King James or a Newer Bible? - Poll Updated!

[Epiphoskei]

I don't know if those authors are decievers or just decieved, but they're certainly wrong.

Anyone who doesn't know enough to say that modern Bibles are translated from an ecclectic text, not the Alexandrean text, and not the Wescott-Hort, should not be looked to as a reliable source on textual criticism.

 

[wildboar]

Anyone who doesn't know enough to say that modern Bibles are translated from an ecclectic text, not the Alexandrean text, and not the Wescott-Hort, should not be looked to as a reliable source on textual criticism.

I am not a TR defender. I believe we should use the ecclesiastical text which was handed down and preserved in the church which is very similar to the TR but not identical to it.

However, the assumption of W&H still find a great deal of support among those who produced such things as NA27(or 26 or whatever) which forms the basis forms the basis for most modern version. There is also a noticable preference for the Alexanderian text type and a prejudice against the Byzantine text type. In fact if you were to remove the prejudice against the Byzantine text type from the canons of textual criticism that W&H set up you would basically end up with something that looked a lot like the Byzantine text type.

There are textual critics who do promote a more thoroughgoing eclecticism than what is found in NA27 but I don't know of any English translation that uses a true eclectic text.

I highly recommend a book edited by David Allen Black called Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. There are people in his book that represent all of the major positions on the subject of textual criticism. I think too many people are simply fed the work of the Alands or something similar without being given the opportunity to see the other positions that people take. There is no purely scientific method and everyone has to accept some sort of story about manuscript transmission that has no real historical backing.

 

[BobW188]

Newer. I love the timbre and poetry of the King James, prefer it for such standards as the Christmas story but, as I age, I find I've lost familiarity with much of the 17th Century English.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

I don't know if those authors are decievers or just decieved, but they're certainly wrong.

Anyone who doesn't know enough to say that modern Bibles are translated from an ecclectic text, not the Alexandrean text, and not the Wescott-Hort, should not be looked to as a reliable source on textual criticism.

But the omissions are evident, and they are dangerous and misleading and can lead to false doctrines or remove the authority from the Word of God when it comes to disputes especially against contentious non-believers or ecumenic-minded persons. No, I think all modern translations should be translated from the Textus Receptus. Because otherwise one might find themselves disarmed of their sword against an individual(s) representing a different faith. "Where does it say that? Or Where does does it say this?"

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Newer. I love the timbre and poetry of the King James, prefer it for such standards as the Christmas story but, as I age, I find I've lost familiarity with much of the 17th Century English.

The difficulty of comprehension level of the King James is definitely overrated though, a great exercise is to read the KJV aloud to one's self.

 

[Epiphoskei]

But the omissions are evident, and they are dangerous and misleading and can lead to false doctrines or remove the authority from the Word of God when it comes to disputes especially against contentious non-believers or ecumenic-minded persons. No, I think all modern translations should be translated from the Textus Receptus. Because otherwise one might find themselves disarmed of their sword against an individual(s) representing a different faith. "Where does it say that? Or Where does does it say this?"

Except God didn't write the TR. The changes are based on the fact that the original text obviously didn't contain those words or verses.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Except God didn't write the TR. The changes are based on the fact that the original text obviously didn't contain those words or verses.

The original text? No there is no original text, just different texts. And some suspect the Alexandrian Text and the WH have originated from gnostic sources in Egypt.

 

[Epiphoskei]

No, but we can determine it with reasonable certainty. And those who suspect Alexandrinus to be gnostic neither undestand textual criticism nor Gnosticism.

If a Gnostic had written Alexandrinus, half of it wouldn't be there. It's much more reasonable to say that certain things simply were never there, but later scribes added them as a gloss.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

No, but we can determine it with reasonable certainty. And those who suspect Alexandrinus to be gnostic neither undestand textual criticism nor Gnosticism.

If a Gnostic had written Alexandrinus, half of it wouldn't be there. It's much more reasonable to say that certain things simply were never there, but later scribes added them as a gloss.

No not necessarily, or the Alexandrinus is a flawed and/or corrupted text rather than the Text Receptus being padded.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type


Evaluations of text-types

Most textual critics of the New Testament favor the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs for many reasons. One reason is that Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we have found, and some of the earliest church fathers used readings found in the Alexandrian text. Another is that the Alexandrian readings are adjudged more often to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types.
Nevertheless, there are some dissenting voices to this general consensus. A few textual critics, especially those in France, argue that the Western text-type, an old text from which the Old Latin versions of the New Testament are derived, is closer to the originals.
In the United States, some critics have a dissenting view that prefers the Byzantine text-type. They assert that Egypt, almost alone, offers optimal climatic conditions favoring preservation of ancient manuscripts. Thus, the papyri used in the east (Asia Minor and Greece) would not have survived due to the unfavorable climatic conditions. The argument is that the much greater number of Byzantine manuscripts indicate a superior claim to being close to the autograph. The Byzantine text is also found in modern Greek Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time.
Some of those arguing in favor of Byzantine priority further assert that the Alexandrian church was dominated by the gnostics who generally had either docetic views of Jesus, or considered his life to just be an allegory that was not based on facts. Alexandrian proponents counter that the Byzantine church was dominated by Arianism around the time that we first see evidence of the Byzantine text emerging. However, most scholars generally agree that there is no evidence of systematic theological alteration in any of the text types.
The evidence of the papyri suggests that — in Egypt at least — very different manuscript readings co-existed in the same area in the early Christian period. So, whereas the early 3rd century papyrus P75 witnesses a text in Luke and John that is very close to that found a century later in the Codex Vaticanus, the nearly contemporary P66 has a much freer text of John; with many unique variants; and others that are now considered distinctive to the Western and Byzantine text-types, albeit that the bulk of readings are Alexandrian. Most modern text critics therefore do not regard any one text-type as deriving in direct succession from autograph manuscripts, but rather, as the fruit of local exercises to compile the best New Testament text from a manuscript tradition that already displayed wide variations.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Christian scribes gloss. It's what the ancient scribes do. All the time. Nearly every variant can be explained in light of that as a gloss.

 

[wildboar]

If you read the New Testament itself, the Apostles were rather free in quoting from various Old Testament manuscript traditions that were in use at the time. Most of the time they quoted from the tradition found in the Septuagint. They did not share our obsession with original autographs which they did not have. They placed authority in extant manuscripts which they did have. They placed authority in those manuscripts which were handed down and preserved in the body of the Old Testament church. Most modern New Testament textual criticism operates under the assumption that the church is not the preserver but corrupter of the text and almost always opts for the reading which was not the one accepted by the church. There is no evidence to believe that intentional corruption existed in a widespread geographical area. People should keep in mind that for most people their chief contact with Scripture was in the liturgical life of the church and people notice when you change the liturgy.

I've given some Biblical and theological reasons for my preference for the Byzantine text. Maurice Robinson offers an excellent paper on why he believe the Byzantine text type more closely resembles the original autographs: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

 

[Epiphoskei]

Sorry, but the translators of the nwt have some serious errors in their understanding of Greek grammar.