1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured How close is the The Byzantine text-to the TR One?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 23, 2013.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    24,670
    Likes Received:
    356
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And is the Bzt text same as the Greek Majority text than ?
     
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That depends on your perspective, but to me they are quite close in general, very close in some books (such as Gal. or Titus). Here is a comparison if you read Greek: http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html

    Note that (1) many of the differences are in spelling, such as the spelling of David, δαυιδ in the Scrivener vs. δαβιδ in the Byz., or differences in word order. Also, note that the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. is closer to the Stephanus TR in many instances.

    Major places the Byz. and TR differ is in 1 John 5:7 where the Byz. omits the Trinitarian statement, and omits Acts 8:37. Also, the textual criticism of the book of Rev. is quite complicated, even in the Byzantine tradition, so that for example the Byz. has "tree of life" where the TR has "book of life."

    As for the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. vs. the Hodges/Farstad MT, I've not done a detailed study of that, but when I've compared them they've been very close, as you might think. However, since the textual criticism method of the two is somewhat different, there are some differences in the two. Here is Jon Borland's collation of the two: http://www.biblical-data.org/MT_collation.html. (Jon is the resident textual criticism expert here on the BB. :thumbs: I'm only an amateur.)
     
    #2 John of Japan, Sep 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2013
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    17
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In footnote 1 of their preface to their second edition, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote that “the overall text of these early printed editions differs from the Byzantine Textform in over 1800 instances, generally due to the inclusion of weakly supported non-Byzantine readings” (The New Testament, p. i).
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    17
    Faith:
    Baptist
    W. Edward Glenny asserted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51).
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    24,670
    Likes Received:
    356
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So the Majority text agrees more with the critical text than either with the TR text?
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    253
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Goodness, think of what you write before you post it!
    First define the terms:

    Byzantine Textform as defined by Maurice Robinson:
    Majority text as defined my Zane Hodges:
    Differences between the two can be attributed to a differences in the apparatus used to collate the texts and a different methods used to establish the original text.

     
  7. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,929
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Daniel Wallace has counted 1,838 differences between the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and the 1825 Oxford TR. He also found 6,577 differences between the MT and the critical text.
     
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. I don't know how you got that from what I or anyone else posted.
     
    #8 John of Japan, Sep 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2013
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To get that many differences between HF and the TR, Dr. Wallace had to be counting the "moveable nu" and other meaningless differences.
     
  10. annsni

    annsni Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,778
    Likes Received:
    634
    But I have to say, when dealing with a staunch KJVO who says that ANY change is important, even the moveable nu is important. :)
     
  11. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,505
    Likes Received:
    88
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Byzantine Text that is the basis of the World English Bible (WEB) seems far less corrupted that the TR. Simply compare the WEB to the NKJV.

    But since I believe the majority of modern scholars favor the CT, it seems best to me to study from the NASB, HCSB, and NET, and compare to the NKJV and WEB, because the CT no doubt has flaws that differ from the Byzantine Text flaws.
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    24,670
    Likes Received:
    356
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I like to use the Nas and the Nkjv versions to study off from, as the Nkjv bible used has many references in the margins to what both the CT/MT texts say in certain passages....
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    24,670
    Likes Received:
    356
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I thought that the majority agreed closer to the tr text than CT one, but main point was that many people seem to make the leap to "look at all those differences" so they leap to the TR MUST be the right and correct one, as other differ so much from it!

    think that those "large differences" when really examined, NOT nearly as big as it sounds, and NO major doctrines are affected by those changes!
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But if they don't know Greek, it would be completely nu to them. :D
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, I've read very little in the KJVO literature opposing the MT or Byz. textform Greek NTs.
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,400
    Likes Received:
    472
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've heard about this from a friend of mine who is a scholar of textual criticism. He informs me that an electronic collation has been done which shows 1943 differences between the 2005 Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform Greek NT and the 1894 Scrivener TR. This count does not include the "moveable nu." As I mentioned before, Revelation has the most variants in the Byz/Maj tradition with 646, being based on only one ms in the TR (which ms my friends says is questionable), so there are 1297 differences from Matt. to Jude.

    Most of these differences are minor, as my friend points out with the differences in Mark 1. The Byz:

    V. 6--has a definite article on "John," which can't be translated into Eng.
    V. 9--spells Nazareth slightly differently
    V. 16--has "Simon" (tou Simonos) where the TR does not
    V. 27--has heautou vs. autous, not a real change
    V. 37--changes the word order slightly
    V. 38--has kai ekei instead of kakei; the TR contracts with no difference in meaning.
     
  17. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,505
    Likes Received:
    88
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is question that seems to elude all contributors: What doctrinally significant differences exist between the Byzantine Text that underlies the WEB compared with the CT which underlies the NASB, HCSB, and NET.

    Just list the five most important. Tic Tock
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    785
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To the best of my limited knowledge: zero. And the operative phase is What doctrinally significant differences
     
  19. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,929
    Likes Received:
    441
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #19 rsr, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2013
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good stuff, rsr.

    (I wonder if some here on the BB might call these folks "obsessed"?:laugh:)
     
Loading...