Need for a new Greek Text and Translation of the Bible
After reading this post on the ESV:
http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-prefer-english-standard-version.html
I gave translations some thought. I like litteral translations as well. NASB, NRSV, ESV and NET are all high quality, modern, scholorly translations. But I prefer the KJV.
The reason I like the KJV is that it's based on the Textus Receptus. Having read The Revision Revised by John Burgon & The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, I find their arguments in favor of the Byzantine texts quite convincing. Modern translations like ESV give a lot of weight to Alexandrian texts. But the KJV is based on the Byzantine, so that's why I prefer it.
The issue in a nutshell between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts is one of majority vs. age. The two oldest bibles in the world are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They are from roughly 400 AD. These two have quite a few differences (appox 3,000) but they do have a lot of similariaties as well. These two bibles, along with a number of old fragments make up the Alexandrian texts. They are few in number, but very old.
We have a number of Greek bibles starting from around 800 AD. Substantially all Greek texts from that point forward roughly match. These are called the Byzantine or Majority Texts. The oldest bible in the Byzantine family is the Codex Alexandrinus, which is from around 500 AD. Even though they make up about 85% of the Greek texts we have today, there are very few ancient Byzantine texts.
So the stage is set. It's the Majority vs. the Oldest. My point here isn't to get into the debate. As I said, I find the arguments for the majority text convincing. My point here is to call for a new Greek text and new translation.
The KJV is great, but it has two problems. First, it's not in modern English. Second, it's not based on all available Byzantine texts. From what I understand Erasmus used approxamatly 8 texts to pull the Textus Receptus together. Counts of the number of Greeks texts range, but they are certainly over 1,000 and could be over 5,000. For those that favor the majority text, shouldn't textual critizism be performed on all available Byzantine texts to produce a composit Greek manuscript? Then shouldn't that manuscript be transalated into modern English?
http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-prefer-english-standard-version.html
I gave translations some thought. I like litteral translations as well. NASB, NRSV, ESV and NET are all high quality, modern, scholorly translations. But I prefer the KJV.
The reason I like the KJV is that it's based on the Textus Receptus. Having read The Revision Revised by John Burgon & The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, I find their arguments in favor of the Byzantine texts quite convincing. Modern translations like ESV give a lot of weight to Alexandrian texts. But the KJV is based on the Byzantine, so that's why I prefer it.
The issue in a nutshell between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts is one of majority vs. age. The two oldest bibles in the world are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They are from roughly 400 AD. These two have quite a few differences (appox 3,000) but they do have a lot of similariaties as well. These two bibles, along with a number of old fragments make up the Alexandrian texts. They are few in number, but very old.
We have a number of Greek bibles starting from around 800 AD. Substantially all Greek texts from that point forward roughly match. These are called the Byzantine or Majority Texts. The oldest bible in the Byzantine family is the Codex Alexandrinus, which is from around 500 AD. Even though they make up about 85% of the Greek texts we have today, there are very few ancient Byzantine texts.
So the stage is set. It's the Majority vs. the Oldest. My point here isn't to get into the debate. As I said, I find the arguments for the majority text convincing. My point here is to call for a new Greek text and new translation.
The KJV is great, but it has two problems. First, it's not in modern English. Second, it's not based on all available Byzantine texts. From what I understand Erasmus used approxamatly 8 texts to pull the Textus Receptus together. Counts of the number of Greeks texts range, but they are certainly over 1,000 and could be over 5,000. For those that favor the majority text, shouldn't textual critizism be performed on all available Byzantine texts to produce a composit Greek manuscript? Then shouldn't that manuscript be transalated into modern English?
Comments
On campus here at Southeastern, we have a few (and only a few) who favor the Majority text view. They, too, are crying out for a new translation using the M text. The NKJV doesn't do the Text justice, they would say; hence the need for a new translation.
Billy
Good stuff
I agree with them on the NKJV. It doesn't do a good job decribing it's sources and the process they used to come up with the underlying Greek Text.
As for the Majority Text being a minority possition these days, whelp, I think Westcott and Hort got the "first mover" advantage on textual critizizm and the bible. Then the KJV only crowed makes the opponents of Westcott and Hort look like they are just scarred of progress. But if you look at the underlying arguments for the Majority Text, they really are quite sound.
Merry Christmas,
Dan
The EOC favors the Byzantine, no? I understand Cyril's translation was based on Byzantine manuscripts.
Merry Christmas (the EOC one isn't too far away),
Dan
I do enjoy the NKJV. I know some KJV people have issues with the NKJV but I have found it to be a great translation. In fact, the first sermon I ever preached was from the NKJV and I still use that Bible I preached from.
I do thank God for the long history of the KJV. It is the Bible that many godly men used including John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Francis Asbury, Charles Spurgeon, and many more. Thankfully, you are not among those KJV only guys who proclaim, "If it was good enough for Paul then it's good enough for me!"
Good post and merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas,
Dan
All I know is that we are using the NKJV as a template for the LXX in regards to the Old Testament. And we are not making too many changes to the NKJV's New Testament. I'm talking about in America and for English speaking people.
A few individual EOC people made their own translations but they are not based on all the M texts available.
JNORM888
You visited my blog(http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/) and I thought I should repay the visit.
As it turns out, though I do have an abiding interest in Reformation Arminianism, my specialization is New Testament textual criticism.
As a matter of fact, back before they invented computers ( ... ), I was a proofreader for Thomas Nelson as they produced the NKJV.
NKJV sticks extremely closely to the same Greek text behind the KJV (Textus Receptus).
But the differences are really very minimal between the Greek text of the Pierpont-Robinson Byzantine text and the Greek text behind the NKJV.
The problem with producing an English translation of the Byzantine New Testament is finding enough scholars to produce a quality translation.
There are an incredibly large number of scholars who would find such an endeavor dubious. "Why would I put my name and reputation behind this project," they think to themselves, "when I reject the Byzantine text and don't believe it represents the purest form of God's Word?" And so forth.
The reality is that there are but a handful of scholars who are capable of operating in the scholarly sphere who favor Byzantine priority, and even fewer still capable of producing the kind of good quality English translation to which we've become accustomed in our modern English world.
Don't hold your breath for a first rate quality English version of the Byzantine Text Type.
Jim Leonard
Thanks for stopping by. Yep, I won't hold my breath. But I will hold out hope that there is enough of contingent of scholars favoring the Majority Text left to put together a reconciled Greek Text and modern English Version.
I enjoyed your blog entries on Codex Schøyen and think it's a great project to undertake.
God be with you,
Dan