What Is the Best New Testament?

What Is the Best New Testament?
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

What Is the Best New Testament?

Translation                             Source                     Date               Publisher

 

Weymouth                          Weymouth’s Re-              1903          Boston! Pilgrim

sultant                                             Press

 

 

Spencer                              Westcott and Hort           1895         New York: Macrnil­

 

(approx.)                                         lan Company

 

 

Basic English                      Souter                             1941         London: ,Cambridge

University Press

 

Ferrar Penton                      Westcott and Hort           1895         London: Oxford

University Press

 

Centenary                           Westcott and Hart           1924        Philadelphia: Ameri­

 

can Baptist Publi­

 

cation Society

 

Confraternity                       Latin Vulgate                   1941         Paterson, N.J.: St.

Anthony’s Guild

Press

 

 

Ronald Knox                       Latin Vulgate                   1944         New York: Sheed

and Ward, and

many others

 

Challoner                            Latin Vulgate                   1779         London: Sheed and

Ward, and many

others

King James                         Textus Receptus              1611        London; Oxford University Press

and many others

 

The ranking of these translations was based originally on the translator’s own statements as to their source; but this has been checked and corrected by a test as to the relationship of each one of these translations to –two forms of the Greek Now Testament-tthe Westcott and Hort text and the Textus Receptus or Received Text. I carried out this test for the entire content of the Gospel of John. In this gospel the two Greek texts were compared verse by verse; and, from the large list of differences noted, sixty-four passages were selected in which even the freest English translation must show which of the two Greek texts it supports. These sixty-four passages are cited at the end of this chapter. The two forms of the Greek texts were selected as being generally re­garded by scholars as the best or most accurate text in the case of Westcott and Hort, or the worst or most corrupt text in the case of the Textas Receptus. The ranking of the

 

                                                    How Accurate Is Your New Testament? Page  87

 

translations would not be changed appreciably if Tischendorf or Nestle were substituted for Westcott and Hort. The contrast between any modern scholarly edition and the Textus- Receptus would have the same proportions. On the basis of this assumption each of the seventeen translations

 

Table  1 September 4 1951  

 

  AGREEMENTS WITH i
TRANSLATION Westcott

and Hort

 Textus

Receptus

OTHERS

~

Goodspeed 64 O .. …
Twentieth Century …… . , . . . . . 59 4  
Westminster…………..:…. 58 6  
American Revised Version……. 58 6  
.English Revised Version… 57 7  
Revised Standard Version., . , . . 55 8 … …
Moffatt….~……………… 56 7  
Riverside ….. ………….. .. 55 4  
Weymouth. , …… . ……….. 53 11  
Spencer …………….. 52 13 … …
Basic English ………….. 51 I2  
Ferrar F’enton………….. … 50 14 i
Centenary ……………… . 47 16 I
Confraternity…::…………. 35 27 s
Knox..,…. ……………. 33 29 a
Challoner. …………. 25 37 a
King James. . . . . . „ . . . . . . . . . . . 0 64  

was tested in sixty-four passages in the Gospel of John, and the resultant agreements with one or

the other of the Creek texts are presented in Table 1

 

The editions of the translations sampled in this test are those listed on pp. 85-96, with the exception of (a) the 1948 edition of Goodspeed; (b) the Twentieth Century, 1904.; (c) the 1940 edition of Spencer; (d) the 1905 edition of Fenton; (e} the Moffatt published by George H. Doran & Co.; and ( f ) the 1928 edition of Challoner.

 

For Ernest Cadman Colwell Books

C/H to open– http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Ernest%20Cadman%20Colwell&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/002-5323852-8358434

 

Some of His Work (and Books) are hard to find or purchase—

 

Here is a List That  *** Imitates *** Colwell’s Method with MOST Newer Bibles

What is the Best New Testament: Colwell’s Apparatus
Colwell’s apparatus was taken from his book, “What Is The Best New Testament” University of Chicage Press1951.
Colwell’s Rule of Bible Translations
Versions in bold italics are those Colwell had printed, the others are added by me using the same criteria.

From  http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/colwell.htm

You Can get help with Dates from the Publishers Open– BiblePublishers.htm—-For helpful suggestions on that.

Sbt—Compares all Bibles With the List in BestBiblesPlus.htm—They are there for You to

4 Comments

  • Troy Day
    Reply May 29, 2019

    Troy Day

    we are here to tell you Troy Van Go only if you read

  • RichardAnna Boyce
    Reply May 30, 2019

    RichardAnna Boyce

    If you use NIV or NET then you will interpret those believers having a different Gospel to yours (such as FREE GRACE) are heretics bound for hell…………………………………………….. Let Him Be Accursed: Galatians 1:8d (and 1:9d)
    KJV “…let him be accursed.”
    NKJV “…let him be accursed.”
    NASB “…let him be accursed!”
    ESV “…let him be accursed.”
    HCSB “…a curse be on him!”
    NIV “…let him be eternally condemned!”
    NET “…let him be condemned to hell!”
    Four translations have “let him be accursed” and one has a similar rendering, “a curse be on him!” Those four are literal renderings of the Greek (anathema estō) and the fifth captures the sense well. These translations are admittedly ambiguous and could refer to a curse in this life, or in the life to come, or both.
    The last two translations, the New International Version (NIV) and New English Translation (NET), are not really translations at all. They are interpretations. The word condemned is not found here. Nor are the words eternally or hell. The translators have allowed their theology to color their translation. Evidently they believe that there is no such thing as a regenerate person who at some later point actually promotes a false gospel. I would say that there is a lot of evidence in Paul’s writings and even in Galatians (see 2:14) that some genuine believers fall doctrinally and actually preach false theology and even a false gospel.
    Additionally, practically speaking, how would a believer in Corinth “let” someone be “eternally condemned” or “condemned to hell”? Would this mean that they weren’t to witness to them? Would it mean that they were to pray that they never came to faith (since under this view they must be unregenerate)?
    If we leave the translation as vague as the original, then the practical application is simple: treat these people as people who are cursed, like people who have the Black Plague. Do not support their ministry financially, prayerfully, or with your time and talents. People who are proclaiming a false gospel, which in Galatians is any gospel other than justification by faith alone (Gal 2:15-16), whether they are Christians who have fallen or unbelievers who never knew the truth, are ones we are not to aid in any way.
    It’s easy to see why people who hold to Reformed theology consider us who proclaim the Free Grace message to be bound for hell whereas we consider many of them to be errant believers who are nonetheless bound for the kingdom along with us.

  • Troy Day
    Reply May 30, 2019

    Troy Day

    which those believers? NET is OK Which NIV are you speaking of printed or online? – they are all different nowadays

  • RichardAnna Boyce
    Reply May 30, 2019

    RichardAnna Boyce

    Free Grace used 5 key verses to score the 7 versions, and in each of the 5 verses NIV and NET interpreted Lordship and not FG. ……….. CAN FAITH SAVE HIM? JAMES 2:14 Note how our five translations handle this verse, and pay special attention to the different ways they translate the last part of this verse, the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. KJV “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” NKJV “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” NASB “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?” NIV “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” NET “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?” The NIV, NASB, and NET qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse: “such faith,” “that faith,” or “this kind of faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (he„ pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 16, 17, 20, and 22. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, or NET translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. The 10 Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 24-26. 8 Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Spring 2004 KJV and NKJV more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question. In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when they translate ean lege„ tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, lego„, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming, there. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.” The issue in James 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not speakers. We find the same thing in 1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The NASB is on target as are the KJV and NKJV on this point. The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB user is also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV and NKJV are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse. This passage serves to illustrate how translators sometimes find it difficult to set aside their theological convictions when translating. If the goal were simply to convey what the original language says as clearly as possible in English, then they would not resort to this sort of interpretive rendering of the text.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.