Revised Greek Texts

[johnnybanano]

The following was taken from a website advocating KJV only scripture. I was wondering if anyone could give me information concerning the truth or lack thereof of this claim.

For over 350 years, the body of Christ used the King James Bible with confidence and believed it to be the Word of God. In 1881, the Revision Committee developed a new Greek text, under the leadership of Westcott and Hort, that is the basis of all modern translations.

Taken from: http://www.graceagechurch.com/articl...=kingjames.htm

Regardless of where anyone stands on modern translations, I am simply looking for information concerning this Revision Committee of 1881. Thanks!

Love and Respect,

Daniel

[Jaltus]

Actually, it is false.

The concept of textual criticism actually began in 1514 or so when Erasmus began comparing manuscripts in order to come up with his own Greek text of the NT.

The principles he used had been stated earlier by such giants as Origen and Jerome.

After Erasmus, things picked up slowly. It was not until the first truly critical text of the NT was done (meaning combining numerous manuscripts) in about 1797 (I think) that textual criticism began to happen.

The construct of Wescot and Hort was important because of how they put together their apparatus. However, most translations of the New Testament from the 1900s actually use the eclectic text put together by the Nestles and Kurt Aland (Barbra did not join the committee until much later).

In other words, it is just KJVO's spouting off since all of their character assassination is aimed at Wescot and Hort instead of any of the current text critics. Therefore the lie about the modern text of the NT and say it is based on them when in reality it comes from the Nestles and Alands.

[johnnybanano]

So, what I am wondering about is the danger of getting a recently printed Septuagint or other Greek Scripture and having a version that is not true to what was originally written by the authors.

[Jaltus]

The LXX is the Ot anyway, so what you would really want is the BHS which is the Hebrew. The Nestle-Aland 27 comes with a critical apparatus so that if you think they made a wrong choice, you can see the different variant readings at a specific point and choose the one you think is most likely to be original.

That said, we know the text of the NT to within 99% or so.

[johnnybanano]

And how might one come about this Nestle-Aland 27?

[Waterrock]

Greetings Daniel B.,

The statement, "For over 350 years, the body of Christ used the King James Bible with confidence and believed it to be the Word of God" is not true, but it is close to true if one defines terms a certain way.

If "the body of Christ" = the denominations which originated as a result of the Reformation, then yes; the KJV was certainly the premiere Bible translation for a long time -- about 330 years (say, from c. 1650 to 1880. Some Protestant scholars promoted revised texts, and of course the Roman Catholic Church adhered to the Vulgate, and the Orthodox Church used the Byzantine Text. But competetion tended to wane and the KJV tended to widely be regarded as The Bible in English until 1881.

There is no lack of information online about the Revision Committee which developed the Revised Text. Westcott and Hort were two members; so was John Burgon (who vigorously protested the project after he saw where it was leading). Surely a simple Google search for "Revision 1881 Committee Hort" can bring more information to light, perhaps at the CCEL website.

It is true that most modern translations are based on a revised text which, for the most part, agrees with the 1881 Revised Greek Text.

If you cannot acquire a satisfactory amount of data with the suggested Google search, please ask me for more information and I will try to find time to respond in more detail.

I sense a need to respond to something that Jaltus said to you. He said that the claim to the effect that the modern revised texts are based on the text of Westcott & Hort is "just KJVO's spouting off" and that "the[y] lie about the modern text of the NT and say it is based on them when in reality it comes from the Nestles and Alands."

Daniel, anyone can do a comparison of the text made by Westcott & Hort to the Nestle-Aland text. In fact, there is a merged text of the two online, showing the Westcott-&-Hort text and showing where it disagrees with the Nestle-Aland text. And anyone who takes the time to compare the two can see that although they disagree in some details, they are essentially the same text most of the time. The major departure from the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) occurred in 1881, not later. Nestle and Aland may be considered as dwarves standing on the shoulders of Westcott & Hort. (And if they were alive, I am sure they humbly would agree.)

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Jaltus]

Actually, the Alands are alive and well.

Whereas Wescot and Hort tended to rely on Vaticanus, Nestle and the Alands tend to rely on Sinaiticus (I might have the names of the manuscripts reversed, but I think I am correct). Frankly, I find both to be a little too stodgy since the papyri should be given priority in my book.

The NA 27 departs from the WH literally thousands of times, which is about the same amount of times WH departs from Tischendorff's text.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:33 AM post located here
Waterrock:

Daniel, anyone can do a comparison of the text made by Westcott & Hort to the Nestle-Aland text. In fact, there is a merged text of the two online, showing the Westcott-&-Hort text and showing where it disagrees with the Nestle-Aland text. And anyone who takes the time to compare the two can see that although they disagree in some details, they are essentially the same text most of the time. The major departure from the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) occurred in 1881, not later. Nestle and Aland may be considered as dwarves standing on the shoulders of Westcott & Hort. (And if they were alive, I am sure they humbly would agree.)

But if you compared the W/H text with the TR, you would find about 98.3 % agreement, so the differences are very minor regardless of what text you choose. Translational style makes far more difference than textual choice. All the doctrines that the modern texts allegedly leave out are actually thoroughly taught elsewhere.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 07:19 PM post located here
Jaltus:

Actually, the Alands are alive and well.

Actually Kurt is pushing up daisies, and has been for nearly 10 years. (in 1994 to be exact)

[johnnybanano]

My main concern is that, being a Biblical Languages/Theology/Ministry major, I am going to go and purchace a Greek New Testament with changes to the "papyri" as Jaltus had mentioned. Now despite the possible triviality of these changes, I feel most comfortable dealing with what was originally written.

As such, I am curious as to why these Revision Committees were formed and what their goal, not to mention necessity, was in changing the original manuscripts. In other words, what was so wrong with the originals that they needed any revision beyond simple transcription?

P.S. Thank you Waterrock for the info. I will most assuredly get to it as soon as I can.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:36 PM post located here
johnnybanano:

As such, I am curious as to why these Revision Committees were formed and what their goal, not to mention necessity, was in changing the original manuscripts.

They did no such thing. Rather, the whole point was to find out what the original manuscripts said!

In other words, what was so wrong with the originals that they needed any revision beyond simple transcription?

Nothing was wrong with the originals. That's the whole point! The committee was trying to resonstruct them from the available manuscripts.

[Waterrock]

Daniel,

A few comments:

Eberhard Nestle died in 1913. His son Erwin Nestle died in 1972. In the 1950’s, Kurt Aland began to work on the text that the Nestles had produced; Aland died in 1994, I think. Barbara Aland, an important scholar in her own right, continues to work on the text.

Westcott & Hort relied heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they believed that at points where those two manuscripts agree, they reflect the reading of an ancestor-manuscript from the early 100’s. The Nestle-Aland text works under essentially the same premise, but with greater stress on Vaticanus. The Nestle-Aland text also makes use of the readings of ancient papyri, which were not available to Westcott and Hort.

A clever combination of the Westcott-Hort Greek text, combined with the Nestle-Aland text, is available online at http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html

It has been said (by Socrates) that “if you compared the W/H text with the TR, you would find about 98.3% agreement, so the differences are very minor regardless of what text you choose.” I disagree about the statistic and about the effect of the differences. Some of the differences produce significantly different messages. For instance, the N-A text regards the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark as an accretion, and numerous other variants have doctrinal impacts. Socrates is correct that “All the doctrines that the modern texts allegedly leave out are actually thoroughly taught elsewhere,” however, in my opinion the doctrines of the Ascension, the Virgin Birth, and the Deity of Christ are somewhat harder to maintain with the Revised Text.

You mentioned a concern that you might purchase “a Greek New Testament with changes to the "papyri" as Jaltus had mentioned.”

First, just because a reading is in the papyri does not mean that it’s correct. One should bear in mind that most papyri are from Egypt, and they might reflect a local form of text rather than a full spectrum of the shape of the early text used throughout the church. Second, the Nestle-Aland text features a textual apparatus (i.e., footnotes citing variant-readings) which provides the evidence from the papyri ~ the Introduction to the N-A 27 says, “The papyri are cited in as much detail as is practicable.”

Finally, you asked why the Revision Committee was formed and what their goal was. The goal of the 1881 Revision Committee was NOT to change the original manuscripts. First, the original manuscripts are not extant. Second, the goal of textual criticism is to recover the text which was in the original manuscripts, by removing the accretions, and restoring the omissions, and correcting other changes made by copyists.

You asked, “What was so wrong with the originals that they needed any revision beyond simple transcription?” My short answer is that the thing that was wrong with the originals is that they were not written on permanent material. We don’t have the original manuscripts to work with; we just have thousands of manuscripts which need to be analyzed and compared to each other so as to filter out the mistakes made by copyists.

That is what Westcott and Hort aspired to do. And that is what the editors of the Nestle-Aland text attempt to do also. However in the process they tend to favor the local Egyptian text, and reject the text found in the vast majority of manuscripts – including the manuscript-base of the KJV. From their perspective, they are not replacing the original text; they are restoring the original text, which had become marred by many errors by the time it reached the form used as the basis for the KJV.

For more info about the early textual history of the text, browse the articles and essays listed at http://www.bible-researcher.com/links03.html

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[johnnybanano]

Socrates:

They did no such thing. Rather, the whole point was to find out what the original manuscripts said!



Nothing was wrong with the originals. That's the whole point! The committee was trying to resonstruct them from the available manuscripts.

Well...

After thoroughly exploiting my ignorance, I concede my argument against the Committees. I was under the impression that prior to the Committees, we had a correct composite of all the manuscripts of the books of the New Testament.

I was thinking that these Committees were organized to revise what had been agreed upon as the original text, perhaps even to change it in order to produce new translations of the Bible that Satan could use to deceive the masses (which, most probably, is what the KJVO's would have me believe). I am now realizing that I probably should have done more research on this before bringing it up here so that I wouldn't have looked so foolish, however, when I saw the webpage in my original post, I wanted to put it up to see what people had to say about it.

Anyhow, I will continue to look through the resources offered here. Thanks for your contributions and clarifications.

[themuzicman]

Funny how that webpage doesn't mention Matt 23:14...

[Jaltus]

Kurt died?

Sheesh, Schnabel missed that one.