Sat Nov 23 21:13:12 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Nov 23 21:13:12 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA01732; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:12:15 -0500
Date: 23 Nov 96 21:06:59 EST
From: Mike  Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM>
To: TC-LIST 
Subject: Byz or M text translation
Message-ID: <961124020659_102147.2045_EHT55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2129

Julian Goldberg
RE:        Byz or M text translation

I have read somewhere that no one has ever made a New Testament translation
into English that is based only on the Byzantine or Majority text purely.

**This is correct. The closest thing you can have to an English translation of a
true Maj-txt is the Interlinear of the Hodges/Farstad GNT pub by Thomas Nelson.
The Interlinear is word-for-word H/F but the left hand column has the NKJV - not
a smooth translation of the H/F.


The King James Version is translated from a mixture of Byzantine (Majority),
Textus Receptus, Latin Vulgate and other texts into English.  The J.P. Green
New Testament translation tried to do so with a modified and corrected King
James Version based on Scrivener's reconstructed Greek text based mostly on
Bezae but modified to match the King James Version as best as possible in
Greek with a few other changes.  

** Scrivener tried to "reconstruct" as best as he may what most likely was the
Greek text which lay before the 1611 translators. The resultant composite Greek
text agrees primarily with Beza, then with Stephanus (with some exceptions - see
Heb 10:23 "faith" vs "hope"). Green's translation is wooden. The best trans of
Scrivener is the NKJV.


Some have suggested that the New King James
Version especially with reference to the footnotes of Byzantine Majority
text readings gets as very close when it varies with the English King James
Version (AV).  

** A good study Bible of the NKJV will have the footnotes re. a) major variants
of the TR from the H/F text and b) major variants from the Nestle-Aland/UBS
(refered to as "NU") from the H/F.


More or less such majority texts have been put together in
Greek by Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae and Elzevirs but these texts are mostly
referred to as "The Textus Receptus" which may not be 100% based on the
Byzantine (Majority) text types.  

** The TR was a "rough and ready" tool used as a ref. to the Byz text, but since
the H/F text and the Robinson/Pierpont GNT have been published the TR is only
useful for collation purposes (no critical value).

Hope this is helpful.

Mike A.

Back