Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post Reply

In your opinion, which Greek NT editions are closest to the original?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by _Paidion » Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:36 pm

Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

What are the criteria for obtaining a New Testament Greek edition which approximates that of the original manuscripts prepared by the hands of the writers? Should we trust the tradition of the many text editors of the middle ages? Or should we search for early manuscripts, even fragments, which have come down to us even as early as the first three centuries? Certainly the complete restoration of the Greek New Testament in the form of its original manuscripts is impossible. Most editors attempt to reconstruct the text as closely as possible. Yet there seems to be two distinct approaches to the task. These two approaches lead to results which categorize modern translations into two distinct groups.

For example, consider the translation of a single word in a single New Testament verse: Revelation 22:19. Does the verse state that if any one takes away from the words of Revelation (the book of this prophecy), that God will take away his share in the book of life? Or is it his share in the tree of life that will be taken away? --- Not that this is a theologically significant distinction. That is not the point. The point is that the source of the two different Greek words found in various Greek editions of the New Testament bears testimony to the approach of the editors and consequently of the two different groups of translators. The following translations, hereafter called “Group A” have “book of life”: AV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT (which uses the word “scroll”). The Catholic Douay translation also has “book of life”. But “tree of life” is found in ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Philips, and Rotherham (hereafter called “Group B”. But which group is right? Did the apostle John write the Greek word biblos? Or did he write the Greek word xylos?

Fortunately we have the answer! When Erasmus was preparing his Greek edition of the New Testament, he had only one Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately the last six verses were missing. So Erasmus consulted the Vulgate and back-translated those verses from Latin to Greek. Thus the first Greek manuscript containing “book of life” came into existence. Erasmus did the best he could with what he had. For he had no complete Greek manuscript of Revelation available to him. But the Greek editors who followed him, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, slavishly followed the translation of Erasmus, rather than consulting the Greek manuscripts which became available. And with the wealth of early Greek manuscripts available in our day, there is no excuse for not translating using “tree of life” in the translation. There is no doubt that John had written “tree of life”. So why did Group A translators stay with “book of life”? Was not this, evidence of poor scholarship? Or was there a traditional reason for following Erasmus et al. in this? Was there a theological reason, perhaps a theory of inspiration, which required staying with the textual group which later formed the Textus Receptus? This suggestion seems to be supported by what appears to be later textual additions found in group A translations.

In the formation of Textus Receptus, it seems that some person(s) saw the need to “correct” or add to the texts.

We are all familiar with the addition of 1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. NKJV

This is obviously an attempt to get “The Trinity” into the Bible. This verse is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts originate in the 16th century. The earliest of them was from the 10th century, but that one does not include the verse in the text, but in a marginal note. No Greek text prior to the 16th century is known to contain the verse. Yet it found its way into Textus Receptus and in every one of the Group A translations (YLT puts it in italics). How could Group A translators have gone against all evidence? If it had been in early Greek texts, surely the 4th century Greek Fathers would have loved to use it as scriptural evidence of the Trinity.

A “correction” was made to Luke 2:33. With reference to Jesus, the words “his father and mother” was changed to “Joseph and his mother”. Presumably it was felt that the former did not do justice to the virgin birth.

In Mark 1:2,3 we read:
As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” NRSV

However, in Isaiah we find only the second part (vs3). The first part is found in Malachi. So the introductory words were changed to “As it is written in the prophets” to take care of the omission. This change, found in Textus Receptus, has been so translated in all Group A translations, and omitted in all Group B translations.

In I Corinthians 6:19,20, we read:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. .

Now wait a minute. Shouldn’t we glorify Go in our spirit as well? No doubt. So “and in your spirit which are God’s” was added and placed into Textus Receptus as well as all Group A translations. No Group B translation has this addition.

In Acts 8 just after Philip explained the Isaiah passage to the Ethiopian eunuch, we read:

As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptised?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptised him. NIV

Hey, a person shouldn’t be allowed to be baptized just because he wants to, should he? Surely Philip must have told him that he had to believe in Jesus first! So the following sentence (vs 37) was added to the text:

“Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." NKJV

Papyrus 45 from the early 3rd century does not contain this passage. But the Textus Receptus has it, and all Group A translations as well as Douay.

The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Romans 13:9 ESV

Let’s see. This would be the last five commandments listed in Exodus 20 if it were not for the fact that one of them is left out. Surely Jesus wouldn’t have forgotten the one about bearing false witness! So shouldn't it be added? Apparently certain editors of Textus Receptus thought so. And so it found its way into the Group A translations:

For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."NKJV

Papyrus 46 from the middle of the second century does not contain this addition.

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13, 14 NIV

I think I remember a similar passage in Ephesians 1:

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. Ephesians 1:7,8 NIV

Clearly Paul taught that redemption was through the blood of Christ in the Ephesians passage. Why didn’t he do so in the Colossians passage? We’d better make things a little more consistent here:

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13,14 NKJV

An interesting addition is Luke 17:36 “36 "Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left." Strangely enough this verse is found in Douay and all of Group A translations, but is not found in Textus Receptus. I’m not sure how this one got in.

Even in the Old Testament there is a distinct difference between Group A and Group B’s renditionof some passages. Here is an example from Jeremiah. Yahweh said or thought the following concerning Israel:

I thought: After she has done all these things, she will come back to Me. But she did not come back…Jeremiah 3:7 Jewish Study Bible 1985.

The learned Jewish scholars, experts in Hebrew, who translated The Tanakh, so translated this verse. The NASB, ESV, RSV, and NRSV translations are almost identical to that of the JSB quoted above. Others from group B, the ASV, Darby, and Rotherham translate similarly except they do not contain “thought” but “said”. That is okay. The Hebrew word usually means “said”. But whether God said Israel would return or thought she would return does not make much difference. The point is that what God said or thought Israel would do did not happen! But for some people, that would indicate that God made a mistake or was not omniscient. But someone came up with a solution to that. It was simply changed to a command. Problem solved.

"And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return… NKJV

And so with all the other Group A translations.

In conclusion, I can say only that it would seem that the editors of Group B translations, though they differ from one another in terms of the degree of translational literalness, appear to be interested in what the authors actually wrote rather than maintaining consistency and orthodoxy.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

Pierac
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by Pierac » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:47 pm

Yes, I tend to agree.

With the discovery of P75 and the release of the text in the early 1960’s we now can see that it was not a recension but a careful copy, illustrated by it’s textual relationship, with the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The number of differences between P75 and Codex Vaticanus indicates that Vaticanus is not a copy of P75 but comes from a common Ancestor.

The discovery of P75 shows that Hort was correct about the Codex Vaticanus in that it was not only a ancient text but a very pure line with regard to the original text.

According to Gordon Fee, from his book Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism.

From AD 150-250 we have firm data from all over the world that a variety of text forms were in use, but in all these materials there is not a single illustration of the later Majority (= Byzantine or Group A) text as a text form. The evidence from Egypt is indeed basically singular. The earliest Greek MSS (P66, P75, P46,P72, ca. 175-250), the citations of Clement (ca. 190-215) and Origen (ca.215-245), and the earliest translations (Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic) all bear witness to a single text type.

One might argue, of course that all the early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) and early Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, etc.) had the misfortune to use only the "rejected offshoot" MSS. But if so, who represents the "broad stream" that "wore out" the copies more like the autographs? The obvious answer is that the Byzantine text-form simply did not exist in the second and third centuries, although many of the variants that were to be found in it had already come into existence.

The majority text as a full-fledged form of text, distinguishable from the Egyptian and "Western," does not appear in history until about AD 350, NT citations that are closer to the TR than to the Egyptian and "Western" texts first appear in a group of writers associated with the church of Antioch: Asterius the Sophist, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theodoet od Cyrus. But even so, these Fathers had a NT only about 90% along the way to the full Byzantine texts of the later Middle Ages. The earliest Greek MS to reflect this is from Alexandria (codex W, ca.400-Luke 8:14-14:53 only) and is only about 85% Byzantine, while the earliest full witness to it are uncials in the eighth and ninth centuries (Codices E F G H M )-and even these reflect a slightly earlier stage of the text finally found in the TR. The fact is that even this text, as generally homogeneous as it is from 400 to 1500, has clearly involved from an earlier form, were the kinds of reading particular to it become more thoroughgoing at a later stage.

These are historical data. They are "objectively verifiable" and incontrovertible. The idea that the Majority text of the Middle Ages reflected the "broad stream" of the transmission of the text going back to the autographs is simply a myth.


Paul

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:25 pm

Paidion and Pierac and anyone,

Where does a beginner start in order to understand your two prior posts? I read them but about half of the names of books, people, ages, and groups are unfamiliar to me. Would you be interested in restating some of your basic points in a beginner's frame of reference? I want to learn, but think I need to start out with the basics--maybe vocabulary? Do you want to refer me to a beginner's book or website? I sure would appreciate anything you have to say.

I've been thinking about starting a thread in hopes of conversation about historical texts, hard bound books, e-books, websites, etc. about Christian literature of the past. What do you think?

Thank you,
sueann*
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by Paidion » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:18 pm

Sue Ann, I composed original post, after making this amazing discovery. I don't know how to make it any simpler. Perhaps you could reread it, and then ask me questions about any matters which you do not understand or that you find puzzling.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:52 am

Paidion wrote:Sue Ann, I composed original post, after making this amazing discovery. I don't know how to make it any simpler. Perhaps you could reread it, and then ask me questions about any matters which you do not understand or that you find puzzling.
Thank you Paidion, This is really thoughtful of you to take my questions. And I apologize because I am clueless about the subject, so some of the questions, starting with the first one, will probably be "stupid questions," but I do want to learn so hope you don't mind...

My first question comes from the very title of the thread itself. Is "Late Textual Tradition" a proper name for a given text? If so, what year was it written? (sorry if I missed that in your post) I have always thought the word "tradition" meant: family and/or social activities that take place on a regular basis-- so in terms of old copies of the Bible, that is obviously not what you mean. In terms of old writings, does the word "tradition" have a different meaning? if so, what? (See, I told you I am clueless :oops: about what you meant.) Also, I assume "Early Manuscripts" is not a proper name, but rather you meant to speak of early (first writings) of manuscripts (or to use a contemporary term, documents). So to summarize, is your discussion about two proper titles of documents, or are you simply discussing first writings verses later writings?

Paidion wrote:
What are the criteria for obtaining a New Testament Greek edition which approximates that of the original manuscripts prepared by the hands of the writers?
What do you mean by "what are the criteria for obtaining..." When I first read that phrase, my thoughts were on the liklihood of one sending off to a certain place and ordering a copy, but then as I kept reading, of course I realized that is not what you meant...so :oops: what did you mean?

Paidion wrote:
Or should we search for early manuscripts, even fragments, which have come down to us even as early as the first three centuries? Certainly the complete restoration of the Greek New Testament in the form of its original manuscripts is impossible.
I would say absolutely let's search for early manuscripts. As long as I have been a Christian, ( a mere ten years) I have always wanted to go back to the closest original source as possible. I read or heard someplace that the earliest manuscripts (or "textual traditions" if that be a proper use of the phrase...) are dated somewhere in the third century after Jesus' ascention into heaven, so I guess that is why you meantion the search to be "as early as the first three centuries." Is this the earliest date that we have? If so, do you think our theology is in jeapardy of accuracy verses error?

Paidion wrote:
Most editors attempt to reconstruct the text as closely as possible. Yet there seems to be two distinct approaches to the task. These two approaches lead to results which categorize modern translations into two distinct groups.
When I read your original post, I actually did have a level of understanding your examples, so if possible I would like to save questions about the two distinct approaches until a later post. I am confident that once I see that I am "on the same page" with you, I'll be able to grasp your post much quicker so thank you for considering my questions and helping me learn. :)

selah*
Last edited by selah on Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:17 pm

Paidion wrote:
The following translations, hereafter called “Group A” have “book of life”: AV, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, R Webster, and YLT (which uses the word “scroll”). The Catholic Douay translation also has “book of life”. But “tree of life” is found in ASV, Darby, ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Philips, and Rotherham (hereafter called “Group B”. But which group is right? Did the apostle John write the Greek word biblos? Or did he write the Greek word xylos?
Hi Paidion,

I am back again with the next set of questions...should you be so kind as to help me learn... :)

Some of the translations you listed above are familiar to me and some are not. I think I will list them, and if you will write out the complete name of the ones I leave blank or get wrong, then I will appreciate it!

AV---__________________________________
JB2000--_______________________________
KJ21--King James? but what does the 21 number mean?
NKJV--New King James Version
R Webster--____________________________
YLT--__________________________________
The Catholic Douay translation--I assume this is the Catholic Bible?
ASV--American Standard Version
Darby--________________________________
ESV--_________________________________
NASB--New American Standard Bible
NIV--New International Version
RSV--Revised Standard Version
NRSV--New Revised Standard Version
Philips--_______________________________
Rotherham--___________________________

Below is a list of the Bibles I know that I have seen and/or read. If you have any comments about any of them, please, I welcome information.
King James Version (KJV)
New King James Version (NKJV) (I use this one almost all of the time.)
New International Version (NIV)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Revised Standard Version, Common Bible, with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books
The Message
Revised Standard (RS) (NT only)
Phillips Modern English (PME) (NT only)
New English Bible (NEB) (NT only)
The Bible An American Translation (AT? or BAT)
The Picture Bible, by Charlot Victor Publishing

Would you consider any of these heretical? Are there any that I should question their authenticity? Actually, I already believe that I should question everything before believing it, but in my life, I have accepted some interpretations, especially from the NKJV to the point of believing theology based on that. At this time in my life though, I would like to learn correct translations so am eager to find the earlist translations and learn the original words (language) as much as I can.
Did the apostle John write the Greek word biblos? Or did he write the Greek word xylos?

Fortunately we have the answer! When Erasmus was preparing his Greek edition of the New Testament, he had only one Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately the last six verses were missing. So Erasmus consulted the Vulgate and back-translated those verses from Latin to Greek. Thus the first Greek manuscript containing “book of life” came into existence. Erasmus did the best he could with what he had. For he had no complete Greek manuscript of Revelation available to him. But the Greek editors who followed him, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, slavishly followed the translation of Erasmus, rather than consulting the Greek manuscripts which became available. And with the wealth of early Greek manuscripts available in our day, there is no excuse for not translating using “tree of life” in the translation. There is no doubt that John had written “tree of life”. So why did Group A translators stay with “book of life”? Was not this, evidence of poor scholarship? Or was there a traditional reason for following Erasmus et al. in this? Was there a theological reason, perhaps a theory of inspiration, which required staying with the textual group which later formed the Textus Receptus? This suggestion seems to be supported by what appears to be later textual additions found in group A translations.

In the formation of Textus Receptus, it seems that some person(s) saw the need to “correct” or add to the texts.
So...who was Erasmus? I've heard of him and promptly forgotten the details. :oops: I can see from your post that he was an early translator. What century did he live? I have heard of "church fathers" and of course the apostles, so when they died, the first generation of Christian translators/teachers after the apostles died are considered to be known as the "first generation of church fathers," right? So then, the next generation would have been noted accordingly, second generation, third...and so on? Where did Erasmus come into the picture? And also, what was his theological foundation or persuasion? You mention that he "consulted the Vulgate." This reminds me of Catholicism. Was he Catholic? Do you think that his pre-conceived theological beliefs had any bearing on his translation? Of course, I would think it would to some degree, but how faithful do you think he was to the written word as opposed to his persuasions. And also, what was, or is the Vulgate?

Okay :) Now I come to Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir. What centuries did they live in? Were all of these translators Catholic? So...you say that these men had access to the Greek Manuscripts. Are these same ones still available to us?! It almost sounds like you believe so! I hope so!

What is the Textus Receptus? Again, I have heard of this too but have forgotten any intelligent answer. All I know is it refers to ancient Biblical writings and if I understand your post correctly, it was formed out of the translations of first, Erasmus, and then later the imitative work done by Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir?

In my mind, I need to get a timeline of centuries when these men did their work. My mind also wants to place them in a country and town under the teaching of a given persuasion, such as Catholicism or Bereans, or maybe even as Paul noted, some are of Apolos. I have listened to Steve Gregg's "Church History" teachings but have forgotten some key names, dates and places, although this remains interesting to me and as I write you and reply to you, I am sure this information will become more concrete within my memory. So again, thank you for answering if you can.

Before I go, may I mention a couple of word translations that have stood out to me? In Matthew 6:13, the NKJV uses the word "temptation," yet I have heard that the correct translation should be "trial." This seemingly insignificant translation effects my sensibilities since I think somewhere else in the Bible, it states that God does not tempt us. If that be the case, translating the original word into "trial" would solve the apparent contradiction. (This example is somewhat incomplete since I cannot produce the address for a statement that God does not tempt us....sorry)

Another example is found in John 14: 2 where Jesus says, "in My Father's house are many mansions." This has been translated to be heaven and homes within heaven. Recently, if I remember correctly, Steve Gregg taught that the "house" is the body of Christ and we are the "mansions," otherwise translated as "dwellings." Obviously, if the real meaning of the text is something like, "human dwelling places within the body of Christ, i.e. the temple of God" then Dispensationalists have one less scripture reference to substantiate their claim that Jesus is teaching about heaven and His physical coming. (( I was raised Seventh Day Adventist so heaven and Jesus' second coming was the only view that I was taught. Also, I don't think SDA's are pure Dispensationalists. I think they are more Historisists, although I am not sure what the differences may be...well maybe I do and just don't know it. :) I mean, SDA doesn't teach the rapture, etc. but they do teach a coming "Time of Trouble" so anyway, I digress here only because I want you to note an example of how the meaning of a textual word or group of words can effect foundations for believing or changing beliefs in theology--as well as relational aspects of the Christian walk. I'm sure that you are very well aware of this. :)

Final thought: I have no idea if your proverbial "group A" or "group B" translated the original words to be this or that but...another question. Who are these groups intended to represent? Perhaps not any identified group; perhaps you are simply bringing home the point that some translators differ in their translations and we need to find out who got it right! :D I hope you have a really great day and thanks again for sharing your time and knowledge!

in Jesus Christ,
selah*
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by Paidion » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:46 pm

Thank you Paidion, This is really thoughtful of you to take my questions. And I apologize because I am clueless about the subject, so some of the questions, starting with the first one, will probably be "stupid questions," but I do want to learn so hope you don't mind...
No need to apologize for anything. We are all learning together. Some of us have already learned some things, and others of us have learned other things. I understand that the purpose of this forum is for us to learn from others and to share with others, so that we may all come to increase in understanding.

I don't have time at the moment to answer your questions, but hope to be able to answer SOME of them later.

Meanwhile, you might like to look at the following website. It has some outstanding information about early manuscripts, text editors and the basis on which they have edited the Greek text in order to approximate the originals according to their various approaches. It also has information about Bible Versions, etc.

Bible Researcher
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:06 pm

Paidion wrote:
Thank you Paidion, This is really thoughtful of you to take my questions. And I apologize because I am clueless about the subject, so some of the questions, starting with the first one, will probably be "stupid questions," but I do want to learn so hope you don't mind...
No need to apologize for anything. We are all learning together. Some of us have already learned some things, and others of us have learned other things. I understand that the purpose of this forum is for us to learn from others and to share with others, so that we may all come to increase in understanding.

I don't have time at the moment to answer your questions, but hope to be able to answer SOME of them later.

Meanwhile, you might like to look at the following website. It has some outstanding information about early manuscripts, text editors and the basis on which they have edited the Greek text in order to approximate the originals according to their various approaches. It also has information about Bible Versions, etc.

Bible Researcher
Paidion,

Thank you so much! I visited "Bible Researcher" for a brief time and am excited to spend much time there, reading and learning. On the point of you answering some of my questions, please don't think that I thought you would answer ALL of them. Even if you cannot get back to this thread, I trust that you are following the Holy Spirit to answer the posts that you do. As for me, I believe the Lord is leading me as I write my questions and opinions. Sometimes it helps me formulate answers just by articulating questions. :? Do you know what I mean? At the very least, it helps me identify and focus.

By coming to this forum and putting my attention toward threads dealing with authoritative, accurate scripture, I feel like I have embarked upon an adventure that I have daydreamed about doing for years. And now I get to begin a real search of the original scriptures, why they were chosen, who chose them, etc. etc. And all of this to be able to give a more full answer for faith and belief in Jesus Christ. Hopefully in a few days, I'll get a chance to read more on Bible Researcher :!:

God bless you :)
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by Paidion » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:25 pm

Some of the translations you listed above are familiar to me and some are not. I think I will list them, and if you will write out the complete name of the ones I leave blank or get wrong, then I will appreciate it!
AV--- Authorized Version, otherwise known as “The King James Version”.

JB2000 --- Jubilee Bible, Russel Stendal

KJ21--King James? but what does the 21 number mean?
21st Century King James Version

NKJV--New King James Version ♫
R Webster—Revised Webster by Larry Pierce, designer of "The Online Bible"
YLT--1898 Young’s Literal Translation
The Catholic Douay translation--I assume this is the Catholic Bible? Yes
1899 Douay Rheims Version
ASV--American Standard Version ♫
Darby--1884 Darby Version (J.N. Darby was the founder of “The Exclusive Brethren”)
ESV—English Standard Version (this is the true update of the RSV, not the NRSV)
NASB--New American Standard Bible (a very literal translation)
NIV--New International Version ♫
RSV--Revised Standard Version ♫
NRSV--New Revised Standard Version ♫
Philips – Philips New Testament 1972
Rotherham--1902 Rotherham Bible

Below is a list of the Bibles I know that I have seen and/or read. If you have any comments about any of them, please, I welcome information.
King James Version (KJV)
New King James Version (NKJV) (I use this one almost all of the time.)
New International Version (NIV)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Revised Standard Version, Common Bible, with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books
The Message (This is not a translation; it is a paraphrase)
Revised Standard (RS) (NT only)
Phillips Modern English (PME) (NT only)
New English Bible (NEB) (NT only)
The Bible An American Translation (AT? or BAT)
The Picture Bible, by Charlot Victor Publishing

Of your list, I would recommend the Revised Standard Version more than any other.
Would you consider any of these heretical?
As a whole, I don’t consider any translation as “heretical”, not even the “New World Translation” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I think many translations have a theological bias.
Are there any that I should question their authenticity?
I’m not sure what you mean by “authenticity” in this context. As for me, I respect the translations which have been based on early manuscripts rather than those which are based either the majority text or on textus receptus.
Actually, I already believe that I should question everything before believing it, but in my life, I have accepted some interpretations, especially from the NKJV to the point of believing theology based on that.
Actually, the NKJV is based on the same later manuscripts at those on which the AV is based.
At this time in my life though, I would like to learn correct translations so am eager to find the earlist translations and learn the original words (language) as much as I can.
The earliest translations are often based on LATER manuscripts. In recent times, there have been more early manuscripts available, and so it would seem that many recent translations are more reliable.

I recommend the ESV (English Standard Version). The RSV is good, too, but it’s not readily available any more, and it doesn’t make sense to translate every prayer in 16th century language (“thees” and “thous”) as the RSV does.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
selah
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Re: Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts?

Post by selah » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:42 pm

Paidion wrote:
Some of the translations you listed above are familiar to me and some are not. I think I will list them, and if you will write out the complete name of the ones I leave blank or get wrong, then I will appreciate it!
AV--- Authorized Version, otherwise known as “The King James Version”.

JB2000 --- Jubilee Bible, Russel Stendal

KJ21--King James? but what does the 21 number mean?
21st Century King James Version

NKJV--New King James Version ♫
R Webster—Revised Webster by Larry Pierce, designer of "The Online Bible"
YLT--1898 Young’s Literal Translation
The Catholic Douay translation--I assume this is the Catholic Bible? Yes
1899 Douay Rheims Version
ASV--American Standard Version ♫
Darby--1884 Darby Version (J.N. Darby was the founder of “The Exclusive Brethren”)
ESV—English Standard Version (this is the true update of the RSV, not the NRSV)
NASB--New American Standard Bible (a very literal translation)
NIV--New International Version ♫
RSV--Revised Standard Version ♫
NRSV--New Revised Standard Version ♫
Philips – Philips New Testament 1972
Rotherham--1902 Rotherham Bible

Below is a list of the Bibles I know that I have seen and/or read. If you have any comments about any of them, please, I welcome information.
King James Version (KJV)
New King James Version (NKJV) (I use this one almost all of the time.)
New International Version (NIV)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Revised Standard Version, Common Bible, with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books
The Message (This is not a translation; it is a paraphrase)
Revised Standard (RS) (NT only)
Phillips Modern English (PME) (NT only)
New English Bible (NEB) (NT only)
The Bible An American Translation (AT? or BAT)
The Picture Bible, by Charlot Victor Publishing

Of your list, I would recommend the Revised Standard Version more than any other.
Would you consider any of these heretical?
As a whole, I don’t consider any translation as “heretical”, not even the “New World Translation” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I think many translations have a theological bias.
Are there any that I should question their authenticity?
I’m not sure what you mean by “authenticity” in this context. As for me, I respect the translations which have been based on early manuscripts rather than those which are based either the majority text or on textus receptus.
Actually, I already believe that I should question everything before believing it, but in my life, I have accepted some interpretations, especially from the NKJV to the point of believing theology based on that.
Actually, the NKJV is based on the same later manuscripts at those on which the AV is based.
At this time in my life though, I would like to learn correct translations so am eager to find the earlist translations and learn the original words (language) as much as I can.
The earliest translations are often based on LATER manuscripts. In recent times, there have been more early manuscripts available, and so it would seem that many recent translations are more reliable.

I recommend the ESV (English Standard Version). The RSV is good, too, but it’s not readily available any more, and it doesn’t make sense to translate every prayer in 16th century language (“thees” and “thous”) as the RSV does.
Paidion,

Thank you very much. I will try to get the ESV and read from it (and find some of those other translations that you listed too). After a time to read and ponder all that you have shared, I may write again. Thank you brother for sending me on my way with treasures in hand. :D
Jesus said, "I in them and you in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:23

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”