[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
No Subject
Hi,
On the Apologia List there is currently a thread dealing with the question of
whether or not the KJV is 'the' version of the Bible. I am sure that
this is a familiar debate for many of you. Perhaps this question has
already been discussed here before and I apologize if this is old hat
to most of you. The following is a post that I made which, I hope,
is accurate (at least it is an accurate description of what I understand),
but I have some questions and comments that I would like addressed. Can
anyone in this list help me out. Most specifically I would like to know if
my data, conclusions, and comments seem out of line. As well I have some
specific questions which are listed at the end. I would like to settle this
issue, at least in my mind and I would like to hear both sides of the coin.
So far the response on the Apologia list was 'go to the Greek List', and
so here I am. Here is the majority of the post:
>The discussion, as of late, has prompted me to do some digging and
>I am grateful to you all for this. The following is a very brief
>summary of what I could dig up about versions, original texts and
>so on. Please correct any errors that you may find in it so that I
>can revise my facts. I hope to use this as a reference guide.
>I realize that there are minor holes but if you find some major holes
>please attempt to fill them.
>
>This information has to do mainly with the NT and English Versions
>of the Bible. I have not attempted to directly include OT information.
>I pulled this from Bruce's The Books and the Parchments and other
>reference materials:
>
>1. Major Manuscripts (MSS) and Codecies
>
>These major codecies contain complete and partial text of the NT. Each
>codex (indeed every MSS) is coded either by a number, or letter
>(either a Greek, Hebrew or Roman letter):
>
> a. Codex Sinaiticus ('aleph)
> Date (approx.) : 4th century
> Discovered : 1844 by Tischendorf
>
> b. Codex Alexandrius (A)
> Date (approx.) : 5th century
> Discovered : 1627
>
> c. Codex Vaticanus (B)
> Date (approx.) : 4th century
> Discovered : ~1844
>
> d. Codex Ephraemi (C)
> Date (approx.) : ?
> Discovered : ?
>
> e. Codex Bezae (D)
> Date (approx.) : 5th or 6th century
> Discovered : 1581
>
> f. Washington Codex (W)
> Date (approx.) : 4th or 5th century
> Discovered : 1906
>
> g. Koridethi Codex (theta)
> Date (approx.) : 9th century
> Discovered : ?
>
>
>1. Text Families/Types
>
>MSS appear to fall into certain 'families' or 'types.' These types are
>usually determined by area. F.F. Bruce in The Books and the Parchments,
>Fleming Revell, New Jersey, 1984, says: "The great centres of Christianity
>in the early centuries tended, in the course of copying and recopying, to
>have distinct types of text associated with them."
>
>The major families that I am aware of are the Alexandrian, Western,
>Old Antioch, Caesarea and Byzantine:
>
> a. Alexandrian
> Codecies (some) : 'aleph, B and C
> Used by : Origen, Athanasius, Cyril
>
> Westcott & Hort (WH) viewed this as what they called the 'neutral'
> text or the text closest to the original. F.F. Bruce says that today
> we do not have such a high view of this family but he says "it is
> a well edited text, established by Christians of the second century
> on the basis of manuscripts far exceeding in antiquity those which
> have come down to us."
>
> b. Western (or Roman)
> Codecies (some) : D
> Used by : Iraenus, Augustine, Cyprian, Tertullian
>
> Some claim that this family is the 'neutral' text and thus closest
> to the original. Bruce comments on this fact and says that there
> may be something to this claim as this text appears in patristic
> citations earlier than the Alexandrian. He says that it also
> shows a greater number of 'Aramaising constructions' than the
> other texts. On the other hand he says that the 'Western text
> bears internal signs of being a revision of the first-century
> text of the New Testament which deviates from it more thant the
> Alexandrian text. How he knows this is beyond me...
>
> c. Old Antioch
> Codecies (some) : ?
> Used by : Syraic Bible?
>
> Bruce says that this "text-type has not been isolated among Greek
> manuscripts, but it is the one to which the Old Syriac version
> belongs, and it is therefore a reasonable inference that the
> Greek text from which that version was made was of this type.
> It had close affinities with the Western text."
>
> d. Caesarea
> Codecies (some) : W, theta
> Used by : Origen
>
> Some say that this family is a correction of the Western text
> by the Alexandrian text and is therefore a later text. It appears
> to have also been the current text in Egypt in the 1st half of the
> 3rd century.
>
> e. Byzantine
> Codecies (some) : Byzantine Text
> Used by : Chrysostome
>
> This text family is marked by a tendency (according to Bruce)
> to conflate shorter readings in MSS, harmonize differences,
> provide smooth literary style and is therefore said to be
> less reliable family than the others.
>
> It is thought perhaps to be based on the recension of Lucian.
> It is not found in citations or translations until after the
> 3rd century. It consists of the bulk of the laster MSS.
>
>3. Complete Greek Versions
>
> a. Erasmus' text
> Printed : 1516 (revised up to 1535)
> Family used : Byzantine
>
> Erasmus also used the Vulgate (Jerome's translation of 404).
>
> b. Complutensian Polyglot
> Printed : 1514 (printed) 1520 (published)
> Family used : Byzantine
>
> Edited by Cardinal Ximenes. Done in Madrid and dedicated
> to Pope Leo X.
>
> c. Stephanus' text
> Printed : 1550
> Family used : Byzantine?
>
> Estienne (Stephanus) was a Paris printer who printed
> Erasmus' 3rd edition.
>
> d. Beza's text
> Printed : 1565
> Family used : Byzantine. Did Beza revise Stephanus'
> version of 1550?
>
> e. Elzevir's text
> Printed : 1624 - 1633
> Family used : Byzantine
>
>4. English Versions
>
> a. Wycliff versions (one by Nicholas of Hereford and
> another by John Purrey)
>
> b. Tyndales version
> Date : 1526-1535
> Mainly Used : Erasmus GT
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> c. Myles Coverdale version
> Date : 1535
> Mainly used : Tyndale's, Luthers NT, Latin Vulgate
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> d. Matthew's Bible (compiled? by John Rogers)
> Date : 1537
> Mainly Used : Tyndale (copied part of OT, and NT),
> Coverdale (copied a part of OT)
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> e. Great Bible (revised by Coverdale)
> Date : 1539?
> Mainly Used : Revised Matthew's Bible
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> f. Geneva Bible
> Date : 1560
> Mainly Used : Stephanus' 1550 GT
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> g. Bishop's Bible
> Date : 1568 (2nd ed 1572)
> Mainly Used : All sorts of versions, Vulgate
> Peshitta, Targums, Erasmus' GT
> Tyndale's etc.
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> h. Authorized Version (or KJV)
> Date : 1611
> Mainly Used : Bishop's Bible
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
> i. Revised Version (RV)
> Date : 1881
> Mainly Used :
> Family of GT : Alexandrian
> Style of trans. : more literal
>
> j. American Standard Version (ASV)
> Date : 1901
> Mainly Used : Americanized the Revised Version
> Family of GT : Alexandrian
> Style of trans. : more literal
>
> k. Revised Standard Version (RSV)
> Date : 1952
> Mainly Used :
> Family of GT : Eclectic - no marked preference for
> type of textual family.
> Style of trans. :
>
> l. New English Bible (NEB)
> Date : 1961
> Mainly Used :
> Family of GT : Eclectic - no marked preference for
> type of textual family.
> Style of trans. : Dynamic Equivalency
>
> m. Living Bible
> Date : 1962
> Mainly Used : Paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor originally
> Family of GT :
> Style of trans. :
>
> o. New American Standard Version (NASV)
> Date : 1971
> Mainly Used : ASV
> Family of GT : Alexandrian?
> Style of trans. : literal
>
> p. Good News Bible
> Date : 1976
> Mainly Used :
> Family of GT :
> Style of trans. : Dynamic Equivalency
>
> q. New International Version (NIV)
> Date : 1978
> Mainly Used :
> Family of GT : eclectic text - no marked preference
> for type of textual family.
> Style of trans. : Dynamic Equivalency
>
> r. New King James Version (NKJV)
> Date : 1982
> Mainly Used : KJV
> Family of GT : Byzantine
> Style of trans. :
>
>
>Conclusion
>
>There appear to be two major classifications to translations. The first
>is the textual family that it uses (ie. Byzantine, Alexandrian etc) and
>the second is the type of translation it is (literal or Dynamic Equivalency).
>
>In regards to the textual family there appear to be three groups that
>stand out in our English translations: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian and
>the Eclectic (which is a hodge podge of all MSS). The more important versions
>fall into these categories:
>
> Byzantine
> Authorized Version (AV or KJV)
>
> Alexandrian
> Revised Version (RV)
> American Standard Version (ASV)
>
> Eclectic
> Revised Standard Version (RSV)
> New English Bible (NEB)
> New International Version (NIV)
>
>It is interesting to note that the Byzantine text is almost exclusively
>the family used by all the early English versions up till the later
>part of the 19th Century. It is at this time that some of the new codecies
>(the Alexandrian) were discovered.
>
>It is also interesting to note that the Revised Version and the American
>Standard Version were produced under the influence of Westcott and Hort's
>textual theories which coincided with the discovery of these new
>manuscripts.
>
>Bruce says, "The Revised Standard Version, New English Bible and New
>International Version reflect the views of contemporary
>textual scholars, who have traced the various early lines of textual
>transmission back to the second century, and represent an eclectic text,
>each variant reading of the second-century textual types being considered
>on its merits, without marked preference being given to any single one
>of these types."
>
>In regards to the type of translation we have for example this grouping:
>
> Literal (word for word)
> Revised Version (RV)
> New American Standard Version (NASV)
>
> Dynamic Equivalency (thought for thought)
> New English Bible (NEB)
> New International Version (NIV)
>
>Comments
>
>I take the Textus Receptus (ie. the Recieved Text) and Majority Text
>as synonymous. The way I understand it is that, ultimately,
>the Byzantine text is the major underlying text of the Textus
>Receptus (ie. the Received Text or Majority Text).
>
>I think we are getting confused (at least I was) because there are
>fundamentally two different questions to ask. The first is what
>basic text is more reliable or more representative of the original
>documents (maybe not just one?) and what type of translation is a
>specific version: is it a word for word or thought for thought and
>which is better?
>
>At the moment it seems to me that the eclectic text is the more reliable
>as all the evidence is taken into account from a majority of MSS. It is
>like a sleuth trying to crack a case, he needs all the information he can
>to solve the case.
>
>As to which type of translation is better: I believe it is beneficial to use
>both. This gives you a more robust reading of the Scripture. To adamantly
>hold to one or the other can cause problems. It was mentioned previously
>that if you were absolutely literal we wouldn't understand some passages
>at all. On the other hand if you go too far the other way then one can
>introduce one's own bias into the translation.
>
>If I were sent to jail and I had the choice of one English version of the
>Bible I would probably take the NIV.
>
>Questions
>
>1) Is the concept of text families out of line?
>
>2) What are you guys, the KJV enthusiasts, telling us? - is it that you
> believe the Byzantine text to be a more accuarate representation of
> the originals? Anyone? If so tell me why? Please convince me.
>
>3) Where does the Nestle-Aland 26th edtion fit into all of this? Is
> this a sort of eclectic text? I read the intro and apparatus for my
> 23rd edition but I am still not sure... any comments?
>
>4) I heard from someone somewhere that the Nestle Aland 26th edition
> is getting closer and closer to the Byzantine text? Any comments?
> If my assumption to question #3 is right (that the Nestle Aland
> is an eclectic text) and if the answer to question #4 is yes, (and
> it can be documented) then it would probably answer my question #2.
>
Paul Mikulecky
(email: paul.mikulecky@actc.ab.ca)
Follow-Ups: