Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 23, 2013.
And is the Bzt text same as the Greek Majority text than ?
That depends on your perspective, but to me they are quite close in general, very close in some books (such as Gal. or Titus). Here is a comparison if you read Greek: http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html
Note that (1) many of the differences are in spelling, such as the spelling of David, δαυιδ in the Scrivener vs. δαβιδ in the Byz., or differences in word order. Also, note that the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. is closer to the Stephanus TR in many instances.
Major places the Byz. and TR differ is in 1 John 5:7 where the Byz. omits the Trinitarian statement, and omits Acts 8:37. Also, the textual criticism of the book of Rev. is quite complicated, even in the Byzantine tradition, so that for example the Byz. has "tree of life" where the TR has "book of life."
As for the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. vs. the Hodges/Farstad MT, I've not done a detailed study of that, but when I've compared them they've been very close, as you might think. However, since the textual criticism method of the two is somewhat different, there are some differences in the two. Here is Jon Borland's collation of the two: http://www.biblical-data.org/MT_collation.html. (Jon is the resident textual criticism expert here on the BB. :thumbs: I'm only an amateur.)
In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament, p. i).
W. Edward Glenny asserted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51).
So the Majority text agrees more with the critical text than either with the TR text?
Goodness, think of what you write before you post it!
First define the terms:
Byzantine Textform as defined by Maurice Robinson:
Majority text as defined my Zane Hodges:
Differences between the two can be attributed to a differences in the apparatus used to collate the texts and a different methods used to establish the original text.
Daniel Wallace has counted 1,838 differences between the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the 1825 Oxford TR. He also found 6,577 differences between the MT and the critical text.
No. I don't know how you got that from what I or anyone else posted.
To get that many differences between HF and the TR, Dr. Wallace had to be counting the "moveable nu" and other meaningless differences.
But I have to say, when dealing with a staunch KJVO who says that ANY change is important, even the moveable nu is important.
The Byzantine Text that is the basis of the World English Bible (WEB) seems far less corrupted that the TR. Simply compare the WEB to the NKJV.
But since I believe the majority of modern scholars favor the CT, it seems best to me to study from the NASB, HCSB, and NET, and compare to the NKJV and WEB, because the CT no doubt has flaws that differ from the Byzantine Text flaws.
I like to use the Nas and the Nkjv versions to study off from, as the Nkjv bible used has many references in the margins to what both the CT/MT texts say in certain passages....
I thought that the majority agreed closer to the tr text than CT one, but main point was that many people seem to make the leap to "look at all those differences" so they leap to the TR MUST be the right and correct one, as other differ so much from it!
think that those "large differences" when really examined, NOT nearly as big as it sounds, and NO major doctrines are affected by those changes!
But if they don't know Greek, it would be completely nu to them.
Actually, I've read very little in the KJVO literature opposing the MT or Byz. textform Greek NTs.
I've heard about this from a friend of mine who is a scholar of textual criticism. He informs me that an electronic collation has been done which shows 1943 differences between the 2005 Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform Greek NT and the 1894 Scrivener TR. This count does not include the "moveable nu." As I mentioned before, Revelation has the most variants in the Byz/Maj tradition with 646, being based on only one ms in the TR (which ms my friends says is questionable), so there are 1297 differences from Matt. to Jude.
Most of these differences are minor, as my friend points out with the differences in Mark 1. The Byz:
V. 6--has a definite article on "John," which can't be translated into Eng.
V. 9--spells Nazareth slightly differently
V. 16--has "Simon" (tou Simonos) where the TR does not
V. 27--has heautou vs. autous, not a real change
V. 37--changes the word order slightly
V. 38--has kai ekei instead of kakei; the TR contracts with no difference in meaning.
Here is question that seems to elude all contributors: What doctrinally significant differences exist between the Byzantine Text that underlies the WEB compared with the CT which underlies the NASB, HCSB, and NET.
Just list the five most important. Tic Tock
To the best of my limited knowledge: zero. And the operative phase is What doctrinally significant differences
This is a list of translatable differences between the Hodges-Farstad MT and the Scrivener 1881 (From Michael Marlow):
And a collation of Robinson and Pierpont against Scrivener (From Marlow's website, but complied by Jussi Ala-Könni):
And, for good measure, a collation of the Hodges-Farstad and the Robinson and Pierpont MTs:
Good stuff, rsr.
(I wonder if some here on the BB might call these folks "obsessed"?:laugh