Does It REALLY matter Which Greek text translating From Into English?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Know some strongly hold to the Greek majority text, others the Critical..

    In the long run, does it really matter, aren't they like 98% in agreement with each other, and NONE would involve changing any major doctrines, regardless if we took either a Majority/Critical text rendering into English?
     
    #1 JesusFan, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  2. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi JesusFan

    Your OP is posted like a question, but it appears that you have already answered it for yourself.

    But for me, yes.....it does matter.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I have to ask myself, if God promised to preserve His Word for us, than why should we accept even a 2% change in it.

    After all, we are talking about “GOD”(the sovereign creator of the universe);
    Therefore, why shouldn’t we expect Him to give us a perfect Bible?
     
  3. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    454
    I wouldn't want to overstate the matter, but there are certain verses which, in the Critical Text, seem to be just plain wrong. For instance:-

    Eph 3:14-15, NKJV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

    Eph 3:14-15, ESV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father, from whom every family in heaven and earth is named.'

    What is the name given to every follower of Christ, past and present? Why, Christian! The whole family in heaven and earth is named after Christ.

    Luke 4:44-5:1, NKJV. 'And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. So it was, as the multitudes pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the lake of Gennesaret.'

    Luke 4:44-5:1, ESV. 'And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret.'

    Lake Gennesaret is in Galilee, not Judea. Compare these verses with Mark 1:39 to see how the ESV contradicts itself. Bear in mind that the chapter divisions are non-inspired.

    Matt 1:8, NKJV. 'Asa begot Jehoshaphet'

    Matt 1:8, ESV. 'Asaph the father of Jehoshaphet.'

    Check out 1Kings 22:41 etc to see which is correct.

    There are two or three other examples that I could give. The NIV and NASB agree with the ESV. It does seem to me that the CT makes the Bible contradict itself in some places.

    Steve
     
  4. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    The main question was adressing was relating to area of the "essentials" of the Christian faith
    Don't both greek text aptly support all of the major doctrines held as "fundementals/essentials" within the Christian faith though?
     
    #4 JesusFan, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I will be citing from Philip Comfort's book :New Testament Text And Translation Commentary. I won't quote his entire sections on the texts in question.

    WH NU :the Father
    variant/TR :the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

    The documentary support for the shorter reading far exceeds that for the longer reading. It was typical for scribes to expand divine titles,especially in identifying the Father as being the Father "of the Lord Jesus Christ" (or some such expression --see 1:3) Such expanded titles enhance oral reading.

    Luke 4:44-5:1, NKJV. 'And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. So it was, as the multitudes pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the lake of Gennesaret.'

    Luke 4:44-5:1, ESV. 'And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret.'

    Lake Gennesaret is in Galilee, not Judea. Compare these verses with Mark 1:39 to see how the ESV contradicts itself. Bear in mind that the chapter divisions are non-inspired.
    [/quote]

    WH NU :synagogues of Judea
    variant 1/TR :synagogues of Galilee

    The WH NU reading,having the more difficult and better attested wording...is most likely original. Scribes harmonized Luke's account to Matt 4:23 and Mark 1:39,or they fixed what they believed to be a contradiction of facts in Luke's account (Luke 4:14 and 5:1 indicate that Jesus was in Galilee). However, Luke probably used "Judea" to cover all of Palestine,which includes Galilee (see Luke 1:5;6:17;7:17;23:5;Acts 10:37).
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yes,they do. No CT scholar claims that TR or Majority text supporters are heterodox because of their text preference. The fundamentals are in place in all three branches.
     
  7. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    454
    Oh yes, absolutely! The differences are due to Scribal errors one way or another, but the Lord has protected His word in all its essentials in all manuscripts.

    However, I don't think the examples I've given are trivial. If we believe in the complete inspiration of the whole Bible, then there can't be contradictions and in the C.T. it seems to me that there are some, albeit minor ones.

    Steve
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    NET Notes says :Judea is probably the original reading and supported by the best witnesses. "Galilee' is an assimilation to Mark 1:39 and Matt.4:23.
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,219
    Likes Received:
    194
    I believe it matters somewhat theologically. But from a purely practical stance it also matters.

    The translator must consider who he is translating for. The skopos theory of translation teaches us that the translator's goals are very important. So in choosing the Greek text the translator must consider his potential readers, and what Greek text they prefer and/or are comfortable with, or in some cases what text they take a stand on.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    129
    Argue all you want about which one is best...
    ....there is no translation that follows them exactly.

    Every translation departs from their chosen Greek text including the King James versions

    Rob
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Christological Concerns

    Philip W.Comfort's wonderful book :Essential guide To Bible Versions has some important points. I will just quotes some bits.

    "Most of the significant theological differences between the TR and modern critical editions of the Greek text pertain to issues of Christology,especially as reflected in titles or descriptions of Christ.(The first reading is that found in the TR/KJV/NKJV;the second,in the Nestle-Atland text.)

    Luke 9:35

    TR : This is my beloved Son
    NA : This is my son,the Chosen One

    Harmonization to Mark 9:7 robs KJV readers of the double title,"My Son,the Chosen One."

    John 6:69

    TR : You are the Christ,the Son of the living God
    NA : You are the Holy One of God

    The TR shows harmonization to Matthew 16:16;hence,KJV readers miss a unique expression coming from the lips of Peter: "You are the Holy One of God."

    Acts 16:7

    TR : the Spirit did not permit them
    NA : the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them

    Colossians 2:2

    TR : the mystery of God,both of the Father and of Christ
    NA : the mystery of God,Christ

    The TR and KJV obscure the fact that Christ is God's mystery revealed.

    (From pages 156,157)
     
  12. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just curious on this idea that the Majority Text supporters seem to imply that the CT and versions derived from it "water down/diklute " Diety of Christ..

    But isn't it the versions from TR/MT that say "our great god and Saviour jesus" imlying 2 seperate beings, while best greek rendering would be it refers to jesus being both God and saviour?
     
  13. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    454
    You are thinking of Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1. This has nothing to do with the question of the Greek texts, but with the incorrect translation in the KJV. KJV and NKJV use the same text, but translate these verses differently.

    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
    Titus 2:13 (KJV)

    Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ
    Titus 2:13 (NKJV)

    Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
    2 Peter 1:1 (KJV)

    Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
    To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ

    2 Peter 1:1 (NKJV)

    All modern translations except the NWT agree with the NKJV.
    The reason for the difference is that it was not until the end of the 18th Century that a scholar named Granville Sharp showed that where two nouns are joined together with only one article, they refer to the same person. Therefore the KJV translators were not aware of this rule.


    Steve
     
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Whether TR, Majority (Byz), or UBS/NA, all printed critical Greek texts are human compilations. It is my feeling that probably none of them have completely captured all of the original text. However, the Majority tradition may have captured more authentic readings than others simply due to the fact that it includes more text (casts a wider net); but this is at the cost of the admixture of text that almost certainly does not deserve being portrayed as autographic text (although those may have a long history of being adopted).
     
  15. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    It really does matter which Greek text is used whenever the resultant meaning differs depending on which Greek text was used. Luckily there is safety in numbers, because, while it is likely that a single scribe should make mistakes here and there, it is unlikely that all scribes everywhere in the world would make the same mistakes simultaneously in the same passages. This basic fact has led to the stability of almost the entire text of the NT.
     
  16. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many who learned the fundamentals of Greek and Hebrew in seminary, but fall short when it comes to properly intepreting the Bible. There is more to interpretation than just knowing the Greek and Hebrew languages.

    One might do better with a good English version.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  17. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    I would say, yes, it is extremely important. But has to the Traditional Text and the Critical Text being 98% in agreement, I am not sure. I have read figures that put it about 85%.

    And let me add, if you don't think its important, just go debate the reliability of the NT text with a knowledgable Muslim.
     
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Which Greek text will impress a knowledgable Muslim into believing that the NT (based upon that text) is reliable???
     
    #18 franklinmonroe, Mar 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2011
  19. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are the Differences though between the different Greek text major enough to vary to any extent the Essential Christian doctrine/theology that all of us adhere to as the Core of the Faith?

    isn't it more important to have the philisophy of just HOW to intreptret the Greek into English versions?

    Whether Formal or Dynamic Equivilance for say?
     
  20. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    2% change in it? What 2% are you referring to. The TR had changes made to it from the time Erasmus had it till the KJV translators had it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...