Bble History

[IM4given]

This article may help to clarify things:

Bible: History of the KJV?

The King James Version of the Bible, released in 1611, was authorized by King James in order to have as accurate a translation as possible, which could be printed and widely circulated. The original Old Testament writings were in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Jerome (5th century) translated the Bible into Latin, called the Vulgate, which has become the official Roman Catholic Bible. The Council of Trent in 1546 met to consider doctrines and published a list of books, which were to be considered canonical, that is, to be included in the Bible. This list included the 39 books of the Old Testament, plus 7 Apochraphal books, plus the New Testament 27. The Jews, however, do not accept the 7 Apochrapha as canonical. The Jewish Bible is limited to the Old Testament. The Greek translation these books is known as the Septuagint which is the oldest know translation of any large literary work and most widely used translation of any ancient writing. It is thought to have originated toward the end of the 3rd century BC or the beginning of the 2nd century BC. The earliest reference to this work dates around 132 BC. This translation is much older than the Masoretic translations of the first five centuries AD.

Since the Bible was hand written in the centuries prior to the invention of the printing press, few copies were available. The Latin translation (Vulgate) was the most common. Reformers such as Luther and Tyndale translated portions of the Latin Bible into the common language of the people; Luther into German and Tyndale into English. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the English language in about 1400 AD. While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it. Furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation.

In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, kept from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. Since the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" the accuracy of the Bible has been verified.

[justalex]

To clarify, the New Testement was originally authored in Greek, correct?

Yes that is correct.



[

Yes that is correct. Remember these catagories are just tools used by scholars. There was no rubber stamp that said Western or Byzantine or Alexandrian. Primararly they denote regions where the earliest examples and therefore the source of these different manuscripts are.

[Hanna]

This article may help to clarify things:

Bible: History of the KJV?

It does thank you...and don't you love copy/paste:)

[Hanna]

Yes that is correct.



[

Got it:) Thanks

[Hanna]

By Byzantine we mean Greek. Other than in Greece these manuscripts were copied in countries the had
Greek Orthodox churches and monasteries such as some of eastern Europe. The Catholics would have kept and copied some Greek ms but were more focused on their Latin ms. If you read of the western family of ms it is referring to Catholic manuscripts basically. These support the Byzantine text generally. They definitely don't offer support to the Alexandrian text.

But these Western Manuscripts are a translation into Latin, not just a copy, right?

[BroJesse]

The Latin Vulgate got adopted by the Catholic church, but it wasn't created by one of them, I don't think.

-Alen

There are TWO Vulgates. The old Latin bible that was used by Bible Believers and the Waldenses and then the "official" Latin Vulgate translated by the Catholic Church which sought to replace the old Latin and establish the Catholic Church's dominance.

The old Latin was being used to win souls for literally hundreds of years and Rome tried to stamp it out of existence, along with the men and women who used it to evangelize throughout Southern Italy all the way to Southern France.

[justalex]

But these Western Manuscripts are a translation into Latin, not just a copy, right?

Yes most of the western family of manuscripts were Latin but, they did preserve and copy Greek manuscripts as well.

[IM4given]

It does thank you...and don't you love copy/paste:)

I couldn't live without it! :lol:

[Hanna]

Ok, thanks everyone. I am going to try to gather up all the information I have and put something together. Thanks so much:)

[Hanna]

Wait a minute:) Thick head here;/

First we have the originals, penned in Greek.

Then we have the 2nd family which are copies of the originals. These are also in Greek. They are the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Western texts, so named depending on where it is thought they originated from.

Then we have the 3rd generation, which are translations of the 2nd generation of texts.

A portion of the Bysentine texts, called the Western texts were used to translate the Bible into Latin.

The Alexandrian text was translated into what?.

A portion of the Bysentine texts, called the Textsus Receptus were used to translate the Bible into English.

Why do they criticize using only a portion of the Byzantine texts...if they all agree with each other what does it matter?

[justalex]

opps!!

[justalex]

First we have the originals, penned in Greek.

Yes

Then we have the 2nd family which are copies of the originals. These are also in Greek. They are the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Western texts, so named depending on where it is thought they originated from.

There were copies made and then copies of copies and so on. Byzantine, Alexandrian and Western are groups of these copies with the name denoting the origin of these copies. Yes.

Then we have the 3rd generation, which are translations of the 2nd generation of texts.

Yes sort of. Very early on we find translations of the Greek text into Latin and Syrian. These were probably translated from the first or second generation copies if not the originals them self. The Bible was translated into several other languages in the following few centuries. There were several more independent Latin and probably Syriatic translations during these centuries. Looking at these doesn't give us the word for word greek of the original but it does lend weight to the accuracy of some disputed passages or texts. We also have many letters from different pastors[church Fathers] with scripture quotations. Again these add weight to the accuracy of the Byzantine text and of course the TR.

A portion of the Byzantine texts, called the Western texts were used to translate the Bible into Latin.

The early Western text agrees overwhelmingly with the Byzantine text. But, if the western text is mentioned at all it generally is separated from the Byzantine because of it's Latin origin.

The Alexandrian text was translated
into what?.

Nothing really until the 19th century. They were considered corrupt and therefore unreliable. Westcott and Horts change all that with there new textual theories. They believed that all texts were corrupt and that this occurred progressively. Therefore an older manuscript and especially one that differed greatly than the newer copies would be considered more accurate. They also taught that the shorter version of a disputed passage would most likely be the original because they thought scribes would add notes to passages which the next scribe would copy as text. This is why modern translations often omit parts of verses or whole verses/passages.
They did not believe that God preserved His word and it was their job to guess what it might have been.

A portion of the Byzantine texts, called the Textsus Receptus were used to translate the Bible into English.

The TR was a copy made in the 15th century by Erasmus. He traveled extensively and had access to all the great libraries in Europe. He would of carried what he believed to be a fairly accurate copy of the New Testament in Greek and made notes of any differences he found in any of the ms he examined. This would allow him to discover any copying mistakes within his base manuscript so his new copy wouldn't repeat them. Erasmus was fluent in a number of languages and would have compared Early translations as well. He also would have been familiar with many of the writings of the church Fathers(so called). This would be important because where his Greek text differed with the official Catholic Bible(Jerome's Latin Vulgate) he would be attacked. These diverse sources would help him provide an answer for them.

After Erasmus finished his Greek text he had it printed. Like most early printed works errors were found in publishing and Erasmus followed his first edition with a couple of revised editions. Also after his death a student of his provided further refinement to this text. When the translation committee for the KJV assembled they had this base work provided for them. Yet they didn't just rely on it blindly but, again looked at other texts both in Greek and translations both early and recent.

The KJV like the TR before it was published and then as mistakes made in the type-setting was discovered it was revised and reprinted several times. In the case of the KJV they also made revisions as they established standard english spelling for some words and even established rules of grammer and punctuation that was adopted by the whole english language.

I discovered an example of how primitive the English language was before the KJV when I read a book about the life of William Tyndale. In it they had photocopies of some letters Tyndale had written. In them he had spelled his own name in three or four different ways. Imagine a world without spelling tests.LOL.

Why do they criticize using only a portion of the Byzantine texts...if they all agree with each other what does it matter?

The Critics would have us accept the Alexandrian texts as more accurate because of their age and ironically because they differ greatly from most texts. It should be noted that most of the Uncials agree with the TR at a rate of something like 4 to 1.
They are disregarded as early corruptions because they agree with the majority of texts. The early translations as well as the quotations of the Church Fathers(so called) also support the TR greatly.

I suppose one motivation for rejecting the TR is money. If you produce your own text you can copyright it and any translation based upon it. Most modern english bibles use their own copyrighted(and published) greek text.

[Will]

Just to point out, it's highly probable that Matthew and John were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek.

[JJJ4given]

Just to point out, it's highly probable that Matthew and John were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek.

That's debated. And there is no proof for it either.

[Will]

That's debated. And there is no proof for it either.

Correct, there is no proof for it. However, Matthew and John were likely written to Jewish believers, whereas Mark and Luke were written to Gentiles.