Talk:New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

Infinitelink's accusations of bias
I've caught some NPOV issues here. Statements being made come directly from arguments made by KJV-Onlyists with which I'm familiar; they arise because onlysits defend the Blayney edition (1769) as the inspired Word of God and a revision which doesn't change any of the meaning since the 1611. The irony is that Scrivener's edition (1873) is usually closer to the 1611 because he comparatively checked all the editions and restored much of the 1611's character which was either haphazardly "revised" out in later editions or confused by bad printing which introduced a lot of erros and extra punctuation. Scrivener was THE expert not only on the KJV, but one of the better Textual Critics of his time (often cited by KJV-Onlyists too) and the only Textual Critic to reproduce the underlying readings of the NT of the KJV. For example:


 * }Considerable honour is due to Scrivener for his work on the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Nevertheless, there are some instances of misrepresentation of the original KJV text in Scrivener's work, since, as Norton suggests, he felt himself entitled to "correct" what the translators wrote."

Scrivener very often was making the translations more consistant. Thus incorrect printing of plurals where a singular in the original language is required is made normative with all the other occurences. Scriver did this very correctly: and without regard to opinions--his work was based on Hebrew and Greek, and the "KJV-ness" of the Bible was based on critical comparisons of all the editions and, again, comically (when thinking about KJV-onlyists), his edition is closer to the 1611 than the Blayney. Before comparing just the english editions you ought to take the time to compare all the underlying texts and infuences on the KJV (All editions of Tyndale, the Douay-Rheims, Vulgate, Luther, 'possibly' Diodatti, Wycliffe, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., (all utilized and considered to help ascertain the best translation); read scrivener's introduction to the 1873 edition, read his reconstruction of the underlying text and its introduction, read through the text-critical work and research he did, and then consider all the errors and inconsistancies,etc...these are tricky labors: not too tricky if you have a firm set of prinples, but tricky. Then the paragraph in this article gives "examples" of the supposed mirepresentations:


 * "in Matthew 23:24, Scrivener changes KJV's "strain at a gnat" to "strain out a gnat" (emphasis added) on the basis of the belief that it was a printer's error or a mistranslation, as it is commonly known that hulizō means "to filter"."

KJV-onlyists argue over this instance in translation...but either way is correct. The first "strain at" is correct because the verse's context is about what the Pharisees are focusing-on/looking-at, the both are correct according to translation, though the second is more precise; the second is more correct in regards to the thought "strain out a gnat" followed by "swallow a camel". The goal of a translation is not to represent the translation: but the underlying texts. Scrivener's edition is a critical edition of the KJV, but it's also a translation of the underlying texts...he corrected small errors--often IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS REVISIONS OF TYNDALE'S WORK, OF WHICH THE KJV IS ONLY ANOTHER.


 * "he changes Hebrews 10:23's "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith" to "Let us hold fast the profession of our hope" (emphasis added); this change was allegedly to fix a translator error;"


 * "there are instances of spelling that are intentionally left unmodernised, such as "ebeny" for "ebony" and "mo" for "more";"

So??? You try doing as much work as he did consistantly, without computers, in 7 years, comparing many editions of one translation, plus earlier editions of which that translation is a revision to see if there are any immediately crucial fixes to be made, and also comparing the original languages to standardize consistanly throughout...honestly spelling wouldn't be my first priority, though it would be important.

This example of supposed "misrepresention" of the KJV is laughable. It could be better argued the KJV was a misrepresentation of the Greek. In greek the words faith, hope, and even obey, have what may be the same root (from my examinations). The KJV makes it a policy to render every word as variously (in as many ways) as it can so that, according to the translators, it would not (since it would become widespread reading) become detrimental to English. The cumulative result is that it's detrimental to the translation, it breaks a lot of the connections, and it does misrender the underlying texts in the English at times: it helps with memorization and reading, though, and this could theoretically be done as long as you work comparatively throughout the whole translation to prevent overlapping and if you had an enormous vocabulary of synonyms, and a tightly consistant mind, (and extraordinary memory). But "faith" and "hope" are not the same--even if related. Rendering them precisely is crucial. This is a good revision, just as other editors tried to make good revisions...the difference being that Scrivener based his in deference to "the composite nature" of the KJV knowing its different underlying sources (again, the KJV is a revision following many on Tyndale's work: and as time progressed so did progress in Textual Criticism--on the TR at that time, and gaining better sources) so that he didn't conform the KJV say, to Beza, or Erasmus, but often according to the source which a particular translation came from (at least in his edition of the TR in which he constructed the text underlying the KJV in order to show, as was requested by the academics, the differences in readings underlying the RV from the KJV).


 * "Additionally, the passage in 1 John 5:7-8 often referred to as the Johannine Comma is thrown into italics by Scrivener because of its disputed authenticity, although the original translators left no indication that they doubted its genuineness. (This italicization has been removed from Zondervan's reprints of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible text but can be seen in the New Testament Octapla's reprinting.)"

No offense, but this statement is ignorant. Scrivener stated himself that he did not doubt the Johannine comma, because it is contained in too many translations, nearly all the latin, and cited in so many early sources...the reason he threw it into italics is because at the present (and still probably to this day) it was not contained in the manuscripts we possess. Since one of his primary occupations and tasks during his labors was to consistantly apply 14 principles (which he deduced from studying the original translators' work) throughout the whole text to the italicization, all in consideration of what is/not in underlying texts, one of these being to italicize what's not, in the underlying, represented, he would have been dishonest not to italicize 1 John 5:7-8. In order to ascertain the opinion of Scrivener you should read his work (because it's available). He did not use italics as some translators do today to convey their opinion of what was/not original to the text: that's shoddy textual criticism and translation. It would not suprise me that if he doubted it he might remove it altogether. These days many doubt it...ignorant of the historical references to it: and that's shoddy textual criticism when the goal is to ascertain the original text (in which all evidence--manuscripts, citations, quotes, lectionaries, versions/translations, history including ideological battles/movements/arguments etc.) must be employed, vs. constructing hypothetical texts where the only goal is to use manuscripts and picking-and-choosing translations and the manuscripts which you desire (modern Textual Criticism). [Please note: Textual Criticism seems slow to respond to new data, because many are reluctant to depart from which they've had: thus, though there are new Critical editions which are more representative of texts which are not only the majority family, but also more carefully executed and so more trustworthy, the dominant texts used for critical editions' basis have been texts set-aside for discernible meddling in them for nearly 2000 years. The lates NA edition has decoupled from it as their basis which is progress in the right direction: age does not trump newer manuscripts which are copies of more carefully translated families [of manuscripts]. Most Textual differences hardly matter, though some do (i.e. spelling is often not an issue, differences of which are to be expected as scribes would listen to another reading the text and then copy it by ear; word-order is rarely, but sometimes becomes pertinent; often scribal glosses are suposedly detected that may/not be, but irregardless of their interpositon don't affect the meaning: they do matter, and often they're handled haphazardly supposing the original is less beautifully written as a determinative principle (as if the original authors are baboons), and this is stupidity, especially when the authors' had goals and would have written carefully).]

Thus this paragraph needs revision to rid it of unknowledgable assertions. By the way, I prefer the originals. In English I like to comparitively use Bibles: but primarily I like that Classic we call the KJV. : ) So please, people, give sources and properly write as if this is an encyclopedia. Don't inject poison.Infinitelink 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Infinitelink, as the original author of this article, I feel that I am the primary target of your rather nasty extended tirade. Before deciding whether or not to be offended by statements like "this statement is ignorant" and "Don't inject poison," may I ask, have you bothered to read Prof. Norton's Textual History? Much of what I wrote simply summarizes what he articulates much better than I in full in that book, especially with regard to the critique of what Scrivener did. So when you explode with things like "So??? You try doing as much work as he did consistantly [sic], without computers, in 7 years, comparing many editions of one translation...", you are in effect shooting the messenger. If you know what Norton wrote, you show little evidence of it; if not, I regret to say that there is really little point in discussing the matter with you at all.


 * Indeed, if we are comparing POV here, may I say that your use of insult terms like "KJV-Onlyists" stakes out your bias pretty clearly. Some of your rhetoric tracks pretty closely that of some of the "James White-onlyists" with which I'm familiar. (To your anticipated objection to my invented term, I respond that I deserve the pejorative term you used no more than you may deserve this tongue-in-cheek coinage of mine.) I think you could stand to spew less vitriol and maybe make a more constructive contribution by actually, say, attempting to improve the article itself. Or what if you were to actually go out on a limb and contribute an article on the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible? Since you seem so passionate about defending Scrivener (and despite your white-hot tone, I think Wikipedia does need someone who's willing to highlight the strengths of his work in such an entry), why don't you turn your considerable energies and exuberance to that?


 * Also, when you criticize the passage in the article beginning "Additionally, the passage in 1 John 5:7-8 often referred to as the Johannine Comma is thrown into italics by Scrivener...", I must say, with all due respect, that you really show your own ignorance. You miss the entire point that, whatever Scrivener's own opinions, he is overriding what the KJV men themselves established as the text. The 1611 first edition, as you must know, does not contain any suggestion that this passage's authenticity was questioned at all by the translators--no marginal note, no "supplied words." (Compare Tyndale's treatment of the same passage, which Scrivener essentially duplicates.) And it would seem that so over-the-top is what Scrivener did here that Zondervan's reprints of his CPB return his italicization to normal type. Whether he had a right to question the passage, or to point out how few manuscripts it appears in, are matters not in dispute. The dispute centers on his misrepresentation of the translators' intent; as Prof. Norton puts it (speaking not just of this passage, but of the overall situation with the 1873 CPB), "...in general terms, it comes to this: the reader of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible can never be certain that the text is that of the translators because Scrivener is at heart a reviser" (Textual History, p. 124).


 * Same issue with Hebrews 10:23 and Matt. 23:24. Your extreme bias (e.g. "KJV-onlyists argue over this instance in translation...but either way is correct") causes you to spectacularly, flagrantly miss the point, that Scrivener thinks he knows better than the translators in such cases what should be in the text and proceeds accordingly. Norton on the other hand gives the deference to the translators if, in his informed and learned opinion, there is the slightest possibility that they may have intended the reading in question--so he reads with 1611 in these passages and against Scrivener. As far as I know, Prof. Norton does not fit the "KJV-onlyist" straw man stereotype you are using, showing that your criticisms like "This example of supposed 'misrepresention'[sic] of the KJV is laughable. It could be better argued the KJV was a misrepresentation of the Greek" are point-missing and bias-driven.


 * Infinitelink, I think it is clear that you are the one injecting "poison" with your rambling and hugely uninformed diatribe. If you think you can do better, please try your hand at revising. But do yourself a favor and actually read Prof. Norton before assuming ignorance in other people. And try to check the blatant bias at the door. Keep the passion (because by all means Scrivener should have those who care enough about him to present his point of view), but lose the name calling and straw men. I see that Gatorgalen has told you on the Great Commission church movement talk page,


 * "Look, I understand that you're new and you have your own obvious personal agenda (in all honesty most wikipedia editors do). The key is not to allow your agenda to dictate your edits."


 * Perhaps if enough people give you similar feedback, you might realize that there is something to it and consider if your approach of ticking people off (like me) who might otherwise be fully willing to cooperate with you is the best one to use on Wikipedia. --MollyTheCat 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reads a bit like a review
This a very nice article, but I'd like to raise the point that in some parts the tone of the article becomes openly positive. It definitely praises the subject such as:

(emphasis mine, to indicate the non-neutral phrasing)

"In summary, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is a valuable edition of the KJV text, and Prof. Norton's editing represents an important contribution to both religious and English literature. Although it may be too soon to measure the full impact of this volume, it seems safe to say that Norton's work, and his companion study in Textual History, will necessarily have a far-reaching influence on any subsequent scholars who deal with the King James Version's history or its text."

". Norton gives a fascinating look into the process"

That is it for specific problems. But still, the article speaks very glowingly of Norton. There isn't ANY mention of any criticism, or negative viewpoints. --Pstanton (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)