Manuscripts?

S

subllibrm

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,598
Reaction score
201
Points
63
To read the debates on this forum one would think that the only options for translating scripture would be to use the TR(s) or WH.

Aren't most manuscripts available in some for that a person could access and translate from pretty much which ever they pleased? There seems to be a tacit agreement that there are only two possible options. Is it really that black and white?

Someone please clear this up for me.
 
subllibrm said:
To read the debates on this forum one would think that the only options for translating scripture would be to use the TR(s) or WH.

Aren't most manuscripts available in some for that a person could access and translate from pretty much which ever they pleased? There seems to be a tacit agreement that there are only two possible options. Is it really that black and white?

Someone please clear this up for me.
Click to expand...

The KJBO view says you can be like a person in the Reformation and have the Bible in your own language, meaning you can forget manuscripts now.
 
A little bit of clarification:

Manuscripts are handwritten documents. Typically, in biblical textual criticism, they are the ancient and medieval copies of the Bible in whole or in part that were produced prior to the invention of the printing press.

The Greek New Testament in print (such as the Textus Receptus) is referred to as a text.

That said, you're asking whether there is really no other choice apart from the TR or Westcott-Hort texts. And the answer is yes. It's really a false dichotomy to divide all New Testament texts into either Textus Receptus or Westcott and Hort. In fact, both represent two milestones in the development of the Greek New Testament as we know it today.

That said, why choose only one of those two milestones? Why not the Greek texts of Karl Lachmann or Samuel Tregelles? Or move beyond Westcott and Hort, as most informed textual critics have (i.e. not the KJV-only armchair quarterbacks) and use the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies text.

Even if you do look at the TR and W-H texts as parallel streams, they're also not the only ones. The Majority Text is often confused with the TR, but in fact its publishers used a completely different methodology from both the TR and W-H.

Short version: Don't buy into the KJV-onlyists' reductionist view of textual criticism. They know not what they are talking about.
 
bibleprotector said:
The KJBO view says you can be like a person in the Reformation and have the Bible in your own language, meaning you can forget manuscripts now.
Click to expand...

The KJBO view is overflowing with a generous helping of used food.
 
Ransom gave an excellent answer. The only thing I'll add to it is....

Check out

http://www.csntm.org/

Though I disagree with Daniel B Wallace in many areas.... he is doing excellent work in creating electronic copies of many priceless manuscripts of various NT books. He really should be commended for his efforts and work. One of the more interesting discoveries he's been involved with is Revelation 13 and the mark of the beast.
 
subllibrm said:
To read the debates on this forum one would think that the only options for translating scripture would be to use the TR(s) or WH.

Aren't most manuscripts available in some for that a person could access and translate from pretty much which ever they pleased? There seems to be a tacit agreement that there are only two possible options. Is it really that black and white?

Someone please clear this up for me.
Click to expand...

If you have an NA27, NA28 you will have access to thousands of important readings from thousands of manuscripts, the readings will be in the apparatus and will let you know which manuscripts had it.
The NA27, NA28 is a very small book and is a translators dream to use.

Here is a variation of the the Greek only.

This one had the Greek and the ESV interlinear style.

I have one similar that is the NET and the Greek.

http://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentum-Graece-Greek-English-Testament/dp/1619700352/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1427747404&sr=8-7&keywords=na-27

Logos 6 has both NA27 and NA28.

For those of you having trouble reading the apparatus, here is a great book that goes into detail and offers tremendous help with using the apparatus to match readings to the manuscript that contains it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802840981/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Ransom said:
Or move beyond Westcott and Hort, as most informed textual critics have (i.e. not the KJV-only armchair quarterbacks) and use the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies text.
Click to expand...

All the NA texts are simply Westcott-Hort with minor updates.  The western non-interpolation nonsense of Hort was discarded, and in some places extremely ill-supported Vaticanus readings were given the alternate instead of the primary probability position.

All the textus corruptus texts from 1881 are the same hortian Critical Texts, allowing minor differences.  Afaik, not a single one of the major verse variants was changed (except among the western non-interps) .. and some new errors have been created. 

Similarly, we say that Stephanus, Beza and the AV (as pointed out by Hills) all represent editions of the Received Text.  There are differences, but it is the same basic text.

Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
All the NA texts are simply Westcott-Hort with minor updates.  The western non-interpolation nonsense of Hort was discarded, and in some places extremely ill-supported Vaticanus readings were given the alternate instead of the primary probability position.

Steven Avery[/color]
Click to expand...

And all the TRs are simply the TR with minor updates!!!!


You know very little about the NA. The NA has an history that pre-dates Westcott and Hort.
 
Steven Avery said:
All the NA texts are simply Westcott-Hort with minor updates.  The western non-interpolation nonsense of Hort was discarded, and in some places extremely ill-supported Vaticanus readings were given the alternate instead of the primary probability position.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that informed textual critics have moved beyond Westcott and Hort?

Exactly as I said! Thanks for proving my point, Avery!
 
Steven Avery said:
Similarly, we say that Stephanus, Beza and the AV (as pointed out by Hills) all represent editions of the Received Text.  There are differences, but it is the same basic text.
Click to expand...

According to what consistent, just textual measures do you claim that all the varying Textus Receptus editions are "the same basis text"?

I know of at least five whole verses that are not found in at least one printed edition of the Textus Receptus.

Acts 8:37 is not found in the Complutensian edition.

There are at least four whole verses not found in the first two TR editions edited by Erasmus: Mark 11:27, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 21:26.

There are still three whole verses not found in the third TR edition by Erasmus: Mark 11:27, Luke 17:36, and Revelation 21:26.
 
Things that are different Are not the same.
 
bgwilkinson said:
Things that are different Are not the same.
Click to expand...

Things-That-Are-Different-Are-Not-the-Same_zpsdb2p8yse.jpg
 
"Things that are different are not the same" seems like a good argument against KJVO.

It certainly has the great bulk of the evidence against KJVO.

The number of differences in Bibles titled King James Version is beyond our ability to count owing to the thousands of printings and editions over the last 400 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top