Nestle-Aland NA27

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by MB, Apr 15, 2010.

  1. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    13
    Can anyone show me a layman how I can findout about Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament being used in the translation of NA27. I've been told no one uses it or any part of it anymore. Is this true?
    MB
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I've heard that the W/H blended Greek text is no longer used by anyone. It was a "first attempt" at actually examining the text and not simply saying the one that weighs the most (has the most copies of copies of copies) must be correct. The scientific examination of the textacopia has progressed in the past 100+ years.

    I think in many places W/H erred to swing the pendulum the other way, almost always taking variant readings as "better" because of the age.

    The Alands (Dr and Dr) are a great gift to the Church today. With thousands of variants - no two Greek text agree! - this husband/wife team have done yeoman work.

    I have confidence in the N/A/A 27 blending. But still know that it is man-made and not "perfect".
     
  3. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    13
    Hi Dr Bob;
    Thankyou for that information. Do you think they must have went straight to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. or did they drop these two codices as well. The reason I ask is that these two codices were once considered to be very important.
    MB
     
  4. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Wieland Willker has counted about 475 differences between the Westcott-Hort text and the NA 27., of which 451 were not differences of accent, punctuation or a specific rendering of the definite article before Jesus. In 12 percent of the cases, the Westcott-Hort text follows the Majority Text as opposed to the NA.

    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/WH-evaluation.pdf

    In comparison, Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminar has counted 6,577 differences between the TR and the critical text.

    Wallace also found 1,838 differences between the Majority Text and the TR (1825 Oxford edition).
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Just a small correction: NA 27 is not a translation, but an edition of the Greek NT, just as W&H was.

    W&H was used until after WW2 in many colleges and seminaries. It was the Greek NT my father used at Wheaton College, the leading evangelical school, in the 1940s. After the war, as textual criticism came into its own, the Nestle's text was used and then UBS#1. Both of these texts followed the principles and readings of W&H fairly closely.

    The next phase in the history was what is called the eclectic method (actually there are several eclectic methods). NA 27/UBS 4 (actually the same Greek text) both were edited by this method. In the eclectic method the Byzantine text type is given more credence, thus Vaticanus and Siniaticus have less influence. However, these two manuscripts still dominate textual criticism even in the eclelctic method.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Wescott and Hort were vehemently opposed by a contemporary - John Burgon.

    Ironically, though a one time champion of our KJVO brethren, John Burgon was NOT KJVO and not even TR Only but saw the need for the AV to be "revised".

    He was appalled that the Wescott and Hort version weighed the Alexandrinus and the Vaticanus as the two most heavily weighted manuscripts they used for this CofE "revision".

    John Burgon believed the "Traditional Text" (out of which the Textus Receptus originated) was the Text of the historic church from Asia Minor and Byzantia where Paul through the leading of the Holy Spirit founded the first local churches in the name of Christ.

    Wescott and Hort felt that the two manuscripts above were of utmost importance.

    Their (W&H) autograph and readings tests (among others) were: oldest is best, shortest is best, most difficult is best. They felt that the Traditional Texts were "conflated", that the Byzantine scribes and priests "filled in the blanks", smoothed out the text, etc.

    John Burgon, on the other hand felt that the Traditional Text was representative of the text as originally given (though it itself was a collation/composite of hundreds of individual manuscripts). His test of mss/readings is called the "Seven Tests of Truth".

    He wrote several books on the matter two of which are The Traditional Text and The Revision Revised.

    Here you will find a site with exerpts concerning his "tests of truth"

    http://danielnewman.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/which-text-dean-burgon-and-the-traditional-text/

    Each side is sincerely attempting to reconstruct the text as given directly from the hand of God in the original language.

    No one starts their day off by saying "well, now I'm going to accept a mutilated Bible as my Bible of choice" or "Today I will throw away my Bible and get one that has been doctored and added to by scribes and priests".

    Sometimes it is made to appear that every other word in the collation/composite of two standard texts representing the two views are different.

    This is not so. Even the Nestle-Alland (a refinement of the Wescott and Hort text) is for the most part the Traditional Text with the variances noted and weighted as to probability, the vast majority being obvious scribal errors and blunders considering the now known myriad of "witnesses" (mss of comparison).

    No ancient document on earth has the thousands upon thousands of "witnesses" to the original NT (witnesses - manuscript copies, lecterns, scripture quotations of early church fathers, ancient translation, etc).

    I believe the Iilyad has less than six "witnesses", only one (The Venatus A) a 10th century copy is complete (composited or otherwise) and created approximately 2000 years after Homer authored the original.

    HankD
     
  7. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    While it is true that the revision was authorized in Convocation and the vast majority of the translators were Anglican, the translators included some non-Anglicans, including two Baptists.
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am grateful for folks like Hank, rsr, and JoJ and Dr Bob. They engage in translation/mss discussions like you see elsewhere and are the cream of the crop here. May your tribe increase.
    This is the type of discussion we should be having and not the other stuff that pervades this board.
     
  9. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    13
    I want to thank all 4 of you for your answers. At least I know what I'm looking at now.
    MB
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The conclusion of the article by Willker that rsr cited (with my embolded print):

    One will probably not agree with my estimation of the evidence in all cases,but I think it is clear that the HW text still has its value today. It is slightly inferior to NA,but one cannot say that it is wrong in all cases. About 60% of all differences are so difficult to evaluate,that there is a strong possibility that NA is,to some extent at least,wrong.
    In light of the manifold criticisms of WH's opinions regarding the transmission of the text,it is astonishing that their text is so good still today. This is on the one hand probablt primarily due to the fact that their basic result,to follow B wherever possible,is not so bad as it is normally accepted today,and on the other hand,that their opinions regarding the textual history are,with some qualifications,probably also basically correct.
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    All the Greek texts we use today were reconstructed from an constantly growing collection of manuscripts.

    Society of Biblical Literature put out the newest edition of a critical Greek New Testament.

    It is offered free for download [HERE]

    Another aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the apparatus that accompanies the text, which includes the data from which the compilers of the text draw their conclusions.

    Rob
     
  12. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NA27 is my favorite handheld Greek NT for the reason Deacon has mentioned.
     

Share This Page

Loading...