Bible Translators of the Received Text required

I'll take you at your word. And I am glad to see this.

So now it is time for some corrections to what you have posted, according to your opening post, and I now quote some excerpts from it:

Here come the corrections, and I hope I am just as aware as you about adding to or taking away from the (written) word of God.

This may well be your belief, but it does not stand up to historical scrutiny. The designation 'Received Text' (or Textus Receptus) does not apply to the autographa of either the OT or NT in any legitimate manner. As far as is known, none of the autographa are extant, anywhere. While it is improper to say they definitley do not exist, such seems to be the case.
Nor does it ever apply to the OT text in any form whatsoever,
and it is actually improper to apply it to even the texts and MSs behind the KJV NT texts, for that designation did not even exist before c. 1633, with the publication of a Greek NT text, that was no doubt, very similar to the one followed by the translators, compilers and corrorborators of the KJV. However, it is still improper and an error to apply this designation ex post facto, regardless of how good it may sound to one's ear. So I will ask that you refrain from this practice.

Page 1. Page 2. to follow, shortly.

Ed

 

Page 2.

Whether or not the text(s) that form the basis for the KJV are inerrant is debatable. And the debate about this has been ongoing for all of my adult life, at least, for 40 years, and probably much longer than that. I'll not attempt to address that here, but merely to note it.

However, one has a problem here, as well. We do not know the exacts texts on which the KJV of 1611 is based, nor the original manuscript(s) of the version, even, for God, in His glorious and magnificant Providence, apparently allowed the actual original works and notes on this version to perish in the great London Fire of 1666. Hence, all we have left are various editions of the KJV as amended various times, (as well as some anecdotal evidence from some individuals) in different ways, from very slight to fairly major revisions. It is undeniable that we have seen various revisions, and that has been shown many times on the BB, as well as in more other places than I can possibly name. Is any one edition (of any Bible, in any language) an 'inerrant' and 'perfect' translation and rendering of "the Word of God"?

No doubt, while there are many 'faithful' renderings (at least I believe that there are), but were there any 'perfect ones", we would not even be having this conversation, as there would be no need for another translation or version, in our own language of English.

I cannot speak to any other language, but to say that it is still deplorable to me that there are many multiple language groups that still don't even have a poor translation of Scripture, let alone a good one, And I support and pray for groups and individuals in their work on this, such as "New Tribes" and the Wycliffe Bible translators.

Sorry for that rabbit trail, in the middle of the posts, but it seemed appropriate.

End of Pages 2. Page 3. to follow shortly.

Ed

 

Is the author of the OP under the impression that the translators sat down with just a copy of a TR and translated it into English.

Would that have been Erasmus compilation of the TR?

 

Page 3.

I have said before that I find (at least most of) your aims laudable, and I would include the "free of charge", and "not for profit" motives among them. But I do not include 'revisionist history' in the mix. I have already mentioned the proper designation of "Received Text". To attempt to push this back to the beginnings of the church is erroneous, at best. Faithful text(s)? Yes! Absolutely, at least in their and our minds. "Received Text"? Not for another 1600 years, as I believe it is that long between ~ 33 A.D., and 1633 A.D., if my math is still correct, and which, as I have already said, does not apply to the OT texts, at all.

Getting to the NT - Which "Received Text"? Even allowing the improper designation of this before 1633, which particular text are you talking about?

One of the 5 editions by Erasmus, (based on this particular text tradition), one of the 4 by Stephanus, one of the 9 by Beza? one of the 3 by the Elzevirs, or some other? Which one is the correct and "inerrant' one? Note that all these were and are a form of 'eclectic' texts as well, as there is no Greek manuscript that is exactly identical with any of these editions. I suggest that you go with Erasmus' 1st or 2nd edition. No 'Johannine Comma' to deal with in those. (Luther did not have to deall with it in German!) And find one where the last six verses of Revelation are supported by a Greek text, as opposed to the Conmentary of Andrew. Can't find one that is acceptable that does not have these two things to deal with??

"Houston, we have a problem!"

Miss or Mrs. Deborah Anderson notwithstanding, what she has stated is only an opinion, about the Hebrew OT.

My personal opinion is that this is undertaking is "unneeded", per se, but can definitely be desirable and helpful, as well. There is a difference in the two approaches.

Go for it, but please be aware that not all share the same conclusions you have arrived at, and also please lose the misconceptions and mis-statements I see in your posts, in the process. And also be aware that some 'textual criticism' has to be employed by you and your team, as well.

I have to get to work, so am unable to add more, at this time.

FTR, I am no linguist, but my alter-ego is known on the BB, as "Language Cop".

God bless,

Ed

 

No , Nigel . There is no pressing need for an accurate translation of the Received Text into current English . The so-called R.T. is faulty . If a new translation was done it would also be faulty . It would be interesting -- a curiosity , but also based on faulty premises . BTW , there is no single R.T.

 

Nigel, it's a fine personal endeavour you pursue but I too am skeptical about the public's need for such a new version.
The textual discrepancies between the KJV and the NKJV are minor and do not affect evangelism or discipleship, particularly amoung “young people” “who have no Christian upbringing”.

For those fanatical individuals that concern themselves about such trivial matters, the BB translations forum is available. :thumbs:

I was curious about which “received text” you would use: My curiosity was answered by examining material from the group you mentioned in the OP.

From a Trinitarian Bible Society pamphlet: “The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. The Society uses for the purposes of translation the text reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894.”

Why wouldn't you use Robinson's Greek Majority text?

Rob

 

Nigel, I think you do see that I am not trying to "stoke controversy" as well. And, as you, I believe the "Authorized Version" to be a faithful translation, from a base, as well. [That exact base can never be known with 100% absolute certainty, as the records were burned in the great London Fire in 1666, as you know. However, it would appear from extant copies of the 'KJV' (a.k.a. the AV, or Authorized Version), other English versions, and extant Greek Texts, that the KJV NT is 'translated' (where it is not an adaption of one of the already extant English translations) from the Greek basis of the Greek text of that of Beza of 1598. This is the opinion expressed by F. A. Scrivener over a century ago, and I find little reason to dispute this.]

This can, in no way, be described as "autographa", however, any more than are the two copies of Greek NT text that I posess. Were there any actual 'autographa' around, the labors of Erasmus, Colinaeus, Stephanus (Estienne), Beza, the Elzevirs, Griesbach, Scrivener, et al., would have long since been marked as fradulent, for they would have been shown to be exactly that. For whatever reason, in the magnificent providence of God, that is not the Divine modus operandi. Hence, we have the works of the above individuals, as well as that of those of some other persuasions, all of whom were or are fully intending to be "faithful workers".

And these "faithful workers", certainly include the many 'translators' of Scripture, from even before the days when the Lord Jesus Christ walked on the face of the earth, through today, including such as John of Japan and Nigel, among others, who actually appear on the Baptist Board. I laud all these, and in no way, put any of them down. (I do not hold any 'agenda driven' "translators" of 'manufactured versions', such as the NWT, CWT, etc. in the same regard, FTR.)

A translation can well be "faithful", but that does not necessarily make it "perfect", in our sense of "perfect", in my lifetime of the last half of the 20th and now into 21st Century. Yet I have concerns about some assumptions you still appear to be making, that I find historically unsupportable.

End of Page 1.

Page 2. to follow shortly.

Ed

 

I generally agree with what you have written here, Deacon, and basically agree as to the NKJV. Else I would use another version, myself.

Ed

 

Page 2.

It is absolutely improper, IMO, at least, to refer to the "Received Text" (where you are now attempting to redefine what that means, BTW) as "the inerrant autographa of the Word of God". Let there be no mistake, here. I certainly do believe in the "inerrancy" of Scripture, at least in the overall sense as given in "The Chicago Statements", on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics, as found here, for an example.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

And I certainly do believe that the autographa were inerrant. But any and all the texts we have available today are still not the autographa. "Faithful attempts?" Certainly, at least for the most part, as far as we know. "Autographa", meaning the original, as penned by the Biblical writers under the direct 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit? NO! for we simply do not have such access, as I've already stated, in so many words.

And you have not addressed which 'version' of the "Reveived Text" for the NT you are proposing, either, given your stated penchant for some variation of this. I do believe these things need to be addressed.

If one's only concern is the language forms of the 17th Century, it would seem there is no need to do a new translation, IMO, as an 'update' 'paraphrase of the English, where needed, should suffice.

As to what purport to be 'revisions', there have been several recent examples of this, including the MKJV, KJII, KJIII, UKJV, Literal Translation, KJ21, etc. Most, if not all these, were done in "American" as opposed to "British" or "Continental" vernacular. Are these not somehow sufficient to satisfy your concerns? I would add a bit more to this, but have to leave for a funeral. Deacon has also made some good points. I urge you to consider them.

Gotta' run.

Ed

 

Hello, Nigel.

I may be one who your friends at the Trinitarian Bible Society was referring to, since I am known on the Baptist Board as a Bible translator. (We've been on vacation so I haven't been following this thread.) However, I'm afraid that my Japanese translation work takes priority over any work on an English translation.

Perhaps I may be of help in an indirect way, though. Please take note of my translation principles, dileneated on the BB at various places: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42500&page=2
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41914
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41648&page=2

God bless.

John R. Himes
www.johnofjapan.org

 

To quote the late 33rd President of the United States, Harry S. Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." (1.)

[Actually this quote is not what you previously said, even if the above is what you were intending. (Also I have not a clue as to what you mean by "spojn", unless you possibly meant to type "spoken", perhaps.)] Unfortunately, even if this is the case, this statement is misleading, at best, in two ways. To again quote President Truman, "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

(Please, do not get me wrong here! I do not think you are intending to mislead anyone, but I do think you happen to be posessing bad information, in several key areas, as I have previously posted in other words. That is why I have been responding to you, because I do not believe you are doing any of this in any deceitful manner, whatsoever.)


First: The US does not have any 'official' (or otherwise) "spoken" 'dialect' that is uniform across its 300 million plus population, and some 6000 miles, give or take a thousand, across an East to West distance. The regional dialects of, say, New England, North Dakota/Minnesota, the 'Deep South' and California, to name a few, are far different than the usual dialect that I hear, in the Central part of KY. (And I've either lived in or often conversed with some from all these areas.) So, into which particular 'local dialecxt' are you proposing to translate this?

Second: You have yet to answer my question about defining what you are speaking about with the 'Received Text'. I have previously pointed out the 'revisionist history' by the attempt to take its meaning and substitute another, already. That 'criticism' stands. It has to stand, else we have entered a realm where words do not mean anything, except for what one wishes, at any particular time.

So I'm taking the liberty of being fairly historically accurate [but not totally so, for I am applying, for you, the term 'Received Text'/ 'Textus Receptus' to the Greek texts of a lineage that started with the publication of Erasmus' Greek Text', of c. 1516, and continued along those basic lines, through Stephanus (Estienne), Beza, et al., and on via the Elzevirs, et. al.], by suggesting that your primary concern is the text of the NT. as found in the various editions of the KJV Bible, and that you happen to prefer the NT text similar to the one that formed the basis for the 1611 translation. This seems to be consistent with your currect post. (Maybe I am actually starting to get through, a bit, after all.) But again, I still have to ask you, "Exactly which edition of the TR are you meaning?"

And, FTR, I find the TR1881, and TR1894 to be completley unacceptable, for this continuing venture, which you have undertken, as both of these are a "reverse-engineered", constructed text, 'back-translated' into the Greek language from an edition of the KJV (probably either the '1762 Cambridge', or the '1769 Oxford'), with the stated intention of 'recovering' the now-lost Greek text, supporting the KJV NT, in the 1611 version, after the Great London Fire of 1666. It simply doesn't work that way, for this is "putting the cart before the horse", in a most egregious manner, IMO.

(See Post #122, here, in the site below.)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34250&page=13

The answer to your question, here, is both yes and no, as far as I can determine. Yes, they claim to follow the TR generally. But no, for they are also following (at least that is the claim, and it appears to be fairly accurate) at the same time, basically, some edition of the KJV. One cannot have it both ways, at the same time, in any case. Let me end this, for now, with an observation, and another quote from the late, great President Truman.

I realize that it may appear that I am 'getting on your case'. My intention is never to "give anyone 'hell'." But, for the third time, as President Truman so aptly put it, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell."

Ed

(1.) - President Harry S. Truman quotes cited from this site:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tes;++If+you+can't+stand+the+heat&btnG=Search

 

FTR, John of Japan appears to have some good insight into 'translation', from my limited prespective.

Ed

 

Nigel, here is a site that gives some information about various Greek and Hebrew texts and editions fairly easily available on "Bible Works".

http://www.library.yale.edu/div/versions.htm

Hope this may help.

Ed