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
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