Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Aug 30, 2011.
As didn't theNKJV translators use both TR and MT to make their version?
The NKJV used the TR with a few, very few exceptions. I've seen less than 10(used to be 0, but have recently seen a few).
The MT isn't based on the TR. The Majority text is a text that reflects what the majority of manuscripts read. It doesn't put into consideration other factors. The TR and the MT will agree usually, but there are about 1800(I may be wrong, but that's the number off the top of my head) differences.
have read also her about a Bzentine text, is that same as the MT?
How different atr either from the CT really in number of words difference?
The MT is going to be more like the Byzantine text type.
Not sure. CT is shorter as far as I know.
The answer depends upon how you define the terms 'TR' and 'MT'.
In the narrow technical sense the 'TR' is actually a group of about 30 closely related printed Greek editions (mostly from the 16th-17th century period); and the 'MT' would be a couple of very recently printed Greek editions. There are some differences between this TR and this MT.
Sometimes the term 'TR' ('received text') is used in a broader general sense where it can include a Hebrew as well as Greek manuscript tradition; and yes, 'MT' is sometimes used to generically indicate the Byzantine texttype. When these two imprecise definitions are being applied (and misapplied) they are frequently used interchangeably; they are supposed to identify the genuine (or pure) line of textual transmission.
Strictly speaking to answer the question, the NKJV New Testament was based upon a TR Greek text. To add a bit more confusion, OT versions are often based upon a Hebrew 'Masoretic Text' (also abbreviated 'MT').
There really is no Greek 'CT' ('critical text') per se. It is usually used as a generic term to describe any or all non-TR/MT Greek texts (like Nestle's, UBS, and others). Technically, even 'TRs' are critical texts (edited from manuscripts, except Scrivener's). Generally speaking, a 'CT' will be about 10% fewer words than a TR or MT. The words lacking in the 'CTs' are predominately 'churchy' words: holy, Lord, etc. Did pious scribes add them in, or evil scribes take them out? In addition to being shorter, there are many word differences and (even when the words are the same) different word order.
So the translators of NKJV used TR, but also used MT at times IF they felt that was the best way to have the text rendered?
Also, isn't it true that regardless IF MT/CT, that English versions would be "essentially" same, as regarding major doctrines of the Bible?
No, I wouldn't put it that way. I think the NKJV translators seemed to have intended to follow strictly a 'KJV-TR' (probably a Greek text like Scrivener's), and in a few places they simply erred. There are some noteable differences between the MT and TR; I wrote about a few here --
Not necessarily. The Greek text of CTs and MTs (including TRs) verbally agree about 95% of the time; during the translation process even some of the differences (the other 5%) can be obscurred or lost. But that alone does not guarantee doctrinal agreement. It is still possible that two translators could begin with the same or very similar source text and yet arrive at somewhat different teachings in the receptor language. However, it would be impossible to completely eliminate the major orthodox doctrines without exposure by genuine unbias Greek scholars; there are a limited number of legitimate ways to render Greek into coherent English.
They did use a different greek ...//www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=57539
Just was asking IF there were ANY doctrines that would be affected regardless IF one uses either CT/MT, as both would be close enough to the originals to allow us to have essential infallible Bible for today in English!
There are places that variants exist(including significant variants) that are doctrinal verses. A few examples, John 1:18, Colossians 1:14, I John 5:7, I Timothy 3:16.
John 1:18, I timothy 3:16 - deity of Christ
Colossians 1:14 - shed blood of Christ
I John 5:7 - trinity
The CT clearly teaches the deity of Christ. Having I Timothy 3:16 there or not doesn't change the doctrine. I'm not suggesting that it's not important, but that the doctrine is still there.
The CT clearly teaches the shed blood of Christ. Colossians 1:14 is parallel to Ephesians 1:7 which the CT does have.
The CT clearly teaches the Trinity.
It's disturbing to some when they see this that there are textual variants on passages that are about doctrine. I understand their feeling. From what I have read, I believe there is enough evidence to have the reading of God in I Timothy 3:16. But having it there or not in no way affects my belief in the deity of Christ. We also have to remember that our doctrine doesn't determine a reading. Just because it's a strong passage about the deity of Christ isn't a reason to include it.