Originally posted by Turbo
BChristianK, please clarify a few things for me:
I’ll do my best
(1)- Do you believe that the verses and phrases omitted from the NIV are not inspired scripture? (See post #1)
(2)
- Do you believe that the NIV is based on more or fewer manuscripts than the KJV and NKJV?
(3)
- Do you believe that Deuteronomy 22 is rightly translated in the NIV, that God commanded that rapists and their victims should marry?
(1) I think each of these verse and phrases need to be evaluated on an individual basis. I don’t mean to be evasive, I just think that the question is more complicated than does the NIV distort the text or not.
(2) The NIV, by virtue of it’s translation date being much more mature than the authorship of the KJV, takes advantage of numerous additional manuscript, upwards of 5,000 discoveries since the authorship of the KJV. So, the NIV is based on more diverse manuscript families than the KJV and takes advantage of many manuscripts that have been discovered since the KJV, the compiler’s of the NIV had many more manuscripts and uncils to deal with. The NKJV, as I understand the translation principle, bases its primary translation based on the Textus Receptus. Here the issue of manuscript dating comes into consideration.
There are, admittedly two main texts that were used “Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but to say that there were the only two texts evaluated, and that the Majority texts were summarily discarded is a mischaracterization of the textual critical process that underlies the translation of the NIV.
(3). Two things here. 1. The issue of the translation of Deuteronomy 22 is totally independent form the manuscript issue above. You know this, and I know you know this, but I want to make it clear for anyone who might happen across this thread. The Masoretic texts underly the NKJV, the NIV, the KJV and the NASB, as well as the JPS Tanak (a great translation to compare to as it doesn’t reflect some of the theological bias that can sometimes creep into the translation).
Second, I’m with you, I think the translators did a poor job of translating that particular verse. Though the textual family issues are quite irrelevant to that decision. I’m not sure, but I think that since they were aiming at a dynamic equivalency (which of necessity encroaches on hermeneutics) they were trying to account for the fact that the verbiage suggests that the “encounter” was forced. Personally, I think the NASB or even the NRSV does a much better job of translation in the OT than the NIV does.
How does any this apply to the NKJV?
Hopefully I answered this above. The NKJV does avoid the issue of antiquated translation. It doesn’t avoid the discussion of the dating of the texts.
I said:
Now if a plurality of texts is necessary for the 1611 edition of the King Jimmy, I am going to say that a greater plurality of texts will lead us to a more informed process of textual criticism giving us a greater degree of accuracy.
Because the greater plurality rests on the modern translations. We can debate the merits of the NKJV over the NASB and the NIV, and I am happy to do that. But as far as the KJV, which I gathered from drbrumley’s first post is the version he supports as the
only legitimate translation, it is possibly the worst translation of the ones on the market because it has so few manuscripts underlying it.
Now you say:
Then why do you prefer translations based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
1. The NIV is not solely based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, other textual sources, included the Textus Receptus and the texts in the Byzantine family were taken into consideration. Second, the reason these two codices were favored over the textus receptus was because these manuscripts can be dated earlier than the texts that comprise the Textus Receptus. Now I agree, older is everything, but it is
something. The older the manuscript, the less likely it has been morphed since there has been less time elapsed to morph it.
I was talking about two manuscripts upon which the NIV is based: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. There are hundreds (thousands?) of inconsistencies between the two of them, yet they are regarded as "the best" manuscripts by Westcott and Hor t, the publishers of the NIV and many other modern translators. How can these two be "the best" if they don't even agree with one another?
Do you think that the Textus Receptus was comprised of textual sources that agreed with each other character for character? The Byzantine family of texts have hundred and possibly thousands of descrepencies between them as well. Part of the problem is using the word “corruption.” Many apponents of the NIV declare that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus show evidence of “corruption” without necessarily explaining that some of the discrepancies are wholly immaterial. Spelling Nazareth as Nasareth, doesn’t have a significant theological impact on the meaning of the text. The Textus Receptus certainly shows more evidence of
harmonization than any other family. Some argue that this is to its credit, I, for one, consider it to be evidence that the text was tampered with in order to harmonize it.
Am I missing something? Did you read any of drbrumley's
www.mag-net.com/~maranath/OLDBEST.HTM#Three]link?
I did, I thought the arguments made were among the worst substantiation for the Received Texts I have read. There are some good arguments for the Textus Receptus, but this website wasn’t one of them. Sorry, drdrumley. Mr. Carter’s argument boils down to nothing more than poisoning the well. Certainly Wescot and Hort must have been under the influence of the devil…
Here we have a plain statement to the effect that Hort, was deliberately leading orthodox believers, by a system of brain washing into the same diabolical trap wherein he and Westcott had fallen.
Its just a bad argument. Wescot and Hort could be rotting in hell as we speak, that wouldn’t, of necessity, invalidate the textual critical principles they advocated.
Many folks who would sign off on Carter’s view of theology precept for precept would still support the NIV’s philosophy of textual criticism because the principles employed make sense.
Essentially, Carter claims that “bad theology” has crept into the NIV’s translation. That’s an answer that assumes that they should have read “good theology” into the translation. It’s a criticism that they didn’t eisegete the manuscripts in a way that Carter would have liked.
How about if you have only two manuscripts that have hundreds or thousands of disagreements between them?
I don’t know of any modern translation that only uses two manuscripts. Many opponents of the NIV and NASB claim that these modern translations are based exclusively on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but this is an over-simplification of the process of establishing a Greek text from which to translate.
The NIV was based on Nestle-Aland’s Greek New Testament which takes into consideration all the textual families under consideration,
even the Majority Texts. It preferences texts that can be substantiated as older because the older a text, the less likely that corruptions can creep into the text. And that, essentially, is my criticism of the NKJV. It discounts the value of the age of a text and preferences agreement among texts
over considerations of age. Both need to be taken into consideration, mind you, and that is why the KJV is an antiquated translation. I am less critical of the NKJV than I am the KJV however, since the NKJV does consider both.
Personally, I studied jointly from the NKJV and the NASB for awhile until I started forcing myself to translate from Nestle-Aland’s Greek NT.
Hope I have cleared up a few things.
Grace and Peace
