Is the NKJV translated from the Textus Receptus?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question of this thread is: "Is the New King James Version really translated from the Textus Receptus?" provide PROOF NOT opinion

    2nd question I am adding is:

    "Is the AV1611 and later versions (Oxford 1769 in particular) translated from the Textus Receptus?"

    Go for it................
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Lets do a couple of basic definitions first.

    What do you mean by the TR?

    Do you mean in the generally accepted generic sense or in the strictest sense?
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The last paragraph of the NKJV preface says:

     
  4. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    As defined somewhere:

    *************************************

    Textus Receptus (Latin: "Received Text") is the name given to the first Greek
    A native or inhabitant of GreeceGreek text of the New Testament
    The collection of books of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and other Epistles, and Revelation; composed soon after Christ's death; the second half of the Christian BibleNew Testament that was printed with movable type not found for this subjectmovable type. It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus
    Dutch humanist and theologian who was the leading Renaissance scholar of northern Europe; although his criticisms of the Church led to the Reformation, he opposed violence and condemned Martin Luther (1466-1536)Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible
    The sacred writings of the Christian religionsBible into Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament
    The collection of books of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and other Epistles, and Revelation; composed soon after Christ's death; the second half of the Christian BibleNew Testament in the King James Version of the Bible
    The sacred writings of the Christian religionsBible. This is the text that was in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (c. 1500). The Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine
    A native or inhabitant of Byzantium or of the Byzantine EmpireByzantine text.

    Erasmus' original 1519 edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, and typographical errors abounded in the text as published. Additionally, the selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited, being confined to a few late medieval texts most modern scholars consider to be of dubious veracity. Erasmus was often forced to make his own interpretations—back-translating from the Vulgate
    The Latin edition of the Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek mainly by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century; as revised in 1592 it was adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic ChurchVulgate at best and fully fabricating material at worst.

    With the exception of the second edition of the text, no subsequent works were based on the first edition. With the third edition (1522) the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) not found for this subjectComma Johanneum saw inclusion, in response to Trinitarian Adherent of TrinitarianismTrinitarian pressures from the contemporary Church—a circumstance subject to great debate even today.

    Popular demand for "complete" Greek versions of the Bible led to a flurry of authorized and unauthorized editions in the early 16th century not found for this subject16th century; the name "Textus Receptus" can refer to any of these, or any Greek edition printed from 1519 to c. 1650. The name itself derives from the publisher's preface to a 1633 edition, containing the phrase "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum", roughly translated as "thus you have the text now received by all".
    ***********************************
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K, I would say that it would include either the Greek Text by Stephens (1550) or the edition by Elzevir (1624).
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    In the preface of my copy of the New King James Bible (Pg. vi) a description is made of the "Textus Receptus or Received Text, of the New Testament" without giving it a human name (Stephanus, Scrivener) and then claims "the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text".

    As of yet and as far as I know, no one has sued them for fraud.

    HankD
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my understanding that the Stephanus version was used. I believe this may have come from their website, but I am not certain.
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    My understanding is that the Scrivener re-creation is the underlying text.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/about/

    If you have video/sound listen to Dr. Cocoris explanation concerning the "Traditional Text".

    I believe that they have made a composite of the eclectic texts which fly under the banner of "Byzantine" and would probably most resemble Scrivener's TR as someone has suggested.

    HankD
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, that is the one I was thinking of. This is the one that was reverse engineered after the fact, is that right RSR?
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    HankD said:

    In the preface of my copy of the New King James Bible (Pg. vi) a description is made of the "Textus Receptus or Received Text, of the New Testament" without giving it a human name (Stephanus, Scrivener) and then claims "the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text".

    The NKJV's preface does identify specifically which edition of the TR was used for the New Testament. Unfortunately I don't have a copy handy to check, and if it's online (I can't find it), then it's buried under all the KJVers' Web pages calling the NIV a "counterfeit."

    Phillip asked:

    This is the one that was reverse engineered after the fact, is that right RSR?

    If I understand your question correctly, you're thinking of the original "Textus Receptus" edition published by the Elzevir brothers in Leyden, in 1633.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    What we think of as the TR is a creation AFTER the AV1611 was already translated.

    If the AV1611 was not translated from the TR it is hard to ask the NKJV revision to be translated from it!!

    But so it claims.

    Only the most rabid (and ludicrous) of the only sect would say the NKJV has a different Greek base than the AV1611. They WANT it to be different because they WANT only the AV1611 to be "perfect".

    Bzzzzz. Wrong. Thank you for playing . . [Dead Poet's Society]
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Yes, that's the one.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    I do have a copy (Nelson, 1982) and I can't find it. I posted what it says under The New Testament Text on pages v-vi of the Preface.

    One small clue is that it speaks of "the latter nineteenth century" concerning some theories of "some scholars" (plural theirs) which might include a reference to Scrivener but doesn't name him.

    I'll put forth the challenge:

    Can someone, anyone, find the specific edition of the TR the NKJV translation committee used for the source document of the NKJV NT?

    Here is the website:

    http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/

    HankD
     
  15. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recall seeing an first edition NKJV a couple of years ago that stated,the NT was translated from Scrivener's text that included W&H variants(that explains much).
     
  16. Glory2God

    Glory2God
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    :D Amen Anti-Alex [​IMG]

    Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    You rabid,ludicrous sectarian guy, [​IMG] you!!!!
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Have the first edition NKJV in front of me:

    On the Alexandrian texts:
    However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the authographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.

    On the traditional texts:
    ...The New King James Version New Testament has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorised Version.

    On footnotes:
    At important places where the Majority Text or the Alexandrian Texts differs from the Received Text, the varients are recorded in footnotes.

    The Holy Bible, New King James Version
    Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, Tennessee - page vii

    Not a word about Scrivner.

    Either these guys are bold faced liars - or the question is anwered.

    [ March 13, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my opinion the question is answered and the NKJV is faithful to let us know where variants exist between the MT and CT by using footnotes.

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. I think this gives us a good translation based on, at least a "set" of Byzantine documents with maajor variations shown in the footnotes giving us something to compare it with.

    I would say that makes for a great Bible. especially if you prefer Byzantine source manuscripts.

    Funny how the KJVo's can even kill the latest version of a KJV.

    I still say that within one to two generations (and maybe a few minor corrections) the NKJV WILL be the next accepted KJV version and I also think that KJVo's will be just a rabid about it.

    Wasn't this the same thing that happened when the Oxford version came out in 1769 -- that bunch of scholars messing with the good ole' KJ and coming out with an MV! Why does the KJV need to be changed? It has worked up until now (1769)!!!!! :D :rolleyes:
     
  19. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Based on the fact that (1) Farstad was the NKJV NT editor, and (2) that the Hodges-Farstad text was used to supply the M-notes in the NKJV, it would thus seem very likely that (3) the Oxford 1825 TR was used as the basis for translating the NKJV, since (4) that is the specific TR version used for comparison within the footnotes of the Hodges-Farstad Majority Greek Text edition, and (5) for many many years was "the" TR printed and sold by Dallas Seminary for student use.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anti-Alexandrian, GIVE us ANY proof that the NKJV used Westcott-Hort manuscripts in ANY of the text besides mentioning them in the footnotes.

    I'm getting a little more than tired of KJVo's making up their own "facts" to defend their almighty Anglican king.

    We can't even get a version out of you guys that is 100% word-for-word accurate down to the punctuation our of the many verions, let alone get facts on another translation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...