I have an idea. Let’s say we re-write our Constitution…

The Traditional Text has undergone some modern revisions in the age of the printing press.

The Scrivener 1894/5 IMO is the virtual reproduction of the NT Traditional Text.

HankD

 

john6:63 said "Once I can nail down which Text was used in translating the older bibles such as the Wycliffe and Tyndale, Great bible, the Matthew bible and the Geneva bibles"

Wycliffe's was translated from the Vulgate. The Douay-Rheims also closely followed the Vulgate.

Tyndale's was based on Erasmus' Greek NT (I don't know which edition), but also partially on the Vulgate and additional Greek mss. Coverdale's was is based on Tyndale's, but Coverdale since he didn't know Hebrew and Greek, he also relied on Latin and German translations. Matthew's is largely a combination of the best of Tyndale plus the best of Coverdale. The Great Bible is very very close to Matthew's.

The Geneva is the first English translation to be based solely on Hebrew and Greek (Erasmus' NT, I don't know which edition) as a translation base, but uses past English translations (Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, etc.) as addition resources.

The Bishop's Bible is a revision of Geneva.

The KJV was inteneded to be a revision of the Bishop's ("altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required"), but also referenced all other existing English Bibles, and even the Vulgate on occasion.

Of course, the above information is missing fine details, but that's the general breakdown.

 

The reason for my implication is because this most commonly is a KJVO arguement. As far as God promising to perserve His word, if you're referring to Ps 12:6, this verse does not promive to preserve scripture in a specific translation. A study of the Hebrew tells us that it refers to God's commands being without imperfection. God never promises to preserve scripture in a specific translation or text. There's no scriptural support for this view. None.

I fail to see it. If my memory of koine Greek serves me corretly, the earliest manuscripts read "ho phaneroo" (he was rendered apparant), while the later manuscripts say "theos phaneroo" (God was rendered apparrant). To say that use of a pronoun identifier in lieu of a noun identifier would result in a "perversion" is a bit of a stretch. If one were to make a case for perversion in textual sources, the evidence suggests that later manuscripts made a change in the identifier from "ho" to "theos". If one sticks strictly to textual preservation, then the later transcribers would be guilty of "adding" to sctipture.

Contained notes as you described? Yes. But it was not King James' desire to "recapture the true meaning of scripture", it was his desire to quash any Reformation thought that supported Calvinism, something his Anglican beliefs disagreed with. But more to the point, the English already had a Anglican-approved Bible. It was the Tyndale. The KJV translators sought simply to update the language of the Tyndale & Bishop's Bibles to the language of the then present day.

I'm glad that your questions are sincere. I'll be happy to answer any questions that I have knowlege of.

I think natters answered this question in his post.

 

This matter of 1 Timothy 3:16 is dealt with in great detail in a book by John Burgon The Revision Revised 1883, on pages 424-501.

In short the word "God" is in scribal shorthand (all NT scholars know of this practice) which would look like this OC with a bar running horizontally though the "O" (which would make it a Greek "theta") and an additional bar running over the top of the word. This is scribal shorthand for "God" or theos in the Greek.

A scribal error would be to forget the bars over the top of the word and though the "theta" changing the word in meaning from "God to "who". W&H felt "who" was correct.

However Burgon claims to have seen mss A and C and the bars over the word and through the "O" are there, one has to examine the mss under powerful light to see them because, apparently they either are marred for natural reasons or someone tried to erase them (the bars).


HankD

 

My apology to EaglewingIS4031!

EGW, I misunderstood your post! I assumed you were KJVO, when quite the opposite is true...

I'M SORRY!

Cranston

 

You're forgiven! I've been called much worse!

 

Just a point of note: the Tyndale Bible was never sanctioned by the Anglicans. Though the KJV translators referenced it extensively, even as late as 1543 a proclamation was made to destroy all copies and notes of the Tyndale Bible.

Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles do claim license from Henry VIII, both being released in 1537, a mere two years after Tyndale's death. The Great Bible sometimes known as Cranmer's version was on the scene and was published in 1539. The Bishop's Bible was released in 1568.

Tyndale's version, though cherished by the people and applauded by the scholars of his time (including the KJV translators), was never sanctioned by any church. It did, however, open the floodgates of Sola Scriptura for the English speaking world and more or less forced the Anglicans and the Catholics to produce Bibles in the people's tongue.

A bit off subject, I know, but I felt the correction appropriate. Back to rewriting the US Constitution...