Term
|
Definition
| Original language (e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Language of the reader (Italian 2 by 1471; french 1477, 87; Spanish 1478; Dutch 1477; German 1521 and 19 predecessors) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Closest rendering idea to idea from source to target (e.g. ASV 1901) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sense equivalence rendering idea to idea from source to target (e.g. NIV, NLT) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The attempt of saying something in other words. Sometimes clarifying ideas, sometimes not..(e.g. LB, Message) |
|
|
Term
| Received Text (General, 1) |
|
Definition
| Erasmus Published a Gk. text based upon a half-dozen miniscule manuscripts. |
|
|
Term
| Received Text (Specific, 2) |
|
Definition
(1516, Wegner 267);
Stephanus (Estienne) ran through about four major editions of it (1546-1551);
Beza published nine editions (1565-1604);
The Elzevirs published two editions (1624, 1633) and by that time the name textus receptus stuck. "This text was published so many times by (Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs) that people began to consider it the only authenticc Greek text. It was reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions and underlies the text of the King James Version. (1611) as well as every other major protestant translation up until 1881" (Wegner 270) |
|
|
Term
| Critical Text (General 1) |
|
Definition
| The Byzantine text-type also called majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, Antiochian, or Syrian. One of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek NT MSS. Form found in LARGEST NUMBER of surviving MSS, though NOT THE OLDEST. |
|
|
Term
| Critical Text (Specific 2) |
|
Definition
| The NT text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904, is based on this text-type. While considerably varying, it also underlies the into Vernacular languages. Modern translations mainly use Eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type. |
|
|
Term
| Erasmus Greek Text was based upon approximatly how many early Gk. MSS? |
|
Definition
| About 6, half a dozen miniscule MSS according to book. |
|
|
Term
| What was the Character of those MSS? (Family and date) |
|
Definition
Byzantine, none earlier than 10th century.
(the oldest manuscipt was Codex 1 and it dated to the 10th century) |
|
|
Term
| What advances were made between Wycliffe's translation and Tyndale's translation? |
|
Definition
| Translations from Greek and Hebrew not Latin Vulgate--printed, not manuscripted--modern enlgish instead of middle english. |
|
|
Term
| Which Bible was authorized? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which Bible was more popular? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What was it about the Geneva Bible that offended leadership? |
|
Definition
Tyndale’s, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible were clearly Calvinistic in doctrine, a fact that greatly irritated King James 1 (302).
It separated the apocrypha.
Also expressed anti Roman sentiments. (302) (negative statements about the pope)
Offensive marginal notes--undermined divine divine right of kings--calvanistic and anti-Roman Catholic in renderings and notes.
(3 Specific notes James had a problem with
1.Exodus 1:19--said with regard to the midwives refusal to kill the boys as Pharaoh commanded. "Their dissobedience here in was lawful, but their dissembling evil" The very suggestion that it could ever be lawful to dissobey a King did not commend itself to James.
2. 2 Kings 9:33--declared Jehu's command that Jezebel be thrown from her window was given"..to be a spectacle and example of God's judgments to all tyrants" But suggestion that violence to a royal personage could be approved by God did not consort well with James's conviction of the divine right's of the King.
3. 2 Chron. 15:16--suspected that some of the readers would think of his mother--the late Mary Queen of scots. when they read the note ament asa's deposition of his mother for idolotry Here in he showed that he lacked zeal, for she ought to have died..but he gave place to foolish pitie.") |
|
|
Term
| When was the KJV first published and what Anniversary is this for it? |
|
Definition
| 1611 and its the 400th anniversary. |
|
|
Term
| Why is it called the Authorized Version? |
|
Definition
| "Authorized by who?" --Based upon King's influence and reputation of the translators. |
|
|
Term
| Is it true that the KJV translators represented the Anglican tradition of the Church of England, and the translation was originally opposed by the Puritan reformers? |
|
Definition
| No, the the translators were both traditional Anglican and Puritan and some laymen—Puritans opposed Geneva and Apocrapha. Was supposed to be the new translation presented by Puritan leaders. (pgs. 308-309) |
|
|
Term
| Is it true that the KJV was originally intended to be read in the churches, and translators had to abandon the idea of translating into the vernacular of the people? |
|
Definition
First part true, but rest of question not sure, it was to “build on earlier translation in the vernacular that would be easy to understand and yet dignified enough to be read in church.” Pg. 309
First part is true, the Anglican church was represented by the anglican translators.
Second part is false, the puritains actually asked King James for a new translation, they did not like King Henry VII Great Bible. They asked by having a petition of 1,000 signitures. The puritans were in support of a new revision. |
|
|
Term
| Do many scholars question the reliability of the MSS from which the KJV was translated? |
|
Definition
| Yes—according to Assessment of Lewis: none of 5 primary authoritative Uncials now available used; it would be another 300 years before major Papyri discoveries would come to light—Authorized based on Kings influence and reputation of translators. (powerpoint) |
|
|
Term
| According to the textbook, is the KJV of today significantly different from the KJV of 1611? |
|
Definition
| Yes—Primarily the language has been modernized, but some other modifications have also occurred—some authorized and others not. (pg. 314) |
|
|
Term
| Does the Revised Standard Version use the same Greek and Hebrew textual base as the KJV? |
|
Definition
No—KJV = OT: Complutensian Polygot, Antward Polygot; NT: Textus Receptus
RSV = OT: Masoretic Text; NT: Improved, eclectic Greek Text. |
|
|
Term
| Is the New American Standard Version a completely new translation from the original languages using modern textual apparatus? |
|
Definition
| Not sure—says it was a revision of ASV—but since copyright on ASV had run out –lockman foundation free to use or modify text—differs significantly—Lewis says should be evaluated as a new translation—Also reverts to principles of Geneva Bible and Authorized Version—fallowed critical text significantly different from ASV (pg 325) |
|
|
Term
| Does the New King James Version rely on the Majority Text or Textus Receptus? |
|
Definition
| Textus Receptus.(says book, class said Byzantine Majority) |
|
|
Term
| Is it true that the majority of discussion surrounding the KJV debate centers on the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern critical text? |
|
Definition
Yes—Talks about debate based on Erasmus’s Greet NT, which used about 6 MSS, none earlier than 10th century—went through a lot of subsequent revisions that the KJV didn’t fallow.—Argument also with those feel it’s the only authoritative text preserved by God over the ages.
They were arguing about whether the TR was good enough source for the KJV because it was based on majority text instead of critical text. And some said majority was better and some said that critical was better.. |
|
|
Term
| Does the author of the course text book present the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text from an unbiased viewpoint? |
|
Definition
No-prefers critical text.
Vreeland thinks it is biased. (328) He doesn’t hold the Textus Receptus in a high view. (331) he says that the TR will TRY to succeed over Critical Text. |
|
|
Term
| What are the Three Assumptions used to defend the KJV/TR link? |
|
Definition
1. One MUST presuppose the priority of the Textus Receptus.
2. One MUST assume any critical method that does not vindicate the Textus Receptus is suspect.
3. Those who favor the TR argue that the church favored the Byzantine tradition from the 4th-19th centuries. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Eclectic text that prefers; in order Alexandrian, Caesarean, Western, Byzantine, and operates by several rules of textual criticism (e.g. oldest, shortest, most difficult, most widely distributed, etc.) as well as internal considerations. |
|
|
