Bible version

[JesusFan]

What particular Byzantine text are you talking about? Hodges/Farstad? Pierpont/Robinson? PIckering? None of these had "numerous revisions," and I don't know of scholars who reject the first two out of hand, even on the critical text side. They are considered to be credible representations of the Byzantine text type. (Pickering's text is simply not very widely known among critical text scholars.)

If you are talking about the TR, it is really a subset of the Byzantine, since it was done from so few mss. And what scholars "considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use"? For many years the TR is all there was. There are modern scholars who don't consider the TR as worthy, but you used the past tense, "considered."

Also, the revisions were not that sweeping. I've compared all of the Stephanus TR and the Scrivener TR to each other, and almost all of the NT in the Robinson/Pierpont to the TR, and I don't see the "sweeping" changes you mention. The TR in its various editions is fairly consistent, certainly not having the numerous changes the critical text has had over the years. In fact, the TR/Byz is noted for its consistency as a text type compared with the Alexandrian, which has wide differences in the mss.

what MT then would be the best to use for textual studies and translation off from?

 

[JesusFan]

What particular Byzantine text are you talking about? Hodges/Farstad? Pierpont/Robinson? PIckering? None of these had "numerous revisions," and I don't know of scholars who reject the first two out of hand, even on the critical text side. They are considered to be credible representations of the Byzantine text type. (Pickering's text is simply not very widely known among critical text scholars.)

If you are talking about the TR, it is really a subset of the Byzantine, since it was done from so few mss. And what scholars "considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use"? For many years the TR is all there was. There are modern scholars who don't consider the TR as worthy, but you used the past tense, "considered."

Also, the revisions were not that sweeping. I've compared all of the Stephanus TR and the Scrivener TR to each other, and almost all of the NT in the Robinson/Pierpont to the TR, and I don't see the "sweeping" changes you mention. The TR in its various editions is fairly consistent, certainly not having the numerous changes the critical text has had over the years. In fact, the TR/Byz is noted for its consistency as a text type compared with the Alexandrian, which has wide differences in the mss.

Have you seen that new Greek NT produced by Tynsdale? Know its based upon the CT sources, but does seem to be interesting!

 

[John of Japan]

what MT then would be the best to use for textual studies and translation off from?

The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform, 2nd edition (2005), ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.

My son also uses another Byzantine text, the Solid Rock Greek New Testament, ed. by Joey Mcollum and Stephen Brown. The "Portable Edition" is just the bare text, but the "Scholar's Edition has an excellent apparatus.

 

[John of Japan]

Have you seen that new Greek NT produced by Tynsdale? Know its based upon the CT sources, but does seem to be interesting!

I've heard of it and I think my son has it, but I don't have it yet.

 

[JesusFan]

I've heard of it and I think my son has it, but I don't have it yet.

Seems to be good, but still no scholarly apparatus yet available for it far as I know!

 

[agedman]

What particular Byzantine text are you talking about? Hodges/Farstad? Pierpont/Robinson? PIckering? None of these had "numerous revisions," and I don't know of scholars who reject the first two out of hand, even on the critical text side. They are considered to be credible representations of the Byzantine text type. (Pickering's text is simply not very widely known among critical text scholars.)

If you are talking about the TR, it is really a subset of the Byzantine, since it was done from so few mss. And what scholars "considered the early editions as unworthy of credible use"? For many years the TR is all there was. There are modern scholars who don't consider the TR as worthy, but you used the past tense, "considered."

Also, the revisions were not that sweeping. I've compared all of the Stephanus TR and the Scrivener TR to each other, and almost all of the NT in the Robinson/Pierpont to the TR, and I don't see the "sweeping" changes you mention. The TR in its various editions is fairly consistent, certainly not having the numerous changes the critical text has had over the years. In fact, the TR/Byz is noted for its consistency as a text type compared with the Alexandrian, which has wide differences in the mss.

The text was revised at least 6 times (if my memory recalls correctly) from the first printing. The first printing was rushed to be ahead of the Spanish work that was to be printed. The early Edition(s) scholarship was so poor it was (imo) only the desire to not have much to do with anything Spanish that allowed enough time that those such as Tyndall and Luther would use it.

Now, I am not bound to historical facts as I once was, and I am not above being persuaded if shown faulty.

 

[John of Japan]

Seems to be good, but still no scholarly apparatus yet available for it far as I know!

The apparatus is just the footnotes at the bottom of each page, not a separate document.

 

[agedman]

The apparatus is just the footnotes at the bottom of each page, not a separate document.

John,
Came across this and thought you may want to comment. If it is worthy, perhaps generate a thread???

Outsourcing Bible Translation? – Ministry Watch

 

[John of Japan]

John,
Came across this and thought you may want to comment. If it is worthy, perhaps generate a thread???

Outsourcing Bible Translation? – Ministry Watch

I'll start a thread on this if I can today. I see several problem from the start with this approach.

 

[Conan]

The text was revised at least 6 times (if my memory recalls correctly) from the first printing. The first printing was rushed to be ahead of the Spanish work that was to be printed. The early Edition(s) scholarship was so poor it was (imo) only the desire to not have much to do with anything Spanish that allowed enough time that those such as Tyndall and Luther would use it.

Now, I am not bound to historical facts as I once was, and I am not above being persuaded if shown faulty.

You are speaking about all the different editions of the Textus Receptus.
John of Japan was referring to the Byzantine Texts which are different. Well, their similar but different, and sepperated by hundreds of years.

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "P"

Pierpont and Robinson, 1991. William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Atlanta: Original Word Publishers, 1991

 

[JesusFan]

You are speaking about all the different editions of the Textus Receptus.
John of Japan was referring to the Byzantine Texts which are different. Well, their similar but different, and sepperated by hundreds of years.

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "P"

Pierpont and Robinson, 1991. William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Atlanta: Original Word Publishers, 1991

About 1300 differences, isn't there?

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'll start a thread on this if I can today. I see several problem from the start with this approach.

Look forward to this on a new thread. ANY effort to accelerate translation of God's Word into receptor languages gets my full attention.

 

[Conan]

About 1300 differences, isn't there?

I had thought about 1005 or 1050 translatable differences.

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

 

[agedman]

Would it bother the contributors of the thread to go back to the Op.

I really would like your opinions and any facts you may bring out.

thank you, all.

 

[JesusFan]

I had thought about 1005 or 1050 translatable differences.

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

Still quite a few either number!

 

[John of Japan]

The text was revised at least 6 times (if my memory recalls correctly) from the first printing. The first printing was rushed to be ahead of the Spanish work that was to be printed. The early Edition(s) scholarship was so poor it was (imo) only the desire to not have much to do with anything Spanish that allowed enough time that those such as Tyndall and Luther would use it.

Now, I am not bound to historical facts as I once was, and I am not above being persuaded if shown faulty.

Yes, but again, in my reading the differences are almost all pretty minor. Comparing a Byzantine or TR text to a critical text (UBS, Nestles, etc.) one finds very big differences, such as with the longer ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, but again, in my reading the differences are almost all pretty minor. Comparing a Byzantine or TR text to a critical text (UBS, Nestles, etc.) one finds very big differences, such as with the longer ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae.

And yet all of major Greek texts used today are very close to each other, and none of them have altered nor distorted major bible doctrines!

 

[agedman]

Yes, but again, in my reading the differences are almost all pretty minor. Comparing a Byzantine or TR text to a critical text (UBS, Nestles, etc.) one finds very big differences, such as with the longer ending of Mark or the Pericope Adulterae.

In your opinion, is it proper to assume that the veracity rests primarily upon agreement with the Byzantine and TR rather then those being seen as modifications to the a critical? Or, is such an assumption biased and all should be held in some manner of equal authority?

I realize you have most likely spoken to this question.

Personally, I wonder if there is not the trend of translations and Greek copies to always seems to weaken or include some kind of explanation that has now become a part. Unlike the Jews, who had extremely high standards for the copies made, I consider that copies made by gentiles did not carry that same thinking. Particularly perhaps Mark’s record is considered in some discussions in that conclusion.

 

[John of Japan]

In your opinion, is it proper to assume that the veracity rests primarily upon agreement with the Byzantine and TR rather then those being seen as modifications to the a critical? Or, is such an assumption biased and all should be held in some manner of equal authority?

I realize you have most likely spoken to this question.

My position is Byzantine Priority, following Dr. Maurice Robinson, the main scholarly advocate of it. Byzantine Priority says that the Byzantine text-type should be primary in any consideration of the originality of readings. This is in direct contrast to the old Westcott and Hort method, which evolved into the modern "eclectic" position that produces the critical Greek texts. Those methods are Alexandrian priority, meaning that the readings of the Alexandrian text-type are considered to be closest to the originals.

There are many reasons for my position, but a common sense one is that there is a "canon" (rule) of the eclectic position that "the shorter reading is the best." This simply does not make sense. Scribes are far more likely to shorten the reading than to add to it. Dr. Robinson's PhD dissertation was "Scribal Habits Among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse" (1982) proves that this canon is mistaken. AIn my own experience as a translator, I am much more likely to shorten the text accidently than to add to it.

Personally, I wonder if there is not the trend of translations and Greek copies to always seems to weaken or include some kind of explanation that has now become a part. Unlike the Jews, who had extremely high standards for the copies made, I consider that copies made by gentiles did not carry that same thinking. Particularly perhaps Mark’s record is considered in some discussions in that conclusion.

I agree. In my understanding, not only did Gentile scribes sometimes copy the NT poorly, sometimes there were professional scribes hired to copy the Scriptures who were more concerned with how the mss looked than faithfulness to the original.

 

[Salty]

Reposting this as the OP asked back in Post # 34 he wants this thread to concentrate on the OP.
So - here it is:

Recently I began reading the Berean Study Bible and the Berean Literal Bible.

From their website: Greek and Hebrew Sources - Berean Study Bible
they used these sources:

NA - Nestle Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece

SBL - Society of Biblical Literature, Greek New Testament

ECM - Editio Critica Maior, Novum Testamentum Graecum

NE - Eberhard Nestle Novum Testamentum Graece

WH - Westcott and Hort, New Testament in the Original Greek

BYZ - The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform

GOC - Greek Orthodox Church, New Testament

TR - Scrivener’s Textus Receptus
Stephanus Textus Receptus

DSS - Dead Sea Scrolls

MT - Hebrew Masoretic Text: Westminster Leningrad Codex
Hebrew Masoretic Text: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

LXX - Greek OT Septuagint: Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta
Greek OT Septuagint: Swete’s Septuagint

SP - Samaritan Pentateuch
​

I am not so much suggesting that folks give up what they use, what I desire is for the good students of Scriptures to spend time in this translation work and present accurate reports concerning what they find.

Especially those of you who are extremely used to working in the languages.

It is important that quality information is discerned and disseminated.

Thank you for all your contributions.

This is not a debate topic, but one of each of us sharing our findings and discernment as God has given us enlightenment that ALL benefit.