Nestle-Aland NA27

Just a small correction: NA 27 is not a translation, but an edition of the Greek NT, just as W&H was.

W&H was used until after WW2 in many colleges and seminaries. It was the Greek NT my father used at Wheaton College, the leading evangelical school, in the 1940s. After the war, as textual criticism came into its own, the Nestle's text was used and then UBS#1. Both of these texts followed the principles and readings of W&H fairly closely.

The next phase in the history was what is called the eclectic method (actually there are several eclectic methods). NA 27/UBS 4 (actually the same Greek text) both were edited by this method. In the eclectic method the Byzantine text type is given more credence, thus Vaticanus and Siniaticus have less influence. However, these two manuscripts still dominate textual criticism even in the eclelctic method.

 

Wescott and Hort were vehemently opposed by a contemporary - John Burgon.

Ironically, though a one time champion of our KJVO brethren, John Burgon was NOT KJVO and not even TR Only but saw the need for the AV to be "revised".

He was appalled that the Wescott and Hort version weighed the Alexandrinus and the Vaticanus as the two most heavily weighted manuscripts they used for this CofE "revision".

John Burgon believed the "Traditional Text" (out of which the Textus Receptus originated) was the Text of the historic church from Asia Minor and Byzantia where Paul through the leading of the Holy Spirit founded the first local churches in the name of Christ.

Wescott and Hort felt that the two manuscripts above were of utmost importance.

Their (W&H) autograph and readings tests (among others) were: oldest is best, shortest is best, most difficult is best. They felt that the Traditional Texts were "conflated", that the Byzantine scribes and priests "filled in the blanks", smoothed out the text, etc.

John Burgon, on the other hand felt that the Traditional Text was representative of the text as originally given (though it itself was a collation/composite of hundreds of individual manuscripts). His test of mss/readings is called the "Seven Tests of Truth".

He wrote several books on the matter two of which are The Traditional Text and The Revision Revised.

Here you will find a site with exerpts concerning his "tests of truth"

http://danielnewman.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/which-text-dean-burgon-and-the-traditional-text/

Each side is sincerely attempting to reconstruct the text as given directly from the hand of God in the original language.

No one starts their day off by saying "well, now I'm going to accept a mutilated Bible as my Bible of choice" or "Today I will throw away my Bible and get one that has been doctored and added to by scribes and priests".

Sometimes it is made to appear that every other word in the collation/composite of two standard texts representing the two views are different.

This is not so. Even the Nestle-Alland (a refinement of the Wescott and Hort text) is for the most part the Traditional Text with the variances noted and weighted as to probability, the vast majority being obvious scribal errors and blunders considering the now known myriad of "witnesses" (mss of comparison).

No ancient document on earth has the thousands upon thousands of "witnesses" to the original NT (witnesses - manuscript copies, lecterns, scripture quotations of early church fathers, ancient translation, etc).

I believe the Iilyad has less than six "witnesses", only one (The Venatus A) a 10th century copy is complete (composited or otherwise) and created approximately 2000 years after Homer authored the original.

HankD

 

I am grateful for folks like Hank, rsr, and JoJ and Dr Bob. They engage in translation/mss discussions like you see elsewhere and are the cream of the crop here. May your tribe increase.
This is the type of discussion we should be having and not the other stuff that pervades this board.

 

The conclusion of the article by Willker that rsr cited (with my embolded print):

One will probably not agree with my estimation of the evidence in all cases,but I think it is clear that the HW text still has its value today. It is slightly inferior to NA,but one cannot say that it is wrong in all cases. About 60% of all differences are so difficult to evaluate,that there is a strong possibility that NA is,to some extent at least,wrong.
In light of the manifold criticisms of WH's opinions regarding the transmission of the text,it is astonishing that their text is so good still today. This is on the one hand probablt primarily due to the fact that their basic result,to follow B wherever possible,is not so bad as it is normally accepted today,and on the other hand,that their opinions regarding the textual history are,with some qualifications,probably also basically correct.

 

All the Greek texts we use today were reconstructed from an constantly growing collection of manuscripts.

Society of Biblical Literature put out the newest edition of a critical Greek New Testament.

It is offered free for download [HERE]

Another aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the apparatus that accompanies the text, which includes the data from which the compilers of the text draw their conclusions.

Rob

 

The NA27 is my favorite handheld Greek NT for the reason Deacon has mentioned.