The problem is that those "minor issues" with the 2011 Niv to many actually render it not suitable to be used, and that those same persons would still be using the 1984 Niv!
And the Niv 2011 is a better translation then the Nlt, but not quite as good as the CSB, if one wanted that "mediating" type of translation!
How Many Here Go for NASO?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Apr 4, 2020.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
I'm not in favor of any English translation ONLY. Nonsense.
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
-
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
-
An example of the THGNT dependency on the Greek is found in 2 Peter 3:10 the NA28 reads "ἔργα ⸂οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται"(works will not be found). This reading is not found in a single greek manuscript. But Mink, who started the CBGM project, loved the Syriac manuscript tradition. I believe this has caused him to unjustifiably place this Syriac reading in the text. No other language version read like the NA28 does...other than the Syriac.
The THGNT reads ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται(works will be found).
The THGNT holds to traditional textual criticism methods and maybe a push back against CBGM. I am not against CBGM, but they did make an error here in 2 Peter in my opinion. How someone can adopt a read not found in any Greek manuscript is illogical. I have read their justification to the reading....I just don't buy it.
CBGM makes me excited and nervous all at the same time.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
And that is a generally good idea. But what about minuscule 1739? Even though it is from the 10th century, it often agrees with P46. And the latter is dated around 200 AD. [see James R. Royce The Early Text Of Paul (and Hebrews. p.178 from the book The Early Text Of The New Testament by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger] -
The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version -
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
-
This image is from Jongkind's book on the THGNT
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
In other words, they are using an even more limited apparatus. A backwards leap instead of forwards.
Well I missed the non highlighted part, "; for the text itself we took many more manuscripts into account."
Thank God for that. -
-
-
-
So Rippon's question of 1739 is....
1739 is not used to qualify the text as much as it may be used to support an earlier reading.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Page 2 of 3