textual variants

[preacherinblack]

what are some textual views( like KJV only,byzantine priority,eclectic method etc.) and should we fuss over textual variants ? i would like to know.

 

[twin1954]

what are some textual views( like KJV only,byzantine priority,eclectic method etc.) and should we fuss over textual variants ? i would like to know.

In my opinion textual criticism and debating textual variants is nothing but an exercise in intellectualism. It has no real purpose but to feed egos and sow discord. Though I would say that method used by the NIV translators is faulty because they used the oldest text as the most correct instead of using the method of majority agreement within the texts. Being old I know that oldest is not always the best.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

what are some textual views( like KJV only,byzantine priority,eclectic method etc.) and should we fuss over textual variants ? i would like to know.

Would you trust the New World Translation? If not then why not?

Well the reason I do not trust the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the same reasons I do not trust the NWT. Where they come from that is.

Also I think Twin 1954 has a good point.

. Though I would say that method used by the NIV translators is faulty because they used the oldest text as the most correct instead of using the method of majority agreement within the texts. Being old I know that oldest is not always the best.

Combine the points we both made and you will see why I really really do not trust those manuscripts.

But I would have to say there are not that many differences. I have heard that Out of about 500 pages in the Greek New Testament, the manuscript variations represent only about half of a page. Plus many of these could be spelling or grammatical.

The majority of ancient manuscripts contain only small portions of the biblical text, like a book or a portion of a book. And very old documents are usually torn and tattered. You should understand that some of the documents we have are missing portions because of the condition they are in. Torn, missing pages, smuged, stained, ect. ect. So we must use multipul manuscripts to get the entire New Testament.

Codex Sinaiticus, was found by Count Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. Portions of the manuscript were found in the monastery dump, and a larger portion was presented to Tischendorf by one of the monks. It is a large codex, with 400 pages (or leaves) comprising about half of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version(Greek translation of the Hebrew) and the full New Testament.

Codex Vaticanus, also known as “B,” was found in the Vatican library. It is comprised of 759 leaves and has almost all of the Old and New Testaments. It is not known when it arrived at the Vatican, but it was included in a catalog listing in 1475, and it is dated to the middle of the 4th century. Vaticanus was first used as a source document by Erasmus in his work on the “Textus Receptus.” Because he viewed the text of Vaticanus to be erratic, he seldom followed it when it differed from other Greek texts.

 

[preacherinblack]

Would you trust the New World Translation? If not then why not?

Well the reason I do not trust the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the same reasons I do not trust the NWT.

ok why not trust them. do they show signs theological tampering? if they do i've got a hypothesis im thinking of.

 

[miamited]

Hi PIB,

Well, I'll give you my two cents worth. I have researched most of the textual variants that I am aware of and the first question I ask myself is whether it matters? I've read the Scriptures through a number of times (working through again now) and find that the differences are generally less than a part of a whole percentage point in quantity.

Many of them are just differences in the authors choice of word for translation. Just as we find in any English dictionary when we look up a word, there are often 2,3 or more 'definitions' of a word. Or when one looks through a thesaurus, one will find several words that likely mean the same or very, very similar, the word being researched. So, when doing translating work and trying to determine what a word in the original language meant, we might also find a couple of explanations. Now, the translator, based on context and other usage clues, has to decide what he thinks the original author was trying to convey to his reader, of these choices.

Next, we have verses either added or subtracted, and honestly that's a very tough call. We research all the available information that we have between the various copies and we have to make a choice. Since we don't have any of the originals, when it comes to texts that are different from copy to copy, then we have to try and logically work out which one we believe to be the correct copy. Several translations make a choice, but then through footnote or margin note, allow for the difference that has been found. I honestly find that the best method as it does allow the reader to also have input into what he is going to believe is the true text.

However, when I apply the first question to most all of these 'discrepencies', the answer I come up with is 'not really'.

If I read that Joshua went to war against the Amalekites, or I read that Joshua fought against the Amalekites, I really don't care what 'word' the original writer intended because the intent and understanding seems to be the same.

If I read that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, or early in the morning Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, I really don't care who is more specifically 'correct'.

Now, when it comes to whole verses being left out, or as in at least one case several verses being left out, I will apply some effort to justify which translating work is correct. I usually find that it is a matter of which base text is used, but honestly, when I then apply the 'does it really matter' question, so far I have found that it doesn't.

As I understand my Father, He gave me His word that I might know the truth. That I might find that narrow way to eternal life with Him. I have yet to find any of the reputable translations that fail in that task. Whether they are missing this small piece or another has never been shown to me to have any effect in the accomplishment of the purpose for which, I believe, God gave to me His word.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

ok why not trust them. do they show signs theological tampering? if they do i've got a hypothesis im thinking of.

It is not who found them but the people who originally copied them and what they would have believed. It is who made them. They where found near Egypt and in all likelihood came from Alexandria in the 2nd or 3rd century from the research I have done.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/

Also another thing to consider when deciding which version to use is exactly who Westcott and Hort were. They were Occultists and into some really unbiblical and wacky things.

90 percent of the New Testament text is unanimously supported by all the ancient manuscripts. In those passages where the proper reading is disputed, there is no major doctrinal change, and we can rest assured that we have the accurate, revealed words of God passed down to us. But I do not trust the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

Many of the other manuscripts we have come from Antioch. I trust the Textus Receptus also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading.

 

[preacherinblack]

Many of the other manuscripts we have come from Antioch. I trust the Textus Receptus also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading.

were does that percent come from for the TR?

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

were does that percent come from for the TR?

I could be wrong, it has been over a year since I have done any research on this...almost two years I think. I don't know Greek and am not a scholar, so it is the work of others I am relying upon.

When I was doing research though I read up on both sides of the issue and read many many books. I still have a few of them buried in my closet and car but then again I own so many books it would be hard to find them again unless I straightened up and cleaned. That isn't going to happen soon since i'm planning on moving in a few months.

My books might attack me if I even open my closet. Maybe ill go in there next week. I have a good pile I left at work anyways.

 

[preacherinblack]

I could be wrong, it has been over a year since I have done any research on this...almost two years I think. I don't know Greek and am not a scholar, so it is the work of others I am relying upon.

When I was doing research though I read up on both sides of the issue and read many many books. I still have a few of them buried in my closet and car but then again I own so many books it would be hard to find them again unless I straightened up and cleaned. That isn't going to happen soon since i'm planning on moving in a few months.

My books might attack me if I even open my closet. Maybe ill go in there next week. I have a good pile I left at work anyways.

ok

 

[Johnnz]

We must not assume there is one 'real text' and the rest are some fabrications of some kind. The various ancient texts are all that we have and our scholars do the best they can to determine what we can use for our translations. Because there is not 'one true text' there will be differences between scholars.

John
NZ

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

We must not assume there is one 'real text' and the rest are some fabrications of some kind. The various ancient texts are all that we have and our scholars do the best they can to determine what we can use for our translations. Because there is not 'one true text' there will be differences between scholars.

John
NZ

No there is not one "real text", there are over 5000 real texts in the original language. I'm only calling two of the texts phony bologna here not all of them.

 

[preacherinblack]

what is the traditional text ? because ive been reading some of dean john William burgon's work and he uses that term alot .

 

[JGiddings]

Received Text, Critical Text, Majority Text, the texts of the texts of the texts. IMHO it doesn't matter, it's been proven that only 10% between each "text" has differences. There is no difference in the various texts when it comes to the teachings concerning Salvation!
It's interesting as a study topic, but it's fruitless for the everyday believer to worry about such things.

 

[Johnnz]

Received Text, Critical Text, Majority Text, the texts of the texts of the texts. IMHO it doesn't matter, it's been proven that only 10% between each "text" has differences. There is no difference in the various texts when it comes to the teachings concerning Salvation!
It's interesting as a study topic, but it's fruitless for the everyday believer to worry about such things.

Its not quite so black and white as that. For example, the last three chapters of Romans aren't in all texts, but they do contain important material. We need good scholarship in such a case if we are to have confidence in our scriptures as the basis for our teaching.

John
NZ

 

[now faith]

Its not quite so black and white as that. For example, the last three chapters of Romans aren't in all texts, but they do contain important material. We need good scholarship in such a case if we are to have confidence in our scriptures as the basis for our teaching.

John
NZ

I would agree it seems some translation removes Christ as God.

I cannot remember which one convoluted John 1

KJ the word was God

Other the word was a God

Its a small little twist but packs a lot of bad teaching

 

[Johnnz]

I would agree it seems some translation removes Christ as God.

I cannot remember which one convoluted John 1

KJ the word was God

Other the word was a God

Its a small little twist but packs a lot of bad teaching

A good example of why we need good Christian scholars.

I think you will find its those who deny the Trinity who insert the indefinite article into John 1:1. That arises from their prior theological stance. No common version of the NT does that.

John
NZ

 

[JGiddings]

Picky picky stuff guys.
It's a great scholarly endeavor, but imho it's dangerous to tell people that some English versions of the bible deny the Trinity. If you tell a new believer that their translation, say the NLT, is "bad" and will lead them away from God it could possibly devastate them. No prodding towards the KJV will fix that. First hand experience here. People can be well meaning, almost too well meaning.
Which ones are you referring to?
(Besides the NWT.)

 

[now faith]

Picky picky stuff guys.
It's a great scholarly endeavor, but imho it's dangerous to tell people that some English versions of the bible deny the Trinity. If you tell a new believer that their translation, say the NLT, is "bad" and will lead them away from God it could possibly devastate them. No prodding towards the KJV will fix that. First hand experience here. People can be well meaning, almost too well meaning.
Which ones are you referring to?
(Besides the NWT.)

Truth and fact if ignored are twisted into fable,and we digress into idolatry.

You simply cannot put lipstick on a pig and expect it to be non offensive.

We bring people closer to God by truth not I'm OK your OK teaching.

It is not legalism say you have 4 translations but 1 takes multiple passages out that refer
To Christ as God.
Wouldn't you want to point that out to a new Christian,or would you allow him to carry a Jehovah's witness version?

There is a line in the sand, truth on one side and false teaching on the other

 

[Keachian]

Where to begin, this is the most detailed post, I might as well start with this.

Would you trust the New World Translation? If not then why not?

No, it is a translation tailored to eisegete the text into English rather than translate it.

Well the reason I do not trust the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the same reasons I do not trust the NWT. Where they come from that is.

We don't know where they came from, current scholarly consensus is that they are likely to have been of the 50 Bible commissioned following the Council of Nicaea, if this is the case then they were probably created in scriptoriums in Constantinople.

Also I think Twin 1954 has a good point.

The majority Greek reading is primarily Byzantine in type because of the change to Latin in the West and the shrinking of the Eastern Church to around Constantinople due to the rise of Islam, as such I don't think it is relevant as to whether it is closer to the original texts.

Combine the points we both made and you will see why I really really do not trust those manuscripts.

No, I don't, ultimately from my position you distrust the earlier manuscripts because they are classified as Alexandrian and that's about it, our classification (and scholarly consensus is moving away from the Byz/Ale/Wes classification scheme) is not an indication of origin but an indication of where we found them.

But I would have to say there are not that many differences. I have heard that Out of about 500 pages in the Greek New Testament, the manuscript variations represent only about half of a page. Plus many of these could be spelling or grammatical.

There are also word order issues, and other issues which can not have any impact on English translation.

The majority of ancient manuscripts contain only small portions of the biblical text, like a book or a portion of a book. And very old documents are usually torn and tattered. You should understand that some of the documents we have are missing portions because of the condition they are in. Torn, missing pages, smuged, stained, ect. ect. So we must use multipul manuscripts to get the entire New Testament.

Correct, but since we're essentially building on the work done by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Westcott and Hort it is not rebuilding the New Testament from scratch.

Codex Sinaiticus, was found by Count Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. Portions of the manuscript were found in the monastery dump, and a larger portion was presented to Tischendorf by one of the monks. It is a large codex, with 400 pages (or leaves) comprising about half of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version(Greek translation of the Hebrew) and the full New Testament.

None of it was found in the dump, that's a modern fable to try and treat the document as something less than what it is, an early codex.

Codex Vaticanus, also known as “B,” was found in the Vatican library. It is comprised of 759 leaves and has almost all of the Old and New Testaments. It is not known when it arrived at the Vatican, but it was included in a catalog listing in 1475, and it is dated to the middle of the 4th century. Vaticanus was first used as a source document by Erasmus in his work on the “Textus Receptus.” Because he viewed the text of Vaticanus to be erratic, he seldom followed it when it differed from other Greek texts.

Erasmus did not use Vaticanus, he knew of its existence and requested his friend Bombasius to check 1 John 5:7. He had access to Minuscule 1eap, Minuscule1rK, Minuscule 2e, Minuscule 2ap, Minuscule 4ap, Minuscule 7p, Minuscule 817.

Stephanus used;
Complutensian Polyglot, Codex Bezae, Minuscule 4, Minuscule 5, Minuscule 6, Minuscule 2817, Minuscule 8, Codex Regius, Minuscule 38, Minuscule 2298 ?, Minuscule 9 1167, Minuscule 398, Codex Victorinus, 774 (Minuscule 120), Minuscule 237, Minuscule 42, Minuscule 111

Beza added to the above the use of Codex Claromontanus.

So that's about 25 manuscripts used in the construction of the Published editions of the New Testament used in the translation of the KJV and other Bibles out of the Reformation.

 

[JGiddings]

Truth and fact if ignored are twisted into fable,and we digress into idolatry.

You simply cannot put lipstick on a pig and expect it to be non offensive.

We bring people closer to God by truth not I'm OK your OK teaching.

It is not legalism say you have 4 translations but 1 takes multiple passages out that refer
To Christ as God.
Wouldn't you want to point that out to a new Christian,or would you allow him to carry a Jehovah's witness version?

There is a line in the sand, truth on one side and false teaching on the other

I always enjoy your posts truly brother (or sister?)

I will always tell any believer to NEVER even read the NWT, unless they are very very mature and scholarly about scripture and use it as a study aid to show what man can do to totally mess up the bible.
Sorry if I sound hostile but this is a bit personal.