Top 3 English Translations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: N.T. Texts

Those theologians who favour the Critical Text (Nestle/Aland) are following secular principles of textual criticism. Before I was converted I did a Degree in Classical Languages and we were told that if there was a disagreement between texts, the older one was more likely to be accurate because it had probably been copied fewer times.
This is fine for most classical authors, where there are only three or four manuscripts in existence, but when you come to the NT, there are literally hundreds to choose from and the huge majority are in close agreement with each other. In addition, we have biblical quotations from the Church Fathers which tell us what sort of Bible they had in front of them.
The fact is that the Received Text (KJV & NKJV) is much closer to the majority of manuscripts than the Critical Text which is largely based on just two (admittedly older) texts. I do not think it is right to throw out the witness of a thousand or more copyists who are in substantial agreement with each other for the sake of just a few on the other side. Therefore I prefer the NKJV to either the ESV or the NASB.
Anyone who is interested in this subject should read the works of Dean John Burgon whose scholarship in this area is just awesome.
Blessings,
Steve
 
I agree with Steve, especially given the concept of providential preservation that I raised earlier.

With respect to dC, I think that there is a world of difference between an issue surrounding one verse (1 Jn 5:7) and deleting entire passages. Also, the Johannine Comma issue is really not an issue for the MT, since it does not appear in the MT. It is an addition by Erasmus into the TR from the Vulgate. The text itself does not have that problem. But the Critical text does indeed, on the basis of two manuscripts that were found (literally) in the garbage, delete entire half chapters of what was assumed to be God's word for several hundred years. I wonder what we would do if we found 3 manuscripts today that dated from 100 A.D. that had no chapter 4 of Ephesians for example. Would we simply say that "the older texts are better" and place a footnote in Ephesians that "teh oldests and best texts do not recognize this chapter"?
 
[quote:c61aed648d][i:c61aed648d]Originally posted by ChristianasJourney[/i:c61aed648d]
Does anyone own a "new" copy of the Geneva Bible? If so, how do you like it?

P.S.

I think you can buy one for $99. [/quote:c61aed648d]

From the price, I assume that this is the 1599 Geneva Bible printed by L.L. Brown. This is a facsimile copy. So it has the 1599 type style and spelling. (Have you been "foued"? :bigsmile: ) It is surprising that with its size the print is rather small, and the notes even smaller. So you might want to make sure you have a good magnifing glass.

I have been going through the WSC creating a WP file where the Geneva Bible text and notes are used for the scripture references. Though the Westminster Assembly took place after the KJV, it took half a century for the KJV to overtake the Geneva Bible. Also the type of theologians gathered were probably "late adopters" of the KJV and would be familiar with Geneva.

I doing this, I found that Geneva has readings that are more Calvinist than KJV. Not being a Greek or Hebrew scholar, I have no basis to tell whether Geneva or KJV is closer to the original. But the sense of the KJV has held sway in the later translations.

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by jfschultz]
 
A Question on the Preservation View

Would a translation based on the majority text meet the standard for preservation?
 
[quote:841b60e20f][i:841b60e20f]Originally posted by RICK[/i:841b60e20f]
Would a translation based on the majority text meet the standard for preservation? [/quote:841b60e20f]

Yes.
 
[quote:048e2f1447][i:048e2f1447]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:048e2f1447]
These use the Received Text which I prefer to the Critical (Majority Text would be better still, but I await a MT Bible). [/quote:048e2f1447] For all you MT fans out there, there is now an English translation of the MT called the English Majority Text
Version (EMTV) available in print form for $20.50 or in electronic form for free:

http://www.emtvonline.com/

As for me, I prefer the NA27.

dC
 
[quote:7648557e5c][i:7648557e5c]Originally posted by RICK[/i:7648557e5c]
[quote:7648557e5c]As for me, I prefer the NA27. [/quote:7648557e5c]

What's that? [/quote:7648557e5c] The Nestle Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament, which is the standard critical edition of the Greek New Testament and superior, in my estimation, to the TR and the MT. The Nestle-Aland text is also used in the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, 4th edition - only the textual apparatus differs.

dC



[Edited on 7-1-2003 by doulosChristou]
 
[quote:4fc7e9c4df][i:4fc7e9c4df]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:4fc7e9c4df]
Those theologians who favour the Critical Text (Nestle/Aland) are following [b:4fc7e9c4df]secular[/b:4fc7e9c4df] principles of textual criticism.[/quote:4fc7e9c4df]Yuor statement is inaccurate. Textual criticism had its origens among [b:4fc7e9c4df]Christian[/b:4fc7e9c4df] scholars in the church and the principles of textual criticism used today are not new. "Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected." -- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chap. 14 (paragraph 21).

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Augustine[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

The following passage from Augustine (from his De Consens. Evang. book 3, chapter 7, paragraph 29) shows in what way that Father of the church met the problem of various readings in the manuscripts. The text under discussion is Matthew 27:9-10, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." The English translation of Augustine's Latin is from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 1, ed. Philip Schaff; vol. 6, St. Augustine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans reprint, 1974), p. 191.

"Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken "by the prophet." It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken "by the prophet, saying," which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah."

Other examples of Augustine's textual criticism are given by David Schaff in the Introduction to volume 6 of the series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

"Augustin's textual and grammatical comments are few in number, but they cannot be said to be wanting in all value. A few instances will suffice for a judgment of their merit:-

In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the reading "woman" (mulier) for "damsel." Commenting on Matt. v. 22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause," he includes the expression "without a cause" (ei0kh=) without even a hint of its spuriousness (Serm. on the Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the correction, "The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa." Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, the Vulgate and the Revised English Version, in agreement with the oldest mss., omit the clause. He refers to a conflict of the Greek and Latin text of Matt. v. 39 "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek", and follows the authority of the Greek in omitting the adjective "right" (Serm. on the Mt. i. 19, 58). At Matt. vi. 4 he casts out, on the authority of the Greek, the adverb palam "openly", which was found in many Latin translations (as it is also found in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Vulgate, and the Sinaitic, B, D, and other mss.). Commenting on Matt. vii. 12, "Wherefore all things whatsoever ye would that men," etc., he refers to the addition of "good" before "things" by the Latins, and insists upon its erasure on the basis of the Greek text (Serm. on the Mt. ii. 22, 74)."

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Jerome[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

Thomas Aquinas in his chapter "On Anger" in the Summa Theologica quotes Jerome thus:

"It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in his exposition on Mt. 5:22, 'Whosoever is angry with his brother,' etc. says: 'Some codices add without cause. However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether.'"

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Erasmus[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

Erasmus is quoted in Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 135, as follows:

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices." [quote:4fc7e9c4df] Anyone who is interested in this subject should read the works of Dean John Burgon whose scholarship in this area is just awesome.[/quote:4fc7e9c4df] If you read anything at all on the subject, I'd recommend reading "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism" by Daniel B. Wallace in [i:4fc7e9c4df]Grace Theological Journal[/i:4fc7e9c4df] 12 (1992) 21-51, which can be read online here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm

For further reading, see "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text" here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm

and "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?" here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm

Also, the concise "What about the Majority Text?" by Michael D. Marlowe is a good read on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

"The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

Grace and peace, dC



[Edited on 7-1-2003 by doulosChristou]
 
Hi DoulosChristou!
That was really interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. I withdraw my comment concerning 'secular' principles of textual critcism, though' they were certainly secular when they were taught to me! However, I still cannot accept that 100 manuscripts in agreement should be passed over in favour of two or three that contradict.

One small point. Augustine's view on Matt 5:22 was mentioned. I do not think it can be correct to leave out the words 'without a cause' because Paul certainly permits justified anger if it doesn't lead to sin (Eph 4:26). If our Lord condemned all anger, then surely there would be a contradiction?
Every blessing,
Steve
 
[quote:f3957fa3be][i:f3957fa3be]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:f3957fa3be]
Hi DoulosChristou!
That was really interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. I withdraw my comment concerning 'secular' principles of textual critcism, though' they were certainly secular when they were taught to me! [/quote:f3957fa3be] Thanks, Steve! [quote:f3957fa3be]One small point. Augustine's view on Matt 5:22 was mentioned. I do not think it can be correct to leave out the words 'without a cause' because Paul certainly permits justified anger if it doesn't lead to sin (Eph 4:26). If our Lord condemned all anger, then surely there would be a contradiction?[/quote:f3957fa3be]Augustine was in no way arguing that the Lord condemned all anger. He was merely pointing out the fact that scribes added the phrase "without cause" in order to clarify this very point. Jerome pointed this out as well. It was Aquinas who miscontrued from this that all anger was unlawful despite the clearer "be angry and do not sin" (Eph.4:26). The clearer passages are to be used to help explain the less clear rather than "fixing" the less clear by adding to God's word, which is what the scribes were sometimes prone to do. Brother, there is no more a contradiction between the accurate rendering of Mat.5:22 (as in the NASB or ESV) & Eph.4:26 as there is a contradiction between 1Jo.1:8 & 3:6.

Grace and peace, dC
 
DC,
You say it is a 'fact' that scribes added the phrase, 'without a cause' to Matt 5:22. With respect, brother, you presume too much. The great majority of the ancient texts include the phrase, so it is more than likely that an inattentive scribe missed it out. Regardless of Augustine's view (and, great man though' he was, he made a lot of errors), there is no doubt that the settled view came to be that the phrase should be left in. Add to that the 'fact' that the meaning is clearer if it is included and the case for the majority text becomes in my opinion a bit heavy.
Every blessing,
Steve
 
Blade,

The KJV, EMTV, NASB MKJV and many others are available on e-sword. If you haven't downloaded it, or bought Bible software, get it. You can view versions parallel as well. It also has some great commentaries.

http://www.e-sword.net

He just came out with a new update as well.
 
Comments on NIV

Though I agree that we should not dumb down the church. Sinners are who Christ came to save and often humans as sinners neglect their intellect. We have a responsibility to teach them to read, understand and gain an interest in GOD's WORD. Often "dumbed-down" versions are the adequate way to do this.
When it comes to addressing important issues I believe that translations such as NKJV and NASB should be used. I prefer the INTERLINEAR BIBLE which lays the Greek out in it's original text and then matches the English word to each Greek word.
Knight :wr41:

[Edited on 7-16-2003 by knight4christ8]
 
Eugene Peterson's "The Message" is alright when used in a proper manner. I do not believe it should be the Bible you read everyday, or even look at frequently. BUT on occasion, like when you are presenting a Bible Study, or preaching a message, sometimes he makes things come so alive, that it would be wrong not to quote him. With a qualification that it is a paraphrase (an Extreme Paraphrase) and should not be used as your everyday Bible.

My :wr50: Sancta
 
Found in the garbage!

I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church.
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the "garbage", just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate.
 
Is there a bible with all the old languages used in translation like aramaic,grekk,hebrew, wasnt there also an older style hebrew used by moses? What was the writting language of the egyptians was that ever used by moses?

Also would translating the NT into hebrew change the menaing of the words in anyway?

Or the same with using greek for the OT?


Blade
 
Bladestunner I have also grown up with this version of the NIV as standard. One thing that has really made me connected with the Bible's original text is the Interlinear Bible published by "Sovereign Grace Publishers". This Bible has the original language laid out and matches the most fitting english word or phrase with the original text. It turns out to be wuite broken but gives you a little more understnading and insight into the Word. There is still the handicap of being in English (Some of the meaning is lost no matter what English version it is). I have found this to be the next best thing from having a seminary education in Hebrew or Greek(which I hope to pursue). Check it out! It will aid and encourage your search for Truth.

Knight :wr41:

[Edited on 7-24-2003 by knight4christ8]
 
[quote:9dd16e049b][i:9dd16e049b]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:9dd16e049b]
I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church.
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the "garbage", just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate. [/quote:9dd16e049b] I thought Wallace's article had answered this quite satisfactorily. My question also still applies, "How long was God's word buried and forgotten by His people by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah"? You are absolutely right when you state that "just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate". The science of textual criticism cannot be caricatured to meaning "older manuscripts are always more accurate than newer ones". There are many many principles applied and factors balanced in the process. To get a basic understanding of what textual criticism entails, your starting place should be [b:9dd16e049b]The Text of the New Testament[/b:9dd16e049b] by Bruce Metzger followed by Aland's [b:9dd16e049b]The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism[/b:9dd16e049b]. The arguments in favor of TR and/or the MT are very weak. For the most part, these positions are held by laymen rather than serious scholars -- Dean Burgon, E. F. Hills, and Gordon H. Clark excepted. To me, the only real debate surrounding the Greek text is whether the UBS4 or the NA27 textual apparatus is to be preferred. :biggrin: As for the preservation argument, no one has even begun to refute the article I posted "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism" by Daniel B. Wallace in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-51, which, again, can be read online here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm

Grace and peace, dC
 
It might be helpful to mention that it isn't just the variants in the manuscripts that make a difference in translations, but also our mastery of the Greek language. For instance, it was long thought that Scripture was written in some sort of "theological" Greek, since it differed from classical Greek. But, relatively recent archaeological discoveries of ancient papers have shown us that the NT is actually written in Koine (common, or - dare I say - "LCD" Greek).

We're better Greek scholars now than we were years ago, which is one reason I tend to lean toward newer translations (NRSV, NASB-update) over older ones.
 
[quote:1ee8c137bb][i:1ee8c137bb]Originally posted by doulosChristou[/i:1ee8c137bb]
[quote:1ee8c137bb][i:1ee8c137bb]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:1ee8c137bb]
I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church.
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the "garbage", just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate. [/quote:1ee8c137bb] I thought Wallace's article had answered this quite satisfactorily. My question also still applies, "How long was God's word buried and forgotten by His people by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah"? You are absolutely right when you state that "just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate". The science of textual criticism cannot be caricatured to meaning "older manuscripts are always more accurate than newer ones". There are many many principles applied and factors balanced in the process. To get a basic understanding of what textual criticism entails, your starting place should be [b:1ee8c137bb]The Text of the New Testament[/b:1ee8c137bb] by Bruce Metzger followed by Aland's [b:1ee8c137bb]The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism[/b:1ee8c137bb]. The arguments in favor of TR and/or the MT are very weak. For the most part, these positions are held by laymen rather than serious scholars -- Dean Burgon, E. F. Hills, and Gordon H. Clark excepted. To me, the only real debate surrounding the Greek text is whether the UBS4 or the NA27 textual apparatus is to be preferred. :biggrin: As for the preservation argument, no one has even begun to refute the article I posted "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism" by Daniel B. Wallace in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-51, which, again, can be read online here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm

Grace and peace, dC [/quote:1ee8c137bb]

Ok,

I've read the article by Daniel Wallace, and it is severely lacking. It may be that the critical text is the text, but if Wallace's article is the best example of why we should not be TR/MT advocates, then the battle is over and Zondervan better sell its stock in the NIV. Here are just a few of the papably presumptuous (and donwright silly) arguments Wallace uses:

[quote:1ee8c137bb]What do you count? First, they {MT advocates} only count Greek manuscripts. Yet, there are almost twice as many Latin NT manuscripts as there are Greek (over 10,000 to approximately 5,500). If the Latin manuscripts were to be counted, then modern translations would be vindicated rather than the King James, because the early Greek manuscripts which stand behind the vast bulk of Latin manuscripts and behind modern translations are quite similar.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]
Now come on. Would anyone who is interested in the doctrine of inspiration and the use of the original languages (as I know dC commendably is) use this argument? Gee, there are a bunch of translated texts that support my theory. Next Wallace will have us revising the OT based on a bunch of Latin texts. The Vulgate (as opponents of the MT argue re: 1 John 5:7) has no authority to determine the basis of the actual Greek text. You can't have it both ways, Wallace. Either the Latin is inspired or it isn't.

[quote:1ee8c137bb]since there is not one solid shred of evidence that the Byzantine text even existed in the first three centuries of the Christian era. Not only this, but as far as our extant witnesses reveal, the Byzantine text did not become the majority text until the ninth century. Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century. To embrace the MT/TR text for the corpus Paulinum, then, requires an 800-year leap of faith[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

So I guess we throw out the whole OT, since there is a [b:1ee8c137bb]2000+[/b:1ee8c137bb] "leap of faith" for Moses' writings. Further, this argument is easily turned on the head of the Critical Text advocate. Simply substitute the words "1800 years" for "800 years" and "critical text" for "corpus Paulinum". Which is a bigger leap of faith: (1) the fact that there may have been (but we don't know) Pauline MT papyri from pre 9th century, or (2) the fact that [b:1ee8c137bb][u:1ee8c137bb]we know beyond a shadow of a doubt[/u:1ee8c137bb][/b:1ee8c137bb] that there were [b:1ee8c137bb]no[/b:1ee8c137bb] (yes, ZERO) Critical texts for 1800+ years.

[quote:1ee8c137bb]Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, not theoretical, possession of it, must mean one of three things-either 1) God preserved it in all the extant manuscripts so that none of them contain any textual corruptions, or 2) He preserved it in a group of manuscripts, none of which contain any corruptions, or 3) He preserved it in a solitary manuscript which alone contains no corruptions. [/quote:1ee8c137bb]

This is a classic fallacy of "false distraction". The MT advocate need not claim that a group of manuscripts was preserved without any corruptions in order to prove his point. It is enough to prove that God would preserve his text for his church throughout the ages. The CT advocate must show that it does not matter, for example, that EVERYONE (not just in one area, since there were NO, ZERO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH critical texts pre-20th century) was unaffected by having the wrong text. This is related to Wallace's silly argument about the Egyptians:
[quote:1ee8c137bb]Second, again, assuming that the majority text is the original, and that it has been readily available to Christians for 1900 years, then it must have been readily available to Christians in Egypt in the first four centuries.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

in which it is assumed that in order for God to preserve a text, He [u:1ee8c137bb]must[/u:1ee8c137bb] preserve it in all places at all times. This is ludicrous, and not even worth arguing against. I guess I could argue that the CT is no good because the Malay peoples did not have it, or because there is some tribe in Polynesia that does not have it.

Wallace then precedes to make an exceedingly bad argument:
[quote:1ee8c137bb]Fourth, there is a tacit assumption on the part of Pickering that everything a biblical author writes is inspired
[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

So... we're to assume that the end of Mark was actually some kind of "whoops" by the Church in including uninspired material and saying it was the Bible? This kind of makes dC's (good) argument for comparing everything by the Scriptures a bit foolish, doesn't it? What if some 1st century scrolls are found that leave out Ephesians 2? Do we simply say "the best and oldest manuscripts do not include this text, and therefore it is not authentic" ? Where does that end?

[quote:1ee8c137bb]Finally, we question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one's presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology. It is our conviction that this is neither honest to a historical investigation nor fair to one's evangelical heritage. If our faith cannot stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous investigation, then our beliefs need to be adjusted.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

Gee, I must be a neanderthal then. I have to subject science (critical science as well as biological science) to my presuppositions -- the Bible is inspired, God true, God is not the author of confusion, the gates of hell won't prevail against the Church, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, you know, those silly things found in the Bible. But I guess that is no match for the weight of historical-critical scholarship.

dC, please write something on this subject -- from your posts I can already tell that you are a better thinker and writer than Wallace. His article would be a joke if it were not so un-funny.
 
[quote:56e1930307][i:56e1930307]Originally posted by Angelo[/i:56e1930307]
Scholarship is necessary for determining which text is more accurate, but aside from technical debates, I recommend that you consider the following:

1. NASB update
2. ESV
3. NKJV



[/quote:56e1930307]

That is my preferred order as well. The NASB 95 Update is my favorite.
 
One reason that I don't like the ESV as much as the NKJV is that the don't put interpolations in italics. Consider the following:-
1Cor 14:29. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh ('judge') [what is said]'. The words, 'what is said are not found in ANY manuscript. The 'judging' of the other prophets might be as to which prophets should speak, rather than as to what is spoken.
1John 2:2. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world'. Again, the words, 'the sins of' are not found in any manuscript, Greek or Latin. As written, the text gives support to arminianism.

The KJV, NKJV and NASB, if they add words to the text, put them in italics.

Blessings,
Steve

[Edited on 10-1-2003 by grace2U]
 
[quote:300058cc7d][i:300058cc7d]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:300058cc7d]
One reason that I don't like the ESV as much as the NKJV is that the don't put interpolations in italics. Consider the following:-
1Cor 14:29. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh ('judge') [what is said]'. The words, 'what is said are not found in ANY manuscript. The 'judging' of the other prophets might be as to which prophets should speak, rather than as to what is spoken.
1John 2:2. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world'. Again, the words, 'the sins of' are not found in any manuscript, Greek or Latin. As written, the text gives support to arminianism.

The KJV, NKJV and NASB, if they add words to the text, put them in italics.

Blessings,
Steve

[Edited on 10-1-2003 by grace2U] [/quote:300058cc7d]

While I agree in principle that interposed words are best indicated by italics, I don't want the impression to linger that this particular interpolation is unwarranted or espouses Arminianism.

The actual Greek text reads:
[quote:300058cc7d]
[size=18:300058cc7d]kai< aujto<v iJlasmo<v ejstin peri< tw~n aJmartiw~n hJmw~n oju peri< tw~n hJmeterw~n de< mo>non ajlla< kai< peri< oJlou tou~ ko>smou[/size:300058cc7d]
[/quote:300058cc7d]

OR literally
[quote:300058cc7d]
And he the propitiation is for the sins of us, not for our [sins] only but also for [the sins] of the whole world[/quote:300058cc7d]

The grammatical construction of the final clause is actually dependent on the noun [i:300058cc7d]hamartia[/i:300058cc7d] (sins) in the genitive plural. If it is not supplied in the clause "for the whole world" {[i:300058cc7d] holou tou kosmou[/i:300058cc7d]} then it should not supplied in "for ours". The two constructions are identical grammatically.

I do agree however, that the 1 Corinthians passage is given exegetical meaning, rather than translated by the NIV.
 
Hi Fred,
I hear what you're saying, but if you're going to interpolate, 'the sins of' into 1John 2:2, then in order to make the verse acceptable to Reformed theology, you really need to add, 'the elect of' as well.

If I might try a literal translation, it would read, 'He Himself is propitiation concerning our sins; not concerning them of us ('ton hemeteron') only, but also concerning the whole world (Gk: kosmos).
Now 'kosmos' can have many meanings, but here I suggest it means just that- the Cosmos.

When Adam fell, it was God's righteous judgment that sinful man should not live in a perfect world, and He cursed it (Gen 3:17; 5:29). God's word says, 'For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope' (Rom 8:20). But it goes on, 'because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God' (v21).

How will it be delivered? How will the curse that God placed on the earth be lifted? By the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, on the cross redeemed not only guilty sinners, but the whole creation ('kosmos'). In the New Heavens and New Earth, there shall be no more curse (Rev 22:3); the Lord Jesus Christ has taken it all away.

I would not want to force that interpretation of 1John 2:2 on everybody, but I think it is legitimate, and my original point was that it is impossible if one reads the ESV (or NIV) translation.

NKJV rules, OK!

Joshua,
Sometimes it is necessary to add words to a translation in order to make it read smoothly. My case is that where this is done, the added words should be put in italics, so that the reader knows about it and can make his own judgment. The KJV, NKJV and NASB do this; the others, including NIV and ESV, don't.

Every blessing,
Steve

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by grace2U]
 
Hey, Fred!
I'm interested to know whether you thought my last post was a legitimate exposition of 1John 2:2. It isn't original to me, but I'd appreciate your opinion before I use it in a sermon sometime.

Blessings,
Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top