From the BBC (Christian Topic) Message Board.
>>Message 101 - posted by Colinscouser (U5770274) , 3 Hours Ago
LUR (From Colincruser to letusreason (LUR)).
From the Trinitarian Colincruser to letusreason.
In message 97 you wrote “perhaps you could pick out 2 or 3 controversial texts and we'll compare the NWT” and other translations. Okay:
In Numbers 1:52, why is the word for ‘standard’/’flag’ translated as “division” in the NWT? How accurate is this?
In 2 Peter 3:10, why is the word for ‘burned up’ translated as “discovered” in the NWT? How accurate is this?
Accuracy is not the only thing. Jason BeDuhn, who criticises a number of translations, made this telling criticism of the NWT:
"With this fact in mind, modern translators must be careful not to undo the work of the author by "restoring" God's name in a place where a New Testament author may not intend it.” (pp. 171-173) So BeDuhn says the JWs "must be careful not to undo the work of the author" of the Bible.
Take care
Colin<<
Reply, (letusreason to Colincruser)
>> In Numbers 1:52, why is the word for ‘standard’/’flag’ translated as “division” in the NWT? How accurate is this?<<
Numbers 1:52 (NWT)
52 “And the sons of Israel must encamp each with reference to his camp, and each man by his [three-tribe] division*^ by their armies.
• * “His [three-tribe] division.” Heb., digh•loh´ (from de´ghel).
• ^ See-Num 2:2; 2:34 NWT.
Numbers 1:52 (New International Version)
52 The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each man in his own camp under his own standard.
Numbers 1:52 (The Message)
52 "The rest of the People of Israel will set up their tents in companies, every man in his own camp under its own flag."
Numbers 1:52 (Amplified Bible)
52The Israelites shall pitch their tents by their companies, every man by his own camp and every man by his own [tribal] standard.
Numbers 1:52 (King James Version)
52And the children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, throughout their hosts.
Numbers 1:52 (New King James Version)
52 The children of Israel shall pitch their tents, everyone by his own camp, everyone by his own standard, according to their armies.
Numbers 1:52 (New Century Version)
52 The Israelites will make their camps in separate divisions, each family near its flag.
Numbers 1:52 (New International Reader's Version)
52 "The people of Israel must set up their tents by companies. All of them must be in their own camps under their own flags.
Numbers 1:52 (New International Version - UK)
52 The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each man in his own camp under his own standard.
Numbers 1:52 (Today's New International Version)
52 The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each of them in their own camp under their standard.
Other (Trinitarian) Translations
Numbers 1.52
"And the sons of Israel must encamp each with reference to his camp, and each man by his [three-tribe] division by their armies."-New World Translation
The Hebrew word rendered "[three-tribe] division is from the Hebrew noun degel and is often translated by the English words "standard" or "banner," that is a flag of sorts, by many English Bible translations.
New World Translation's rendering is not unique
However, the New World Translation's rendering is not unique nor is it without linguistic grounds as the following shows.
According to the New International Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis, Vol.1, under this word, it gives as its first definition "tribal division."
The New Revised Standard Version
The New Revised Standard Version similarly renders it with its
"..their respective regimental camps,..." and a footnote in this bible translation's Study Bible edition published by Harper Collins of 1993 informs its readers that
"The word translated regiment probably originally referred to a standard or banner that was used to mark a military unit and then was extended to denote the unit itself, as here [italics here ours] (cf. the translation, standard, of the same word in 10.14,18,22,25.)"
Hence the NRSV is a change, and in agreement somewhat with the NWT, from its predecessor the RSV which reads "standard" at Numbers 1.52. Please compare the translation and footnote in Everett Fox's The Five Books of Moses.
Num 1:52 RSV
“The people of Israel shall pitch their tents by their companies, every man by his own camp and every man by his own standard”
Num 1:52 NRSV
“The other Israelites shall camp in their respective regimental camps, by companies”
The New American Bible
The New American Bible also does not translate 'degel' either with "standard" or "banner" but with "his own division of the camp." [italics ours]
Num 1:52 NAB
“While the other Israelites shall camp by companies, each in his own division of the camp”
R.Knox's translation
R.Knox's translation has "the company" and in a footnote says "This Hebrew word is the same as that translated 'banner' in 2.2."
The same Hebrew word occurs in chapter 2 of the book of Numbers in the same context and the NWT also renders it in those places as it does in 1.52.
Conclusion
Linguistically, the NWT translators are correct to translate "Heb., digh•loh´ (from de´ghel)". As has been shown other translators are very much aware of the linguistic grounds the NWT at Num1:52 translates the Hebrew word as 'division' as they themselves do a similar thing in their respective translations as is shown for example in the shift of meaning in the NRSV from the RSV (Bruce. M. Metzger holdin the chair fromm 1977).
So the question asked by Colincruser
"In Numbers 1:52, why is the word for ‘standard’/’flag’ translated as “division” in the NWT? How accurate is this?
NB,
Because there were twelve tribes of Israel, each tribe belonged to a three part division, the twelve tribes being split into 4 three tribes division. The NWT has "by his [three-tribe] division by their armies". The "three tribe" enclosed with brackets. The brackets are used in an 'explanatory' sense, 'supplimental information' sense to help the reader to get the sense that the "...by his division by their armies" 'IMPLIES' that that division is part of a 3 part division, amounting to four-3 part divisions making 12 in total. So "three-tribe" is IMPLIED and the brackets are used to emphasis this implication. The NWT is not unique in using brackets for implied emphasis other translations do likewise.
2 Pet 3:10
The other question with additional comment was:
"In 2 Peter 3:10, why is the word for ‘burned up’ translated as “discovered” in the NWT? How accurate is this?
Accuracy is not the only thing. Jason BeDuhn, who criticises a number of translations, made this telling criticism of the NWT:
"With this fact in mind, modern translators must be careful not to undo the work of the author by "restoring" God's name in a place where a New Testament author may not intend it.” (pp. 171-173)
So BeDuhn says the JWs "must be careful not to undo the work of the author" of the Bible."
To answer this, I will begin with 2 Pet:3:10 from the NWT.
2 Pet 3:10 NWT
Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a hissing noise, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be discovered*.
• * “Be discovered,” אB; AVgc, “be burned up.”
• See-Ps 37:10, Isa 13:9, Zeph 1:18 NWT.
Symbol explanation:
א or S Codex Sinaiticus Greek, 4th cent.CE.
B Vatican Manuscript 1209, Greek 4th cent. CE.
A Codex Alexandrinus, Greek 5th cent. CE.
Vg-c Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension 16th cent. CE.
Certain other translations read:
Sample texts.
JB “burned up”, RS “burnt”, TEV (Good News Bible) “will vanish”, NAB “will be made manifest”, NE “will be laid bare”, LB “be burned up”, AT (Goodspeed) “burn up”.
The Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican MS 1209
The Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican MS 1209, both of the 4th century C.E., read “be discovered.”
Later manuscripts, the 5th-century Codex Alexandrinus and the 16th-century C.E.,Clementine recension of the Vulgate, read “be burned up.”)
Other translations
2 Peter 3:10 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
10 But the Day of the Lord (A) will come like a thief; (B) [a] on that [day] the heavens will pass away (C) with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, (D) and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. [b]
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 Other mss add in the night
b. 2 Peter 3:10 Other mss read will be burned up
2 Peter 3:10 (New International Version)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a] (Note, not laid waste, but laid bare) Brackets mine.
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 Some manuscripts be burned up
2 Peter 3:10 (The Message)
But when the Day of God's Judgment does come, it will be unannounced, like a thief. The sky will collapse with a thunderous bang, everything disintegrating in a huge conflagration, earth and all its works exposed to the scrutiny of Judgment.
2 Peter 3:10 (New Living Translation)
But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and the very elements themselves will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.[a]
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 Other manuscripts read will be burned up; still others read will be found destroyed.
2 Peter 3:10 (King James Version)
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10 (New King James Version)
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[a]
Footnotes:
2 Peter 3:10 NU-Text reads laid bare (literally found).
2 Peter 3:10 (New Century Version)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The skies will disappear with a loud noise. Everything in them will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be exposed.[a]
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 and . . . exposed Some Greek copies read "and everything in it will be burned up."
2 Peter 3:10 (New International Version - UK)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
2 Peter 3:10 (Today's New International Version)
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 Some manuscripts be burned up
2 Peter 3:10 (New Century Version)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The skies will disappear with a loud noise. Everything in them will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be exposed.[a]
Footnotes:
a. 2 Peter 3:10 and . . . exposed Some Greek copies read "and everything in it will be burned up."
So, these Trinitarian translations (not all though!) read "burn or burned...". And what I have found interesting in my research is, that certain translators alert their readers to the fact that there is an alternative reading and that the oldest manuscripts i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican MS 1209, both of the 4th century C.E., actually read “be discovered.” and not burned up...And that it is the older manuscripts that read "burned up..."
Will the earth really be "burned up"?
An answer to a reader:
JW's answer,
To be correct, the explanation of these verses must agree with the context and with the rest of the Bible.
If these texts (2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1) mean that the literal planet Earth is to be consumed by fire, then the literal heavens (the stars and other heavenly bodies) are also to be destroyed by fire.
Such a literal view, however, conflicts with the assurance contained in such texts as Matthew 6:10, Psalm 37:29 and 104:5, also Proverbs 2:21, 22. Furthermore, what effect would fire have on the already intensely hot sun and stars? So the term “earth” in the above-quoted texts must be understood in a different sense.
At Genesis 11:1, First Kings 2:1, 2, First Chronicles 16:31, Psalm 96:1, etc., the term “earth” is used in a figurative sense, referring to mankind, to human society. Might that be the case at 2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1?
Note that, in the context, at 2 Peter 3:5, 6 (also 2:5, 9), a parallel is drawn with the Flood of Noah’s day, in which wicked human society was destroyed, but Noah and his household, as well as the globe itself, were preserved.
Likewise, at 2 Peter 3:7 it says that the ones to be destroyed are “ungodly men.”
The view that “the earth” here refers to wicked human society fully agrees with the rest of the Bible, as is illustrated by the texts cited above.
It is that symbolic “earth,” or wicked human society, that is “discovered”; that is, Jehovah will sear away as by fire all disguise, exposing (laid bare, exposed, discover, expose...the wickedness of ungodly human society and showing it to be worthy of complete destruction.
That wicked society of humans is also “the first earth,” referred to at Revelation 21:1 (KJ).
Consistently, Jesus’ expression at Luke 21:33 (“heaven and earth will pass away, but . . . ”) must be understood in the light of the parallel statement at Luke 16:17 (“it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than . . . ”), both of which simply emphasize the impossibility of the situations presented.—See also Matthew 5:18.
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Bruce M. Metzger on the Textus Receptus.
Bruce M Metzger on the Textus Receptus and the KJV (NKJ) book of Revelation...
In a post on the BBC Christian board the topic ‘preferred translations...’another poster replied to me and said that the information I provided on the KJV(NKJ) (which he said was 100% accurate), said that what I have been writing about the KJV (NKJ) is nonsense.
Well, here (Below) is what I said, and the words of Bruce M. Metzger, the world respected Trinitarian scholar. Below is what he said regarding the KJV (NKJ) (and other bibles...) when compared to the late Byzantine Greek texts...The KJV (NKJ) book of revelation is based on the Byzantine text. Please read on...
The KJV (NKJ) book of Revelation and the Byzantine text?
"A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT" By Bruce M. Metzger
Metzger who worked in collaboration with Professors, 'Black, Martini, and Wikgren' (all Trinitarians) [preface p. 7] had this to say (see below) regarding the Byzantine text upon which the KJV (NKJ) book of revelation is based. (see below)
The evidence here is first hand and by the above said professors who worked together...
letusreason
Take the KJV (NKJ) for example; the Koine Greek [textus receptus] manuscript(s) (texts) which are behind the KJV (NKJ) and others…is inferior in many places, and has been shown to be time and again, to say the least. At the time, ‘Erasmus’ was under great pressure to release his Greek version, as records show that up to his day no Greek NT had yet been ‘printed’, and because he had competition…
Erasmus produced one of the most lamentable NT editions we have…there are literally hundreds of errors in his Greek NT edition.
Erasmus had no Greek manuscript for some six verses in the book of revelation by John and had only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts for the whole of the NT (15th/16th cent.).
Erasmus had to translate from Latin (Vulgate) back into Greek (known as back translation).
What Erasmus actually did in this ‘back translation’ was to create some seventeen variants readings of Revelation, and none of these ‘variants’ are to be found in any Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately, Erasmus (like the KJ translators) and others…was used to reading the NT in Latin!
Because Erasmus had to back translate (Latin Vulgate to Greek), because of having no Greek manuscript for those 6 missing Revelation verses (see above) he actually just guest what those verses were! (Erasmus and 1 John 5:7, 8-a Catholic scribe named ‘Roy’ manufactured 1 John 5:7, 8 (not covered here)).
Since the introduction of the KJV in 1611 it has undergone 3 revisions and when those revisions are examined, it will be seen that more than 100,000 changes have been made (revisional changes).
Some 300 hundred words that are in the KJV (the NKJ updates some of the English…) do not have the same meaning today and in fact some words mean the opposite to what they originally meant…!
One absolute error in the KJV at Math 23:24
Matthew 23:24 (King James Version)
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
The Greek is markedly different in that it reads (English translation)
“..strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”
Matthew 23:24 (New King James Version)
“Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (no change)
The NKJ like the KJV adds and omits words that are not to be found in Greek.
Of notable interest, is that certain Greek manuscripts (Byzantine) of the book of Revelation were produced by ‘apostates’ [heretics] “Christians”.
And what is generally not known, is that it is the ‘Byzantine’ Manuscript that is behind the KJV and therefore the NKJ as the NKJ just has a slight English cosmetic makeover for the modern English reader…!
When the ‘textus receptus’ [which is behind the KJV (NKJ) is compared to the best extant Greek manuscripts, there is some 5000 differences and hundreds of errors and not just spelling mistakes etc!
In conclusion.
Those who put their trust in the KJV and the NKJ do so, not because of accuracy, but that they keep telling each other how accurate it/they is/are without doing any proper research. Emotion and tradition and worse bias get in the way.
So, when one reads,
>>Indeed I have KJV, NIV, New Amplified...Good news ...<<How are they when compared to the best extant Greek manuscripts of the NT?
And yet the ones who vilify the NWT ( as BBC posters do…) heartily accept others English NT’s without doing the necessary research, to justify each English NT on its merits. One major reason is theological bias, locked into an unknowing and unaware (due to ignorance) KJV mentally, of whose translators were locked into the Latin Vulgate... (which has no articles, which means understanding by context only)!
letusreason
Below is what Metzger…has to say. There have been no alterations…
Bruce M. Metzger
"A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT"
By Bruce M. Metzger
Introduction page xx-xxII (p. 20-22)
p. xx (p.20)
The Byzantine text, otherwise called the Syrian text (so Westcott and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical test (so Lake), and the Antiorhian text (so Hopes), is, on the whole, the latest of the several distinctive types of text of t he New Testament. It is characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to harmonize divergent parallel passages.
This conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus (in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts.
Thus, except for an occasional manuscript that happened to preserve an earlier form of text, during the period from about the sixth or seventh century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A. D. I450 (i), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted.
After Gutenberg's press made the production of books more
in Modern Scholarship, ed. by J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville, 19651, pp. 336 f., reprinted in Aland's Studien zur rberlieferiung des Pone( Testaments and seiner textes (Berlin. 1967), pp. 18S f.
p. xxI (p. 21)
rapid and therefore cheaper than was possible through copying by hand, it was the debased Byzantine text that became the standard form of the New Testament in printed editions. This unfortunate situation was not altogether unexpected, for the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which were most readily available to early editors and printers were those that contained the corrupt Byzantine text.
The first published edition of the printed Greek Testament, issued at Basel in 1516, was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar.
Since Erasmus could find no manuscript that contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for the various divisions of the New Testament. For the greater part of his text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts now in the university library at Basel, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others, and entered occasional corrections in the margins or between the lines of the copy given to the printer.
For the book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. As it happened, this copy lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book.
For these verses Erasmus depended upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate, translating this version into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus's reconstruction of these verses are several readings which have never been found in any Greek manuscript—but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. In other parts of the New Testament Erasmus also occasionally introduced into his Greek text material derived from the current form of the Latin Vulgate.
So much in demand was Erasmus's Greek Testament that the first edition was soon exhausted and a second was called for. It was this second edition of 1519, in which some (but not nearly all) of the many typographical blunders of the first edition had been corrected, that Martin Luther and William
p. xxII
Tyndale used as the basis of their translations of the New Testament into German (1522) and into English (1525).
In the years following many other editors and printers issued a variety of editions of the Greek Testament, all of which reproduced more or less the same type of text, namely that preserved in the later Byzantine manuscripts.
Even when it happened that an editor had access to older manuscripts—as when Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva, acquired the fifth or sixth century manuscript that goes under his name today as well as the sixth century codex Claromontanus--he made relatively little use of them, for they deviated too far from the form of text that had become standard in the later copies.
I hope the above shows that even the most learned Trinitarian professor(s) saw some things in the KJV (NKJ) that the poster just brushed aside. Perhaps if he took the time to scrutinize his English translation(s) with the Greek and remove his bias he might just see a bit more clearly.
letusreason
In a post on the BBC Christian board the topic ‘preferred translations...’another poster replied to me and said that the information I provided on the KJV(NKJ) (which he said was 100% accurate), said that what I have been writing about the KJV (NKJ) is nonsense.
Well, here (Below) is what I said, and the words of Bruce M. Metzger, the world respected Trinitarian scholar. Below is what he said regarding the KJV (NKJ) (and other bibles...) when compared to the late Byzantine Greek texts...The KJV (NKJ) book of revelation is based on the Byzantine text. Please read on...
The KJV (NKJ) book of Revelation and the Byzantine text?
"A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT" By Bruce M. Metzger
Metzger who worked in collaboration with Professors, 'Black, Martini, and Wikgren' (all Trinitarians) [preface p. 7] had this to say (see below) regarding the Byzantine text upon which the KJV (NKJ) book of revelation is based. (see below)
The evidence here is first hand and by the above said professors who worked together...
letusreason
Take the KJV (NKJ) for example; the Koine Greek [textus receptus] manuscript(s) (texts) which are behind the KJV (NKJ) and others…is inferior in many places, and has been shown to be time and again, to say the least. At the time, ‘Erasmus’ was under great pressure to release his Greek version, as records show that up to his day no Greek NT had yet been ‘printed’, and because he had competition…
Erasmus produced one of the most lamentable NT editions we have…there are literally hundreds of errors in his Greek NT edition.
Erasmus had no Greek manuscript for some six verses in the book of revelation by John and had only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts for the whole of the NT (15th/16th cent.).
Erasmus had to translate from Latin (Vulgate) back into Greek (known as back translation).
What Erasmus actually did in this ‘back translation’ was to create some seventeen variants readings of Revelation, and none of these ‘variants’ are to be found in any Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately, Erasmus (like the KJ translators) and others…was used to reading the NT in Latin!
Because Erasmus had to back translate (Latin Vulgate to Greek), because of having no Greek manuscript for those 6 missing Revelation verses (see above) he actually just guest what those verses were! (Erasmus and 1 John 5:7, 8-a Catholic scribe named ‘Roy’ manufactured 1 John 5:7, 8 (not covered here)).
Since the introduction of the KJV in 1611 it has undergone 3 revisions and when those revisions are examined, it will be seen that more than 100,000 changes have been made (revisional changes).
Some 300 hundred words that are in the KJV (the NKJ updates some of the English…) do not have the same meaning today and in fact some words mean the opposite to what they originally meant…!
One absolute error in the KJV at Math 23:24
Matthew 23:24 (King James Version)
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
The Greek is markedly different in that it reads (English translation)
“..strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”
Matthew 23:24 (New King James Version)
“Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (no change)
The NKJ like the KJV adds and omits words that are not to be found in Greek.
Of notable interest, is that certain Greek manuscripts (Byzantine) of the book of Revelation were produced by ‘apostates’ [heretics] “Christians”.
And what is generally not known, is that it is the ‘Byzantine’ Manuscript that is behind the KJV and therefore the NKJ as the NKJ just has a slight English cosmetic makeover for the modern English reader…!
When the ‘textus receptus’ [which is behind the KJV (NKJ) is compared to the best extant Greek manuscripts, there is some 5000 differences and hundreds of errors and not just spelling mistakes etc!
In conclusion.
Those who put their trust in the KJV and the NKJ do so, not because of accuracy, but that they keep telling each other how accurate it/they is/are without doing any proper research. Emotion and tradition and worse bias get in the way.
So, when one reads,
>>Indeed I have KJV, NIV, New Amplified...Good news ...<<How are they when compared to the best extant Greek manuscripts of the NT?
And yet the ones who vilify the NWT ( as BBC posters do…) heartily accept others English NT’s without doing the necessary research, to justify each English NT on its merits. One major reason is theological bias, locked into an unknowing and unaware (due to ignorance) KJV mentally, of whose translators were locked into the Latin Vulgate... (which has no articles, which means understanding by context only)!
letusreason
Below is what Metzger…has to say. There have been no alterations…
Bruce M. Metzger
"A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT"
By Bruce M. Metzger
Introduction page xx-xxII (p. 20-22)
p. xx (p.20)
The Byzantine text, otherwise called the Syrian text (so Westcott and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical test (so Lake), and the Antiorhian text (so Hopes), is, on the whole, the latest of the several distinctive types of text of t he New Testament. It is characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to harmonize divergent parallel passages.
This conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus (in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts.
Thus, except for an occasional manuscript that happened to preserve an earlier form of text, during the period from about the sixth or seventh century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A. D. I450 (i), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted.
After Gutenberg's press made the production of books more
in Modern Scholarship, ed. by J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville, 19651, pp. 336 f., reprinted in Aland's Studien zur rberlieferiung des Pone( Testaments and seiner textes (Berlin. 1967), pp. 18S f.
p. xxI (p. 21)
rapid and therefore cheaper than was possible through copying by hand, it was the debased Byzantine text that became the standard form of the New Testament in printed editions. This unfortunate situation was not altogether unexpected, for the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which were most readily available to early editors and printers were those that contained the corrupt Byzantine text.
The first published edition of the printed Greek Testament, issued at Basel in 1516, was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar.
Since Erasmus could find no manuscript that contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for the various divisions of the New Testament. For the greater part of his text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts now in the university library at Basel, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others, and entered occasional corrections in the margins or between the lines of the copy given to the printer.
For the book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. As it happened, this copy lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book.
For these verses Erasmus depended upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate, translating this version into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus's reconstruction of these verses are several readings which have never been found in any Greek manuscript—but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament. In other parts of the New Testament Erasmus also occasionally introduced into his Greek text material derived from the current form of the Latin Vulgate.
So much in demand was Erasmus's Greek Testament that the first edition was soon exhausted and a second was called for. It was this second edition of 1519, in which some (but not nearly all) of the many typographical blunders of the first edition had been corrected, that Martin Luther and William
p. xxII
Tyndale used as the basis of their translations of the New Testament into German (1522) and into English (1525).
In the years following many other editors and printers issued a variety of editions of the Greek Testament, all of which reproduced more or less the same type of text, namely that preserved in the later Byzantine manuscripts.
Even when it happened that an editor had access to older manuscripts—as when Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva, acquired the fifth or sixth century manuscript that goes under his name today as well as the sixth century codex Claromontanus--he made relatively little use of them, for they deviated too far from the form of text that had become standard in the later copies.
I hope the above shows that even the most learned Trinitarian professor(s) saw some things in the KJV (NKJ) that the poster just brushed aside. Perhaps if he took the time to scrutinize his English translation(s) with the Greek and remove his bias he might just see a bit more clearly.
letusreason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)