K
kristanl
Guest
I personally like the NAB, it is what is used in the mass, and I actually usually find more scripture online and what not using the NAB.
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
***Number ONE: would be the RSV
Number Two: The New American as it is used at Mass
Mumber three NRSV***
M
mccorm45
Guest
When the RSV first came out, it was considered a “liberal” translation by many conservative, mostly KJV-only, Protestants. Some objected to the RSV’s translation choices, like in Isaiah 7:14. I recall reading, perhaps in Bruce Metzger’s book on Bible translation, that there were places that actually burned the RSV. Today, however, most Protestants do not use the RSV, rather prefering the NIV because of its readability or the NASB or ESV or NRSV for there more formal translation philosophy. Its really only in Catholic circles where the RSV is used predominantly. This is mostly due to the fact that it is the most formal/literal edition on the market in a Catholic edition. The NRSV is the closest to it, but it is slightly less literal. Of course, the NRSV has the advantage of being a more recent translation, relying more on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX than the RSV. Plus, like it was mentioned above, the NRSV did have Catholic participation in its production.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
andrewagill,
**You wrote: ** *I know that the KJV’s Greek text (the Textus Receptus) has several deficiencies, and at least one of these is present in the NKJV (the Comma Johanneum).
This matter of the relative worth of the Textus Receptus, or the similar but not identical Majority Text, as quite recently printed in Maurice Robinson’s fine and truly scholarly edition of the Majority Byzantine Text (The New Testament in the Original Greeek, Byzantine Textform 2005, compiled and arr. by Maurice A. Robinson and William J. Pierpont; Southborough, Mass. : Chilton Book Publishing, 2005; ISBN 0-7598-0077-4), is a lot more complex than you may realise.
There is a bountiful and much of it quite scholarly literature defending and explaining the superiority of the Majority Byzantine Text or of the Textus Receptus (T.R.) manifestation of it. There is also too much loud-mouthed blarney by less scholarly (or temperate) zealots on this issue, but such partisanship is akin to other frenzies, Fundamentalist as well as radically modernist, that beset how our blessed Christian faith puts a face to the world. Academics tend simply to ignore that with which their own reigning paradigm disagrees, in textual criticism as in theology (e.g., how many times have believing Catholics heard the taunt that no scholars, supposedly, disagree with them?). I worked in secular academic and research circles all of my professional life (being retired now) and the sheer conformity (to the current intellectual and critical fashions and fads of the day) that pervades “the Academy” at times really sickened me. Whatever the other scholars may think to the contrary, the writers of such eminent defenders of the traditional Greek N.T. text include men of great stature and integrity; among whom I would single out to recommend Wilbur Pickering and Maurice A. Robinson, both of whom (and more) I have met, as well as too many others to note here. In fact, it is in other C.A. fora that this issue has been debated with more pertinence to this subject than here, where the main issue is the suitability of Bible versions to individuals and their needs.
It simply is not true that the Majority Text is “difficult to defend” or that its use somehow is unscholarly. Nor is it true that “subjectivity” is the sole factor in favouring the traditional text of the New Testament. The readings in the Majority Text, though certainly not all of them, for the most part are as well supported in the most ancient manuscripts, including more and more of very ancient papyri that have been recovered in recent decades. Apart from these MSS., the readings of the Majority Text have a wider attestation than those of the mostly Egyptian MSS., which do not even come from the birthplace of the Christian faith, the Levant and the Greek world that St. Paul and other apostles evangelised. The matter of the Comma Johanneum (1 St. John 5:7) is quite different from other contested passes in that it is an issue mostly of the transmission of the sacred text (even if admittedly more in early Latin ones than Greek) in Western MSS., which give a more prolific attestation of this passage’s antiquity than most scholars care to admit.
Anyway, I do not want to drag out this matter further here. There are many other factors that cause one to favour one version over another. The question of bias in translation applies to more than simply how particularly contested Greek N.T readings are handled! There is simply too much looseness (even to the point of outright distortion), often to accomodate modern sensibilities as well as the more familiar Protestant or sectarian biases in how translators render passages in the Bible (O.T. as well as N.T.). Notice that the modern versions that I commended in my earlier messages in this C.A. forum are “all over the map” so far as issues of Textual Criticism tendency are concerned!
I freely admit that I am not even particularly fond of the N.K.J.V., even if it wisely does take the T.R. as the base of its translation of the N.T. The N.K.J.V. often can seem rather to be lacking in vigour and incisiveness compared to how the E.S.V., which favours (to me too uncritically) the “Critical Text”, handles translation. The E.S.V. is wonderfully alive and sophisticatedly precise yet gracious in rendering the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, yet it words things with such elegance that it does not seem either stiff or clumsy, as the N.K.J.V. sometimes can be. The same can be said to a great degree about the N.R.S.V., even if its biases and ill-considered textual base in the N.T. are regrettable; the N.R.S.V. is flowingly readable and, usually, memorably worded (unless something like “inclusive language” causes it to stumble messily now and then). All three of these versions, however, to various degrees and in different ways, merit a Catholic’s attention and make any of them worthy of use as a primary version for a Catholic believer’s study and memorisation.
That is a long reply, Andrew, to your much shorter message and to my excerpt from it, so perhaps I should close here! God bless you and may the Holy Spirit reveal ever greater truths and levels of understanding in your reading of the Holy Scriptures!
Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** *I know that the KJV’s Greek text (the Textus Receptus) has several deficiencies, and at least one of these is present in the NKJV (the Comma Johanneum).
The Majority Text theory is one that is difficult to defend, and I would strongly recommend a version that uses an unbiased critical apparatus. *
This matter of the relative worth of the Textus Receptus, or the similar but not identical Majority Text, as quite recently printed in Maurice Robinson’s fine and truly scholarly edition of the Majority Byzantine Text (The New Testament in the Original Greeek, Byzantine Textform 2005, compiled and arr. by Maurice A. Robinson and William J. Pierpont; Southborough, Mass. : Chilton Book Publishing, 2005; ISBN 0-7598-0077-4), is a lot more complex than you may realise.There is a bountiful and much of it quite scholarly literature defending and explaining the superiority of the Majority Byzantine Text or of the Textus Receptus (T.R.) manifestation of it. There is also too much loud-mouthed blarney by less scholarly (or temperate) zealots on this issue, but such partisanship is akin to other frenzies, Fundamentalist as well as radically modernist, that beset how our blessed Christian faith puts a face to the world. Academics tend simply to ignore that with which their own reigning paradigm disagrees, in textual criticism as in theology (e.g., how many times have believing Catholics heard the taunt that no scholars, supposedly, disagree with them?). I worked in secular academic and research circles all of my professional life (being retired now) and the sheer conformity (to the current intellectual and critical fashions and fads of the day) that pervades “the Academy” at times really sickened me. Whatever the other scholars may think to the contrary, the writers of such eminent defenders of the traditional Greek N.T. text include men of great stature and integrity; among whom I would single out to recommend Wilbur Pickering and Maurice A. Robinson, both of whom (and more) I have met, as well as too many others to note here. In fact, it is in other C.A. fora that this issue has been debated with more pertinence to this subject than here, where the main issue is the suitability of Bible versions to individuals and their needs.
It simply is not true that the Majority Text is “difficult to defend” or that its use somehow is unscholarly. Nor is it true that “subjectivity” is the sole factor in favouring the traditional text of the New Testament. The readings in the Majority Text, though certainly not all of them, for the most part are as well supported in the most ancient manuscripts, including more and more of very ancient papyri that have been recovered in recent decades. Apart from these MSS., the readings of the Majority Text have a wider attestation than those of the mostly Egyptian MSS., which do not even come from the birthplace of the Christian faith, the Levant and the Greek world that St. Paul and other apostles evangelised. The matter of the Comma Johanneum (1 St. John 5:7) is quite different from other contested passes in that it is an issue mostly of the transmission of the sacred text (even if admittedly more in early Latin ones than Greek) in Western MSS., which give a more prolific attestation of this passage’s antiquity than most scholars care to admit.
Anyway, I do not want to drag out this matter further here. There are many other factors that cause one to favour one version over another. The question of bias in translation applies to more than simply how particularly contested Greek N.T readings are handled! There is simply too much looseness (even to the point of outright distortion), often to accomodate modern sensibilities as well as the more familiar Protestant or sectarian biases in how translators render passages in the Bible (O.T. as well as N.T.). Notice that the modern versions that I commended in my earlier messages in this C.A. forum are “all over the map” so far as issues of Textual Criticism tendency are concerned!
I freely admit that I am not even particularly fond of the N.K.J.V., even if it wisely does take the T.R. as the base of its translation of the N.T. The N.K.J.V. often can seem rather to be lacking in vigour and incisiveness compared to how the E.S.V., which favours (to me too uncritically) the “Critical Text”, handles translation. The E.S.V. is wonderfully alive and sophisticatedly precise yet gracious in rendering the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, yet it words things with such elegance that it does not seem either stiff or clumsy, as the N.K.J.V. sometimes can be. The same can be said to a great degree about the N.R.S.V., even if its biases and ill-considered textual base in the N.T. are regrettable; the N.R.S.V. is flowingly readable and, usually, memorably worded (unless something like “inclusive language” causes it to stumble messily now and then). All three of these versions, however, to various degrees and in different ways, merit a Catholic’s attention and make any of them worthy of use as a primary version for a Catholic believer’s study and memorisation.
That is a long reply, Andrew, to your much shorter message and to my excerpt from it, so perhaps I should close here! God bless you and may the Holy Spirit reveal ever greater truths and levels of understanding in your reading of the Holy Scriptures!
Jerry Parker
K
kotek
Guest
Having been an Evangelical Protestant, then Anglican. (and I was Baptised and confirmed Catholic and grew up Catholic and left the Catholic Church in my college years for the Baptist Church) I can speak first hand about the NIV, RSV, etc.
When I was in college back in the 70s many of my College Christian fellowship used the RSV, some used the New American Standard and the rest used the KJV. When the NIV came out around 1978 just about all those who used the RSV dropped it and switched to the NIV. After I graduated I went to a Baptist Church in my area and almost the entire Church used the New American Standard Version. I also taught High School in a private Christian school and the older teachers preferred the KJV and the rest were split about even between the NIV and the New American Standard Version, no one used the RSV except me, I used an Oxford Annotated Study Bible with Apocrypha. No one criticised me for using it. BTW I also used a Thompson Chain Reference KJV Bible as well, but my “main Bible” was the Oxford Annotated RSV.
When the RSV came out many Fundamentalists hated it and yes according to what I heard one Fundamentalist Pastor actually burned one in the Pulpit one Sunday. But Evangelicals came to accept the RSV in general. I remember many of the authors of books I got from Intervarsity Press used the RSV in the Biblical quotes.
Around 1981 the New King James Version came out and those who disliked the NIV and found the New American Standard a bit choppy and wooden because of its literal but not literary English who held onto the RSV , switched to the New King James Version. I myself migrated to the NKJV at that time. By 1985 virtually no Evangelical Protestant Christian was using the RSV. The RSV was the lowest selling translation on the market by the time the New Revised Standard Version came out.
The only real market for the RSV are the Catholics. The only publishers of the RSV are Ignatius Press and Oxford University Press and the only editions being published are the RSV-CE of 1966 (the RSV-CE2 is based on the 1966 RSV-CE), the slightly revised RSV that came out in 1971 is no longer in print as far as I know.
Today the most widely used translations among Evangelicals are as follows in more or less the following order:
- the New International Version (NIV)
- the New King James Version (NKJV)
- the King James or Authorised Version (KJV/AV)
- the English Standard Version (ESV)
- Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
- New American Standard Bible 95 Update (NASB 95)
As far as I know very few if any Evangelical Christians use the New Revised Standard Version. The primary market for the NRSV are Mainline Protestants and Catholics. Also the NRSV is widely used in Colleges and Universities.
I personally think that the people at Ignatius Press should approach Crossway who has the ESV publishing rights to jointly issue an English Standard Version-Catholic Edition (ESV-CE). I would bet that with a mere two or three changes the ESV could be brought into line with “Liturgiam Authenticam” and with far less effort than it would take for the NRSV to be brought up to compliance. There is already an ESV being published by Oxford with the Deutero-Canonical Books. All it would take, aside from a few text changes is to simply arrange the Biblical books in Catholic order. Crossway should be shown that the Catholic market is a vast international market and that it would be in their best interest to allow an ESV-CE to be published, after all their idea is to make the ESV the new Standard Bible for English speaking Christians.
So there you have it, my 2 cents worth.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Kotek,
How astute and accurate your account of the changing tides of favour for the various Bible versions ebbed and flowed in conservative Protestant and sectarian circles! The N.I.V., a really inferior version and way-too-paraphrastic as well as utterly banal in style, did sweep away the R.S.V. in those circles (although the genuine Protestants kept with it more than the sectarians, Fundamentalists and Neo-Evangelicals alike, did). As for the New American Standard Version (N.A.S.V.), it really was not adequate or different enough either from the R.S.V. to merit the place that some gave it. The N.R.S.V. has captured the liberal market quite thoroughly, yet has something to offer to Catholics and believing Protestants alike.
I only would have added a word about the N.A.S.V. “Update” which really was quite effective in making that version more readable. I still do not care much for the N.A.S.V. in either form, but it did make some progress stylistically.
Jerry Parker
How astute and accurate your account of the changing tides of favour for the various Bible versions ebbed and flowed in conservative Protestant and sectarian circles! The N.I.V., a really inferior version and way-too-paraphrastic as well as utterly banal in style, did sweep away the R.S.V. in those circles (although the genuine Protestants kept with it more than the sectarians, Fundamentalists and Neo-Evangelicals alike, did). As for the New American Standard Version (N.A.S.V.), it really was not adequate or different enough either from the R.S.V. to merit the place that some gave it. The N.R.S.V. has captured the liberal market quite thoroughly, yet has something to offer to Catholics and believing Protestants alike.
I only would have added a word about the N.A.S.V. “Update” which really was quite effective in making that version more readable. I still do not care much for the N.A.S.V. in either form, but it did make some progress stylistically.
Jerry Parker
M
mccorm45
Guest
Great information Kotek! I appreciate your willingness to share your experiences. Very informative!
As for the ESV, I wonder if Crossway would ever produce an ESV-CE? I, too, own the ESV w/Apocrypha, and I thought I read somewhere that Oxford would be the only publisher to include the full OT canon. I agree that it wouldn’t take much to update the ESV for Catholics, but I just don’t get the sense that Crossway wants to do it. For good or bad it seems that the ESV has found a home in the Reformed tradition. Perhaps that is why they commissioned Oxford to do the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Hmmm…
K
kotek
Guest
I remember around 1981 or so a Baptist Church that was in close fellowship with mine used the NIV as their “official Bible” so I got a copy to check out. To be honest I agree that it is not that great. My Pastor thought it was awful IE too much of a loose feel and paraphrasy. At the time I used the NKJV and my trusty Oxford Annotated RSV even though the Church I was attending had the NASB as their “official” translation.
I agree the NASB 95 Update is much better than the original NASB. Since the NASB in either edition is the most literal translation in English available I use it for textual comparison with other versions. Even as an Evangelical Protestant I never really used the NASB as a “reading Bible”.
The Biblical Scholar FF Bruce pretty much said that the NASB was redundant since we already had a good working translation in the RSV, but the NASB which is still in the same line as the RSV in that it too can claim linear succession in the Tyndale-KJV tradition, was a reaction by conservatives to the “liberal” RSV. Which BTW some are saying about the ESV, that it is a reaction to not only the NRSV and the “inclusive” TNIV but also to the NIV and other Dynamic Equivalence translations flooding the market.
K
kotek
Guest
I have the “Standard” ESV with cross-references in a Hardcover edition and I really haven’t read it completely through and I also have the “Reformation Study Bible” which uses the ESV translation which I use for reference. I have been mainly using my NRSV-CE and RSV-CE. Even as an Anglican I felt uncomfortable using a Bible without the Deutero-Canonical books, even though my conservative Continuing Anglican Church (Reformed Episcopal Church, now a part of the Anglican Church in North America) did not use those Deutero-Canonical books, but the 39 Articles of the Anglicans says they are profitable for reading so I used the RSV-CE even though the De Facto version of the REC is the New King James Version or the KJV/AV (the REC Lectionary uses the KJV/AV for all the Psalms and Scripture readings).
I don’t know if Crossway themselves will publish an ESV-CE but I see no reason why they wouldn’t allow a publisher like Ignatius Press to print one under some sort of licensing arrangement. IE Crossway publishes their ESV edition for the non-Catholic market and Ignatius publishes an ESV-CE for the Catholic market.
I know that many Reformed Christians have taken to the ESV, like I mentioned I have “The Reformation Study Bible” which was edited by the Reformed Pastor and teacher R.C. Sproul. For me I think that is a plus me being a “Thomist” cause we all know “Thomistic Catholics” and “Reformed Christians” are kissing cousins.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
When the ESV first came out, it was approx. 94% RSV and 6% new translation. I don’t know with later editions if that formula has changed. I don’t think the people at Crossway would ever publish a Catholic edition of the ESV, because I think their target audience is still trying to convert Catholics and make them ‘Christian’.
A
andrewagill
Guest
While it has been theorized that these text types had their centers in Alexandria or Byzantium (for the Majority Text) or the West, these manuscripts would have been written all over the Empire.
Furthermore, if we really want to make this a point of contention, Alexandria was closer to the Holy Land than Byzantium, and the closest Paul ever got to Byzantium were Troas and Philippi. We also see evidence that there was a community of Christians in Alexandria at the time (such as the Apollos mentioned in Acts 18), though we see no similar mention of Byzantium.
Aside from this, the Byzantine text is more refined, and more like a revised version of the original text. There are fewer grammatical errors or complexities, and some readings seem to be a conflation of earlier texts.
Grammatical and spelling errors tend to creep out of later texts rather than creeping into them. We can think of several examples of the same sort of thing happening in recent times–
Well, I'm not a crook'' becomes I am not a crook’’ or Houston, we've had a problem'' becomes Houston, we have a problem.’’Scribes (especially at scriptoria) would tend to assume that the grammatically correct version is the authentic one. If someone makes a mistake and accidentally corrects the error, that error will have a greater chance to propagate. Indeed, we find that there are more errors in the earlier texts than in the later ones.
That’s not to say that the Byzantine text-type isn’t correct in some areas. There are some portions in Biblical texts where analysis favors the Byzantine text-type (such as Lk 20.1), and it would be wrong to dismiss any reading simply because it is Byzantine, but it is often a witness to a later revision.
It exists in no early Greek text.
Very true. There are many things to look for in a translation, and the best textual scholarship is but one.
This is why I don’t think I can ever accept the ESV. I have an intrinsic distrust for any translation that has an agenda.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
The British and Foreign Bible Society is still having the RSV Bible with the 1952 OT and 1971 NT in print in compact and regular hardcover editions. For a while, Ignatius Press and OUP published a “hybrid” RSV with the 1952 OT, 1971 NT but with the changes to the NT made in the 1966 Catholic NT. They have since corrected that.
There is a recent resurgence in the publishing of RSV-CE and NRSV (all editions) after a period when both were difficult to find. Anyone knows the reason why?
M
mccorm45
Guest
Well, certainly for the RSV the reason is that it is popular amongst Catholic’s. The fact that Ignatius Press went through with the changes in the RSV-2CE attest to that.
As for the NRSV, I think a lot of its resurgence is due to HarperCollins, who continues to publish attractive editions of the NRSV for Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. When they began the “re-booting” of the NRSV a couple years back, they produced both the NRSV Standard and Go-Anywhere Bibles in Catholic editions, Protestant (non-apocrypha) editions, and Orthodox (full apocrypha) editions. (For more info: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/NRSV)
Also, I have noticed more and more that the NRSV is used as the base translation in a lot of the scholarly Catholic biblical works and commentaries that are produced. Certainly there are many who use the RSV as well, but more and more I see the NRSV. I have also been told that the NCC, which holds the rights to the RSV and NRSV, are more flexible in allowing use of their translations.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
andrewagill,
**You wrote: ** ** Furthermore, if we really want to make this a point of contention, Alexandria was closer to the Holy Land than Byzantium, and the closest Paul ever got to Byzantium were Troas and Philippi. We also see evidence that there was a community of Christians in Alexandria at the time (such as the Apollos mentioned in Acts 18), though we see no similar mention of Byzantium.
Aside from this, the Byzantine text is more refined, and more like a revised version of the original text. There are fewer grammatical errors or complexities, and some readings seem to be a conflation of earlier texts.
Grammatical and spelling errors tend to creep out of later texts rather than creeping into them. We can think of several examples of the same sort of thing happening in recent times–
Scribes (especially at scriptoria) would tend to assume that the grammatically correct version is the authentic one. If someone makes a mistake and accidentally corrects the error, that error will have a greater chance to propagate. Indeed, we find that there are more errors in the earlier texts than in the later ones.
It is usually thought, in paleological circles, I believe, that the least error-prone MS. is likely to be the closest to the original text or the very “original” itself, into which copying in other MSS. introduces errors. In the case of their “pet” MSS. theories about the N.T., Westcott and Hort reversed this, and that reversal simply is arbitrary.
Egypt was close to the Holy Land, of course, but it was not very close, relatively speaking, to the ancient churches to which the Apostles adressed their epistles and other writings, and where, therefore, the “originals” would have been conserved so long as they lasted. No apostolic writing was addressed at all to a local church in Egypt!
The idea that the Majority Text, which does have its own variants, somehow is an edited text is very unlikely. Before the time of printing, such normalisation was difficult or downright impossible to assure. Such ideas, essentially, are speculative and anachronistic. Wilbur Pickering, for one, quite decisively deflated the arguments about the dispersion of a supposedly edited and normalised Greek text.
The MS. that Erasmus used in the 3rd edition of his edition of the Greek N.T. to justify inclusion of the “Johannine Comma” (1 St. John 5:7-8) was, in fact, a Greek text, so at least one Greek text exists with this variant. It is highly unlikely that this MS. was a forgery, since it was of the Syrian text type, which was almost unknown in Erasmus’ time in Western Europe and hence would be very unlikely to have been forged.
Anyway, I’ll leave it at that, at least for now. This kind of reasoning tends to go around in circles and becomes tiresome. Let’s go on to other factors in justifying the choice of a good and reliable Catholic Bible. I recognise that modern versions which have most resort to the Greek “Critical Text” are not necessarily worthless; it is just that such a textual base is decidedly a minus factor, but only one of many, in choosing and justifying a good vernacular published Bible translation. A lot of zealots, as you know, disqualify a version that adheres to an ecclesiastical text type, mainly, so far as Western Catholics are concerned, the Majority Text (Textus Receptus and the great Catholic Complutensian Polyglot’s Greek text being examples of it) or the Latin Vulgate. I do not disqualify, necessarily, versions that resort, for the N.T., the “Critical Text”, and you really should not disqualify or despise versions based on the Textus Receptus or other Majority Text.
Pax, Jerry
**You wrote: ** ** Furthermore, if we really want to make this a point of contention, Alexandria was closer to the Holy Land than Byzantium, and the closest Paul ever got to Byzantium were Troas and Philippi. We also see evidence that there was a community of Christians in Alexandria at the time (such as the Apollos mentioned in Acts 18), though we see no similar mention of Byzantium.
Aside from this, the Byzantine text is more refined, and more like a revised version of the original text. There are fewer grammatical errors or complexities, and some readings seem to be a conflation of earlier texts.
Grammatical and spelling errors tend to creep out of later texts rather than creeping into them. We can think of several examples of the same sort of thing happening in recent times–
Well, I'm not a crook'' becomes I am not a crook’’ or Houston, we've had a problem'' becomes Houston, we have a problem.’’Scribes (especially at scriptoria) would tend to assume that the grammatically correct version is the authentic one. If someone makes a mistake and accidentally corrects the error, that error will have a greater chance to propagate. Indeed, we find that there are more errors in the earlier texts than in the later ones.
That’s not to say that the Byzantine text-type isn’t correct in some areas. There are some portions in Biblical texts where analysis favors the Byzantine text-type (such as Lk 20.1), and it would be wrong to dismiss any reading simply because it is Byzantine, but it is often a witness to a later revision.**
Well, I really do not wish to go into depth on this issue in this particular C.A. forum; the matter of early manuscripts and texts can become so tiresomely obsessive. However, your arguments are largely based on the sort of manuscript transmission theory of Westcott and Hort, and Majority Text scholars long have contested their logic and applicability. Those two scholars essentially set up criteria for authenticity which most justified the MS. type (“Alexandrian”) and its chief MSS. (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices) which embodied the traits that Westcott and Hort most cherished.It is usually thought, in paleological circles, I believe, that the least error-prone MS. is likely to be the closest to the original text or the very “original” itself, into which copying in other MSS. introduces errors. In the case of their “pet” MSS. theories about the N.T., Westcott and Hort reversed this, and that reversal simply is arbitrary.
Egypt was close to the Holy Land, of course, but it was not very close, relatively speaking, to the ancient churches to which the Apostles adressed their epistles and other writings, and where, therefore, the “originals” would have been conserved so long as they lasted. No apostolic writing was addressed at all to a local church in Egypt!
The idea that the Majority Text, which does have its own variants, somehow is an edited text is very unlikely. Before the time of printing, such normalisation was difficult or downright impossible to assure. Such ideas, essentially, are speculative and anachronistic. Wilbur Pickering, for one, quite decisively deflated the arguments about the dispersion of a supposedly edited and normalised Greek text.
The MS. that Erasmus used in the 3rd edition of his edition of the Greek N.T. to justify inclusion of the “Johannine Comma” (1 St. John 5:7-8) was, in fact, a Greek text, so at least one Greek text exists with this variant. It is highly unlikely that this MS. was a forgery, since it was of the Syrian text type, which was almost unknown in Erasmus’ time in Western Europe and hence would be very unlikely to have been forged.
Anyway, I’ll leave it at that, at least for now. This kind of reasoning tends to go around in circles and becomes tiresome. Let’s go on to other factors in justifying the choice of a good and reliable Catholic Bible. I recognise that modern versions which have most resort to the Greek “Critical Text” are not necessarily worthless; it is just that such a textual base is decidedly a minus factor, but only one of many, in choosing and justifying a good vernacular published Bible translation. A lot of zealots, as you know, disqualify a version that adheres to an ecclesiastical text type, mainly, so far as Western Catholics are concerned, the Majority Text (Textus Receptus and the great Catholic Complutensian Polyglot’s Greek text being examples of it) or the Latin Vulgate. I do not disqualify, necessarily, versions that resort, for the N.T., the “Critical Text”, and you really should not disqualify or despise versions based on the Textus Receptus or other Majority Text.
Pax, Jerry
A
andrewagill
Guest
As a theory, this is unfounded. As a factual statement, this is wrong.
The earlier texts display a greater diversity of readings than the later ones. P52, for example, contains no verses which are the same as those in Codex Alexandrinus (a Byzantine witness), but rather several omissions or one-letter differences. P66 contains a transcriptional error as quickly as John 1:3 (ουδε εν is ουδεν in P52). P90 differs from Codex Alexandrinus in the very first verse…
I could go on. Paleological scholars would note that obvious errors are more common in the earlier texts.
No apostolic writing was addressed at all to a local church in Thrace.
Which is the province where Byzantium was. It would be worthwhile to note that Byzantium was across the Bosphorus, which is, along with the Dardanelles, one of the most effective political borders in all of history, figuring in wars from the Trojan War to World War I.
We do, however, see Apollos of Alexandria being corrected by Paul, and Paul boarding Alexandrian ships and speaking at length to the crew. Further, Eusebius mentions Alexandria quite prominently in his Church History, specifically mentioning that Mark evangelized there in the early 40s. We do not see Thrace mentioned until sometime around the turn of the 3rd century, though it’s clear that by that time the church is well-established there.
These ideas are not speculative or anachronistic. There is significant internal evidence for this, and we can in fact see it happen today with oral transmission of certain traditions, such as the ones I mentioned above.
You said ``admittedly more in early Latin ones than Greek.’’ I said it exists in no early Greek text. And that’s right.
It does exist in minuscule 61, which dates from the 16th century. It is difficult to suggest that a manuscript is early when it is closer to our time than to the time when Christ walked the Earth.
This is possible. I know that Metzger is of the opinion that this manuscript is a forgery, but there is some evidence that it is not, and at some point, I just don’t see the point, since its age makes it all but impossible to be an authentic text.
S
Supercatholic
Guest
Kotek, Are you returning to the Church from secularism or protestantism? You pose a very painful question. It’s almost like asking, " How would you like to die, death by hanging, death by drowning, or death by burning?". Just like the translations you limit us to, all are painful for me and countless other Catholics, and can lead to spiritual death. Yes the NAB is the approved version for Mass in the U.S., but I wish that wasn’t the case. The Mass has been reduced to half it’s glory and splendor because of the heavily Protestant influenced weak text of the NAB. I have learned that whenever an “approved” Catholic translation is published, I go straight to Luke 1:28 and if it doesn’t say “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (you). blessed art thou-(are you) among women”, to me it isn’t a true Catholic translation. Now the question is, Do you want to be truly Catholic, or do you just want to be modern? To paraphrase Mel Brooks from (Dracula Dead And Loving It) “Zis is vare we separate our future phazzishuns from doze who just vannt to play doctor”
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Hi, again, Kotek, and greetings, andrewagill,
You wrote:* I remember around 1981 or so a Baptist Church that was in close fellowship with mine used the NIV as their “official Bible” so I got a copy to check out. To be honest I agree that it is not that great. My Pastor thought it was awful i.e. too much of a loose feel and paraphrasy. At the time I used the NKJV and my trusty Oxford Annotated RSV even though the Church I was attending had the NASB as their “official” translation.
I agree the NASB '95 Update is much better than the original NASB. Since the NASB in either edition is the most literal translation in English available I use it for textual comparison with other versions. Even as an Evangelical Protestant I never really used the NASB as a “reading Bible”.
You are so right, and I had thought, too, about saying the same thing myself, i.e. that the New American Standard Version “Update” (NASV-U), although an improvement over the earlier NASV text, is, in the end, as redundant as the older one had been. The Lockman Foundation’s labours simply gave a slighly less liberal “take” on the same kind of underlying text, with a few glaring exceptions, of the Revised Standard Version; the NASV and NASV-U make the same concessions to the trends that shaped the RSV and later the NRSV, but without having the grace and finesse in translation that all “takes” on the RSV (rather than directly on the American Standard Version, the NASV’s exemplar) have had. The best of them all are the English Standard Version with Apocrypha and the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition.
Yeah, there is a literal quality to the NASV and NASV-U that I, too, find useful in studying some passages very closely, but I end up using my NASV and NASV-U Bibles very seldom. For those who wanted a Bible intended for believers, the New King James Version (NKJV, based, atop that, on the Ecclesiastical Text or *Textus Receptus * of the N.T.) was far more suitable and better worded, too. It is not surprising that the New International Version (NIV), for the worse, and the NKJV, for the better, displaced to a large extent (albeit not completely) the following that the NASV once had.
I always bought each edition as it came out of the RSV and NRSV Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, from the appearance of the very first edition of it in 1965. I have retained all of them. I think that this study Bible “crested” in 1977, since that edition had the best combination of favourable aspects, namely of: (1) using the RSV text for the last time (before the NRSV displaced it in subsequent editions); (2) still having Bruce M. Metzger as its editor (along with Herbert G. May), since Metzger was decidedly a believing Christian; and (3) including the “Apocrypha” in its “Expanded Edition”, which made it inclusive not only for Catholics, but also for the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Churches, whose canons of the O.T. are fuller for the deuterocanonical writings than the Catholic (and Lutheran) canon is. I still find some of that edition’s annotations irksome and contentious, but less so than the notes that would appear to come in the NRSV editions of this study Bible. Yes, for years I “put a lot of milage” on my copy of this Bible in that most favoured edition. All that time I still used the Authorised “King James” Version (with “Apocrypha”) at least as much as any of the later versions, and I still do so.
To Andrew, in turn, I say: There is no end to the bickering over the respective merits of the Majority or Byzantine Text, on the one hand, and the ever-morphing “Critical Texts” of the Greek N.T. on the other. Both sides accuse each other of “special pleading”, as we ourselves have done to some degree, and both sides include many highly intelligent and very well informed scholars. This just is not the forum for dragging this out, and I really do not feel like going “hammer and tongs” with you on this issue. Let’s just call it “a draw” for now, not because I feel intimidated or that you have “won”, but simply because this is not worth the expenditure of time and effort, especially at my age (66), in poor health, in this particular C.A. forum. I hope, in peace and good will, that you agree. Or pehaps some other advocate of the Majority Text will leap in, on this C.A. forum, to replace me in sparring with you!
Jerry Parker
You wrote:* I remember around 1981 or so a Baptist Church that was in close fellowship with mine used the NIV as their “official Bible” so I got a copy to check out. To be honest I agree that it is not that great. My Pastor thought it was awful i.e. too much of a loose feel and paraphrasy. At the time I used the NKJV and my trusty Oxford Annotated RSV even though the Church I was attending had the NASB as their “official” translation.
I agree the NASB '95 Update is much better than the original NASB. Since the NASB in either edition is the most literal translation in English available I use it for textual comparison with other versions. Even as an Evangelical Protestant I never really used the NASB as a “reading Bible”.
The Biblical Scholar F.F. Bruce pretty much said that the NASB was redundant since we already had a good working translation in the RSV, but the NASB which is still in the same line as the RSV in that it too can claim linear succession in the Tyndale-KJV tradition, was a reaction by conservatives to the “liberal” RSV. Which BTW some are saying about the ESV, that it is a reaction to not only the NRSV and the “inclusive” TNIV but also to the NIV and other Dynamic Equivalence translations flooding the market. *
Your trajectory through the Protestant and sectarian Bible versions and your assessments of them remarkably parallel my own, especially regarding how they “stack up” in our eyes.You are so right, and I had thought, too, about saying the same thing myself, i.e. that the New American Standard Version “Update” (NASV-U), although an improvement over the earlier NASV text, is, in the end, as redundant as the older one had been. The Lockman Foundation’s labours simply gave a slighly less liberal “take” on the same kind of underlying text, with a few glaring exceptions, of the Revised Standard Version; the NASV and NASV-U make the same concessions to the trends that shaped the RSV and later the NRSV, but without having the grace and finesse in translation that all “takes” on the RSV (rather than directly on the American Standard Version, the NASV’s exemplar) have had. The best of them all are the English Standard Version with Apocrypha and the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition.
Yeah, there is a literal quality to the NASV and NASV-U that I, too, find useful in studying some passages very closely, but I end up using my NASV and NASV-U Bibles very seldom. For those who wanted a Bible intended for believers, the New King James Version (NKJV, based, atop that, on the Ecclesiastical Text or *Textus Receptus * of the N.T.) was far more suitable and better worded, too. It is not surprising that the New International Version (NIV), for the worse, and the NKJV, for the better, displaced to a large extent (albeit not completely) the following that the NASV once had.
I always bought each edition as it came out of the RSV and NRSV Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, from the appearance of the very first edition of it in 1965. I have retained all of them. I think that this study Bible “crested” in 1977, since that edition had the best combination of favourable aspects, namely of: (1) using the RSV text for the last time (before the NRSV displaced it in subsequent editions); (2) still having Bruce M. Metzger as its editor (along with Herbert G. May), since Metzger was decidedly a believing Christian; and (3) including the “Apocrypha” in its “Expanded Edition”, which made it inclusive not only for Catholics, but also for the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Churches, whose canons of the O.T. are fuller for the deuterocanonical writings than the Catholic (and Lutheran) canon is. I still find some of that edition’s annotations irksome and contentious, but less so than the notes that would appear to come in the NRSV editions of this study Bible. Yes, for years I “put a lot of milage” on my copy of this Bible in that most favoured edition. All that time I still used the Authorised “King James” Version (with “Apocrypha”) at least as much as any of the later versions, and I still do so.
To Andrew, in turn, I say: There is no end to the bickering over the respective merits of the Majority or Byzantine Text, on the one hand, and the ever-morphing “Critical Texts” of the Greek N.T. on the other. Both sides accuse each other of “special pleading”, as we ourselves have done to some degree, and both sides include many highly intelligent and very well informed scholars. This just is not the forum for dragging this out, and I really do not feel like going “hammer and tongs” with you on this issue. Let’s just call it “a draw” for now, not because I feel intimidated or that you have “won”, but simply because this is not worth the expenditure of time and effort, especially at my age (66), in poor health, in this particular C.A. forum. I hope, in peace and good will, that you agree. Or pehaps some other advocate of the Majority Text will leap in, on this C.A. forum, to replace me in sparring with you!
Jerry Parker
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Super Catholic,
Even worse in some ways than the shabby (only barely acceptable) translation are the appallingly unbelieving notes in the NAB’s usual annotations (and the same applies to the dreadful notes in the much better and more literately translated Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bibles! How can Catholic scholars, or any Christian ones, say such things and still be regarded, by themselves or others, as genuine Catholics or Christians? Those notes, far too many of them, really, if the Catholic or other believing Christian takes them seriously, “can lead to spiritual death”, as you so forcefully (but rightly) put it! No, the American and Canadian bishops were following trends of the times, as, alas, too many of them do, rather than following their Lord, when they appointed the NAB as acceptable for the liturgy and for study by Catholics. Kotek, obviously, hears the Lord in His word, and shuns and shucks all the glittery trendoid finery of the NAB’s editors and of the bishops who fob the NAB off on Catholics.
Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** Kotek, You pose a very painful question. It’s almost like asking, " How would you like to die, death by hanging, death by drowning, or death by burning?". Just like the translations you limit us to, all are painful for me and countless other Catholics, and can lead to spiritual death. Yes the NAB is the approved version for Mass in the U.S., but I wish that wasn’t the case. I have learned that whenever an “approved” Catholic translation is published, I go straight to Luke 1:28 and if it doesn’t say “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (you). blessed art thou-(are you) among women”, to me it isn’t a true Catholic translation. Now the the question is do you want to be truly Catholic, or do you just want to be modern? To paraphrase Mel Brooks from (Dracula Dead And Loving It) “Zis is vare we separate our future phasitions from doze who just vannt to play doctor”
I am glad that you said this! I felt like saying much the same to Kotek, but that dear layperson’s character and attitude are so sweet that I just did not have the heart to say what you state in your contribution to the forum. I have my own set of Bible verses that I trot out to “test”, on an initial run, a Bible version not only for its Catholic faithfulness but also for its general Christian credentials, and, unlike the marvellous old pre-1970 Confraternity Version, the New American Bible (NAB) just does not “make the grade”, any more than it does when put to the test as you do so, too.Even worse in some ways than the shabby (only barely acceptable) translation are the appallingly unbelieving notes in the NAB’s usual annotations (and the same applies to the dreadful notes in the much better and more literately translated Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bibles! How can Catholic scholars, or any Christian ones, say such things and still be regarded, by themselves or others, as genuine Catholics or Christians? Those notes, far too many of them, really, if the Catholic or other believing Christian takes them seriously, “can lead to spiritual death”, as you so forcefully (but rightly) put it! No, the American and Canadian bishops were following trends of the times, as, alas, too many of them do, rather than following their Lord, when they appointed the NAB as acceptable for the liturgy and for study by Catholics. Kotek, obviously, hears the Lord in His word, and shuns and shucks all the glittery trendoid finery of the NAB’s editors and of the bishops who fob the NAB off on Catholics.
Jerry Parker
S
Supercatholic
Guest
Jerry, I can’t thank you enough for the kind words. Even though I have the Haydock Douay Rheims and a personal Douay Rheims which I respect, I found a 1962 St Joseph Confraternity version at a local parish library. I fell in love with the beauty, glory, and truthfulness of the text (not to mention all the nice artwork) I just had to mail-order one for myself. I don’t think Kotek is so sweet. After all he/she from the onset tried to control the thread with “Tell me what I want to hear, not what is helpful” Since Kotek doesn’t own Catholic Answers Forum, I say we (all participants) post helpful information about proper Catholic translations that will lead to Kotek’ (I intentionally left off the “s”, personally I think this person might be a joker trying to trick us into writing something that will sound like a feminine hygiene product) proper salvation. Kotek already got two and a half pages of posts confirming him/her in his/her error. We would be very bad Christians/Catholics if we allowed that to continue. Do you know if Kotek is male or female, so I can stop using he/she? Confraternity version rules!
K
kotek
Guest
I really don’t care for the NAB with or without the notes. The NJB notes are far better and scholarly. You may disagree with them but they do reflect the consensus of present day Biblical Scholarship among some, but not all Biblical scholars. THe way I see it as long as a Bible has Church approval then a Catholic may freely use it. For me the NAB in its present state is not for me. So my choices are down to the NRSV or the NJB with the NRSV out ahead.
- Status