 |
| The NIV, like hogweed, has taken over WELS. Look how pretty this flower is - just don't touch the leaves. |
Mr. Liermann,
The short answer as to why the NKJV wasn't seriously considered (I'll let Pastor Krahn give the long one, if he wishes) is that the Seminary faculty's current thinking (and thus the thinking of most WELS pastors younger than a certain age) is that any translation based upon the Textus Receptus (e.g. the KJV, NKJV, Lutherbibel) is inferior to a translation based upon modern critical scholarship (e.g. the NIV84, NIV2011, HCSB).
Given that the WELS quite happily used the KJV for decades (not to mention the Lutherbibel line, based like the KJV on the Textus Receptus, in German worship for a century or more), the view that translations in this line are so inherently flawed as to not even be considered is obviously fairly new to our circles. Judging by the vintage of the WELS pastors who hold these views most strongly, my estimate is that this new emphasis on the inferiority of TR-based translations was in full swing by the 1980s, probably either concurrent with or in support of the effort to ditch the KJV for the original NIV.
The short answer as to why the NKJV wasn't seriously considered (I'll let Pastor Krahn give the long one, if he wishes) is that the Seminary faculty's current thinking (and thus the thinking of most WELS pastors younger than a certain age) is that any translation based upon the Textus Receptus (e.g. the KJV, NKJV, Lutherbibel) is inferior to a translation based upon modern critical scholarship (e.g. the NIV84, NIV2011, HCSB).
Given that the WELS quite happily used the KJV for decades (not to mention the Lutherbibel line, based like the KJV on the Textus Receptus, in German worship for a century or more), the view that translations in this line are so inherently flawed as to not even be considered is obviously fairly new to our circles. Judging by the vintage of the WELS pastors who hold these views most strongly, my estimate is that this new emphasis on the inferiority of TR-based translations was in full swing by the 1980s, probably either concurrent with or in support of the effort to ditch the KJV for the original NIV.
---
From Someone in WELS:
I was reading the repost from Intrepids on your blog regarding the use of
the NNIV for the WELS hymnal project. In the comments someone asked why the
WELS won’t consider the use of the KJV or NKJV. The immediate response was
those translations are “Textus
Receptus” and considered
“inherently flawed”. I tried to read more about this and didn’t find anything
useful other than a wiki page but the wiki did not draw strong conclusions.
Can you explain this to me in a couple of
paragraphs? Is this just s WELS canned response?
***
GJ - Here is one summary -
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.
In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."
A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language.
Lower criticism is the name for manuscript comparisons. No other ancient book has as much support (in numbers, in early dates) as the Bible, because Jews and Christians were anxious to preserve it as it was written down.
Manuscripts tend to be partial, due to their age, but the New Testament was carefully preserved by the Byzantine Empire, which was the Easter Roman Empire, for 1100 years. The fact remains that almost no one studies Byzantine history or knows anything about it. This Christian empire, using Greek as its language, was in a good position to preserve the New Testament.
Meanwhile, the Old Testament was carefully preserved by the Jewish leaders. When a book was copied by hand, the words and letters were counted to make sure they matched.
Tischendorf, Wescott and Hort, and others thought they could figure out better readings for the New Testament. Lenski liked to play with readings too, which shows what a raging fad it was at the time of his work.
The new spirit of manuscript criticism has now devolved to the point where they not only drop verses they do not like, but in "dynamic equivalence" translating added words that never were there in the first place.
Briefly, the old tradition honored what the Christian Church preserved.
Starting with Tischensdorf, the traditional manuscripts became the bad ones, because "There are so many!"
The supposed good ones had mysterious origins - Sinaiticus, Vaticanus - and were good because they disagreed with the traditional ones! "They differ, and they go against traditional Christianity, so they must be the best ones!"
Tischendorf "discovered Sinaiticus, which makes me as suspicious about that source as any sermon by Ski or Glende. The only honest sermon by Ski is a porno rant that makes no sense - gen-u-whine.
Otherwise, it is from Groeschel or so other screaming circus clown.
Imagine starting with a bad norm and building all Bibles on that norm.
But wait, there's more!
The committee that meets to decide what belongs in the New Testament text uses a blackball approach, just like sororities. If a verse loses, 3 to 2, the verse is dropped. The losses are difficult to find because they are dropped to the bottom in fine print with the note - Some witnesses have...
That is why WELS, a thoroughly mainline liberal sect, hates the King James Version and modern updates of the KJV. Anything in the KJV family makes the NIV and New NIV look ridiculous.
I have written about this at length in Thy Strong Word.
 |
| He cannot drive his rock band on a clear day, but he wants $3,000 to show up for a gig - Koine, another eructation from Mark Jeske. |
