What translation, or versions of the bible do you like to use and why?

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Oh yes they did present 'their own' Greek translation in 1881, and that is fact (titled as The New Testament in Original Greek).

You need to get up to speed. Their Greek text is called the WH text, abbreviated after their last names. They were Greek scholars, and they based 'their' Greek translation from the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts.

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Westcott & Hort WH Original Greek New Testament GNT Literal English Translation Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

NO! As your own links prove, The New Testament in Original Greek is the name of the book in which Westcott and Hort published in 1881 what you are calling “the WH text.” In 1882, the same publisher (Harper & Brothers in New York) reprinted the Greek text in a book that was printed in two parallel columns per page. The left-hand column is the text of the New Testament in the English Revised Version; the right-hand column is their Greek text. Moreover, Westcott and Hort did not translate the British Revised Version—they were merely two of the more than 50 British scholars who produced the English Revised Version.

The first of your two links is a link to a website on which you can read photocopies of every page of the 1882 edition. The second of your two links is a link to a website on which you can read the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort and a 2009 translation of it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Oh yes they did present 'their own' Greek translation in 1881, and that is fact (titled as The New Testament in Original Greek).

You need to get up to speed. Their Greek text is called the WH text, abbreviated after their last names. They were Greek scholars, and they based 'their' Greek translation from the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts.

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Westcott & Hort WH Original Greek New Testament GNT Literal English Translation Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study
That’s not a translation. The NT was written in Greek. An edition of the original Greek is not a translation.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
You need to get up to speed.
I drive a Bentley Mulsanne with a 530 HP motor @ 4,000 RPM. It’s faster than my neighbor’s Ferrari, accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, and from 0 to 100 mph in 11.1 seconds, and toping out at 190 mph—not bad for a luxury car that weighs over 6,000 pounds!☺
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justin BT

Active Member
Jan 18, 2020
66
31
34
Taipei
✟17,705.00
Country
Taiwan
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
NO! As your own links prove, The New Testament in Original Greek is the name of the book in which Westcott and Hort published in 1881 what you are calling “the WH text.”

While I am not crazy about the Wescott & Hort text, in all likelihood, it likely was an honest/genuine attempt to work through and understand how we deal with the fact that Greek texts have textual variants. If one wants to write off "alexandrian family" type texts, it still cannot be ignored that textual variants still exist, even in early "non-alexandrian" text types.

Appeals to emotion, analogies regarding cars, and character assassination don't typically move the discussion forward. At the end of the day, Christians do need to deal with the fact that (minor) textual variants do actually exist. The byzantine text form is another such honest attempt at this. The KJV translators Modern English bible translators also had to / have to read these same ancient manuscripts and make textual decisions just like Westcott & Hort did. Every Christian serious about understanding scripture makes a decision about an "implied greek text" that would underly the English.

In all due respect for Westcott and Hort, I do believe that the modern English translators have made better textual decisions than Westcott and Hort. But also the Byzantine textform has a few places which feel hard to support from extant manuscripts.


Character assassination ( Ad hominem - Wikipedia ) attacks rarely improve the quality of a conversation, and I am not sure it is possible to classify the textual variants that are typical of the "Alexandrian text type" as demonstrating some kind of Greek philosophical bias. I know people like to make this argument, but I don't see evidence of it in the text. Can someone produce any evidence that scribes who dedicated their life to scripture and reproducing it corrupted the text in a way that we can see Greek philosophical bias? (Im not being rhetorical here, I actually want to see if there are genuine examples)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
While I am not crazy about the Wescott & Hort text, in all likelihood, it likely was an honest/genuine attempt to work through and understand how we deal with the fact that Greek texts have textual variants. If one wants to write off "alexandrian family" type texts, it still cannot be ignored that textual variants still exist, even in early "non-alexandrian" text types.

Appeals to emotion, analogies regarding cars, and character assassination don't typically move the discussion forward. At the end of the day, Christians do need to deal with the fact that (minor) textual variants do actually exist. The byzantine text form is another such honest attempt at this. The KJV translators Modern English bible translators also had to / have to read these same ancient manuscripts and make textual decisions just like Westcott & Hort did. Every Christian serious about understanding scripture makes a decision about an "implied greek text" that would underly the English.

In all due respect for Westcott and Hort, I do believe that the modern English translators have made better textual decisions than Westcott and Hort. But also the Byzantine textform has a few places which feel hard to support from extant manuscripts.


Character assassination ( Ad hominem - Wikipedia ) attacks rarely improve the quality of a conversation, and I am not sure it is possible to classify the textual variants that are typical of the "Alexandrian text type" as demonstrating some kind of Greek philosophical bias. I know people like to make this argument, but I don't see evidence of it in the text. Can someone produce any evidence that scribes who dedicated their life to scripture and reproducing it corrupted the text in a way that we can see Greek philosophical bias? (Im not being rhetorical here, I actually want to see if there are genuine examples)

The New Testament text primarily used by the translators of the King James Version was the third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550. It is commonly called the Textus Receptus although the true Textus Receptus was not published until 1633. Only one of the five primary uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Bezae, was yet available and apparently it was not used. Of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts we now have of the New Testament, the King James Version translators had less than 25 available to them and they were of late origin. Indeed, their primary text was so poor by today's standards that it is commonly called a "corrupt" text by today's scholars.

Indeed, it contains words and phrases that are not found in any known Greek manuscript. For example, the phrase translated, "him that livith for ever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) and the words translated, "and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (Acts 9:6). It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include 16 whole verses: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. Also included are the textual basis for the following words and phrases:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (Matt. 6:13)
"I trow not" (Luke 17:9)
"not" (Rom. 4:19: Col. 2:18)
"who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:1)
"thou shalt not bear false witness" (Rom. 13:9)
"if" (2 Cor. 5:14)
"of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:14)
"through his blood" (Colossians 1:14)
"and were persuaded of them" (Heb. 11:13)
"him" (1 John 4:19)

Many other examples could be cited here.

In addition, this third edition of Robert Estienne’s text of 1550 omitted a number of words and phrases that are included in the best manuscripts:

"nor the son" (Matt. 24:36)
"and came to him" (John 19:3)
"by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 4:25)
"of Jesus" (Acts 16:7)
"God" (Rom. 8:28)
"just as you actually do walk" (1 Thes. 4:1)
"unto (or "in respect to") salvation" (1 Pet. 2:2)
"according to the will of God" (1 Pet. 5:2)
"and such we are" (1 John 3:1)
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,402.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
  • Informative
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
All Greek texts of the NT have "Son of God" in Mar 1:1.
I have here in my study a copy of Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Graece, Fifth edition, published in 1878, and it reads in Mark 1:1, Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ rather than Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ—as does the Westcott and Hort text of 1881.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,402.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have here in my study a copy of Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Graece, Fifth edition, published in 1878, and it reads in Mark 1:1, Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ rather than Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ—as does the Westcott and Hort text of 1881.
I was talking about the original Greek manuscripts, most of which include the words Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. Certain editors thought the words were not original but this doesn't concern me too much. Is there one of the 3 major text types that tends to lack those words?
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I was talking about the original Greek manuscripts, most of which include the words Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. Certain editors thought the words were not original but this doesn't concern me too much. Is there one of the 3 major text types that tends to lack those words?

The Greek Orthodox 1904 Patriarchal text reads Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. So this would be a Byzantine Majority text.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
All Greek texts of the NT have "Son of God" in Mar 1:1.
Here’s what Metzger says. C indicates significant uncertainty.

Mark 1:1 (Textual Commentary (Metzger)):
1:1 Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] {C}
The absence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in א* Θ 28 al may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed) to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W al in support of υἱοῦ θεοῦ is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets.

UBS 5 has it in brackets. It gives the following in support of omitting. Mark 1:1 (UBS5 App): Χριστοῦ א* Θ 28c syrpal copsams arm geo2 Origengr, lat Asterius Serapion Cyril-Jerusalem Severian Hesychius; Victorinus-Pettau Jerome3/6

The patristic evidence is interesting.

NRSV has it. NRSVue does not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
I was talking about the original Greek manuscripts, most of which include the words Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ.

You wrote. “All Greek texts of the NT have ‘Son of God" in Mar 1:1. If you meant instead, “All of the original Greek manuscripts of the NT have ‘Son of God’ in Mar 1:1,” that is also not true.

Is there one of the 3 major text types that tends to lack those words?

No. It is especially common in manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, yet is it common in manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type and the Western text-type. Today’s scholars of Mark’s gospel are divided on the issue of whether the words “Son of God” in Mark 1:1 are genuine Scripture or a scribal gloss. Those who believe that the words are probably genuine Scripture include,

M. Eugene Boring
Richard (Dick) T. (R.T.) France
Robert A. Guelich
Sherman E. Johnson
William L Lane
Christopher S. (C.S.) Mann

Those who believe that the words are probably not genuine Scripture include Joel Marcus, who in his two-volume [1,261 pages] commentary on the Greek text of Mark argues that the words “Son of God” in Mark 1:1 are most likely a scribal gloss.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
NO! As your own links prove, The New Testament in Original Greek is the name of the book in which Westcott and Hort published in 1881 what you are calling “the WH text.” In 1882, the same publisher (Harper & Brothers in New York) reprinted the Greek text in a book that was printed in two parallel columns per page. The left-hand column is the text of the New Testament in the English Revised Version; the right-hand column is their Greek text. Moreover, Westcott and Hort did not translate the British Revised Version—they were merely two of the more than 50 British scholars who produced the English Revised Version.

The first of your two links is a link to a website on which you can read photocopies of every page of the 1882 edition. The second of your two links is a link to a website on which you can read the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort and a 2009 translation of it.

I'm not the one who coined the "WH text", which refers to Wescott and Hort's 1881 translation from Greek manuscripts.

You said Wescott and Hort did no such translation. I said they did, and I gave unquestionable proof of it by a digitized photo copy of their translation over at the Internet Archive website...

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Wescott Greek.GIF

So man up, and admit they DID DO A GREEK TRANSLATION IN 1881.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like New king James since its easy to read and to understand.

It's not truly based on the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament manuscripts like the original KJV is though. Nelson publisher's says it is, but the English grammar similarity to other modern translations from different Greek texts, like the NIV, are apparent.

The idea of the NKJV translation was to make it easier to read, like you say. They did, and they removed portions that the original KJV contains, and that also shows the NKJV translators used different Greek texts than the original KJV.

As a matter of fact, this was one of Wescott and Hort's arguments against using the Textus Receptus Greek texts, because they said the reason why the Greek texts they used in their translation was shorter than the Textus Receptus because they thought the Textus Receptus had been tampered with, with parts added over time. That was their excuse for missing Scriptures in their version.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm not the one who coined the "WH text", which refers to Wescott and Hort's 1881 translation from Greek manuscripts.

You said Wescott and Hort did no such translation. I said they did, and I gave unquestionable proof of it by a digitized photo copy of their translation over at the Internet Archive website...

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

So man up, and admit they DID DO A GREEK TRANSLATION IN 1881.

According to the preface from the site you note... the English translation is the RSV of 1881 with W&H's Greek text.
upload_2022-1-27_5-18-18.png

upload_2022-1-27_5-22-47.png
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
I'm not the one who coined the "WH text", which refers to Wescott and Hort's 1881 translation from Greek manuscripts.

You said Wescott and Hort did no such translation. I said they did, and I gave unquestionable proof of it by a digitized photo copy of their translation over at the Internet Archive website...

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

View attachment 311714
So man up, and admit they DID DO A GREEK TRANSLATION IN 1881.
Harper and Brothers published two editions of The New Testament in the Original Greek, the first one in 1881, and the second one in 1882. The digitized photocopy provided in your post is of the title page in the 1882 edition, which included on facing pages the English Revised Version of 1881 and The New Testament in the Original Greek. There is, nowhere in that book or any other book, a translation of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
According to the preface from the site you note... the English translation is the RSV of 1881 with W&H's Greek text.
View attachment 311730
View attachment 311731

The POINT was... I was challenged as telling a lie when I said Wescott and Hort created their OWN GREEK New Testament text. Those who claimed I lied I have given proof to that Wescott and Hort did... create their own Greek NT text (proof on Internet Archive). And that has been what one of the main controversies about them has been, i.e., their presenting to a committee of scholars to accept their personal Greek NT translation. That because even their personal letters they sent to each other, that are public, showed they had the intent to replace the Textus Receptus all along! (see Bridge To Babylon documentary).
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Harper and Brothers published two editions of The New Testament in the Original Greek, the first one in 1881, and the second one in 1882. The digitized photocopy provided in your post is of the title page in the 1882 edition, which included on facing pages the English Revised Version of 1881 and The New Testament in the Original Greek. There is, nowhere in that book or any other book, a translation of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort.

I gave proof that Wescott and Hort DID... create their OWN New Testament Greek text version. I provided TWO links to that proof. It's as plain on the nose on your face.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The POINT was... I was challenged as telling a lie when I said Wescott and Hort created their OWN GREEK New Testament text. Those who claimed I lied I have given proof to that Wescott and Hort did... create their own Greek NT text (proof on Internet Archive). And that has been what one of the main controversies about them has been, i.e., their presenting to a committee of scholars to accept their personal Greek NT translation. That because even their personal letters they sent to each other, that are public, showed they had the intent to replace the Textus Receptus all along! (see Bridge To Babylon documentary).

I don't subscribe to the TR since it was just a small number of copies that Erasmus had available to him. I'll stick with the thousands of texts from the Greek Orthodox church.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0