PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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?
Question for Byzantine Text Users
- Thread starter PointyHaired Calvinist
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
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
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
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
* 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.
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
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
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritanboard Botanist
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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?
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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 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.?
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?
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
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
I do not know anyone who does not know the definitions of "Thee" and "Thou." Do you?
Blessings,
Rob
I do not know anyone who does not know the definitions of "Thee" and "Thou." Do you?
Blessings,
Rob
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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?
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'.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
