I hope you understood the discussion about the Textus Receptus,
and the debate about what Greek text of the New Testament should serve as the
basis for our English translations. If not, comment, and let me know. The point
of that entire discussion was to show what the different texts are (TR,
eclectic, and majority). To many people, it makes a huge difference what text
is used. As noted last time, the KJV and the NKJV use the TR. As far as I know,
almost all other English translations since 1880 have used some form of the
eclectic text. To my knowledge, there is no English version based on the
majority text. Beeke says, “the KJV
gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the Scriptures, with
none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of the modern translations.” In
other words, as far as Beeke is concerned the eclectic and majority texts are
inauthentic (or at least less authentic than the TR) and lacking. Also, the
eclectic and majority texts have many omissions and textual rewrites.
I don’t have the
space to go into a full discussion of that now, but am working on a project
that will address at least some of those concerns. My own view is that the
debate over the Greek text of the New Testament is, if not a tempest in a
teapot, it is at least not nearly as significant as many people (including
Beeke) seem to think it is.
One way of giving
you a sense of what the variations are is to direct you to a copy of the NKJV.
For the body of the NT, the NKJV has used the TR. In the marginal notes, the
editors have indicated where the eclectic text and the majority text differ
from the TR. The eclectic text is indicate by the letters NU. The NU stands for
the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. M stands for
Majority Text. For a fuller discussion, you can refer to the Preface to the
NKJV. One example of differences among the texts is in the issue of spelling,
especially of names. If you look at Matt 1:7, the NKJV reads, “Solomon begot
Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.” The footnote to this
verse indicates that instead of Asa, the NU has Asaph. Asa is what appears in the
Hebrew text of 1 Chron 3:10 (apparently the source for Matthew’s genealogy) and
also in the Septuagint (old Greek translation of the Old Testament). However,
many Greek manuscripts of Matthew 1:7 have Asaph. Is this just a spelling
variation, as the footnote in the ESV suggests, or is this an error in the NU text?
It’s difficult to say, because unless it is simply a spelling variation there
does not seem to be a good explanation for the origin of “Asaph” as opposed to
“Asa.”
Another example
is the question of “omissions.” If you look at Matt 5:27, the NKJV reads, “You
have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery.”
The footnote indicates that both the NU text and the Majority text “omit” the
phrase “to those of old.” Now, it is certainly possible that the manuscripts
reflected in the NU and M omitted that phrase. It is not difficult to
accidentally omit something in copying. However, it is also possible that the
manuscripts behind the TR added the phrase in order to make vs 27 consistent
with vss 21 and 33. But it should also be noted that vss 38 and 43 lack the
phrase. So is vs 27 a case of NU and M omission or a case TR addition?
In short, as I
said above, I think this is much less of an issue than others appear to think
it.
Next time I will
move on to Beeke’s third point.
No comments:
Post a Comment