Favoring The TR

[JesusFan]

That's rather poor example. The NWT is guilty of that,but few others.

Words have a semantic range --you can't render it the same way each and every time or the wording would be quite unwieldy. At other times a similar word is used instead of monotonously using the very same word. So on some occasions "hate" may be found and at other times "detest" or "abhor" for example.

Are you against synonyms?

Exactly!

This is why there is NOT totally ;iteral translation from hebrew/Greek texts to English versions, as have to factor in syntex/grammer/context/synonyms etc for each verse/passage/book, as one has to look at all factors to determine what would be determined as best rendering!

 

[Van]

If we tally up Matthew, the Comfort analysis has seven examples, but actually there are only two, 11:15 and 15:6.

 

[Van]

If we tally us Mark, the Comfort analysis has 4 examples, but actually there are only one, 2:16b,

In Mark 3:14 the NASB does not have the addition "and named them apostles" because the CT does not have the phrase. So yet another example of cooking the books, trying to make the NASB "prefer the TR" when in reality, the NASB does not prefer the TR, it just contains several hit or miss mistakes.

In Mark 11:26, the verse is bracketed, thus the NASB follows and prefers the CT. Ditto for 15:28.

 

[Van]

An interesting (to me) assertion from the OP was that Comfort thought the TR was superior to the CT in several listed verses. What pray tell would make the TR superior?

Lets look at a few of the listed verses.

In Matthew 12:4 we find that the CT and the TR agree yet this was listed as reflecting the superiority of the TR. Strange.

 

[Van]

In Matthew 14:24 we find a difference, the TR reading "in the midst of the sea" whereas the CT has "many stadia from the land" Both renderings give you the idea that it was too far to swim. So to prefer one rendering over the other seems entirely subjective, the TR winning the style award. But since the support is better for the CT, why not prefer what appears to be what Matthew actually wrote?

 

[Van]

Again, with John 10:29 we must find something significant between out of my Father's hand, (TR) and "out of the hand of the Father." So again a style award, with no real difference, and with the less stylish version (CT) winning the support award.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Hi Fraklinmonroe, do we not find the very same Greek construction in the CT at both locations. ...

Technically, you are correct; "to hear" is in the CT reading. However, what I think you may be missing in this thread is that translators certainly are not slaves to their primary source but, in fact, do pick and choose to use other sources at various places. Single-source translations of the NT (that I am familiar with) are NOT attempts to produce a 'New Testament' (that is reflective of the potential 'original' writings) but usually a focused scholarly treatment of a particular manuscript. Remember, even CT readings in the main text are not certain; often the readings in the apparatus are viable alternatives.

 

[Rippon]

An interesting (to me) assertion from the OP was that Comfort thought the TR was superior to the CT in several listed verses. What pray tell would make the TR superior?

Lets look at a few of the listed verses.

In Matthew 12:4 we find that the CT and the TR agree yet this was listed as reflecting the superiority of the TR. Strange.

In the WH NU reading it's :"they ate the bread of presentation"
In the variant/TR reading it's :"he ate the bread of presentation"

In the words of Comfort:

But the variant has the earliest (P70) and most diverse testimony. It is also the more difficult reading because the OT passage alluded to here (1 Samuel 21:1-6)implies that David and his men -- not just David--ate the bread,as does the previous verse,which speaks of "the ones with him" (i.e.,David's companions). Thus,the WH NU reading could be represent conformity to the immediate context or the OT passage.

 

[Rippon]

In Matthew 14:24 we find a difference, the TR reading "in the midst of the sea" whereas the CT has "many stadia from the land" Both renderings give you the idea that it was too far to swim. So to prefer one rendering over the other seems entirely subjective, the TR winning the style award. But since the support is better for the CT, why not prefer what appears to be what Matthew actually wrote?

The support for the CT,specifically the WH NU, is weaker in this case. The TR here has the best manuscript support :Sinaiticus CLW 073 0106 f(1) 33 Maj

Whereas the WH NU only has B f(13) cop(sa)

 

[Van]

In the WH NU reading it's :"they ate the bread of presentation"
In the variant/TR reading it's :"he ate the bread of presentation"

In the words of Comfort:

But the variant has the earliest (P70) and most diverse testimony. It is also the more difficult reading because the OT passage alluded to here (1 Samuel 21:1-6)implies that David and his men -- not just David--ate the bread,as does the previous verse,which speaks of "the ones with him" (i.e.,David's companions). Thus,the WH NU reading could be represent conformity to the immediate context or the OT passage.

The CT I am using, the 21st edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, just has the word meaning "ate", not "he ate" or "they ate." The TR reads he ate, a different form of the same word, but is translated ate in the NKJV thus preferring the CT.

It seems clear Comfort chose from among the variants of the CT to find his items.

 

[Van]

Technically, you are correct; "to hear" is in the CT reading. However, what I think you may be missing in this thread is that translators certainly are not slaves to their primary source but, in fact, do pick and choose to use other sources at various places. Single-source translations of the NT (that I am familiar with) are NOT attempts to produce a 'New Testament' (that is reflective of the potential 'original' writings) but usually a focused scholarly treatment of a particular manuscript. Remember, even CT readings in the main text are not certain; often the readings in the apparatus are viable alternatives.

I certainly cannot dispute this assertion, however the case for scholarly preference is without merit, because the Greek construction is the same in Matthew 11:15 and 43 yet the NASB wording is different. So it is a mistake, not a preferred variant.

Secondly, some version of the CT might have to hear, like the TR, and it is just not in the CT I have, but then it would be preferring one variant of the CT or another and not the TR.

 

[Van]

The support for the CT,specifically the WH NU, is weaker in this case. The TR here has the best manuscript support :Sinaiticus CLW 073 0106 f(1) 33 Maj

Whereas the WH NU only has B f(13) cop(sa)

I am not in a position to dispute your assertion of "best manuscript support" but evidently the scholars who created the CT disagree with this assertion.

As with some scribe making Matthew 11:15 read like Mark 4:9, here we have some scribe making Matthew 14:24 read like Mark 6:47.

 

[Van]

Returning to the OP, Comfort indicated 12 verses where he preferred the TR over the CT.

Matthew 12:4 contrasted "he ate" with "ate" but the NKJV translated "he ate" as simply "ate" showing that group of translators preferred the CT or at least one variant of the CT.

Matthew 14:24 contrasted "midst of the sea" with "many stadia from the land" but this seems a corruption to make Matthew 14:24 read like Mark 6:47.

John 10:29 contrasted "My Father" (TR) with "the Father" (CT).

John 13:2 contrasted "after supper" (TR) with "during supper." (CT)

Romans 11:31 contrasted "receive mercy" with "now receive mercy." A rare example of TR having fewer words than the CT.

Romans 14:21 contrasted "stumble or offended or weakened" with "stumble." Appears to be a scribal expansion.

1 Cor. 7:15 contrasted "called us to peace" with "called you to peace".

1 Cor. 14:38 is another example where the CT I have and the TR read the same, but the TR differs from another variant of the CT.

Galatians 1:3 contrasts "God the Father and our Lord" with "God our Father and the Lord."

Galatians 5:24 contrasts "of Christ" with "of Christ Jesus." A example where the TR version may be the correct one, per the NET apparatus.

Philemon 6 contrasts "in you in Christ" with "in us in Christ."

Colossians 3:22 again seems to present the same text in the TR and CT I have.

 

[Rippon]

Returning to the OP, Comfort indicated 12 verses where he preferred the TR over the CT.

Matthew 12:4 contrasted "he ate" with "ate" but the NKJV translated "he ate" as simply "ate" showing that group of translators preferred the CT or at least one variant of the CT.

WH NU : they ate
var/TR : he ate

Matthew 14:24 contrasted "midst of the sea" with "many stadia from the land" but this seems a corruption to make Matthew 14:24 read like Mark 6:47.

That's what Comfort said. Even though the TR has the best manuscript support :"its agreement with Mark 6:47 causes one to suspect it as a case of scribal harmonization."

John 10:29 contrasted "My Father" (TR) with "the Father" (CT).

No.
WH NU : that which my Father has given me is greater than all
var/TR : my Father who has given them to me is greater than all

John 13:2 contrasted "after supper" (TR) with "during supper." (CT)

Yes.

Romans 11:31 contrasted "receive mercy" with "now receive mercy." A rare example of TR having fewer words than the CT.

Yes.

Romans 14:21 contrasted "stumble or offended or weakened" with "stumble." Appears to be a scribal expansion.

Bruce Metzger thought the TR variant here was a Western expansion.

1 Cor. 7:15 contrasted "called us to peace" with "called you to peace".

WH NU : God has called you
var/TR : God has called us

1 Cor. 14:38 is another example where the CT I have and the TR read the same, but the TR differs from another variant of the CT.

WH NU :but if anyone ignores this,[or,does not recognize]this, he himself is ignored [or,not recognized]
var/TR : but if anyone ignores this,let him ignore this [or,if he is ignorant,let him be ignorant]

Galatians 1:3 contrasts "God the Father and our Lord" with "God our Father and the Lord."

WH NU : God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ
var/TR : God [the]Father and our Lord Jesus Christ

Galatians 5:24 contrasts "of Christ" with "of Christ Jesus." An example where the TR version may be the correct one, per the NET apparatus.

Per Comfort :"There is early and diverse textual evidence for the one term,'Christ,' here."

Philemon 6 contrasts "in you in Christ" with "in us in Christ."

I believe I said 6a.
WH NU : every good that [is] in us
var/TR : every good that [is] in you [plural]

Colossians 3:22 again seems to present the same text in the TR and CT I have.

WH NU : fearing the Lord
var/TR : fearing God

 

[Van]

I know nothing of Greek, but in Matthew 12:4 it appears the difference is in the word translated "ate." The singlar form "ephagen" is in the TR and the plural form "ephagon" is in the CT. So I prefer translating it as "ate" which is correct no matter which word was inspired and which was miscopied. See the ESV and NKJV.

My copy of the CT, Nestle's 21 edition does not have the "what" word in the Greek text. So to repeat, Comfort has chosen a variant to create a contrast in favor of the TR but another variant of the CT, i.e. Nestle's 21 edition, reads like the TR. Note that all these CT based versions read the same, NIV, ESV, NASB,and HCSB, God is greater than all.

We agree on 1 Cor. 7:15 the difference is in whether the inspired text read us or you.

And again at 1 Cor. 14:38, Nestle's 21 edition reads "but if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant." This is the same as one of the variants of the TR you provided, i.e. "if he is ignorant,let him be ignorant."

We agree on Galatians 1:3.

We agree on Philemon 6.

And you were right and I was wrong on Colossians 3:22, I missed the difference of Lord as the last word in the CT but God being the last word in the TR. However, I see no reason to prefer the TR, especially considering the context.

 

[Van]

In summary, of the 12 examples provided in the OP, it looks like only the TR variant of Galatians 5:24 should be preferred. In the case of the other eleven, the Nestle 21 edition either reads the same or provides the preferred variant in my opinion.

 

[Rippon]

I know nothing of Greek, but in Matthew 12:4 it appears the difference is in the word translated "ate." The singlar form "ephagen" is in the TR and the plural form "ephagon" is in the CT. So I prefer translating it as "ate" which is correct no matter which word was inspired and which was miscopied. See the ESV and NKJV.

As I have already stated --it's the difference between "thy are" and "he ate."

My copy of the CT, Nestle's 21 edition does not have the "what" word in the Greek text...

What passage are you referencing?

 

[Rippon]

As I have already stated --it's the difference between "thy are" and "he ate."

Make that ":they ate" and "he ate."

 

[Van]

Make that ":they ate" and "he ate."

Yes, the plural could be translated, they ate, and the singular could be translated he ate, but either word, singular or plural could be translated "ate"
which I would prefer because their is no chance it misrepresents scripture. That is why, I believe, both the TR NKJV and the CT ESV translated both words as "ate."

 

[Van]

My copy of the CT, Nestle's 21 edition does not have the "what" word in the Greek text of John 10:29. So to repeat, Comfort has chosen a variant to create a contrast in favor of the TR but another variant of the CT, i.e. Nestle's 21 edition, reads like the TR. Note that all these CT based versions read the same, NIV, ESV, NASB,and HCSB, God is greater than all.

The two variants are (1) "what" the Father has given me is greater than all - saying the gift is greater than all, and (2) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all - saying God and not what was given, is greater than all. The second variant is how my CT reads, and how the NIV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB read.