That can be true to some extent, but involving more manuscripts only supports the concept of what the majority of texts say and does not prove the reliability of those texts. Given that the LV was done in the 4th century, it likely had far more Greek texts lying around to compare with than anything we have today, and the LV was the primarily bible for all of world Christianity for about 1200 years. So the distant past may not be an accurate statement on your part. We do have more observable manuscripts and fragments than were available a few hundred years ago, but it would be a real stretch to take that and apply it to the first 500 years AD. There was a reason that there was a period in between called the "dark ages". We are far ahead of anything in that period, but maybe not so much compared to the period before the dark ages.
And "updated" scholarship may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Ever hear of the Jesus Project? Supposed "scholars" all sitting around deciding who Jesus really was and what Jesus really stated based solely on their academic prowess to judge the evidence. Scholarship may not be something one would want to hang their hat on, as there is a lot of bias in academic circles. Even in the hard sciences.
There are many examples of where even modern translations have problems. There are also many examples of where the older translations like the Geneva and KJV didn't get things quite right. But at least with those older translations, they have been around for a lengthy period of time and those errors are well documented. With the newer translations, so many are coming out all the time so there really isn't any way to accurately judge what they got right or wrong before they are in the hands of many thousands of people and folks are basing their ideas on what those modern translations are stating.
According to the prefaces of the NRSV and NABRE, the newly discovered manuscripts gave translators context to several passages that they had difficulty understanding, leading to dozens of corrections mentioned in the footnotes.
Finally, the updated scholarship refers to NRSV, NABRE, etc. You should not use the Jesus Project as representative of that.
Aren't most modern translations based on the Nestle-Aland?
From wikipedia:
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by
Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),
[132] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek
LXX or Latin
Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a
Christological interpretation.
[133] For example, the
Septuagint reading "
They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in
Psalm 22:16 (vs. the
Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"
[134]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as
Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the
Masoretic Text;
[135] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of the
Geneva Bible, the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed '
Ezra' and '
Nehemiah'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '
1 Esdras' and '
2 Esdras'.
Nestle's first Greek text was a combination of the works of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth. The principles that led to the critical text were greatly advanced by Westcott and Hort.
To say that the modern Greek Text is not the product of Westcott and Hort, would be equivalent to saying the TR is not the product of Erasmus.
The modern Greek text is quite different from what Westcott and Hort produced, and reflects more than a century of additional scholarship and correction.
The claim was that the KJV used the Vulgate, which is true.
Are Byzantine manuscripts more reliable? Are the manuscripts behind the NKJV more reliable (byzantine)?
Someone set out to disprove the authority of the byzantine, only to be persuaded the other way, due to his study of it:
summary of non partison study:
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis
The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis
-----------
I wanted to include a section of an email I sent to a seminary professor as well, some of it is unedited, but you get the gist of it:
I am a KJV, NKJV believer myself.
I however ran across another version of late, that I can't seem to find anything wrong with, as far as the idea and motive behind this translation. ( a few sites, actually....majoritytext.com and pfrs.org. So these are two separate translation attempts it would seem at making a modern majority text translation (like Hodges and Wallace did?), but with some revamping of course.
but I don't know if you have heard of the EMTV translation (Majority Text Translation),
Majority Text.com Letter From The Translator
It is based off of a translation done by Zane Hodges, and modified and updated.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...ament_greek/text/wallace-majoritytext-gtj.pdf
I didn't like the zane hodges one due to it's modern language type of read,
but this version sort of does the same thing, just less.
also this version that is based more on the Byzantine text:- has it's own set of arguments that the majority text is flawed:
http://www.pfrs.org/PFRV/preface.pdf
his version is under way but it is based here:
The Pristine Faith Restoration Society - NT Translation Index
here are some links In my file about these type of texts, feel free to read through and see what you think, and if they answer the question.
I certainly understand busy schedules, so please put it on the end of your list and address when you have time, or don't (if you never free up).
but if you do see any of the links in error, or outright wrong, let me know....I will look into it. But so far these are the links I have for my majority text and Byzantine text folders of links to study:
MOVING AWAY FROM PRESERVED SCRIPTURE: EXAMINING THE HODGES-FARSTAD MAJORITY TEXT
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/04-1_119.pdf
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org
Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text | Bible.org
-------------------
I realize these are not easy topics, and there are few, in fact that I have trusted these type of questions to.