@nathannovak6797

1 year ago

This is a great introduction to the differences in origins and interpretive methodologies among popular English translations. From a biblical scholarship perspective there are a couple of points, however, that deserve some clarification, especially regarding the differences between what you label the "critical text" source and the Textus Receptus. You rightly point out that the Critical Text (also referred to as the "Eclectic Text") is based on the Alexandrian text-type corpus of manuscripts and that many of these fragments do in fact pre-date exigent Byzantine text-type manuscripts. Western scholarly preference for the critical next (first presented as the Novum Testamentum by Nestle and Aland in 1898 and typically denoted by the abbreviated "NA" followed by the edition number, now NA28) is, however, based on the critical method of selecting texts and arbitrating differences between the text fragments, not on their age. Eastern scholars argue that this same critical methodology was essentially employed in the early years of the Christian Church (1C-4C, CE) resulting in the Byzantine corpus that has been used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches throughout their history. Their argument, and I would tend to agree, is that such a critical methodology conducted in the 2nd or 3rd century is likely to be far more accurate than doing so in the late 19C. This lead to vocal criticism of NA27 when it was released in 1993 for its bias against Byzantine text-type manuscripts in favor of (then) newly discovered Alexandrian texts that, while older, are not necessarily more reliable. This resulted in NA28 being released in 2012 along with substantial notations added to English translations such as the ESV to point to traditional differences seen in those texts based on Byzantine texts. The final point I would highlight is the third Greet text source, not mentioned in the video, termed the "Majority Text." This is comprised on Byzantine text-type manuscripts collected and preserved by Easter Orthodox churches and is considered significantly more complete and accurate than the Textus Receptus. It was republished in 1904 under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and is officially titled the Patriarchal Text (or, PT). The GNT contained in the PT was used to produce the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) in 2011 as the first English translation based on the Majority Text. Those who enjoy the King James Version, especially along theological grounds, will probably appreciate the EOB over other ecumenical texts such as the NASB, RSV, and ESV. Disclaimer, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but as a lifelong student of biblical studies I firmly believe that Orthodox sources have been overlooked to the detriment of Scriptural accuracy and faithfulness to their original intent. Hope this helps.

10 |