Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. The Greek Testament: Item Preview. EMBED for wordpress.
Want more? Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! Bibliography in each volume I. The four Gospels. The Acts of the apostles. The epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The catholic epistles of St. James and St. The epistles of St. John and St. Jude, and the Revelation. Addeddate Hort the two editors worked together for 28 years.
It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott in Greek and Latin , of Then in the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from to These 25 Greek manuscripts are not old, but generally go back to the 12thth centuries.
Yet these were the manuscripts available and accessible to the translators of the KJV. After the completion of the KJV there were many manuscripts being found and compared to this standard text, the Textus Receptus. Some of these manuscripts were almost years earlier. Scholars continued to print the Textus Receptus, but adding more and more of their notes that referred to older readings of earlier manuscripts.
As time and manuscripts began to accumulate more editions came out, but no one was willing to print a different Greek Text than the Textus Receptus. John Mill produced a Textus Receptus that had 30, variant readings from manuscripts; the text was printed around AD.
But it was Karl Lachmann in who finally took courage to dethrone the Textus Receptus and print a different Greek Text from the wording found in the manuscripts of the 4th century. Men such as Griesbach , Tregelles , and Tishendorf , were convinced that the older manuscripts contained the readings that were closer to the originals. This took time, investigation, and affirmation to the next generation who were reluctant to leave their KJV and its underlying Textus Receptus.
Westcott and Hort:. After working about 28 years on this edition from about to , Brooke Foss Westcott Professor Hort wrote the introduction by which he laid down the principles and method they used in producing their Greek Text. These same methods are being used today. They realized that ten manuscripts could simply be copied from one manuscript.
Therefore the ten copies should be treated as one witness, not ten. They also put manuscripts into large groups like chart 1 above, although they used different names for these groups, as well as one additional grouping. Also it was understood that when later scribes who had two exemplar manuscripts before them, they often did not like choosing between two different readings.
So, instead of choosing, they often put them together into a longer reading. Then that longer reading was copied for the next generation. There were many other observations that Hort made in his introduction that greatly aided the next generation of scholars.
Of course, I think that they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable.
I came to this conclusion after doing my own textual studies. This revealed to me that I was working on the same methodological basis as they.
One of the manuscripts found since Westcott and Hort is P 75, that is papyri 75, dated about AD which reads extremely close to Vaticanus, pushing the text of Westcott and Hort into the 2nd century AD and in many ways affirming that Westcott and Hort were correct in their underlying assumptions. Westcott and Hort do not mention the papyri manuscripts, which today number up to Also, early manuscripts written in other languages, as well as more accurate Patristic quotations have been supplemented since Westcott and Hort.
The Majority Text:. They would rather pick the manuscripts from the M group in chart 1. These scholars realize that this M group or Byzantine type of manuscript is found only in the beginning in the 5th century, prior to that there is no Byzantine type of manuscript which has survived.
So what is called today as the Majority Text is the minority text until about the 9th century, please see chart 1. There are two Greek Majority texts that have been printed, one done by Zane C.
Hodges and Arthur L. Pierpont and Maurice A. Many of these scholars who endorse the Byzantine text do so on the basis of a theological argument, that God providentially had this type of manuscript available to more people throughout history.
But in making such an argument they gloss over the period from the 2nd century to 8th century where this text was not providentially the majority. Most college students for the past couple of decades have been using the United Bible Society text UBS , of the 3rd corrected , or 4th edition , or the Nestle-Aland text of the 26th , or 27th edition These four editions have exactly the same Greek wording, the same Greek text.
The punctuation is different between these two editions, the textual notes are very different, but the Greek words are exactly the same. The Nestle-Aland 27 , abbreviated NA 27 , cites about 15, variants in the text and is a more scholarly edition in the apparatus, that is in its footnote-like section on the bottom of each page. That may seem like a lot of variants, but I will put this into perspective later on. In contrast the UBS Greek text has only about variants in its apparatus, and although this apparatus cites far fewer variants, each variant is given more manuscript information.
It also should be noted that there are a few sections in this Greek text that have been enclosed with double brackets [[ Some of these include the account of the adulteress John , the ending of Mark , the angel and sweat like blood in Luke and the confession of the Ethiopian Acts Different English versions treat the above passages differently, some simply place a marginal note showing the text has weak or only late manuscript support, others put some of these texts in the side margin, others put [ ] brackets around the text identifying to the careful reader that this portion of the text does not have early manuscript support.
In this regard, it notes the variants that would possibly make a difference in translation. Most variants do not affect translation at all as you will see shortly. The USB 4 has removed variants and added new variants. Kent Clarke explores the reasons for this dramatic upgrade in the certainty of the text as he looks for the manuscript evidence cited in both editions.
Clarke, It is obvious that from to the members of this committee, which has seen some change in membership, have become more confident in this printed Greek text. This is encouraging to observe the growing confidence of these textual scholars. The explanations for this growing optimism between the 3 rd corrected and 4th editions have not been explained very adequately according to Kent Clarke.
Getting a Perspective. My BibleWorks computer software will in just over a second compare all the differences between these four different Greek Texts. Let us take brief look to see how similar these four Greek Texts are. In the chart below I will look at all the differences between these four texts in Matthew chapter one only.
Mathew chapter two has fewer variants than chapter one. Matthew chapter one has 25 verses. In the first chart below all the verses that have the same exact wording for all the words in each verse, and the number of Greek words in that verse.
This is not to say that there are not variants in these verses below because there are some, but rather these five committees using different sets of manuscripts have concluded that this represents what the initial text according to the set of manuscripts they used. Remember the manuscripts for the TR come from about 25 manuscripts from the th century generally.
The Majority text comes from the manuscripts beginning from the 5 th century to the 15 th century. The WH text comes from a few manuscripts from the 4 th century and a few additional manuscripts located mainly in the Alexandrian family.
The NU text is also from the Alexandrian family now supported and supplemented with the additional papyri. This shows that the Greek Text is far more consistent through the centuries than some might think. Secondly, this shows that the Greek Text in these five editions in these verses above is the same, but our English translations use different English vocabulary in these verses.
The variety in English translations in the above verses is the English, not the Greek. Now we will look at the differences of these five Greek texts from Matthew chapter one. You may want to just skim over these, but it does give you an idea of how close these Greek texts read even when they are different. So the name Obed is spelled two different ways 2 times per verse 5.
The17 remaining words are exactly the same. So the name David is spelled three different ways 2 times per verse 6. So the name Solomon is spelled two different ways. The earliest manuscripts do not contain these words. The remaining 13 words are exactly the same. The 14 remaining words are exactly the same. Now I will overview:. There is a 7th century manuscript that does not contain the name Jesus in this verse. So there is one letter difference here between these two words. So these words are often translated the same.
The remaining 25 words are exactly the same in all four Greek Texts. These two different Greek words are closely related, and are most often translated the same. The remaining 15 words are exactly the same. The remaining 14 words are exactly the same. The remaining 18 words are exactly the same. So when we are done looking at one chapter, comparing five different Greek texts, we have about 27 variants.
Of these 27 most all are spelling differences and untranslatable. You might have thought then that there were going to be many serious differences. Surprisingly, of the translatable differences, we have 5 words. This looks extremely disheartening to someone who has not taken the time to look into them as we have here.
When you begin to look carefully, there are only two that have any kind of real meaning at all, but these two are minimal.
0コメント