic assumptions. However JW pointed out that the slim textual evidence for the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 ignores the fact that God works through history. JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the majority of mss, but defended the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 by appealing to the minority of mss. It seems to me JW is correct on this point. That said I think JR was right to say that JW defence of the CT has produced a textual criticism that is uncertain and changing, based on the latest fads of modern textual scholars.

J.L. Allen said:
The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking.
Click to expand...
This argument certainly has some appeal for me. Perhaps the best Reformed TR scholar who argued for this position is Edward Hills. It is interesting that James Price's book "King James Onlyism" ch 12 summarises Dr Hills argument and accuses him of circular reasoning. https://www.jamesdprice.com/images/King_James_Onlyism.pdf Maybe he is right. But is it not true that Presuppositional Apologetics has pointed out that all reasoning is circular by its nature. We presuppose the self-attesting nature of scripture based on the infallible authority of God who gave us the scriptures.

In the final analysis I am back to my original argument. It may be good to have a new edition of the TR but in the few places where it is problematic, it would be wise to revise it by the weightier mss of the Byzantine tradition.

It is worth listening to the JW and JR debate.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
Sorry for another double post but final question for now.

Does anyone know of a good print copy of the NKJV with references and textual notes? I am looking for a nice one on good paper with good formatting, that isn't printed in China on cheap paper with no care.
Click to expand...
See here from me:

New Bible

Friends, In studying more on English translations, I have decided to switch my family over to primarily using the NKJV (we were using the ESV). Recently I purchased the below bible for my wife. I have never owned a bible this nice and so far it has far exceeded my expectations. Currently sold...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com
 
Stephen L Smith said:
JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the majority of mss,
Click to expand...
I believe this is a misrepresentation of JR’s position. The fact that it is an overwhelming majority reading is a demonstration of its reception by the church as authentic, and as such is a lower hurdle to cross w/r/t bringing other evidence to bear. But the TR position is not equivalent to a majority text position. JW sees an inconsistency because of his own presuppositions that JR does not hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BibleCyst
  • Locked
English Translation of the Majority Text?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Grillsy
Grillsy
P
  • Locked
Majority Text English Translation by Paul Exposito?
Replies
8
Views
6K
Ask Mr. Religion
Ask Mr. Religion
Travis Fentiman
  • Locked
The Majority Text
Replies
14
Views
4K
Robert Truelove
R
Stephen L Smith
Dr Everhard on the Majority Text
Replies
2
Views
1K
Romans678
Romans678
Stephen L Smith
John Calvin and English Bible translations
Replies
10
Views
2K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
Back
Top