The Underlying Texts

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by IronWill, Jun 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IronWill

    IronWill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Bible versions debate, oft-times it comes down to which underlying texts are superior. So which are superior, and why? What historical facts can be used to back up either position?
     
  2. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do what?

    1 Timothy 3:16
    "God" has been altered to "He" or "Who" by RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, AMP, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB. The DR has "which".
    The alteration of "God" to "He" or "Who" obviously constitutes an attack on the Deity of Jesus Christ by the modern textual critics. This alteration has been discussed exhaustively by Burgon (14) pp 101-5, 424-504, whose researches have been summarized by the TBS (58) "God was Manifest in the Flesh." See also Fuller, citing the TBS, (32) p 24A1. The TBS, ibid, state that all the early Greek editions of the New Testament (Ximenes, Erasmus, Beza, Stephens-see Berry's Greek text, the Elzevirs) read "God was manifest in the flesh" and hence this must have been the reading of the manuscripts available to those editors. The wording of their editions is reflected in all the early English translations (Tyndale 1534, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1557, Bishops' 1568) except the surviving copies of Wyclif (1380) derived in part from the Vulgate. Moreover, the European versions associated with true Bible believers (Italian (Diodati), French (Osterwald), Spanish (Valera), German (Luther), Portuguese (Almeida)) all concur with this passage.
    However, the 19th and 20th century Greek editions of the New Testament, culminating in those of Westcott and Hort and Nestle, all rejected "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16 in favour of "who." These corrupt texts form the basis for most of the modern translations. According to Burgon, p 443, the only ancient witness in support of "who" is Aleph (4th cent.), while D (6th cent.) has "which." C (5th cent.) and F and G (9th cent.) are indistinct in this place and their testimony therefore equivocal, while Codex B does not contain 1 Timothy. In addition, Burgon p 99, cites only one cursive copy of Paul's Epistles, designated "Paul 17," as reading "who" in 1 Tim. 3:16. ("Paul 73," a second copy, was thought to be possibly in agreement with "Paul 17" but Burgon, p 99, states it is actually an abridgment of Ecumenius' citation-see later, which reads "God.") Burgon p 483, states that of the ancient versions, only the Gothic (4th cent.) unequivocally witnesses to "who."
    Agreeing with D in exhibiting "which" in 1 Tim. 3:16 are the Old Latin (2nd cent.), Vulgate (4th cent.), Peshitta Syriac (2nd cent.) Coptic and Sahidic (3rd and 4th cent.) and Ethiopic (6/7th cent.) versions. The Armenian and Arabic versions are indeterminate in this place (Burgon, ibid p454).
    The only fathers in opposition to "God" arc Gelasius of Cyzicus (476 AD), who cites "which" and an unknown author of uncertain date, who also cites "which."
    The TBS ibid p 8, state that the Latin, Peshitta and other versions may well have been influenced by the erroneous reading in D, of the "Western" family. Later copies of the Peshitta (4th cent.) may have been influenced by the views of Nestorius, who evidently denied that Christ was both God and man. It is probable therefore, that the earliest copies of the Peshitta, now non-extant, in fact read "God," rather than "who."
    The most ancient Greek uncial in favour of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, is Codex A (5th cent.). Burgon (p 432-436) cites in detail the witnesses who attest to the horizontal stroke of "Theta" in "Theos" being clearly visible up to the mid 18th century. The TBS pamphlet provides an excellent Summary. In support of A are uncials K, L and P, ("Mosquensis," "Angelicus" and "Porphyrianus" resp.) all of the 9th century.
    The extant cursive copies of Paul's letters number 300, of which 254 (designated "Paul 1" to "Paul 301") contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read "God," in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are "Paul 17" and "Paul 73," of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading "God." (Burgon, p 478, declares the 3 exceptions to be "Western documents of suspicious character.")
    Burgon p 450, 454, 489-90. also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading "God." The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):
    1st Century: Bamabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). "Euthalian" chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to "God in the flesh."; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).
    See also Fuller (4) p 110-1, (32) p98, 260 (summarizing Burgon's final findings as 300 Greek manuscripts (uncial, cursive, lectionary), reading "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, vs. 7 which do not), Hills (3) p 137-8, Ruckman (31)See also Part 3 for further discussion on the evidence for this passage reading for this verse.
    Taken from appendix 2, III: "O Biblios The Book," by Allan O'Reilly:Fish:
     
  3. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Say what?

    These texts just popped out of thin Air!:laugh:
     
  4. IronWill

    IronWill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ummmm....huh? :confused:
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Maybe a little understanding of history will help. I will share which text I feel is most reflective of the original in a later thread (I'm heading calling in a couple minutes)

    No translation (or individual) follows a single Greek text. Every translation uses a number of texts or representative texts (that might have many copies or similar texts to support it).

    Prior to 1500 only the Greek Orthodox used the Greek NT texts. Copies of copies of copies by the gajillion. Thousands still exist today. They are mostly similar, which makes sense.

    After the demise of Greek in the rest of the world, it was replaced by a new language, Latin. Jerome translated the Greek/Hebrew texts into Latin and until 1500 the bulk of Christianity used the Latin text, putting the old Greek manuscripts in monasteries or dusty libraries.

    The great scholar Erasmus recognized that when you translate God's Word into another language you are bound to "lose" some of the thoughts or inuendos or variant meanings of the original Greek. So he gathered Greek texts (6-9 of them, depending on account) and "blended" them as best he could into a text he felt most closely reflected the original.

    Revisions of Erasmus text occured over the next 100 years and those revised compilations of Greek texts formed the basis for the Geneva, Bishop's and AV1611.

    In the modern era there were many discoveries of the older Greek manuscripts (dug out of libraries, monasteries, et al) and different folks have tried to form their own blend of compiled texts that they (by rules of priority) think closest to the original Greek.

    Today we have the Nestles/Aland United Bible Society compilation and it is the underlying Greek text of many more recent translations.
     
  6. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very interresting!

    "The great scholar Erasmus recognized that when you translate God's Word into another language you are bound to "lose" some of the thoughts or inuendos or variant meanings of the original Greek. So he gathered Greek texts (6-9 of them, depending on account) and "blended" them as best he could into a text he felt most closely reflected the original".I Agree and thats why he wrote "yet is" in Apocalypse 17:8 beeing part of the TR and Older manuscripts of the era, And I am sure if he were alive today,he would examine the codices and find them to be "very interresting"!as compared to the findings of the early church fathers!:praise: And it wasn't a "TYPO" as some claim.
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing. Simply amazing. The sheer intellectual blindness of the above.

    To stand and boldly claim the a Catholic, using a handful of manuscripts, was able to compile a more complete and acurate manuscript than any other scholars throughout history... including modern scholars who have been much more highly trained and who have access to THOUSANDS of manuscripts... Completely dumbfounding...

    So, William, which quote from your trusty O'Reilly book you gonna cut and paste now?
     
  8. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah,but there were TWO manuscripts used to oust the handfull....
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you agreeing with the Greek text of Erasmus for not including
    Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36? Luther's German Bible translated from the Greek text edited by Erasmus also did not have those two verses. Some of the earlier English Bibles based on the Greek text of Erasmus such as Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, and 1537 Matthew's also did not have those two verses.
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    While it is true that they have over 5,000 extant mss. available today, they do not consider these as individuals. The Byzantine mss. are in such uniformity that they [modern scholars] consider them as one source. In actuality, they are considering less ms. evidence than did Erasmus, despite the fact that they have much more available.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who trained modern scholars?
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    I am sorry, but this is simply not true. If you look at the educations the 17th century and earlier translators received it cannot be matched by our present day educational institutions.
     
  13. IronWill

    IronWill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Weren't most of the men on the translation committee of the KJV fairly fluent in several languages?
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoting Allan O'Reilly:
    //1 Timothy 3:16
    "God" has been altered to "He" or "Who" by RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg.,
    RSV, GN, LB, AMP, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB.
    The DR has "which".
    The alteration of "God" to "He" or "Who" obviously
    constitutes an attack on the Deity of Jesus Christ
    by the modern textual critics.//

    I see a DOUBLE STANDARD here.
    I see a circlular argument here.

    1. Circular argument:
    "Has been altered' assumes that
    the KJVs are correct, the MVs are wrong. Yes, if you
    assume the KJVs are correct and the MVs are wrong, you
    aught to be able to prove it -- all you need is perfect
    CIRCULAR LOGIC.

    2. Double Standard:
    The source says that we are to disregard Translator Margin Notes.
    Yet right here the source damns the nKJV (New King James Version)
    for having SOMETHING DIFFERENT from the KJVs in the Translator
    Footnote. In fact, the nKJV has "God" IN THE MAIN TEXT just like
    the KJVs have. It just isn't right to have such a double standard:
    judging the KJVs one way, the MVs another way.

    Slambo: //Ah,but there were TWO manuscripts
    used to oust the handfull....//

    Double standard detect:

    Ignore multiple examples when convienent; use multiple examples
    when convienent.

    The statement ignores that the two typical
    Alexandrian documents have other supporting Alexandrian
    documents.

    The statement ignores that the TR (Textus Receptus, also
    Received Text) should be plural - there were mulitple Greek
    Witnesses available to the KJVs Translators. The correct
    term for many applications is 'TRs'.

    The statement ignores that there are multiple DIFFERENT
    King James Versions. The correct term for many applications
    is 'KJVs'.
     
  15. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do what?

    The Catholic ones!
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    say what?

    KJB Mark11:26But1161if1487ye5210donot3756forgive,863neither3761willyour5216Father3962which3588isin1722heaven3772forgive863your5216trespasses.3900
    Luk 17:36 Two1417 men shall be2071 in1722 the3588 field;68 the3588 one1520 shall be taken,3880 and2532 the3588 other2087 left.863
     
  17. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Original Manuscripts

    How do you answer such a question? first ask: which copy of the originals? Like in, in Jeremiah 36:2 the "original" is made, and in verse 23 it is "flambe". And like in verse 32 Jeremiah writes another "original" and in this scroll(at the direction of God),he adds some words to it. Then this second copy is chunked into the Euphrates river; read 51:63! Which one was the original? The first one, or the second one ? If the first, then why didn't God save it from the flames? If the second, then God does not think much of the originals, for He commanded to have them thrown into the river! :Fish:
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    Yes.


    Dr. John Hardinge headed up the Oxford Group. Dr. Hardinge was Regis Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

    Dr. Richard Brett was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek, Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages.

    Dr. John Harmer, Professor of Greek at Oxford was a noted linguist having mastered not only Greek, but Latin and Hebrew as well.

    Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was skilled in Greek and Hebrew, and a student of the ancient Jewish writings called "The Rabbis ."

    Dr. Thomas Harrison was noted for his skill in Hebrew and Greek idioms.

    Dr. Lancelot Andrews spoke almost all of the languages spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his devotions written entirely in Greek.

    Dr. William Bedwell was not only fluent in Hebrew and other Oriental languages, but produced a translation of the Epistles of John in Arabic and Latin. He also wrote an entire Arabic dictionary by himself! At the time of his death Dr. Bedwell was working on a Persian dictionary which is still in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Dr. Bedwell's knowledge of the Semitic and Cognate languages of Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic made him an uncontestable expert on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into English.

    Dr. Miles Smith was so familiar with the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic languages that they were as familiar to him as his native English.

    Dr. Henry Savile was said to be as great a mathematician as he was a Greek scholar. He was chosen to tutor Queen Elizabeth in both mathematics and Greek. Dr. Savile was not only famous for his translation of the great history of Tacitus from Latin into English, but also translated the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English. However, Dr. Savile was most famous for his editing and translating of the complete works of John Chrysostom, one of the most famous of the early Greek Church fathers, from the Greek into English. This was a work similar in size to eight very large dictionaries!

    Dr. John Bois at the age of five had read the entire Bible in Hebrew. At the age of six he could write the Hebrew language in "a fair and elegant" hand. He was equally skilled in Greek. He was one of the twelve, two from each committee, who were sent to make the final revision at Stationer's Hall in London. On top of all of his other duties, he was the secretary for the final revision committee, taking notes on all of the meetings. It is largely through his notes that we have knowledge of the inner workings of the committee in this day and age.

    And that is a very small partial list.


    Remember that today we live in an egalitarian culture. Everybody has equal access to education. Such was not the case in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. 95% of England's educational resources were given to 5% of the population. We can't do that today.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right! I agree with TC. :thumbs:
     
  20. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    History of Bible

    When we choose any version of Bible, there are 2 important things to check carefully and thoroughly,i.e:
    1) Underlying Texts
    2) History of Bible
    As for History of the bible, we must remember that Bible has been prohibited by Roman Catholic very often.
    Even now they oppose to Sola Scriptura. What kind of Bible is RC promoting and advocating now? Which version and which underlying text is RC opposing to now ? Do you choose any version or underlying texts without caring about the historical background?
     
    #20 Eliyahu, Jun 17, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...