These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions

I am trying to get him to think about where his knowledge comes from. Where his authority lies. So far no joy. :)

 

This is a myth that has been going around the internet for a long time. It has been said that it originated with my friend David Sorenson. (I went to Seminary with David's younger brother Steve.)

However, insofar as I have been able to ascertain, it was quoted by David but did not originate with him.

Here is the truth:

"The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950’s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974.

Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc.

He cannot be considered “co-founder” of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions — once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an “inspirational thought.”

 

Neither the NASB nor the ESV used the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus codices.

The Greek text underlying the NASB is Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

The ESV is based on the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 4th edition and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

As the ESV is a revision of the RSV it could be argued that much of the original translation was based on the 7th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text for the New Testament.

 

I think you failed to understand the point.

 

Then you continue to believe a myth which has been completely disproved.

Aleph and B were certainly used to redact both NA and UBS. But other manuscripts representing the Alexandrian textform were also consulted.

Well, the point was that the codices have been in museums since the late 1800s. What was used for the ERV of 1881 was a printed Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort along with others.

The only connection the ESV could have to the text redacted by Westcott and Hort would be the tenuous relation dating back to the ASV of 1901 which was supposedly revised into the RSV which was, in turn, revised into the ESV.

 

I agree the reading "God" is much better attested than "he who."

And how did you come to that conclusion? What evidence are you aware of that makes the reading such a certainty?

The reading found in the KJV and other versions based on the TR is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the manuscript was copied. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

There is some gender discordance when the reading is left out, but that can be fairly easily explained.

 

I don't want somebody else's study. I want yours. How did you come to the conclusion that the comma was "beyond any doubt in the original Autographs?"

 

You have missed the point. It has nothing to do with knowing the Lord. Yeshua1 knows the Lord (as much as we can ever tell about such things) and to suggest he does not know the Lord is a violation of BB rules.

He makes a lot of posts which are just stated as his opinions. I am trying to get him to support his opinions using the Scriptures. Opinions are like armpits. Everybody has a couple of them and most of them stink.

His opinions carry little to no weight on the BB. But the Scriptures are our supreme and final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and understanding. Using Scripture instead of mere opinion will give him much more credibility on the BB. :)