Ill be making a video discussing (in depth) my thoughts on the Tyndale House Greek NT. I tried to answer an interesting question about it, since both It and the Hodges and Farstad text prefered the genological method. To try and answer this question in the comments section would be too hard, so ill make a video about it instead 😊
I'm not Majority Text, but at the same time I don't think it's something Christians should fight over and tear each other down about. I think we can respectfully disagree with one another on the best textual basis or bases for the New Testament, engage in reasonable debate, and so forth. Ultimately it should hopefully produce more light than heat. All that said, I'd be more than glad to use a Majority Text or Textus Receptus translation like the NKJV and no Critical Text translation for the rest of my life if it meant more people reading, studying, and living the Bible. 😊
#1 rule in theology - DO NOT TRY TO BE HOLIER THAN JESUS. When they brought Jesus the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Galilee it wasn't the autographa (Luke 4:17). It was a copy. More than likely it was at least a copy of a copy. When the apostles wrote the New Testament they had no problem quoting not only Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but also the Targum (a paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) such as in Mark 1:11, 4:11, 11:2 and many more passages. I don't stick to one "family" of Greek texts because the differences are very minor and they both have their advantages.
Great video! I haven't really committed fully but lean toward Majority Text. Can't wait to hear more videos like this one. You have no shortage of potential video material to choose from. Better get busy! (And I apologize in advance for some commenters who are going to wear you out when it comes to KJVO stuff).
@@bhsher thank you so much! I definitely plan on making a lot more videos about it, you're right the potential is bottomless 😂. Yeah the kjvo guys come out of the woodworks lol
@@AndreaSutherland good question. The textus Receptus is very close to the Byzantine text, and is primarily based upon the majority of NT manuscripts, however it deviates in a few places away from the majority of Greek manuscripts and follows the Latin texts, most notably the Vulgate.
@@Ldgreggbell yes! I have looked into it, I am cautious of one man translations, so intend to stick with the main ones. However, I have heard good things about it b
@JohnMiles117 to say one person has translated it is not quite true, there have been a lot volunteers that have helped revise it. I personally find it to be fine, but I'm not a fan of the contractions.
@@JohnMiles117 I used it for about 4 months. I do like the British edition as I write in British English. It is essentially a revision of the ASV, so it's quite literal, but fairly easy to follow and understand.
There's a form of "textual criticism" (or really, textual acceptance) that says that the KJB is the right text, that it is the final form of the received text. This moves the entire conversation out of looking at the original languages and places focus on English. It also disregards any need for continuing textual work in that it argues that the text has now been recovered and settled.
@@bibleprotector interesting, the only question I would have for someone who held that view is how do you know that that transition from one language to another has officially taken place? In other words how do you now know that an English translation is inspired.
@@JohnMiles117 This once again proves you don't know about this topic. Most KJBOs do not say that the KJB was made by inspiration. The translators weren't inspired. Inspiration took place when Moses wrote in Hebrew, and Paul in Greek. Also, we know the KJB is a translation because it says so on the front page. But why are you asking about translation when the discussion is about version/readings/text?
@bibleprotector because you said that you believe that the King James Bible is the final version of the TR, which led me to believe you were referring to the translation itself and not the Textus receptus.
@@JohnMiles117 The KJB is a text itself. There are in fact many, at least 30, different TR editions. The KJB is also one of them, but the final form of the TR. The KJB IS therefore the definitive representative of the received text.
Have you ever read the Tyndale House Greek New Testament? Their position is in the middle between the Majority and the CT. They consider only the MSS from before the VI century and decide based on the majority reading among those. I find this a good compromise since (at least in my mind) it's hard to attribute the same weight to an XIV-century MSS as an IV-century papyrus.
@@adamfoerster9098 I have looked into it. I'll admit it does cause an interesting question. I'll address that in my next video. I tried typing it out however it was WAY to long lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117personally, the only text I call into extreme question is the Johanan Coma (?) on the Trinity since it only has like 5 late mss attestation, 3 of which are marginal notes.
@richiejourney1840 I would agree with that. At this point in time that is the only passage in the Bible, that I would call into question. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying, but each of those variants really have to be taken by themselves. You can't really lump all of them into one camp. I would pretty much agree with keeping all of those with the exception of 1st John 5:7, I think that one is spurious, however I do appreciate the caution and not throwing things out immediately.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree, I do want to be careful though and not to try to think that they are maliciously taking these out. I think they are just as concerned about inserting something into the text that is not original, as we are concerned about something original being taken out
Ill be making a video discussing (in depth) my thoughts on the Tyndale House Greek NT. I tried to answer an interesting question about it, since both It and the Hodges and Farstad text prefered the genological method. To try and answer this question in the comments section would be too hard, so ill make a video about it instead 😊
Nice to see another Majority Text advocate on RUclips. Keep up the good work, brother.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thanks Stephen 👍
I think we are going through a Byzantine renaissance!
@@DanielSteel1999 I would definitely agree
Great info. Still deciding. I'm just glad that I am learning to read the GNT.
@@alexandersmith9385 Amen!
Then you will notice all the places where the translators make all their mistakes.
while i am not a majority text guy, it is refreshing to see someone who likes the byzantine manuscripts isn’t a TR only or KJV only person.
@@fruitsnacks155 thank you!
I'm pleased as punch! Great stuff John!
@@Dwayne_Green Thanks Dwayne! 😂
I'm not Majority Text, but at the same time I don't think it's something Christians should fight over and tear each other down about. I think we can respectfully disagree with one another on the best textual basis or bases for the New Testament, engage in reasonable debate, and so forth. Ultimately it should hopefully produce more light than heat.
All that said, I'd be more than glad to use a Majority Text or Textus Receptus translation like the NKJV and no Critical Text translation for the rest of my life if it meant more people reading, studying, and living the Bible. 😊
@@philtheo well said! Amen!
👍
#1 rule in theology - DO NOT TRY TO BE HOLIER THAN JESUS. When they brought Jesus the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Galilee it wasn't the autographa (Luke 4:17). It was a copy. More than likely it was at least a copy of a copy. When the apostles wrote the New Testament they had no problem quoting not only Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but also the Targum (a paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) such as in Mark 1:11, 4:11, 11:2 and many more passages. I don't stick to one "family" of Greek texts because the differences are very minor and they both have their advantages.
@@KildaltonBTS well said!
Majority text here also.
@@ScottManser-eu2pg good to have another brother in the house! 😂
Great video! I haven't really committed fully but lean toward Majority Text. Can't wait to hear more videos like this one. You have no shortage of potential video material to choose from. Better get busy!
(And I apologize in advance for some commenters who are going to wear you out when it comes to KJVO stuff).
@@bhsher thank you so much! I definitely plan on making a lot more videos about it, you're right the potential is bottomless 😂. Yeah the kjvo guys come out of the woodworks lol
Now for the Old Testament - BHS/BHQ (Masoretic Text - Leningrad, Aleppo), LXX, DSS, Targums, etc.? 😊
@@philtheo 😂😂 one testament at a time (masoreric=leningrad/DSS)
What about the Textus Receptus, particularly, the Stephanus 1550 Greek New Testament which almost 100% matches the King James Bible (KJV)?
@@AndreaSutherland good question. The textus Receptus is very close to the Byzantine text, and is primarily based upon the majority of NT manuscripts, however it deviates in a few places away from the majority of Greek manuscripts and follows the Latin texts, most notably the Vulgate.
Majority Text is the best position. Have you considered using the WEB translation?
@@Ldgreggbell yes! I have looked into it, I am cautious of one man translations, so intend to stick with the main ones. However, I have heard good things about it b
@JohnMiles117 to say one person has translated it is not quite true, there have been a lot volunteers that have helped revise it. I personally find it to be fine, but I'm not a fan of the contractions.
@Ldgreggbell I didn't know that! Thank you for telling me, have you used it much? I'll admit it does intrigue me
@@JohnMiles117 I used it for about 4 months. I do like the British edition as I write in British English. It is essentially a revision of the ASV, so it's quite literal, but fairly easy to follow and understand.
@Ldgreggbell that's super good to know, I'm definitely going to have to go take another look at it.
There's a form of "textual criticism" (or really, textual acceptance) that says that the KJB is the right text, that it is the final form of the received text. This moves the entire conversation out of looking at the original languages and places focus on English. It also disregards any need for continuing textual work in that it argues that the text has now been recovered and settled.
@@bibleprotector interesting, the only question I would have for someone who held that view is how do you know that that transition from one language to another has officially taken place? In other words how do you now know that an English translation is inspired.
@@JohnMiles117 This once again proves you don't know about this topic. Most KJBOs do not say that the KJB was made by inspiration. The translators weren't inspired. Inspiration took place when Moses wrote in Hebrew, and Paul in Greek.
Also, we know the KJB is a translation because it says so on the front page.
But why are you asking about translation when the discussion is about version/readings/text?
@bibleprotector because you said that you believe that the King James Bible is the final version of the TR, which led me to believe you were referring to the translation itself and not the Textus receptus.
@@JohnMiles117 The KJB is a text itself. There are in fact many, at least 30, different TR editions. The KJB is also one of them, but the final form of the TR. The KJB IS therefore the definitive representative of the received text.
@bibleprotector it's actually not true, the King James Bible has gone through several revisions and updates. Ergo there are several versions of it.
Have you ever read the Tyndale House Greek New Testament? Their position is in the middle between the Majority and the CT. They consider only the MSS from before the VI century and decide based on the majority reading among those. I find this a good compromise since (at least in my mind) it's hard to attribute the same weight to an XIV-century MSS as an IV-century papyrus.
@@adamfoerster9098 I have looked into it. I'll admit it does cause an interesting question. I'll address that in my next video. I tried typing it out however it was WAY to long lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117that’s the standard TC’s argument…the oldest and fewest are correct even though they also vary among each other isn’t it?
@richiejourney1840 in a nutshell yes. They would believe that simply because those manuscripts are older they are therefore inherently more accurate.
@@JohnMiles117personally, the only text I call into extreme question is the Johanan Coma (?) on the Trinity since it only has like 5 late mss attestation, 3 of which are marginal notes.
@richiejourney1840 I would agree with that. At this point in time that is the only passage in the Bible, that I would call into question. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying, but each of those variants really have to be taken by themselves. You can't really lump all of them into one camp. I would pretty much agree with keeping all of those with the exception of 1st John 5:7, I think that one is spurious, however I do appreciate the caution and not throwing things out immediately.
@@JohnMiles117 While each must be weighed individually, they do show a pattern or a statistical trendline. Blessings.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree, I do want to be careful though and not to try to think that they are maliciously taking these out. I think they are just as concerned about inserting something into the text that is not original, as we are concerned about something original being taken out
@@JohnMiles117 I have met some CT people and found them to be real Christians. We just have different presuppositions. The truth will out. God bless.
@jamessheffield4173 I agree!
Translations from Greek to English is where the problems are. Too many theoligical biases affect translators.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 that is definitely a possibility sometimes, it's hard not to let our theology filter into everything. 😁👍
@@JohnMiles117 It should never happen.
Jesus nerds are the worst