PDA

View Full Version : Enjoying My Bible (post KJO)



Catman
08-06-2014, 10:38 PM
Though, I could have gone out and bought one; I decided to download a free one to my Kindle Fire. It's the English Standard Version, and a pleasure to read and be encouraged in.
Sometimes when I just want to read and not have to think too hard about what the writers might have meant, I grab my soft cover Message by Prof. Petersen (I know it's not a Bible in the traditional sense; but what a relief it is after so many years of being afraid to read anything else but the King James Bible.)

I know there are those who are only happy when they are reading a King James Bible, and I have to admit that most of what is in my memory is in King James Bible English (I must be careful here because, the English used was in some places specially adapted to manage the complexities of the Language)

Okay, now to the meaty part of why I made this my first post, after so many years of being absent from BL301. I've heard it said that the reason that the King James Bible (1611) is not much good anymore (as a study Bible), is because it was working with the manuscripts unaware that the writers were using different Greek. I'm obviously referring to the New Testament and what is called Koine Greek.

One last thing. Recently -- that's about a year ago, the announcement was out that we now have the NA28 -- what I'm wondering though, is who is going to do what Bruce Metzger did with the 4th Edition (or is that out already?) -- Bart Ehrman? Heaven forbid, for what will be left to enjoy, if his carving style were to do this?

I hope this is not a bad post, but I need to start somehow and so I'm just throwing a few thoughts into the pool of thoughts, not to stir up a fight, but instead to stir up some serious factual responses.

Please be mature about this, and don't use this to rant.

Kindly,
Eric

Teallaura
08-06-2014, 11:05 PM
:hi: Welcome back!

LostSheep
08-06-2014, 11:22 PM
Yeah, welcome back Eric! :hi:

robrecht
08-06-2014, 11:53 PM
GNT3 and GNT4 have the same text as NA26 and NA27 except for punctuation differences and a differing critical apparatus. NA28 has some changes in the Catholic letters based on the progress made so far in the major critical edition that is still in process. These changes will be reflected in the text of GNT5, which is now being pulished by the German Bible Society. The next revisions will be in Acts of the Apostles. Barbara Aland and Johannes Karavidopoulos were added to the editorial committee some time back. The critical edition of Catholic letters lists the following editors: Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland†, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel.

Catman
08-07-2014, 12:20 PM
:hi: Welcome back!

Thank you Teallaura -- 'I've been hittin' some hard travelin', Lord' (Woody Guthrie) :ale:

Catman
08-07-2014, 12:23 PM
Yeah, welcome back Eric! :hi:


Thank you! "(I say) Lord, I've got to keep on moving" (Bob Marley) :yipee:

Catman
08-07-2014, 04:24 PM
Hello robrecht,

I think, I've caused a little confusion here. I should have been more specific about which 4th Edition of what, I was referring to in my opening post.

I was referring to: The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman.

Humble apologies,
Eric.

Catman
08-08-2014, 12:59 AM
This is all very interesting, but where did you get your facts from?


GNT3 and GNT4 have the same text as NA26 and NA27 except for punctuation differences and a differing critical apparatus. NA28 has some changes in the Catholic letters based on the progress made so far in the major critical edition that is still in process. These changes will be reflected in the text of GNT5, which is now being pulished by the German Bible Society. The next revisions will be in Acts of the Apostles. Barbara Aland and Johannes Karavidopoulos were added to the editorial committee some time back. The critical edition of Catholic letters lists the following editors: Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland†, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel.

robrecht
08-08-2014, 01:17 AM
This is all very interesting, but where did you get your facts from?GNT3, 4 & NA26, 7 is just common knowledge among students of the New Testament. I might have first read it in the preface of GNT3 and then the successive editions as I acquired them over the years. Don't remember for sure. I don't have NA28, but the editors of the Catholic letters of the major critical edition in preparation, and which is incorporated in NA28, are given on website for the Institute for New Testament Text Research here:

http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/veroef/ausgaben_en.shtml

Catman
08-08-2014, 01:31 AM
Thank you kindly, this is a very useful link.


GNT3, 4 & NA26, 7 is just common knowledge among students of the New Testament. I might have first read it in the preface of GNT3 and then the successive editions as I acquired them over the years. Don't remember for sure. I don't have NA28, but the editors of the Catholic letters of the major critical edition in preparation, and which is incorporated in NA28, are given on website for the Institute for New Testament Text Research here:

http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/veroef/ausgaben_en.shtml

Catman
08-08-2014, 03:02 PM
My long absence from this forum, has made me somewhat dull. I'm going to try and revive my opening post, by extracting 'the meaty part' (as I've just done for robrecht in my second post - here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85627&viewfull=1#post85627) -- with further elaborations - here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3038-Who-is-Jesus-(not-a-theological-question)&p=85695&viewfull=1#post85695))

Okay, now to the task at hand! I'll endeavor to explain my pancake 'n waffle in a simple question or two.


<edit>

Okay, now to the meaty part of why I made this my first post, after so many years of being absent from BL301. I've heard it said that the reason that the King James Bible (1611) is not much good anymore (as a study Bible), is because it was working with the manuscripts unaware that the writers were using different Greek. I'm obviously referring to the New Testament and what is called Koine Greek.

One last thing. Recently -- that's about a year ago, the announcement was out that we now have the NA28 -- what I'm wondering though, is who is going to do what Bruce Metzger did with the 4th Edition (or is that out already?) -- Bart Ehrman? Heaven forbid, for what will be left to enjoy, if his carving style were to do this?

I hope this is not a bad post, but I need to start somehow and so I'm just throwing a few thoughts into the pool of thoughts, not to stir up a fight, but instead to stir up some serious factual responses.

Please be mature about this, and don't use this to rant.

Kindly,
Eric

The hidden questions:

1. Is it true that the King Jame Bible (1611) is not much good anymore (as a study Bible), because it was working with manuscripts unaware that the writers were using different Greek (I'm obviously referring to the New Testament and what is called Koine Greek)?

2. Since the arrival of the NA28, has there been any talk about a new edition, replacing "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman." ?

bibletranslator
09-25-2014, 06:30 AM
Hi, Catman. This is a bit late, so you may not see it. But if you do, I hope it is helpful.


1. Is it true that the King Jame Bible (1611) is not much good anymore (as a study Bible), because it was working with manuscripts unaware that the writers were using different Greek (I'm obviously referring to the New Testament and what is called Koine Greek)?

Scholars have been quite aware, for a very long time, that the Greek of the New Testament was different than Classical Greek. After all, they had been trained in Classical Greek and had the Greek of the New Testament right in front of them! And yes, some scholars in the Middle Ages—those, perhaps, who were more prone to outlandish theories—thought that it might be a “holy” version of the Greek language.

But, really, none of that has anything to do with the KJV (1611 or otherwise) being not much good anymore. The KJV is not much good anymore because, to put it simply, it is based on sciences and scholarship that are horrendously and disastrously out-of-date (400 years!). To use a KJV to understand the bible would be like using a dandy horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy_horse) to cycle around town. No one in their right mind would do it simply because they know that they can accomplish the same task faster, better, and easier by riding a modern bicycle. So also, you get a better biblical understanding from a modern translation. This is because, like the technology of bicycles, scholarship and the sciences it utilizes have advanced exponentially since 1611. At that time, for instance, no one had deciphered the Egyptian language. Or the Sumerian language. Or the Babylonian language. All the modern marvels we have discovered through archaeology, which give us a better understanding of the ancient world—and, particularly, the ancient biblical world—virtually none of them had yet been discovered, let alone analyzed. The field of linguistics, from which we derive our understanding of the nature and function of language, has developed to such an extent that the authors of the KJV, if they were alive today, would marvel at the wonder of it and, likely, call their own translations rubbish, penned in the darkness, in comparison to the bright light of knowledge we have of our times.

I am a bible translator. I am, in fact, doing virtually nothing right now except translating the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. And it is LUDICROUS how many times I find the KJV coming up with something that is just ignorant. Well, you can't fault them for not knowing something in 1611. But you can certainly fault the KJV for not reflecting any of the common knowledge we have today.


2. Since the arrival of the NA28, has there been any talk about a new edition, replacing "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman." ?

My field is Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, so I can't tell you anything about this. I assume that this book did the equivalent for New Testament studies that Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible did. I also assume, like Tov's seminal work, that even the revised edition is out-of-date. Give it time. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing if the whole "1st Century Mark manuscript" is or is not legit (may have to wait a few more years for that one).

John Reece
09-25-2014, 01:20 PM
Hi, Catman. This is a bit late, so you may not see it. But if you do, I hope it is helpful.



Scholars have been quite aware, for a very long time, that the Greek of the New Testament was different than Classical Greek. After all, they had been trained in Classical Greek and had the Greek of the New Testament right in front of them! And yes, some scholars in the Middle Ages—those, perhaps, who were more prone to outlandish theories—thought that it might be a “holy” version of the Greek language.

But, really, none of that has anything to do with the KJV (1611 or otherwise) being not much good anymore. The KJV is not much good anymore because, to put it simply, it is based on sciences and scholarship that are horrendously and disastrously out-of-date (400 years!). To use a KJV to understand the bible would be like using a dandy horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy_horse) to cycle around town. No one in their right mind would do it simply because they know that they can accomplish the same task faster, better, and easier by riding a modern bicycle. So also, you get a better biblical understanding from a modern translation. This is because, like the technology of bicycles, scholarship and the sciences it utilizes have advanced exponentially since 1611. At that time, for instance, no one had deciphered the Egyptian language. Or the Sumerian language. Or the Babylonian language. All the modern marvels we have discovered through archaeology, which give us a better understanding of the ancient world—and, particularly, the ancient biblical world—virtually none of them had yet been discovered, let alone analyzed. The field of linguistics, from which we derive our understanding of the nature and function of language, has developed to such an extent that the authors of the KJV, if they were alive today, would marvel at the wonder of it and, likely, call their own translations rubbish, penned in the darkness, in comparison to the bright light of knowledge we have of our times.

I am a bible translator. I am, in fact, doing virtually nothing right now except translating the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. And it is LUDICROUS how many times I find the KJV coming up with something that is just ignorant. Well, you can't fault them for not knowing something in 1611. But you can certainly fault the KJV for not reflecting any of the common knowledge we have today.



My field is Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, so I can't tell you anything about this. I assume that this book did the equivalent for New Testament studies that Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible did. I also assume, like Tov's seminal work, that even the revised edition is out-of-date. Give it time. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing if the whole "1st Century Mark manuscript" is or is not legit (may have to wait a few more years for that one).

I see you have a knack for hyperbole. :smile:

KingsGambit
09-25-2014, 01:26 PM
bibletranslator, just so you know, Catman has been banned and won't be responding.