The Pre-95 NASB Used TR

Interesting though that still to this very day, the 1977 edition of the Nas is still respected and held to being the closest literal translation to the original language texts..

Assuming that one holds to the CT being the best base for a translation of course!

 

Lets see:
1) The pre-1995 NASB includes some non-CT variants in brackets or in footnotes. A plus, not a minus.

2) The pre-1995 NASB used the latest CT then available. A plus and not a minus.

3) The pre-1995 NASB used word for word translation philosophy and therefore was said to be "overly literal." A plus and not a minus.

4) The pre-1995 NASB avoided the pitfall of paraphrasing. A plus and not a minus.

 

Add in couple more pluses of it not being as concerning with the gender issue problem, and with being more literal in structure then the 1995 revision!

 

Those that sacrifice accuracy for readability have fallen into the pit of paraphrase. Next, they say their paraphrase is not paraphrase. Or use the "everybody does it" rationalization.

Stick to the NASB95 for study, but use other versions for comparison such as the NET, WEB, HCSB, LEB, and NKJV.

Much has been made of the NASB95 backtracking a little on literalness for the sake of readability, but in these cases, the more literal reading is footnoted. Thus if you remove the words in italics (added for clarification) and insert the literal footnote readings, the NASB95 becomes the best English translation bible for serious study of God's word, bar none.

 

Except that at times the translation would seem to miss the mark , and be taking more of a commentary tone at times!

And before you call me out on this, do still use and like the 1984 Niv, along with 1977 Nasb!

 

There is something funny about harmonizations, and your post presents a suitable opportunity to demonstrate such.

Read Mark 15:27-32a without Mark 15:28 alongside Matt 27:38-42. Then read Mark 15:28-32a with Mark 15:28 alongside Matt 27:38-42. Now which is more harmonized: the passage with Mark 15:28 or without it? Of course the passage without Mark 15:28! Obviously the passage is not in Luke 23:32, where one would think it should be present if the copyist was trying to bring the passage in Mark into harmony with Luke.

To be sure, some assert that copyists inserted the passage into Mark 15:28 from Luke 22:37, but such an action certainly could not be called a harmonization, for the context of the two sayings is completely different. Even for this reason one might be right in surmising that some scribe or teacher, sensing the tension between the quote being applied in two very different contexts and assuming that one place was right and the other wrong, omitted it from Mark.

Yet perhaps a better reason for the omission of Mark 15:28 in that particular place is that it was fodder for early attackers of Christians in the second century. For example, Celsus loved to charge that Jesus was executed because he was a robber (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.44), that he was a criminal and not a god, etc., and it is conceivable that some early orthodox might have thought that eliminating the passage from this place in Mark might ameliorate somewhat the bite of the attack. After all, the connection of the passage in Luke 22:37 to Jesus telling the disciples to get swords is quite different than that of the passage in Mark 15:28 to Jesus being crucified between two "robbers," and thus, from an anti-pagan apologetic perspective (cf. Celsus' attack), perhaps more confusing to those who were familiar with Celsus-like attacks but were listening to the scriptures being read at a given worship service.

Nevertheless, Christians using Greek manuscripts like Origen in the 3rd century appear to quote the passage in reference to Jesus between the two robbers (i.e. Mark 15:28 and not Luke 22:37), and also Eusebius and Jerome in the 4th century. They did not seem to fear the presence of the passage in Mark 15:28, even though some copyist at some time or another apparently did.

For the record, the passage is present in Mark 15:28 in around 1475 (89%) Greek mss and absent in 183 (11%), so it's not just absent in a few early copies. In my opinion the passage was omitted and then the omission was propagated in a good number of mss due to the early date of its omission and for apologetic interests.

 

Not really, as it is one of the best english versions for serious studies in the Bible!

 

No, but there seemed to be an implied assertion that the Niv or something like that would be superior to more formal versions though!