Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 42

Translations and Manuscripts discuss Missing verses from ESV and other Bibles in the The Scriptures forums; Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason ...

  1. #1
    Claudiu is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,228

    Missing verses from ESV and other Bibles

    Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason I initially switched over to the KJV 4 years ago was because I was being cheated from not having the full Bible. I was getting only parts of the Bible, with random parts just missing.

    Some verses that are taken out, that many people don't notice (I didn't either at first) are:

    Matthew 17:21
    Luke 11:2-4 (cuts prayer) [in some version only I think]
    Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") [which I find rather important to that text]
    Matthew 6:13b (omits last part of prayer)
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Matthew 18:11
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 15:28
    Romans 16:24
    and many more


    The list is different versions, not necessarily just one. But I don't understand why verses should be tampered with?

    What do you guys think?
    Claudiu
    In search of a church
    Spokane, WA
    "Ultimately all things are disciplined by theology."

  2. #2
    Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,891
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
    Davidius
    Husband of Emily
    Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
    Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

  3. #3
    Hippo's Avatar
    Hippo is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,235
    I could say "Why oh why does the AV add verses to the bible, why did they tamper with the text?". This approach is not very helpful in either direction because it presuposes the original text.

    It is a question of fact as to what was the original text that has to be decided, after that it is possible to consider whether a version adds to or deletes from the original.
    Mike
    Free Church of Scotland
    England

    "Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

  4. #4
    raekwon's Avatar
    raekwon is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?


    Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
    Rae W. | Ruling Elder @ Grace Central Presbyterian Church (PCA) | Columbus, OH
    Vintage73

  5. #5
    Claudiu is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
    No I haven't read...I ought to now, and I will. Any good suggestions?

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:01:22 EST-----

    Quote Originally Posted by Hippo View Post
    I could say "Why oh why does the AV add verses to the bible, why did they tamper with the text?". This approach is not very helpful in either direction because it presuposes the original text.

    It is a question of fact as to what was the original text that has to be decided, after that it is possible to consider whether a version adds to or deletes from the original.
    My ignorance...Thanks for your input though. So it is the original that has to be looked at. I guess I was upholding the KJV, without even seeing what the original texts say, and see whether anything has been added, or taken away.
    Claudiu
    In search of a church
    Spokane, WA
    "Ultimately all things are disciplined by theology."

  6. #6
    Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,891
    Yeah, the fact of the matter is that editors, whether in 1611 or today, have to sort through thousands of (mostly) medieval manuscripts to see what has come down through scribal transmission.


    Most of what I know concerns the transmission of classical literature, but there are lots of others here who will be able to make good recommendations.
    Davidius
    Husband of Emily
    Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
    Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

  7. #7
    Claudiu is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by raekwon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?


    Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
    The KJV certainly isn't the standard.

    I appreciate the posts guys. I will look into this translation business some more. However, what version do you guys think has a modern tone, yet close to what the original says. Many people seem to recommend the ESV...would you guys stand by that?

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:05:55 EST-----

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
    I took the swiss cheese part out, came off too rash
    Claudiu
    In search of a church
    Spokane, WA
    "Ultimately all things are disciplined by theology."

  8. #8
    Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,891
    Quote Originally Posted by cecat90 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raekwon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?


    Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
    The KJV certainly isn't the standard.

    I appreciate the posts guys. I will look into this translation business some more. However, what version do you guys think has a modern tone, yet close to what the original says. Many people seem to recommend the ESV...would you guys stand by that?
    The problem is that the terminology of "original" is misleading. There is no "original." Even if you go buy a Greek New Testament, you are still not looking at the "original." It is still only something that has been put together by editors who have combed through the manuscripts and put together what they think is the best combination of them all in an attempt to "reconstruct" the original (the goal of the science of Textual Criticism). And if you look at a "critical" edition, you will see that half of each page is taken up by (usually insignificant) variants in the text.
    Davidius
    Husband of Emily
    Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
    Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

  9. #9
    The Deeps's Avatar
    The Deeps is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Brother Claudiu you might like this site it is not full of the inflammatory rhetoric that many books and sites are full of.
    Fundamentally Reformed
    Able
    Lead Pastor (Nehalem Valley Community Church)
    Baptist (Church -Non Denomination)
    Jewell, Oregon


    "Lord Jesus, give me a deeper repentance, a horror of sin, a dread of its approach. Help me chastely to flee it and jealously to resolve that my heart shall be Thine alone." (Valley of Vision)

  10. #10
    Hippo's Avatar
    Hippo is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,235
    For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.

    The various positions can be seen in this thread:

    Calvin and Hodges on the DL

    It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.
    Mike
    Free Church of Scotland
    England

    "Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

  11. #11
    Claudiu is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deeps View Post
    Brother Claudiu you might like this site it is not full of the inflammatory rhetoric that many books and sites are full of.
    Fundamentally Reformed

    I will take a look. Thanks!

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:23:08 EST-----

    Quote Originally Posted by Hippo View Post
    For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.

    The various positions can be seen in this thread:

    Calvin and Hodges on the DL

    It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.
    I will take a look at this as well. Thanks Mike!
    Claudiu
    In search of a church
    Spokane, WA
    "Ultimately all things are disciplined by theology."

  12. #12
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    A little info on textual criticism and how translations are made should help you understand the issue better.

    Other Articles: What Is A Text Type ?
    Other Articles: How Is a Translation Made ?
    Other Articles: What Does A Greek New Testament Look Like ?
    Other Articles: Has The Text of the Bible Been Preserved ? (with emphasis on the NT)

    I wrote these all about 8-10 years ago (maybe more).
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music blog message board christian music hub

  13. #13
    forgivenmuch's Avatar
    forgivenmuch is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    235
    I've heard Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results is a pretty good start, but I can't vouch for it personally.
    Aaron
    The Gathering Community Church (CBNW)
    Portland, OR

  14. #14
    Grymir's Avatar
    Grymir is offline. Puritanboard Graduate
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,250
    Hi cecat90!

    There are also good reasons that they should be included. I'm also a KJV user. Here's a good link on a book that will give the other side of the story, on why we can trust the KJV. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

    It is good to know what is going on in the realm. I just wanted to get a great read into your hands.
    Timothy Johnson
    First United Presbyterian of Moline
    PCUSA (Yea, I know)
    Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
    Davenport, IA

  15. #15
    JM's Avatar
    JM
    JM is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,809
    Jason
    Particular Baptist
    Ontario, Canada
    twitter
    Feileadh Mor
    YouTube

    We must remember that literally all our salvation is in Christ. - Herman Hoeksema

  16. #16
    Marrow Man's Avatar
    Marrow Man is offline. Drunk with Powder
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,853
    Try D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

    Daniel Wallace has several articles (mixed in among others) here.
    Tim Phillips
    Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
    Louisville, KY
    Husband of Scottish Lass
    Father of Grace Cameron Phillips
    My Blog: Gairney Bridge
    My Facebook/My Avatar

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  17. #17
    DonP's Avatar
    DonP is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,546
    Blog Entries
    2
    Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.
    If we think finding other manuscripts from all over and piecing them together year after year trusting scholars who often are not reformed, is a reliable method then you may consider the critical text translations that have left out verses the TR contains.
    Basically it isn't a matter of salvation which you use and as long as you are sound in the historic doctrines of the church I don't think either will mess you up too much.
    So that leaves you with what is a readable accurate translation. Then if you are not using the KJV or NKJV just check with one of them from time to time.

    The NKJV though based on the TR does include some marginal notes mentioning the Critical or Majority text decisions if you care to consider them.

    So it may be a version to consider. And also it is beneficial to stay with the version you have memorized most for easiest referencing.

    In His Service,
    DonP

  18. #18
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.
    The NKJV though based on the TR does include some marginal notes mentioning the Critical or Majority text decisions if you care to consider them.

    Your statement is both false and contradictory. It is false that the TR was taken from the longest standing texts held....if anything, that has to go to the MT, so by your reasoning you should avoid the TR in favor of the MT.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  19. #19
    DonP's Avatar
    DonP is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,546
    Blog Entries
    2
    Sorry I didn't mean oldest pieces of texts in terms of age, I meant oldest in terms of complete letters held by churches in safe keeping and recognized by the churches.

    That is my understanding of the history of the TR and Byzantine texts. Articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society site confirm this. now maybe one can disagree with their history, Fine

    And if the Critical text is still growing as new pieces are found then this stands as fact cine the CT or MT is not yet complete it is still under construction and stands for further correction and adjustment.

    I don't want to argue the issue. As I said I think the translation we choose is more important. I read several of them consistently in my study and compare them constantly. So I am not opposed to someone using the critical text if they feel they are scholarly enough in the languages and culture to benefit from it.

    I prefer to trust in the historic providence of God to have from at one point to canonize and preserved His word in total, rather than in modern liberal scholars continually finding His word and re canonizing it, in my opinion, so if there was a variant I would go with the TR.
    Not that so far it matters that much. And hopefully if it ever did that old text in a trash can would be rejected as inconsistent.
    Its just a choice based on my study of the issue and if one differs fine.
    DonP

  20. #20
    Whitefield's Avatar
    Whitefield is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,757
    Is Textus Receptus singular or plural?
    Lance G. Marshall
    Pastor
    New Albany, Indiana

    Soli Deo Gloria

  21. #21
    DonP's Avatar
    DonP is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,546
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitefield View Post
    Is Textus Receptus singular or plural?
    I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
    Thanks for the lightener
    DonP

  22. #22
    Whitefield's Avatar
    Whitefield is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceMaker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitefield View Post
    Is Textus Receptus singular or plural?
    I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
    Thanks for the lightener
    It is both singular and plural. But the real question is, is the TR the cloth Eramus wove, or the several sources (threads) he used to weave that cloth. Also, if the TR is the providentially preserved text (either as the woven cloth or the various threads) how do we reconcile that with the issue of the last 6 verses of Revelation?
    Lance G. Marshall
    Pastor
    New Albany, Indiana

    Soli Deo Gloria

  23. #23
    DonP's Avatar
    DonP is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,546
    Blog Entries
    2
    None of them is perfect.

    I only go by what seems to have preserved and used consistently by the churches and has the most longstanding history.

    Canonization is a very interesting concept since it didn't even happen during apostolic times. Hmmmm. ..
    DonP

  24. #24
    Whitefield's Avatar
    Whitefield is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceMaker View Post
    I only go by what seems to have preserved and used consistently by the churches and has the most longstanding history.
    Based on this criterion alone, you would have to go with the Vulgate.
    Lance G. Marshall
    Pastor
    New Albany, Indiana

    Soli Deo Gloria

  25. #25
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Sorry I didn't mean oldest pieces of texts in terms of age, I meant oldest in terms of complete letters held by churches in safe keeping and recognized by the churches.

    That is my understanding of the history of the TR and Byzantine texts.
    And your understanding is wrong. It's been gone over here so much that most won't even post on these threads, but there are places in the TR that have no Byzantine backing at all.

    The TR is just another Bible version, and that's all.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  26. #26
    Parsifal23's Avatar
    Parsifal23 is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippo View Post
    For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.

    The various positions can be seen in this thread:

    Calvin and Hodges on the DL

    It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.
    I know hat you mean I find textual criticism interesting but I don't understand it well enough to probably engage the topic with the amount of knowledge that would be nursery that being said I prefer The New American Standered Version partially because it really really ticks of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckmen but seriously I feel The NASB is probably one of the best translations out there do to it's textual pedigree and close adherence to the original languages.
    Aaron
    Independent Baptist
    Holland MI

  27. #27
    DonP's Avatar
    DonP is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,546
    Blog Entries
    2
    Do you believe this is all false information
    http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...es/ahnkjv1.pdf
    DonP

  28. #28
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Are you addressing me? And are you asking if everything contained in those 36 pages are all true or all false?
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

  29. #29
    bookslover's Avatar
    bookslover is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,191
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceMaker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitefield View Post
    Is Textus Receptus singular or plural?
    I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
    Thanks for the lightener
    Keep in mind that the phrase "textus receptus" was, basically, the equivalent of a dust jacket "blurb" to advertise the publication of (I think) Erasmus's text. As far as I know, there was no time when a group of individuals, or of churches, got together and pronounced those particular texts to be the only "acceptable" ones for use in translating the Bible, in some official way.

    In other words, some publisher's ad man made it up!
    Richard Zuelch
    Westminster Presbyterian Church (OPC), Westminster, CA
    www.reiterations.wordpress.com

    I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43.25)

  30. #30
    Der Pilger is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    272
    I'm surprised nobody has recommended James White's The King James Only Controversy. It was of great help to me in making sense of this issue. He goes into considerable detail about KJV-only arguments, textual criticism, comparison of translations, the history and formation of the KJV, the textus receptus, Erasmus, etc.
    Jeremy

  31. #31
    puritanpilgrim's Avatar
    puritanpilgrim is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,028
    Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.
    If only it were that simple...but it's not.
    Aaron Josh Wright
    Grace Family Baptist, Spring TX
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.as...d=Aaron_Wright

  32. #32
    PresbyDane's Avatar
    PresbyDane is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,644
    Thank you all for all the good book and site recommendations
    Martin - Reformed
    Husband to the most godly, honorable and loyal wife Line
    Father of Josva David and Aron Hoseas
    Skive Bykirke - evangelisk luthersk frimenighed
    Webpage www.5solas.dk
    Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
    Soli Deo Gloria

  33. #33
    ADKing is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Pilger View Post
    I'm surprised nobody has recommended James White's The King James Only Controversy. It was of great help to me in making sense of this issue. He goes into considerable detail about KJV-only arguments, textual criticism, comparison of translations, the history and formation of the KJV, the textus receptus, Erasmus, etc.
    White's book is not a very reliable presentation in my humble opinion. See Theodore Letis' review here. (Sorry for the odd format--it would be nice if it were all on one site).

    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white01b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white02b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white03b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white04b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white05b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white06b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white07b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white08b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white09b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white10b.gif
    http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white11b.gif
    Adam King
    Reformed Presbyterian Church
    Wichita, KS

  34. #34
    puritanpilgrim's Avatar
    puritanpilgrim is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,028

  35. #35
    SolaScriptura's Avatar
    SolaScriptura is offline. Puritanboard Softy
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,199
    Responding only to the title of this thread:

    It isn't that the ESV (and other Bibles) are missing verses... it is that other versions added them.
    Ben
    Chaplain, US Army
    Stuttgart, Germany
    TE Potomac Presbytery, PCA
    www.thebenaddiction.com

    "Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do not do that thing." -- Dwight Schrute

    "I've been so thoroughly trained that I don't even need to think before I speak." -- Harry Crumb

  36. #36
    cih1355 is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by cecat90 View Post
    Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason I initially switched over to the KJV 4 years ago was because I was being cheated from not having the full Bible. I was getting only parts of the Bible, with random parts just missing.

    Some verses that are taken out, that many people don't notice (I didn't either at first) are:

    Matthew 17:21
    Luke 11:2-4 (cuts prayer) [in some version only I think]
    Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") [which I find rather important to that text]
    Matthew 6:13b (omits last part of prayer)
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Matthew 18:11
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 15:28
    Romans 16:24
    and many more


    The list is different versions, not necessarily just one. But I don't understand why verses should be tampered with?

    What do you guys think?
    The reason why modern translations of the Bible such as the NASB do not have the verses you mentioned is because the KJV and modern translations of the Bible were not translated from the same Greek manuscripts.

    Some Greek manuscripts contain the verses you mentioned and some do not.
    Curt

  37. #37
    DMcFadden's Avatar
    DMcFadden is offline. Meum cerebrum nocet
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    9,874
    Put in simple bullets . . .

    * The vast majority of the 5,700+ manuscripts of the Greek NT are of what is now called the Byzantine type (aka "Majority").

    * In 1516 Erasmus published a "critical text" of the New Testament using six of these (in this case late) manuscripts that were available to him. This was the basis for Luther's translation, the Geneva Bible, and (ultimately) the KJV.

    * In the middle of the 19th century, two manuscripts of Egyptian provenance were discovered. One was called Sinaiticus (for the location of the moastery where it was found, aka Aleph) and the other Vaticanus (for the location where it was re-discovered in storage, aka B). They are commonly dated to the 4th century.

    * Many scholars quickly concluded that the two Egyptian manuscripts (aka Alexandrian) were the "oldest and most reliable" copies of the Greek NT. Even though they differ from each other in more than 3,000 places, they have received pride-of-place among most NT scholars of all stripes (right to left).

    * The early scholars who used the Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and most reliable" published a critical text that was strongly Alexandrian (i.e., it relied upon Aleph and B).

    * In the last decades NT scholars have adopted a more eclectic approach, assessing each textual variant on its own merits, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, and attempting to determine by means of internal and external criteria what is the most likely reading of the original at that juncture in the text.

    * ALL of the major modern English translations (except the NKJV) are based on this reasoned ecclecticism that is now reflected in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition of the Greek NT.

    * A vocal minority of scholars prefer the Majority Text (not exactly the same as the KJV) and often recommend the NKJV as a translation. More than removing the "thees" and "thous," it "corrects" the text of the Erasmian text in line with the MANY more manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. Maurice Robinson is one of the most articulate living defenders of this majority text view (other names associated with it were Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad).

    * An even more vocal (and much smaller) minority still defends the KJV as the most accurate Bible. Many base their defense upon notions of divine preservation. Some go so far as to say that where the KJV differs from the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, the KJV translators were providentially protected from error and directed toward the reading that the Lord wanted in his Bible. James White is one of the most articulate Reformed objectors to the KJVonlyists.

    * If you are a KJV onlyist, then your only English option is the . . . KJV (duh!).

    * If you subscribe to the arguments for the majority textual tradition, then you probably be happiest with the NKJV.

    * If you hold to the vast majority of scholars today, you will chose among the MANY translations based upon an ecclectic critical text. Here your choices will be determined more by translation theory than by original Greek. The NAS is regarded as the most literal (to a fault) formal correspondence ("word for word") translation (in the same "family" would be the ESV, RSV, and HCSB); the "dynammic equivalent" (recasting grammatical forms into modern idiomatic English) family is most often represented by the NIV, TNIV, or NLT; the paraphrases include the Living Bible, TEV, and The Message.

    I prefer the NKJV, the ESV, and the HCSB (one excellent translation from the majority and two from the eclectic tradition). Blessedly, the Reformation Study Bible (edited by Sproul) comes in both the ESV and the NKJV versions!!!
    Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
    Atherton Baptist Homes, Alhambra, CA, President/CEO
    Emmanuel Lutheran Church, LCMS

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  38. #38
    Robert Truelove is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    409
    The KJV and NKJV represent the Byzantine manuscripts while the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. represent the Alexandrian manuscripts...the difference between them does not effect a single point of biblical doctrine.

    My point being...whether someone falls out on the Byzantine (Traditional Text) side of the isle or the Alexandrian (Critical Text), the fact that these represent two completely different textual traditions and yet contain every single doctrine of the Christian faith is a sign of God's providential preservation of the text.

    Not that this point solves the problem of variants but it does put it into perspective. On the other hand, when Bart Erhman says the textual variants overthrow divine inspiration of Scripture he is "taking a trip into cloud land".
    Robert Truelove
    Pastor
    Christ Reformed Church
    Lawrenceville, GA

  39. #39
    Jimmy the Greek's Avatar
    Jimmy the Greek is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,386
    To the OP. I find the NKJV especially helpful in identifying variant readings in its notes. It will show the differences between the Received Text (KJV-NKJV basis), Critical Text (NA-UBS), and Majority Text (generally Byzantine).
    Jim
    1689 LBCF
    Independent Bible Church
    North Texas, USA

  40. #40
    Robert Truelove is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    409
    I agree. I believe every English speaking Christian should own a NKJV just for the footnotes if nothing else (I don't say that to knock the translation...but in the event the NKJV isn't the reader's version of choice). It makes most of the primary textual variants and their general sources easily discernible in a non-biased way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gomarus View Post
    To the OP. I find the NKJV especially helpful in identifying variant readings in its notes. It will show the differences between the Received Text (KJV basis), Critical Text (NA-UBS), and Majority Text (generally Byzantine).
    Robert Truelove
    Pastor
    Christ Reformed Church
    Lawrenceville, GA

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72