It's Greek to me

[ajcstr]

Can someone give me the “readers digest” version of the difference in the manuscripts used to translate the KJV and the NAB? Also, why are some adamant that the former is superior. Finally, which is the RSV-CE based on?

Thank You in advance !

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Here is the short answer. The KJV was based on a Greek and Hebrew text known as the Textus Receptus, by Desiderius Erasmus. He used a few (probably less than 12) Greek texts, none older than the 11th. century. The texts were all from Byzantine sources.

The RV, RSV, NRSV, RSV-CE, NAB.JB, NJB, and others include a much larger pool of thousands of texts, including the Texus Vaticanus and the Textus Syniaticus, which date from the fourth century.

There are several important points here. First, all the texts agree well over 90% of the time. Considering the number of times the text was copied, and its migration through several languages, the influence of the Holy Spirit must be considered. A somewhat contemporaneous text, the Iliad, much shorter, written in a much shorter time, and in one language, only agrees a little over 50% of the time between surviving copies. Many of the variations in the texts can easily be attributed to common copyist errors, so the actual differences in the texts is even smaller. Finally, errors in the texts have no significant effect on matters of Christian doctrine. Pretty amazing, isn’t it?

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I did not mean to illustrate one common copyist error. The proper terms for the fourth century texts are the CODEX Vaticanus and the CODEX Siniaticus. This means that they were books, not scrolls.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’m not sure exactly how close the NAB followed one standardized text to translate from, but more than likely they used a NT text that is based upon a critical text that followed more of the Alexandrian text type, whereas the KJV followed the Erasmus text that followed a Byzantine text type. Modern textual critics have a consensus of principals they follow when developing a Greek NT text. I used to be worried about what ancient manuscripts were used and so on, but its of little worry to me anymore since I feel perfectly fine using any approved Catholic version, and I especially enjoy using a more traditional version such as the Douay-Rheims. I don’t feel comfortable putting much trust in modern textual critics who try to determine what is authentic or not, especially when we have the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit and has provided us faithfully with all we need. I think of a line from the Avengers movie when Iron Man tells the villain, “You have an army, we have a Hulk.” I feel like telling some people, “You have textual critics, we have a Church.”

As for the OT, most translations today tend to follow an OT text that relies heavily upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text while consulting other versions such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta. The KJV is a sort of a blend too, though the KJV didn’t have the Dead Sea Scrolls to work with, but the Masoretic Text, Vulgate, and LXX was all used.

 

[PJM]

=ajcstr;11470565]Can someone give me the “readers digest” version of the difference in the manuscripts used to translate the KJV and the NAB? Also, why are some adamant that the former is superior. Finally, which is the RSV-CE based on?

Thank You in advance !

Over all Great explaination:thumbsup:

Here is the short answer. The KJV was based on a Greek and Hebrew text known as the Textus Receptus, by Desiderius Erasmus. He used a few (probably less than 12) Greek texts, none older than the 11th. century. The texts were all from Byzantine sources.

The RV, RSV, NRSV, RSV-CE, NAB.JB, NJB, and others include a much larger pool of thousands of texts, including the Texus Vaticanus and the Textus Syniaticus, which date from the fourth century.

There are several important points here. First, all the texts agree well over 90% of the time. Considering the number of times the text was copied, and its migration through several languages, the influence of the Holy Spirit must be considered. A somewhat contemporaneous text, the Iliad, much shorter, written in a much shorter time, and in one language, only agrees a little over 50% of the time between surviving copies. Many of the variations in the texts can easily be attributed to common copyist errors, so the actual differences in the texts is even smaller. Finally, errors in the texts have no significant effect on matters of Christian doctrine. Pretty amazing, isn’t it

REALLY?
Acts 20:28 from the Douay bible [published about 50 years b4 the KJB]

Douay-Rheims (RHE)
28 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

King James Version (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

While the errors are “few” in number relative to the entirety of the bible; they are nevertheless critical to God’s understanding of HIS one FAITH. And these changes Do effect the RIGHT practice of ones Faith and its correct meanings.

These tend to support the multiplicity of DIFFERING Christian Faiths and sets of Faith beliefs.

Because TRUE GOD is One

True God’s Faith beliefs must and can only ALSO be ONLY One:thumbsup:

God Bless you my friend,
Patrick

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Good point, PJM. The passage your cited has to do with ecclesiology, not theology. At the time that Acts was written, no formal church offices had been created, so the term variously translated as bishop or overseer does not describe what we would understand today, However, this goes beyond the scope of this particular thread.
Perhaps you could go into a little detail about the history of the D-R.
Have a very Merry Christmas.

 

[ajcstr]

So why do some consider the Textus Receptus to be far superior ?

 

[CalCatholic]

Because the Bible that they use (KJV) is based upon it.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Supposedly Erasmus did the translation in about six months, sometimes translating two books a day. By comparison, the Complutensian Polyglot took well over twenty years. KJV-onlyists would see this as a sign of divine inspiration. However, the last six verses of Revelation were lifted from the Vulgate and translated back into Greek. so the KJV owes something to the Vulgate.

 

[bmonk]

There is a critical difference between a modern critical text and the Textus Receptus, and similar manuscripts. The editor of the Textus Receptus (in this case Erasmus) makes the decisions on what the text should be and which manuscripts to follow. As a result, it becomes, in effect, just one more manuscript, perhaps a little more accurate because it uses several manuscripts. The editor has made all the decisions, which may be good, but may also be in error.

However, a critical text collates as many manuscripts as possible, and indicates within the text itself or the footnotes where the readings come from, and significant alternate readings plus their sources. This difference allows the scholarly reader to consider alternative versions, to see how widely they were known, and so on.

The King James Version (AV or KJV) uses Erasmus’ Textus Receptus (1516); the Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate (Originally translated mostly by Jerome, about 382-405, revised and published in the 1590s under Popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII). As such, both use a non-critical text.

The RSV and NAB use modern critical texts Novum Testamentum Graece (NT) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (OT). Both of these also have other influences–the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate, and other manuscripts. We hope that the greater awareness of the possible readings allows a more accurate translation–but the final guarantor is the Church that approves the published bibles, and that over time can recognize and correct errors.