Does It REALLY matter Which Greek text translating From Into English?

That's a good question. I am in the process of trying to begin a dialogue with a local MSA. The reliability of the Bible will be a major point of discussion. And men like Ehrman and Metzger are not helping.

 

I see the two subjects as difference issues. Translation is not the same thing as Textual Criticism.

It is often said that the variation in the text does not affect any essential doctrine of Scripture. I can accept that at face value, but I cannot confess it with confidence until I have examined the varients myself. But that's just me.

 

I agree. I'm often bemused when I read about translators trying to do textual criticism, which is an extremely complicated discipline. I was just reading yesterday about how the NEB translators basically just produced their own Greek text, and I was thinking, why? Just choose your text and translate! Translation is hard enough without sticking textual criticism into the mix. Just my two yen worth. :type:

 

But the King James is the CLOSEST to the original text.

 

I wouldn't lump Ehrman and Metzger together; Ehrman is intentionally destructive towards orthodox evangelical Christianity.

 

And you base that upon what? And of course you must be familar with all the languages in which the Bible has been translated to also make that naked assertion.

 

Then they certainly make strange bedfellows...

 

It could be based on a whole host of factors. And I do not think one has to be proficient with Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to make a judgment. One does have to be familiar with the schools of thought that go into textual criticism.

Folks can reject the textual critcism of the CT on better principles of textual criticism.

 

The answer to this whole thread depends on one's perspective. Are the differences in the Greek manuscripts really that important or not? In one sense, they're not really important as regards us fulfilling God's will for our lives here on earth, sharing the gospel, making disciples, living obedient lives that please our Father. In another sense, on the deeper level of what most conservative believers hold dear, that every word of God is important, it matters that we seek to ascertain every word of the text as best as possible, lest we ascribe to God words that are not his, or disregard words that are actually his. It should be understood that in the Gospels alone the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament has 64,355 words, whereas the Byzantine edition by Robinson and Pierpont has 66,134 words, a difference of 1779 words (in the Gospels). Although many of the missing words are minor, not all of them are. And there are many alterations that change the meaning of passages, although, as you rightly point out, no major doctrines are negated. But I would venture to say that one could throw out the entire Old Testament and not negate any major doctrine of Christianity, so I've never really understood that point, if indeed it be considered one.

 

Acts 3:20
TR : Jesus Christ,who was preached to you before
NA : Christ Jesus,who was ordained for you before

The better textual evidence speaks of God's eternal purpose to send Christ for the salvation of the world.

1 Timothy 3:16
TR : Great is the mystery of godliness:god was manifest in the flesh
NA :Great is the mystery of godliness,who [i.e.,Christ] was manifest in the flesh

The TR and KJV obscure the truth that the incarnate Christ is the mystery of godliness.

1 Peter 3:15
TR : Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts
NA : Sanctify Christ in your hearts

The TR and KJV obscure the indwelling of Christ -- that is,it is Christ who lives in each believer.

Jude 4
TR : deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ
NA : deny our only Master and Lord,Jesus Christ

The TR and KJV miss the point that Jesus Christ is our "only Master and Lord."

(pages 157,158)

 

The above dealt with Ephesians 3:14,15.

WH NU :synagogues of Judea
variant 1/TR :synagogues of Galilee

The WH NU reading,having the more difficult and better attested wording...is most likely original. Scribes harmonized Luke's account to Matt 4:23 and Mark 1:39,or they fixed what they believed to be a contradiction of facts in Luke's account (Luke 4:14 and 5:1 indicate that Jesus was in Galilee). However, Luke probably used "Judea" to cover all of Palestine,which includes Galilee (see Luke 1:5;6:17;7:17;23:5;Acts 10:37).[/QUOTE]

This older post is for the beefit of Martin Prelate.

The CT readings are not "just plain wrong",or "quite obviously erroneous."

 

In this particular verse the Critical Text agrees with the Majority Text. I'm not able to find out what support there is for the Received Text, so I pass on.

90%+ of the Greek texts bear witness to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is indeed, God manifest in the flesh. The Critical Text obscures it.

Both Father and Son dwell in the believer (John 14:23). The vast majority of Greek Texts support the TR reading. Bear in mind also that Jesus Christ is the Lord God.

I am very uneasy at Jesus Christ being referred to as Despotes in the CT. In Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24 and Rev 6:10, the reference is clearly to the Father. I believe that is also true of 2Peter 2:1. I therefore prefer the Majority Text reading.

Steve

 

Funny that the original hand of Aleph (ℵ*) has Judea instead of Galilee in Mark 1:28 and Luke 1:26 just as Aleph and a few other manuscripts do in Luke 4:44. Wie dumm! Even Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles did not receive such a foolish blunder into the sacred text. There's no evidence that the reading "Judea" in Luke 4:44 ever left Egypt, whereas the correct "Galilee" is read everywhere, including in Egypt. It is also unlikely that Luke would have used "Judea" in this place to mean "Palestine," since the context is clearly Galilee, and since Jesus never left Palestine it would be redundant and silly to say that Jesus went about teaching in the synagogues of Palestine. (As the context makes clear, why would the reader need to know that Jesus was teaching in any synagogues other than those in Palestine?) In addition, the purely Alexandrian reading is intrinsically improbable, since Luke never says εις τας συναγωγας but always εν ταις συναγωγαις (8 times), which causes one at least to ponder whether the entire phrase was accidentally omitted in the original Alexandrian archetype and then imperfectly restored by a scribe or editor whose Greek was not as refined as Luke's. I would suggest an initial omission of the text from εν in 4:44 through εν in 5:1, with subsequent but very imperfect attempts at repair.

 

If I have understood the textual apparatus correctly there are 19 Greek texts supporting the shorter reading and probably around 800 supporting the Majority Text. Where you see that little word Byz in the apparatus, it means the huge majority of the texts. But that is not the point that I am trying to make. The 'Whole family in heaven and earth'-that is, Christians of all generations- is not named after the Father, but after Christ. Therefore the C.T. rendering is obviously an error.

The Critical Text is not the better attested. 17 manuscripts support it, maybe 900 support the TR. The idea that the more difficult reading is most likely to be right is crazy when applied to the word of God, and CT adherents don't even apply it evenly. Take John 3:13: 'Even the Son of Man who is in heaven. The TR reading is in 95% of the manuscripts and much the more difficult reading with its wonderful reference to the Divinity of our Lord, but it is rejected purely because it is not in Codex Sinaiticus.

Pure supposition!

This is just about possible, but frankly it's a redundancy. Luke was well able to distinguish Judea from Galilee (1:26; 2:4; 2:39; 3:1 etc., etc.). Where else would our Lord be preaching? He scarcely left Palestine. What is far more likely is that an Egyptian copyist who had never heard of Galilee, substituted Judea. It is interesting that Codex Alexandrinus follows the TR reading, suggesting that the reading in Sinaiticus was quickly corrected.

Rippon, I've pitched into this argument quite heavily, but I'm not actually a fanatic on the subject. My own church uses the NIV 1984, and so long as it doesn't change to the 2011, I'm not too concerned. Apart from Mark 16:9ff and John 7:53ff which I am convinced are the word of God, the differences in the texts are minor. Enjoy your CT and be blessed! :love2:

Steve

 

Here's a chart from page 248 of James White's updated The King James Only Controversy:

Comparison of passages on the deity of Christ

Ref-------- l NIV -----l NASB -----l KJV l
John 1:1 -- clear ---- clear--- ---- clear
John 1:18 ---clear ---- clear -- --absent
John 20:28 -- clear ---- clear --- --clear
Acts 20:28 -- clear --- clear --- ---clear
Romans 9:5 -- clear --- ambiguous --- ambiguous
Phil.2:5,6 -- clearest--- clear -------least clear
Col.1:15-17 -- clear --- clear ------- clear
Col. 2:9 -- clear ------- clear -------- ambiguous
1 Tim.3;16 -- absent --- absent ------ clear
Titus 2:13 -- clear------ clear -- -----ambiguous
Heb.1:8 -- clear ----- ---clear ---------- clear
2 Pe.1:1 -- clear -------- clear --------- ambiguous

My version of his chart isn't so "clear",but you get the idea.

 

Here is just a snip from NET notes on this:

"All things considered,as intriguing as the longer reading is,it seems to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission."

 

Well,according to Comfort the shorter reading of "the Father" appears in:
p46 of the late 2nd century;Sinaiticus of the 4th century;Alexandrinus of the 5th century;Vaticanus of the 4th century;Ephraemi Rescriptus of the 5th century;Porphyrianus Purpureus of the 9th century;minuscule 33 of the 9th century; and Coptic 1739.

The longer reading which you advocate uses:
Sinaiticus 2 which designates a group of correctors working in Caesarea in the sixth or seventh century,who corrected the manuscript in general conformity to the Byzantine text; either the Bezae of the 5th century,or the Claromontanus of the 6th century (different manuscripts than the Bezae0;Augensis of the 9th century;Boernerianus of the 9th century;044 of the 9th century;0278 of the 9th century and the Majority it Syriac.

Again,this post is in reference to Ephesians 3:14.

 

You said this in reference to Luke 4:44 where you object to "the synagogues of Judea" that the WH and NU uses,rather than the "synagogues of Galilee" which the TR opts for.

The texts which the WH NU uses are:

p75 around 200 AD;Sinaiticus of the 4th c.;vaticanus of the 4th c.;(Ephraemi Rescriptus -5th c.&Regius --8th century) and Guelferbytanus of the 5th c.

The TR uses:

Alexandrinus of the 5th c.;Bazae 5th c.;038 9th c.;044 9th c.;f13 known as the Ferrar group, between the 11th-15th c.;33 Maj 9th c.

 

The TNIV was a bit more formally-equivalent than the 1984 NIV. Now the 2011 is slightly more formal than the TNIV. It's still in the middle-of-the-road category as a mediating translation but inching left-ward on the translation continuum where the NASB is to the far left and The Message on the opposite side of the ledger, is all the way on the right.