James Price
From Textus Receptus
(→'Not a TR Advocate') |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The overall principal editor of the [[New King James Version]], [[Arthur Farstad|Arthur L. Farstad]], was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the [[Textus Receptus]]. This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the [[New King James Version|New King James]] desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the [[Textus Receptus]], but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts! | The overall principal editor of the [[New King James Version]], [[Arthur Farstad|Arthur L. Farstad]], was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the [[Textus Receptus]]. This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the [[New King James Version|New King James]] desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the [[Textus Receptus]], but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts! | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Bibliography== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ''Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987.'' | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 06:12, 9 January 2011
Contents |
'Not a TR Advocate'
In 1996 David Cloud corresponded with the executive editor of the Old Testament - Dr James Price.
Cloud stated:
"..he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Received Text and that he supports the modern critical text in general:
- ‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 (Nestle-Aland) and UBS (United Bible Societies) provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).
The above demonstrates how the executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus; but rather that he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text.
The overall principal editor of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also coprincipal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to the Textus Receptus. This fact could lead us to answer why the editors of the New King James desired to show us with their textual apparatus of alternate Greek readings in the footnotes, because they do not believe in the Textus Receptus, but approve alternate readings and other Greek texts!
Bibliography
- Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987.
See Also
- NKJV Translators
- King James Version
- 21st Century King James Version
- The New KJV is a Hack Job Translation by Will Kinney
External Links
Article's by James Price
- James D. Price Publications This Page contains information about the New King James Version, particularly Price's response to critics of the NKJV who accuse it of inaccuracies and errors.
