Yep, that is a good summary, as I recall (I don't have the tract I referred to earlier handy but I am looking at The Holy Bible New King James Version, TBS article no. 71 currently). They don't object, for example, to the principle of revising the KJV as was done in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769, and they are not opposed to the NKJV's replacement of archaic words. But they object to a number of renderings which they think go beyond such a revision and affect theological and textual precision.

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

It is helpful to distinguish the ecclesiastical or traditional text which underlies the AV from the majority text which underlies the NKJV.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

While the NKJV is usually the version of choice for Majority Text (MT) advocates, the NKJV New Testament it is actually based on the Textus Receptus (traditional text), not the MT. However some TR/KJV advocates question some specific renderings and I think that was a major part of the TBS criticism, that the revision of the AV at times went too far. Perhaps the most common objection from traditional text advocates is the NKJV's textual footnotes that make note of Critical text and Majority text variants.

There is no major translation that is based on the Majority Text of either Farstad-Hodges or Pierpont-Robinson. The Holman Christian Standard Bible was originally under the oversight of Dr. Farstad, but shortly before his death he sold the rights to Holman, who subsequently changed the textual basis to the CT.

From the NKJV Preface:

On the textual notes:

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA

"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt

I wouldn't take their word for it.

1. It is not a fifth revision of the AV so far as translation is concerned.

2. I have found multiple places where the Majority Text is chosen over the Textus Receptus in the body of the work itself. One recent example I came across is 2 Pet. 1:1, which I will provide as an example as it is still fresh in memory.

NIV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
NKJV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
AV: of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This is not merely a translation option, although the choice to go with the NIV over the AV in many cases demonstrates it is not a revision of the AV. This is a choice to translate a different Greek text.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Many if not most people on both sides would probably agree that the NKJV really isn't a "fifth revision" as is claimed.

But 2 Pet. 1:1 does not seem to be a textual variant. The question is, why did the AV translators render it the way they did since other traditional text versions render it the way the NKJV and (horror of horrors!) the NIV do:

1611 KJV:

The 1769 AV that I have has this as a marginal note at 2 Pet. 1:1

Geneva Bible (1567):

Bishop's Bible (1568)

Coverdale (1535)

Tyndale 1526

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA

"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt

Matthew,
Perhaps you can share some of your labors with that verse.
The NIV and NKJV renderings are the marginal AV: Gr. "of our God and Saviour". I could be misreading this, but for some reason (and perhaps not strictly textual) the AV seems to have gone for "the righteousness of God," as a single phrase, instead of following, say, Granville-Sharpe. How do you read this and the later choices? Improvement or not?

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Not having consulted the other reformation versions I am happy to concede that the NKJV rendering is not a textual variant in this instance.

I should point out that I personally have no difficulties with variants, holding closer to Dabney's view. My difficulty is solely with the claim made by the NKJV.

Also, personally, I don't mind either rendering, although AV is more properly king's English. If the whole phrase is to be taken together "our" should stand with the second noun not the first.

At any rate, don't trust the claim of the NKJV preface.

Does Sharp rule still rule? I would have thought the stylistic variationists would have won the day by now?

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

As far as can be seen, the texts are identical:

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ

[Edited on 7/4/2006 by fredtgreco]

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Don't ask me the whys or wherefores, but my TBS Greek Testament prints hemon after theou and soteros. However, just having looked it up in the online Bible it apprently isn't in the Byz or TR. My leaning would be towards the TBS, but can't explain why there is a variation here.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I find the same thing as armourbearer in Scrivener's TR (which is what TBS uses).

Which reminds me that i still don't know which TR the NKJV uses in their translation.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

No mention is made in the NKJV preface of what TR they used, but according to a few things I've been able to turn up on the internet it seems they used Scrivener's 1894 TR.

__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA

"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt

After realising that Online Bible's TR and BYZ differed from my TBS, I can see that my earlier comment about the NKJV using a different text can now be reduced to the fact that there are different Texti Recepti.

So I retract my earlier statement.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Here is the Scriviner's:

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆ�ος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χ�ιστοῦ

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I went to the Online Bible download page, and it claims that its TR is Scrivener's 1894. So I am assuming that the TR itself is pure, but the digital version is incorrect. In which case, there is a genuine discrepancy between the TR (true) and Byz Majority Text at 2 Pet. 1:1.

The AV is undoubtedly using TR, which only has hemon qualifying soteros (presuming they opted to only qualify the second noun in translation because that identifies the two nouns as one). All other versions (including some reformation versions) appear to be following the Majority reading, which only has hemon qualifying theou.

Thoughts?

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I noticed the differences in English versions of 2 Peter 1:1 a couple of weeks ago when I preached on the passage, and my interest was piqued as I followed this discussion. Although I am away from my library, I was briefly in my home city yesterday and picked up some books. Here is what I have discovered:

The Englishman's Greek New Testament, which uses the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, omits ἡμῶν as a qualifier of σωτῆρος, while noting in the apparatus that Elzevir's Greek Text of 1624 has it.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902) contains the full τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In the Preface this TBS edition says,

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes,, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].

In Scrivener’s book, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), in “Appendix E. The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, Section II. Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Version agrees with Beza 1589 and 1598) against Stephen (1550),” as regards 2 Peter 1:1, he notes, “Beza 1565—98 adds ἡμῶν after σωτῆρος.”

Thus it is evident that the Greek text adopted by the 1611 translators in this instance was that of Beza’s, which the Elzevir edition of 1624 conforms to. In England (so says the Introduction of The Englishman's Greek New Testament) “the Greek Text of Stephens 1550…is the common text in this country…”, even though the final text of the 1611 was a text refined by Beza (at points) and accepted as true by the translators.

There are many interesting studies regarding just these sorts of issues reprinted by the Fundamentalist Baptists, and available from Dr. D.A. Waite’s The Bible for Today ministries.

---------


On another matter I saw in this thread, regarding Isaiah 14:12 and the Lucifer/morning star/son of the morning controversy, I found none of my commentators affirming Lucifer in the translation from the Hebrew, although I came across this interesting remark from Herman Hoeksema in His commentary on Revelation, Behold He Cometh (I give the online book here, as I don’t have the hardcopy with me: http://spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/intro.htm), when he deals with Revelation 12:

What may be meant by his drawing of the stars of heaven with his tail?

This seems to be plain in itself. The stars in this connection must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, no more than the entire portion. In this connection the inference is plain that they indicate the fellow angels of the devil. In Job the angels are called the morning-stars. And indeed this application is very appropriate for these spiritual inhabitants of the sphere of eternal light. And the devil himself has been such a morning-star, - perhaps, as we have said before, the greatest and most glorious among them all. And although the passage in Isaiah 14:12 cannot literally be applied to Satan, yet the language in which this metaphor against the king of Babylon is used, is such that the latter is evidently a type of the devil. And therefore also the devil may fittingly be called Lucifer, the day or morning-star. This morning-star, as we know, rebelled against God. Almighty. But he was not alone. He instigated a general rebellion in the heaven of heavens. He seduced others of his fellow angels to rise with him and exalt themselves against the Most High. And it is this feature that is pictured of the devil most probably in the fourth verse of this chapter. He dragged the third part, that is, in this sense, a great many, yet not a majority, of his fellow angels with him in his fall from heaven. And they together with him were cast down from their exalted place.

Hoeksema, as well as the PRC today, adheres to the King James Bible, and they have a number of writings on it. If anyone wants to dispute using HH (and the PRC) due to his and their stand on “common grace” and the “well-meant offer,” well that’s a different issue, and I’m not familiar with the theology boards here to know if that’s been discussed (how could it not be?).

----------

One last thing for the moment. In a March 12 post of Dr. White’s on his own site (responding to people here at PB) he said, regarding earlier defenders of the Comma, “the consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy [KJOC], there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR.” As I don’t have a copy of his KJOC in this foreign land, would someone please tell me in brief what he is referring to here? Thanks.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Steve,
To answer your last question (very briefly, and I am no text expert either):

J. White is basically saying that it appears to him that in the matter of the Comma, the TR defenders that he has interacted with seem to "want to have it both ways." They want to use one methodology to defend the retention of the Comma, but not consistently apply the same methodology when it comes to various other places where the text of the NT could be "similarly expanded" using the same standard of textual support used to defend the Comma.



On another issue:

I want to suggest that one of the reasons why there are these differences in the "TR"---whether that be TBS', or Scrivner's, etc., is that these are "reverse texts". The AV comes out of the work of scholars who used such texts as they had access to--Erasmus' critical editions, Beza's work, various manuscripts (older or newer) to which they had access. They themselves had sometimes to make textual decisions based on variants they encountered. What we have in these "TR" texts is the reverse-engineered text, in Greek, of what later editors thought the "choices" of the translators were.

Now take a passage like 2 Pet. 1:1. You can translate the whole back into Greek. But you can do that at least a couple different ways, legitimately (doubled hamon, Granville-Sharpe rule, etc.). Then, you can compare the final to extant Greek manuscripts, or to mss/editions that the AV authors had access to (that we know of). Now, you may find one or more Greek witnesses that compare to one or more of the possibilities you came up with. It is a matter of careful, measured, cautious, but still partial conjecture as to what the choice of the original translator was, and why it was chosen.

And then, there is the possibility that given the option chosen, the same Greek text could have been translated (again, legitimately) a couple different ways into English. This, in turn, might affect how that reverse-translation comes out. The easiest way to demonstrate this inexactitude problem is to use a computer translating program. Take a complex English sentence. Run it through the program and it spits out, say, Chinese. Reverse it, and see what you end up with. Probably not exactly the same. Why not? Because of the variables. Now multiply that by the complexity of the NT text, and the underlying variants (even the comparatively few from the MT/Byz tradition).

The bottom line is: "the text underlying the AV" will itself ever be a matter of debate, however limited, because there was no such thing as the Schrivner, or the TBS version, etc. before the AV came into existence. Only various critical editions and compilations, along with a manuscript "library" (scattered over Europe's scholar's desks--in universities, monasteries, and pastor's studies).

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I saw someone ask what is the difference between the TR and the Majority Text (MT).

The only thorough book on this I know of is Jack Moorman's, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version, available from Bible For Today. Moorman interacts with the work of Hermann von Soden, and his influence on the formation of the modern MT editions. (An excerpt from this book on David Cloud's site: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jackmoorman.htm):

We would make mention of one more of Jack Moorman’s books: When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version. Consider some excerpts from this extremely important book:

Until recently the defense of the King James Version was a one-on-one debate with the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc.). Much has been written. In recent days new arguments for and against have been raised. But the issue is still the same— the vast majority of MSS on the KJV side versus a few old ones for the critical texts and modern versions.

Now a new element has been introduced (though certain aspects of it have long been recognized), with the publication of ‘The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text’ (1982), published by Thomas Nelson, under the editorship of Zane Hodges and A.L. Farstad.

The Majority Text Edition concludes that the Greek text of our Authorised Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore is defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, Modern Versions) say the AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1,800.

Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defense of the Traditional Text. But, with this production they have left us with a ‘tentative’ Bible.

This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition): ‘Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claim that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.’ On page x we are told: ‘The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals ... It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work ... is both preliminary and provisional.

WE ARE BOUND TO ASK, IF THIS ISN’T [THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD], IF THE AV-RECEIVED TEXT ISN’T, IF THE CRITICAL TEXT ISN’T; WHERE MUST WE GO TO GET A BIBLE TODAY? IF AFTER THESE CENTURIES WE STILL HAVE ONLY A PROVISIONAL, PRELIMINARY, TENTATIVE BIBLE, WHAT ARE WE TO DO?

Three major errors of judgment have led to this ‘provisional’ edition:

1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text. 2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence. 3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.

Scrivener and Hoskier in an earlier generation, and Hodges, Pickering with others in our day have made an immeasurable contribution in defending the Received Text against the Hortian theories. They have provided us with a great store of factual material ... But sadly in Hoskier, Scrivener, and the editors of the Majority Text Edition, little or no reference is made to God’s promises of preserving Scripture. In fact, Hodges and Farstad make absolutely no mention of it. Thus, the foundation for textual research has been taken away.

Wilbur Pickering is listed as one of the consulting editors. His book The Identity of the New Testament Text has done a great deal to clarify and cause a rethink concerning Westcott and Hort. He is careful to state that he believes in preservation, yet in the presentation of his material he says: ‘I have deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation in the preceding discussion in the hope that I may not be misrepresented by critics in the same way that Burgon has been’ (p. 153).

But if the critics misrepresent us because we present Biblical truth, and if they become uncomfortable with this, what does it matter? Who are we trying to please, God or man? Must we participate in their neutrality and unbelief in order to gain a hearing from them? Must we yield to peer pressure? Must we put our good friends ahead of our good Bible?

WHEN AN INQUIRER INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE (EVEN A DEFENDER OF THE RECEIVED TEXT) TAKES THIS NEUTRAL APPROACH IN ACCESSING THE EVIDENCE, IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD DOWN THIS DEAD-END STREET OF HAVING ONLY A TENTATIVE BIBLE.

Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make: ‘We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text’ (The Identity of the New Testament Text p. 153). ‘When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places’ (pp. 232,33). ‘Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text (‘Queen Anne ... and All That’: A Response, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 165).

Also listed as a consulting editor to the Majority Text Edition is Harry A. Sturz. ... Sturz presents a number of other not-so-well-known areas of evidence for the Byzantine text. We owe him a great debt for his research. However, when he seeks to deny the theological/supernatural arguments for the preservation of the text he becomes unmoored.

You may be forgiven if you have difficulty understanding the following statement, or think it to be contradictory: ‘It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger of making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it’ (emphasis added) (The Byzantine Text, p. 38).

Coming now to Zane Hodges: In seeking to deny the charge that he might be leaning a little toward a theological/supernatural stance in textual matters, he gives the following lame reply when questioned about his contribution to the excellent book Which Bible?. ‘Finally, Fee ... seems to wish to continue to tag me with a theological slant that I have explicitly disavowed. The fact that I allowed an article of mine to be reprinted in a volume all of whose perspectives I did not share should not be used against me’ (‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 163).

What a refreshing contrast it is to see the following appraisal of Edward Hills’ position: ‘He integrated the theological perspective with the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This is a taboo that recent Majority Text advocates have attempted not to transgress, preferring to work from within a purely scientific framework’ (King James Version Defended, p. vi).

So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).

In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Soden apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. "These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text." (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, "nevertheless [have] quite substantial support." Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.

--------

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)