THE CATACOMBS
You are here: Home
> Catacombs > Articles
Is the ISV NT based on the
Textus Receptus Greek text?
The
version of the TR that I currently use is Beza's 1598 edition as edited by
F. H. A. Scriebner, and published by Cambridge University Press in 1902.
Until recently I had been using the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad,
published by Thomas Nelson, but have gone back to the TR edition mentioned
above due some research I have been currently doing for a textual study
group I lead at Raytheon. One example of what I have seen deals with the
usually deleted Trinitarian verse of 1 John 5:7. Although this text is not
found in most Greek manuscripts, it is found in several: 61, 629, 918, 2473,
2318, 221, 635, 88, 429, 636. But of much more weight is the fact that
several of the Early Church Fathers quote the Comma as genuine: Cyprian (258
A.D.), Priscillian (385 A.D.), Cassian (435 A.D.), Cassiodorous (580 A.D.),
and many of the early African and western Bishops. However, to me, the
strongest evidence of its authenticity is the Greek text itself, and for
this I will quote from Dr. Thomas Holland:
Looking
at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter
(Spirit, water, and blood). However they are followed by a participle that
is masculine.... Those who know the Greek language understand this to be
poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six
has the same participle but stands on its own. Even more noticeably, verse
six, has the same principle but stands in the neuter (Gk. to marturoun).
Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle ? The
answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine
nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also
has the Greek masculine participle oi marturounte".
With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the
participle in verse eight to be masculine because of the masculine nouns
in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper
Greek grammar.
I don't
put intellectual weight to this, but it should also be remembered that the
basic TR text is that found in the manuscripts from Antioch -- which we know
from Acts was where the first followers of Jesus were called Christians, and
which church was considered clean from early heresies. The same cannot be
said for Alexandria where most of the early heresies developed, and from
which the manuscripts supporting the Critical Text came from.
I found your arguments
most interesting. You've obviously done your homework, unlike all too many
TR-advocates that I've run into over the years. Most of them I've met have
called our ISV NT demonic because we've admitted that we've used other
texts besides the TR in the ISV translation. So it was nice to see some
cogent thinking displayed. BTW, I liked your comments about Alexandria vs.
Antioch. The problems between the two cities also highlight the old
schools of document interpretation, of course, with the Alexandrian school
coming up with the mystical interpretation school and the Antiochian with
the historical/grammatical school (of which I consider myself a respectful
descendant).
Having
said all of this, I also wanted to point out that I am not a "KJV Only"
person (but would prefer the Oxford edition you mentioned). I looked into
the ISV, and its website, because I like the contemporary English, but
didn't know what text was being used. I currently use the NKJV, but find
it a little "stilted" and not really friendly for young folks. Should
you ever hear or know of a contemporary translation based on the TR I
would certainly be interested to know about -- but not if it is like
Green's Modern King James Version (MKJV, LiTV, or even the World English
Bible [based on Majority text]).
I know of none. But do
take another look at the ISV. The variants we accept really do seem
appropriate. That's why we've used them. And the footnotes really are part
of the text. Feel free to read them instead of what's in the text if you
don't like the text. That's why they're variant readings.
|
