What is wrong with the modern versions?

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I should mentioned also that Erasmus' initial translation was interlinear with Latin. That's part of what got him in hot water - the fact that he dared produce another (not Jerome) Latin text!

Which, when viewed from our perspective, is rather humorous! In 1592, just 67 years after Erasmus published his 1st edition, the Clementine Vulgate was published, and declared by Pope Clement VIII to be the only authorized edition. And now the New Vulgate has replaced the "only authorized edition" of Clement!

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I should mentioned also that Erasmus' initial translation was interlinear with Latin. That's part of what got him in hot water - the fact that he dared produce another (not Jerome) Latin text!

Which, when viewed from our perspective, is rather humorous! In 1592, just 67 years after Erasmus published his 1st edition, the Clementine Vulgate was published, and declared by Pope Clement VIII to be the only authorized edition. And now the New Vulgate has replaced the "only authorized edition" of Clement! </font>[/QUOTE]Not to mention all the revisions of the TR, three by Erasmus himself, followed by those of Stephanus and Beza. And for the Onlyists who read this, have YOU ever read The Revision Revised by your fave scholar, Dean John Burgon? Here's some of what he had to say about the TR:

"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the textus receptus needs correction." (p. 21, footnote 2).


On the need for the Textus Receptus to be corrected: ". . .n not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;" (p. 107).

But, the KJVOs use only those statements of Burgon's that suit their agenda.

 

[HankD]

Correct, John Burgon was definitely NOT KJVO.

Since this has been proven by challenges to KJVO claims in the form of public quotations from his re-publicized books, he has suffered a loss of popularity among the KJVO.

To me, Burgon's response to W&H is sane and scholarly (for the information they both had) and not based upon an unfounded fantasy (the "re-inspiration" of the KJV English words - 1611 or 1769? of which no KJVO is willing to give a simple non double-think answer).

Wescott and Hort offered a hypothesis, Burgon disagreed and I believe his challenge remains valid.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Wescott and Hort offered a hypothesis, Burgon disagreed and I believe his challenge remains valid.

And, more recently, Robinson and Pierpont have done some excellent work along those same lines. Their articles, as well as the introduction to their Greek New Testament, is well worth the read. They have managed to improve on the earlier work of Hodges and Farstad.