More Translation Information

A good pastor and friend of mine in London made some comments in an e-mail recently that I wanted to share here on the site. Jack Moorman has studied this whole issue in great detail. Some people on both sides of the discussion have never really looked into the issue personally, they just parrot what others have said. However, Pastor Moorman has studied this extensively and really is one of the best able men to comment. Here is what he wrote:

On the textual question: The Aleph B text (the most accurate name for it) which underlies the modern versions is based on witnesses where there is often a wide disparity of variants. Whereas with the different editions of the TR (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and others) and of the Traditional Text generally, there is only a narrow margin of difference, and only enough to show that the editions where independent productions. Further, rather than lateral copies of each other, our extant Traditional Text MSS represent long vertical lines of transmission. The Critical Text attempts to emphasize our minutiae and avoid the huge disparity in their witnesses.

The AV is based on a composite of the TR editions, but mainly on a later Beza edition (1598). This is reflected in the 1894 edition produced by F. H. A. Scrivener. It is stated to reproduce the "The Greek Text Underlying the Authorised Version of 1611". This is the edition of the TR that the Trinitarian Bible Society now publishes. There are a few places (a very few) where the Scrivener text is said to be at variance with the AV. I marked several of these when when preparing the 8000 Differences list (all the differences between the Scrivener and Nestle-Aland text). As time permits I want to look at this question more fully. I am not certain that the differences are actual. If they are actual, I would certainly stay with the AV for the obivious reason that Scrivener's TR followed rather than preceded the AV.

I appreciated what he wrote and wanted to share it with you.