English bible/textus receptus

[markusvonkaenel]

Which English bibles are based on the Texts Receptus (Reformation text)?

Or to say it negatively: not based on the NA version.

 

In German there is only Schlachter. 

 

Thanks for help.

[ukfraser]

this is in comfort (its an excellent summary and hope it doesnt break the word count rule)

https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Comfort+Text+Commentary

 

King James Version (1611)—KJV

For the New Testament, the King James translators essentially used the Textus Receptus (see the discussion under “Textus Receptus” above).The King James translators did well with the resources that were available to them, but those resources were flawed, especially with respect to the New Testament text. Since the King James Version was published, earlier and better manuscripts have been discovered, thereby enabling better critical editions of the Greek New Testament and better English translations.

New King James Version (1982)—NKJV

NKJV is a revision of KJV which modernizes its language but does not depart from KJV’s textual decisions. The New Testament of NKJV is thus based on the Textus Receptus, with several marginal notes on readings in the Majority Text (noted in NKJV as M-Text; see discussion under “Textus Receptus” above). NKJV also lists many textual differences between TR and the text of NA/UBS (noted as NU-Text or U-Text). The reader can thus note how many significant differences there are between the two texts.

American Standard Version (1901)—ASV

The ASV (essentially the same as the English Revised Version, 1881, with minor changes made for American readers) is the best English translation reflecting the Greek text produced by the end of nineteenth century through the labors of men like Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. These men were greatly influenced by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, but not by the papyri, since only a few had been discovered and published by then. Thus, ASV reflects the influence of these two great uncial manuscripts and serves as a point of comparison with the subsequent twentieth-century versions. In this commentary, it is cited sparingly.

Revised Standard Version (1952)—RSV

The RSV is a revision of ASV. It was felt that ASV suffered from being too rigid; it needed reworking to make it more idiomatic. The demand for revision was strengthened by the discovery of several important biblical manuscripts in the 1930s and 1940s—namely, the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament and the Chester Beatty Papyri for the New Testament. The RSV New Testament was based on the seventeenth edition of the Nestle text (1941).

New Revised Standard Version (1990)—NRSV

The NRSV is an authorized revision of RSV. Of all the translations, it is the one that most closely follows the text of NA/UBS. No doubt, this is due to the fact that Bruce Metzger served on both the editorial committees—a leading member of the NA/UBS committee and the chairperson for the NRSV committee.

English Standard Version (2001)—ESV

A separate revision of RSV was undertaken by evangelical scholars in the late 1990s, resulting in the ESV. Like NRSV, its translators started with NA/UBS as the textual base for the New Testament. [p. xxviii] In the end, its text lies somewhere between RSV and NRSV; the translators were less likely than the NRSV committee to change RSV readings in the direction of NA/UBS.

New American Standard Bible (1964, 1995)—NASB

The NASB is generally respected as a good study Bible that closely reflects the wording of the original languages, yet is not a fluid translation for Bible reading. Furthermore, this translation is clearly lacking in terms of textual fidelity: though it was originally supposed to follow the twenty-third edition of the Nestle text, it tends to follow the Textus Receptus. This commentary cites the 1964 edition, as this is the version that most readers have in hand. An updated version appeared in 1995, but this update has only a few textual changes in the translation, with a few more changes in the marginal notes.

New International Version (1978, 1983)—NIV

The NIV is an excellent translation in fairly contemporary English. The New Testament essentially follows the United Bible Societies’ first edition of the Greek New Testament (1966). It diverges from NA/UBS in about 350 significant places—many in agreement with TR. This book cites the 1983 edition, which introduced numerous revisions to the original NIV and is the edition most people own.

New English Bible (1961)—NEB

The NEB is worthwhile to analyze because it reflects a very eclectic Greek text. After the translation appeared, the Greek text followed by the translation committee was produced by R. V. G. Tasker. The committee’s verse-by-verse decision making produced a text that is very uneven and yet very interesting. The translators adopted readings never before adopted by English translators.

Revised English Bible (1989)—REB

The REB is a revision of The New English Bible (NEB). The revisers of the New Testament used NA. This choice resulted in several textual changes from NEB, which had followed a very eclectic text. The translators of NEB had adopted readings never before put into print by English translators, but the scholars working on REB adjusted many of these readings back toward the norm. At the same time, they also made some significant textual changes, the most outstanding of which was their treatment of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). Reflecting the overwhelming evidence of the Greek manuscripts, this story is not included in the main body of John’s Gospel. Rather, it is printed as an appendix after the Gospel of John.

New Jerusalem Bible (1986)—NJB

The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible, a translation widely accepted among Roman Catholics for liturgical purposes, for study, and for private reading. The new edition incorporated progress in scholarship over the two decades since the preparation of the first edition. NJB generally has been well received (in Catholic circles and beyond) as an excellent study text. NJB is worthy of analysis because it displays an eclectic text—especially in the book of Acts, where many “Western” readings were adopted.

The New American Bible (1970; 1984 revised NT)—NAB

The New American Bible is the first American Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages (the Jerusalem Bible was originally a French translation). Although this translation was published in 1970, work had begun on this version several decades before. Only after Pope Pius’s [p. xxix] encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1967), however, would a Catholic Bible based on Greek and Hebrew be accepted. Prior to Pius’s encyclical, an American translation based on the Latin Vulgate, called the Confraternity Bible, was published. NAB’s New Testament was revised (in 1984) based on NA. The translation is fairly literal and has very few marginal notes. It does not follow the “Western” readings, unlike NJB.

New Living Translation (1996, 2004)—NLT

The NLT is a complete revision of The Living Bible. The Living Bible was a paraphrase of the American Standard Version, whose New Testament was based upon the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. When it came time to revise The Living Bible, it was deemed appropriate for a translation committee to base its work on the most recent critical editions of the Greek New Testament, the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (twenty-seventh edition) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (fourth corrected edition). The New Testament translators also made judicious evaluation of the manuscript evidence itself. As a result, their textual decisions often depart from the Nestle-Aland text. These departures sometimes affirmed the Westcott and Hort text and at other times affirmed a different manuscript tradition altogether. (Of all the translations, this is the one whose textual decisions I am most familiar with, since I was New Testament coordinator for the project.)

Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)—HCSB

The Holman Christian Standard Bible was originally intended to be a fresh translation of the Majority Text; however, the textual basis was changed early on to the modern critical editions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. In the New Testament, HCSB essentially follows NA/UBS, although it frequently provides TR readings in the footnotes.

The NET Bible (New English Translation) (1996)—NET

The NET Bible is another recent independent translation, known for its extensive translators’ notes. Rather than establishing any printed edition of the Greek New Testament as the basis for NET, textual consultants determined which readings to follow on a case-by-case basis. NET differs from NA/UBS in several hundred places. Its textual decisions are very transparent, since many of the translators’ notes interact with the manuscript evidence.

 

And esv notes

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding

 

And jps isn't

The present English rendering of Kethuvim, like Torah and Neviʾim, is based on the traditional Hebrew text—its consonants, vowels, and syntactical divisions—although the traditional accentuation occasionally has been replaced by an alternative construction

Edited August 13, 2017 by ukfraser

[markusvonkaenel]

Thanks for the answer.

That leaves me with the KJV and and upgrade to the NKJV with Strongs. 

To read the Textus Receptus in a footnote is not really funny 

[ukfraser]

The translator notes to the nrsv are missing in the accordance module and it would be nice to have them

But this is some of the text on nt

 

For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee). As in that edition, double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text, but which we have retained because of their evident antiquity and their importance in the textual tradition. Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies’ edition by an alternative that seemed to us to be superior. Here and there in the footnotes the phrase, "Other ancient authorities read," identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and early versions. In both Testaments, alternative renderings of the text are indicated by the word "Or."

 

and unfortunately ricks link is no longer working in this thread

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17613-nrsv-translator-notes-missing/

[markusvonkaenel]

Now we are at the point, where I can no longer argument. 

I'm not in this business. But what I can understand is, that NA is taking out all jewish remarks in the NT, eg. Acts 18.21. And that is my problem. 

My problem is solved so far: I have a German (Schlachter), an English (KJV) and a Hebrew(Keil-D.) NT based on the Textus Receptus. That is more than good enough. The Tanach I read in Hebrew, so I do not really need a translation and if, only to check if my understanding is correct. 

Edited August 13, 2017 by markusvonkaenel

[ukfraser]

Here is a screen shot from comfort which supports your summary for english translations.

[Fabian]

The translator notes to the nrsv are missing in the accordance module and it would be nice to have them

Unfortunately this is by many Bibles the case in Accordance.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[markusvonkaenel]

Here is a screen shot from comfort which supports your summary for english translations.

 

this is also true for the German translations with the exception of Schlachter and Jantzen (not available in Accordance).

[Fabian]

this is also true for the German translations with the exception of Schlachter and Jantzen (not available in Accordance).

I have contacted the co-author of the Jantzen Bible and he gave for over 3 years the written permissison to add this NT to Accordance. He also send the files to Accordance (Helen). Unfortunately OakTree is at the moment more interested in release commentaries than Bibles.

 

It's up on OakTree. I have done what I can do. I can only bring this two parties in contact again. 

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[markusvonkaenel]

German will never be a big topic for Accordance. Not enough customers. 

 

There are many fine books in German, like Strack-Billerbeck or the new Gesenius, but... 

[Julia Falling]

Which English bibles are based on the Texts Receptus (Reformation text)?

Or to say it negatively: not based on the NA version.

 

In German there is only Schlachter. 

 

Thanks for help.

 

Young's Literal and World English Bible are both based on the TR.  Neither are tagged.

 

There is an update for the NAS95 coming out next year.  I expect it will handle the words/verses not found in the NA28th the same way the ESV & CSB do.