Choosing a translation: better Greek manuscripts

KJVGenesispg1In the last post, I discussed one of the reasons I prefer one of the modern versions of the Bible: the archeological discoveries that have shed further light on the meaning of certain terms and passages.

Another important reason for using the newer versions are the manuscripts that have been discovered in the last few centuries. Fragments have been found from just a few decades after the original writing. Many manuscripts have been found that have helped us improve our understanding of what the text said before copies were made.

In the 16th and 17th century, when the first translations were being made in English, the most commonly used Greek text was known as the Textus Receptus. This text tended to be what we call an inflated text; when two manuscripts had different readings, both readings were included. That’s why you’ll find many words and verses in the older versions that aren’t in the newer versions.

When choosing a Bible version, I’m going to choose one that uses the better Greek texts. That’s one of the basic criteria I use when making that choice.

7 thoughts on “Choosing a translation: better Greek manuscripts

  1. laymond

    I prefer a bible where the New is written in context with the Old, I like a bible to enhance the Old testament with the New, not change it. If we are to change the Greek bible we need to change the Hebrew bible to fit.
    Tim, why was the Gospel written in Greek? Was it first written in Hebrew then translated into Greek, or was it written for the Greek? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John fluent in Greek. Weren’t their messages written for the Hebrew people? Were all Hebrews speakers of Greek? What if, one day we find the gospels written in Hebrew, and they don’t match the Greek, are we all condemned because we didn’t find them?
    Tim, just saying when we start raising questions with the way the bible was written, we get into deep water. We either believe or we don’t it’s that simple. New and improved, have you found a flaw in the KJV that would condemn a person, where the new and improved would save?

  2. nick gill

    1. Because Greek was the most popular language in the post-Alexandrian world. It was spoken from France to India, as well as across north Africa.

    2. We don’t know — although I’ve heard that Mark’s rough-and-tumble Greek becomes beautiful Hebrew. In fact, I doubt that much of the NT was even spoken in Greek, although it is quite likely that much of the Gospels were spoken in Aramaic.

    3. Yes. Probably. YES! Yes.

    4. No — their messages were written for their entire world, most of which spoke Greek at the time.

    5. Probably. While Aramaic would probably be their mother tongue, they’d learn Greek very fast. Slaves learn their masters’ language very quickly.

    6. WHAT??? Have you been drinking Dan Brown’s kool-aid again?

    7. Tim didn’t say a word about how the Bible was written — everything he wrote above concerned how it was translated.

    8. KJV-lovers ALWAYS ask that question. Of course the answer is no; but the question is terribly flawed. It suggests that checking that salvation-box is all that matters. “Yup, I’m saved! As long as I’m saved, I’m not worried about getting to know my Creator any better.” Better translations lead to greater understanding (and thus truer intimacy), in the same way that you’d rather have a splendid and accurate digital photograph of your spouse than one of those carnival caricatures. Both pictures let you know that the person exists — only one depicts them accurately.

  3. laymond

    Nick, where do you come up with all this stuff, your indwelling spirit telling you all this, :) or some other fallible man? actually I was speaking to Tim.

  4. Tim Archer Post author

    Laymond,
    That doesn’t make any sense, the New is written in context with the Old. I think you mean that both use the same words. There’s no reason why we should expect that.
    Brother Laymond, if you don’t understand by now how I see salvation, I doubt that you ever will. No one has made this a salvation issue. As I’ve said twice in this series, the same argument was used against the King James. Do we need to go back to the Geneva Bible? Or is it the Latin Vulgate?
    And Comment #4 was out of place. You posted in a public way. If you want to speak to me privately, you have my e-mail.
    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  5. nick gill

    I got most of my answers above from the same fallible men who tell us that Nero is the Caesar to whom Paul appealed and about whom Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans. Laymond, if you want to discount reliable (not infallible, but reliable) historical investigation in favor of implausible suggestions (“What if, one day we find the gospels written in Hebrew, and they don’t match the Greek”), be my guest.

    If my answers are flawed, I beg you to show me so that I might stand corrected.

    in HIS love,
    nick

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.