Not disagreeing with John, But I myself, wondered about the more recent Majority and Byzantine, vs the older Erasmus. This commenter below was interesting:
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript.
In 1977 Pickering predicted that “the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the Original [=Majority Text] in something over a thousand places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the critical texts will be found to differ from the Original in some five thousand places, many of them being serious differences.”
There is much to criticize in the way this prediction is stated; nevertheless the quantitative aspect of Pickering’s guess is on the mark. In this writer’s examination of Hodges and Farstad’s Majority Text he has counted 1,838 differences between it and the Textus Receptus. This is indeed “something over a thousand” differences! Most notably the Majority Text excluded Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum (the Textus Receptus’s rendering of 1 John 5:7–8 with its Trinitarian formula). As well, in the last six verses of Revelation, which Erasmus had to translate into Greek from Latin, there are 17 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.
The fact of almost 2,000 differences between these two texts, many of them quite significant, is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it should be rather disconcerting to Textus Receptus advocates who have been depending on Hodges’s scholarship for some time. On the other hand it cries out for a fresh look, by New Testament students, at the Byzantine text-type, which has been seen only through a glass darkly in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.
In recent years, a few scholars have attempted to defend the validity of what they would call the Majority Text. But the Majority Text is nearly the same as the Textus Receptus in that the TR was composed from manuscripts belonging to the Majority Text. The two terms are not completely synonymous because the TR does not consistently display a Majority Text type throughout. The Majority Text is nearly synonymous with the Byzantine Text because it was in Byzantium (and surrounds) that the Lucian text was copied again and again until it was standardized in thousands of manuscripts.
Modern advocates of the superiority of the TR over other text types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Their arguments are more theological than textual. They reason that God would not have allowed a corrupt or inferior text to be found in the majority of manuscripts, while permitting a superior text to be hidden away in a few early manuscripts somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Further, they argue that the church’s adoption of the Majority Text was a vindication of its correctness, while the obscurity of the Egyptian text was a sign of its rejection. In all of this reasoning, they miss the whole idea that God may have superintended the recovery of earlier and superior manuscripts during the past few centuries. This recovery has enabled biblical scholars to use earlier and superior manuscripts in the task of recovering the original wording of the Greek New Testament.
and can you help me out with the difference between the TR and the Majority Text?
John's quotes are great ... pretty much, you end up with one of the KJV varients. The reason isn't that the greeks are about the same. Rather, there's more variants between english and greek, than greek to greek.
There was a good example today that Kiyah introduced for Enoch ... two english translations not even remotely close. But the greek (few mss's) probably in the ball-park.
Translation is interesting, and far more susceptable to gaming than churchmen would like. A few years back, a favorite pastor of ours gamed a specific greek word. End of the line for me. I'm a big believer in cards on the table ... lay out the possibles. But most are amenable to most accepted ... KJV or MEV a good choice.
Regarding TR vs MT, don't know. TR was such a kludge, I spent most of my time on the Byzantine vs the NA. The neural nets preferred the Byzantine, and I liked the authors' logic.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Sorry MM, your question requires you to do some studying on your own. It is way beyond the scope of the forums and you will find varying opinions on the subject. Are the original autographs closer to the majority of texts or the oldest texts? Your library or youtube or google will have lots of information to assist you in arriving at your own opinion on the matter. I am far from an expert to even provide my opinion. It is very interesting to study however. I hope you enjoy your voyage.
I suggest the MEV if you have it. Otherwise KJV or NKJV would track the closest.
Not disagreeing with John, But I myself, wondered about the more recent Majority and Byzantine, vs the older Erasmus. This commenter below was interesting:
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Is the MEV based on the majority text or TR?
and can you help me out with the difference between the TR and the Majority Text?
From my Logos Library:
The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript.
Modern English Version (Thinline Edition.; Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014), x.
majority text versus the textus receptus
In 1977 Pickering predicted that “the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the Original [=Majority Text] in something over a thousand places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the critical texts will be found to differ from the Original in some five thousand places, many of them being serious differences.”
There is much to criticize in the way this prediction is stated; nevertheless the quantitative aspect of Pickering’s guess is on the mark. In this writer’s examination of Hodges and Farstad’s Majority Text he has counted 1,838 differences between it and the Textus Receptus. This is indeed “something over a thousand” differences! Most notably the Majority Text excluded Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum (the Textus Receptus’s rendering of 1 John 5:7–8 with its Trinitarian formula). As well, in the last six verses of Revelation, which Erasmus had to translate into Greek from Latin, there are 17 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.
The fact of almost 2,000 differences between these two texts, many of them quite significant, is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it should be rather disconcerting to Textus Receptus advocates who have been depending on Hodges’s scholarship for some time. On the other hand it cries out for a fresh look, by New Testament students, at the Byzantine text-type, which has been seen only through a glass darkly in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.
Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989): 276–277.
The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text
In recent years, a few scholars have attempted to defend the validity of what they would call the Majority Text. But the Majority Text is nearly the same as the Textus Receptus in that the TR was composed from manuscripts belonging to the Majority Text. The two terms are not completely synonymous because the TR does not consistently display a Majority Text type throughout. The Majority Text is nearly synonymous with the Byzantine Text because it was in Byzantium (and surrounds) that the Lucian text was copied again and again until it was standardized in thousands of manuscripts.
Modern advocates of the superiority of the TR over other text types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Their arguments are more theological than textual. They reason that God would not have allowed a corrupt or inferior text to be found in the majority of manuscripts, while permitting a superior text to be hidden away in a few early manuscripts somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Further, they argue that the church’s adoption of the Majority Text was a vindication of its correctness, while the obscurity of the Egyptian text was a sign of its rejection. In all of this reasoning, they miss the whole idea that God may have superintended the recovery of earlier and superior manuscripts during the past few centuries. This recovery has enabled biblical scholars to use earlier and superior manuscripts in the task of recovering the original wording of the Greek New Testament.
Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 98.
Denise can probably give you a summary, but you should try searching your Logos library as it is an interesting subject.
John's quotes are great ... pretty much, you end up with one of the KJV varients. The reason isn't that the greeks are about the same. Rather, there's more variants between english and greek, than greek to greek.
There was a good example today that Kiyah introduced for Enoch ... two english translations not even remotely close. But the greek (few mss's) probably in the ball-park.
Translation is interesting, and far more susceptable to gaming than churchmen would like. A few years back, a favorite pastor of ours gamed a specific greek word. End of the line for me. I'm a big believer in cards on the table ... lay out the possibles. But most are amenable to most accepted ... KJV or MEV a good choice.
Regarding TR vs MT, don't know. TR was such a kludge, I spent most of my time on the Byzantine vs the NA. The neural nets preferred the Byzantine, and I liked the authors' logic.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
couldn't track down the ref to Enoch. Anyway - let me backtrack my last question.
Is there or are there any gk texts that are simply the closest to the original autographs?
Sorry MM, your question requires you to do some studying on your own. It is way beyond the scope of the forums and you will find varying opinions on the subject. Are the original autographs closer to the majority of texts or the oldest texts? Your library or youtube or google will have lots of information to assist you in arriving at your own opinion on the matter. I am far from an expert to even provide my opinion. It is very interesting to study however. I hope you enjoy your voyage.
Appreciate John. Bon voyage...
Here is a good search on your library to get you started: