New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[ohio jones]

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

The English language hasn’t changed in a significant way since the NIV was published, though, and neither has our understanding of the authenticity and authority of various source texts.

The only significant change that comes to my mind (and one to which I have not adapted) is the growing reluctance to use the word 'man' where the meaning is clearly something they want to render as 'humanity', or 'humankind', even 'mankind' being 'offensive' to some, generally speaking those well outside of our circles. I have read condemnations of this kind of change, which do not in any way change the actual meaning. Now if they start changing 'man' or 'husband' to 'person' or 'spouse', then they've slipped over the hill and into the deep ditch of heresy.

Regarding the NASB, I am under the impression that it is not based on the same textual tradition as is the KJV. I think it is more akin to the NIV. (I used the NASB almost exclusively from around 1974 until 1978, but I don't have my copy with me here. I say 'almost', because I bought an NIV-KJV-Greek interlinear New Testament in 75. As I recall, the full NIV did not come out until 1978.)

Responding to the underlined, the only one in my list that like KJV is based on the Textus Receptus is NKJV. However, I consider the others to be "in the KJV tradition" notwithstanding their use of modern critical texts since they trace their lineage to the Revised Version, Standard American Edition, more commonly known as the "Old" American Standard Version (ASV), which continued the pattern of periodic updates to the KJV that was suspended in 1769.

[MattY]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I think most of them have notes for that kind of thing when it is worth noting - certainly more than the KJV has. The NET Bible has extensive gobsmackingly awesome notes for everything, so you should pick up one of those if you haven't already.

[barnhart]

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

The English language hasn’t changed in a significant way since the NIV was published, though, and neither has our understanding of the authenticity and authority of various source texts.

The only significant change that comes to my mind (and one to which I have not adapted) is the growing reluctance to use the word 'man' where the meaning is clearly something they want to render as 'humanity', or 'humankind', even 'mankind' being 'offensive' to some, generally speaking those well outside of our circles. I have read condemnations of this kind of change, which do not in any way change the actual meaning. Now if they start changing 'man' or 'husband' to 'person' or 'spouse', then they've slipped over the hill and into the deep ditch of heresy.

Regarding the NASB, I am under the impression that it is not based on the same textual tradition as is the KJV. I think it is more akin to the NIV. (I used the NASB almost exclusively from around 1974 until 1978, but I don't have my copy with me here. I say 'almost', because I bought an NIV-KJV-Greek interlinear New Testament in 75. As I recall, the full NIV did not come out until 1978.)

Doesn't the KJV render sons of Israel as children of Israel?

[Neto]

The English language hasn’t changed in a significant way since the NIV was published, though, and neither has our understanding of the authenticity and authority of various source texts.

The only significant change that comes to my mind (and one to which I have not adapted) is the growing reluctance to use the word 'man' where the meaning is clearly something they want to render as 'humanity', or 'humankind', even 'mankind' being 'offensive' to some, generally speaking those well outside of our circles. I have read condemnations of this kind of change, which do not in any way change the actual meaning. Now if they start changing 'man' or 'husband' to 'person' or 'spouse', then they've slipped over the hill and into the deep ditch of heresy.

Regarding the NASB, I am under the impression that it is not based on the same textual tradition as is the KJV. I think it is more akin to the NIV. (I used the NASB almost exclusively from around 1974 until 1978, but I don't have my copy with me here. I say 'almost', because I bought an NIV-KJV-Greek interlinear New Testament in 75. As I recall, the full NIV did not come out until 1978.)

Doesn't the KJV render sons of Israel as children of Israel?

Good question. That's something I have not noticed.

But I have seen that (at least compared to the Nestle-Aland text that we used in our translation work) the KJV is not consistent in how it renders the NAME.

[Ernie]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I think most of them have notes for that kind of thing when it is worth noting - certainly more than the KJV has. The NET Bible has extensive gobsmackingly awesome notes for everything, so you should pick up one of those if you haven't already.

NET is what we use in our Bible Studies and Sunday gatherings.

[JohnH]

The print with notes edition is excellent.

The NET’s apocrypha is also excellent, although for some reason a few books like Tobit must be downloaded as separate PDFs.

[Bootstrap]

Are you familiar with Walter Kaiser's "Uses of the Old Testament in the New." He points out that sometimes NT writers used the LXX, but sometimes they did not. The notion that the early church exclusively used it is therefore not supported. My take: The writers of the New Testament used the LXX when they were speaking Greek, as any good missionary would.

I would be much more open to use of the Septuagint if it were not a translation. It is, however, a translation, and I don't see how anyone could call a translation "inspired" unless you believe that God performed a second act of inspiration for the translators of the LXX. I can't buy that. It is, interestingly similer to some KJV only arguments I have heard in the past, particularly out of Pensacola.

I consider both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text inspired. But the Masoretic text is about a thousand years newer than the oldest Septuagint texts, even if it is in Hebrew. I don't think there is a law that says a translation must be less accurate, and passage of time is also a real concern.

[Bootstrap]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I think most of them have notes for that kind of thing when it is worth noting - certainly more than the KJV has. The NET Bible has extensive gobsmackingly awesome notes for everything, so you should pick up one of those if you haven't already.

NET is what we use in our Bible Studies and Sunday gatherings.

NET is about the only thing I know of that explains the differences among the Greek texts for someone who does not actually read Greek.

If you do know Greek, this is really helpful:

https://greekcntr.org/home/index.html

[cmbl]

I hadn't heard of the NET. Direct to English translation in today's English with a reasonable copyright license. Reasonable copyright license makes me think a repeat of the 1984 NIV being made unavailable is less likely. This could be the successor to the 1984 NIV.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Are you familiar with Walter Kaiser's "Uses of the Old Testament in the New." He points out that sometimes NT writers used the LXX, but sometimes they did not. The notion that the early church exclusively used it is therefore not supported. My take: The writers of the New Testament used the LXX when they were speaking Greek, as any good missionary would.

I would be much more open to use of the Septuagint if it were not a translation. It is, however, a translation, and I don't see how anyone could call a translation "inspired" unless you believe that God performed a second act of inspiration for the translators of the LXX. I can't buy that. It is, interestingly similer to some KJV only arguments I have heard in the past, particularly out of Pensacola.

I consider both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text inspired. But the Masoretic text is about a thousand years newer than the oldest Septuagint texts, even if it is in Hebrew. I don't think there is a law that says a translation must be less accurate, and passage of time is also a real concern.

But we both know that great care was expended in ensuring the accuracy of the MT Hebrew? And translators have to make choices that may or may not be the best choice. I have made such choices, and they proved horribly wrong, but at least no harm was done, except an amused Sunday school class.

I guess this is a choice passage of time or original language.