Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen L Smith  Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas2007 How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale? | Two points: 1. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which was a revision of the ASV, which was a revision of the KJV ........ |
OK, thank you. In my view the departure from the sacred criticism of historic Reformed orthodoxy and its replacement with enlightenment criticism and the Alexandrian text cannot properly be considered a "revision" of the Authorized Version. In other words, once one enjoins Simon in the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura through enlightenment criticism, as the RV and its American counterpart the ASV, then one is no longer engaged as a descendent of the Reformation. The departure is an independence, a shift in allegiance, no different than the way in which the high orthodox polemic against Rome altered the Protestant reaction to the problem of the vowel points in the debate over the Hebrew text and turned a textual issue into a highly charged doctrinal one.
For the orthodox, especially after Trent, the issue of authentic texts becomes a critical argument in their defense of Sola Scriptura through the doctrine of Providential Preservation. Since Erasmus had already dealt with Vaticanus and rejected it, and both Calvin and Beza had dealt with Colines text and rejected it, the Westminster Confession of Faith was drafted and confessionally defended only authentic texts in Greek and Hebrew. These were the foundation of the Received Text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen L Smith 2. The biggest changes in the text of a particular translation are not textual but translation methodology (ie, dynamic equalivent vs. literal). Also, the changes in the text of Received text vs. Critical text are about 6% (if you add in the OT, it becomes a much lower variation). Also, Tyndale's bible was not based on the same precise text as the KJV anyway (Tyndale was before Erasmus). My point is that the Critical vs Received text debate becomes a minor issue in the historical legacy debate. If you look at the actual text of the ESV, one can see a legacy back to older translations. |
I believe the text is prior to a translation. Tyndale studied under Eramus at Cambridge, he didn't finish his English translation until 1525, it is derived from both Erasmus editions and Luther's Bible - as far as translational methodology. His "germanisms" are still present in the Authorized Version. Also, the textual issue is a major issue in the historical legacy debate - there would have been no Reformation without it.