Deciding on Translations The Manuscripts Question The Bible Versions study

Manuscript Families ● Byzantine (Majority) ● Syriac ● Caesarean ● Alexandrian (Westcott-Hort) ● Western Bonus: Textus Receptus (subset Byz)

Versions and Manuscripts KJV = Ben Hayyim edition of the Mikraot Gedolot for OT; Textus Receptus for NT NKJV = Biblia Hebraica for OT; Textus Receptus for NT NASB, NIV = Biblia Hebraica for OT; Nestle-Aland Greek for NT [Alexandrian text] ESV = revision of Revised Standard Version; same Gk & Heb texts [Alexandrian text]

Manuscript Issues Two general positions: Older is better Majority is better Variations on the themes complicate the decisions

Older is better Theory: Oldest manuscripts closest to original, thus better Most modern scholars hold this view Modern translations follow this view Choice of a modern translation will depend on: Translation philosophy Stylistic considerations

Majority is better Older manuscripts were discards Majority represented accepted text Under this category, both NKJV and KJV acceptable

Textus Receptus Only God involved in the work of Erasmus to preserve perfect Gk text This view would also accept both NKJV and KJV

KJV Inerrant (no mistakes) Not only did God preserve word in TR, but also in English by KJV Believe all other versions are corrupt, including NKJV

KJV = New Revelation 1611 Translation a new work of inspiration Where KJV disagrees with Gk and Heb, change Gk and Heb

Surveying KJV only positions TR only, KJV inerrant, KJV inspired are all practically KJV only positions Some “KJV only” people hold to the Majority Text is best view Some “Majority Best” people only “prefer” the KJV – don’t see use of other versions as sin

Conclusion Really only two positions worth considering Older is best Majority is best Tools for making a choice … in coming lessons