2/16/2024 0 Comments New testament original textPhilemon, Hebrews, James, First & Second Peter, First, Second, & Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First & Second Marlowe has presented detailed lists of suchġ-14, Acts 15-28, Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Made available online by Michael Marlowe. Of readings in the Textus Receptus that are not in the Majority Text has been Is not, and never has been, the “Antiochan line” that KJV-Onlyists routinely pretend that it is). Only by the Westcott-Hort compilation, and by the Nestle-Aland compilation, butĪlso by Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text and by the Robinson-PierpontĪt all the places in the text of the Gospels where the basis for what is read Specifically: look at these readings which are supported not But today, let’s consider the points in the text of the Gospels whereįrom the compilations of the 1500s and early 1600s, toward the original text. Recently (looking especially you, TNIV and NIV 2011) were steps backwards. Some textual changes which impacted English Bibles in 1881 and more Is on display in the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations (the main base-text for Unpalatable when served up on the same plate as the heavy pro-Alexandrian bias that Time – but KJV-Onlyists have either not acknowledged it, or else regarded it as The base-text of the KJV New Testament is not original. Receptus needs correction, or say forthrightly that any reading anywhere in “Confessional Bibliologists.” At least, I have never seen a “Confessionalīibliologist” agree with Burgon that the Textus Receptus has even been treated as if it is immutable and authoritative by Receptus – is regarded as perfect and incapable of correction. Yet congregations have arisen in which the King Of the study and research that Burgon hoped would be undertaken – and more – hasīeen published, and is available to the public in the Robinson-Pierpontīyzantine Textform and, with some differences, in Hodges & Farstad’s The Greek New Testament According to the 20), “Nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except Greek text.” Burgon also wrote ( Revision Put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Revised, Burgon stated, “After many years it might be found practicable to That much more work needed to be done on the text before such a revision could Notice Burgon’s statement that “ the Textus Receptus needs The last fifty years and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.” Have to be revised on entirely different ‘principles’ from those which are just Tregelles has produced : infinitely preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Again and again we shall have occasion to point out ( e.g., at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. That we do not, by any means, claim perfectionĮxtravagant notions on this subject. “Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood Burgon wrote (in Revision Revised, 1883, the following, in a footnote on p. No one opposed the Revised Version with more vigor than John Burgon, butīurgon was not categorically opposed to revision. Text-critical endeavors were not worthwhile. Tischendorf changed the text in 3,505 places, compared to the seventh edition.)īut no one, generally speaking, was saying that Greek New Testament, following his encounter with Codex Sinaiticus, in which Lifespan of revisions was illustrated in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of the (3) Futureĭiscoveries of pertinent materials were likely to make revisions obsolete virtually (2) Much analysis still needed to be done uponīoth already-known and newly discovered materials. I give them in no particular order: (1) Some of the individuals calling for revision were doctrinally aberrant Traditional text – as reflected in the English King James Version – tended toīe suspicious of textual revisions, mainly for three reasons. The Alexandrian Text is supported by two early manuscripts, Vaticanus and Testament base-text reflected, for the most part, an abandonment of theīyzantine Text (which generally has the support of most Greek manuscripts), andĪn almost complete embrace of the Alexandrian Text, especially at points where (Some individuals had already made new English translations – such as Livingīook of the New Covenant – but they had little impact.) But the situation changed when the Revised In favor of a revision of the English Bible. Wary of the momentum that was building in England In the second half of the 1800s, some textual critics were
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |