Underlying Greek text Critical/Majority/TR

[tall73]

This thread is a discussion regarding the Greek text of the New Testament. It is not about English Translations as much as the different "families" of Greek manuscripts.

Topics that might be discussed:

- Do you prefer the one of the Critical text, the Majority text or the Textus Receptus, and why?

- Are family divisions of manuscripts a good way to categorize variants?

- What role to patristic quotes and non-Greek translations play in constructing a text?

- The validity of criteria applied by modern textual critics.

- Can an eclectic text formed by committee every get back to the original text?

- What role does the Holy Spirit play in the selection of readings?

- How much role should theology play, as opposed to manuscript evidence?

Or other related conversations.

 

[tall73]

To get things started I will post a few different ideas for discussion, beginning with the criteria of the Alands in selecting readings.

Textual criticism of the New Testament attempts to discern the original text, usually by an analysis of each individual reading. While it is usually more art form than exact science some criteria are used. Below is one example.



Twelve Basic Rules of Aland/Aland

1. Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there may be.
2. Only the readings which best satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be original.
3. Criticism of the text must always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria.
4. Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for a critical decision, especially when they stand in opposition to the external evidence.
5. The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek manuscript tradition, with the version and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty.
6. Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be, there is no single manuscript or group or manuscripts that can be followed mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local principle).
7. The principle that the original reading may be found in any single manuscript or version when it stands alone or nearly alone is only a theoretical possibility. Any form of eclecticism which accepts this principle will hardly succeed in establishing the original text of the New Testament; it will only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes.
8. The reconstruction of a stemma of readings for each variant (the genealogical principle) is an extremely important device, because the reading which can most easily explain the derivation of the other forms is itself most likely the original.
9. Variants must never be treated in isolation, but always considered in the context of the tradition. Otherwise there is too great a danger of reconstructing a "test tube text" which never existed at any time or place.
10. There is truth in the maxim: lectio difficilior lectio potior ("the more difficult reading is the more probable reading"). But this principle must not be taken too mechanically, with the most difficult reading (lectio difficilima) adopted as original simply because of its degree of difficulty.
11. The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more probable reading") is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically.
12. A constantly maintained familiarity with New Testament manuscripts themselves is the best training for textual criticism. In textual criticism the pure theoretician has often done more harm than good.

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament

 

[tall73]

1. Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there may be.

This one sounds legitimate!

 

[tall73]

1. Furthermore, manuscripts should be weighed, not counted, and the peculiar traits of each manuscript should be duly considered. However important the early papyri, or a particular uncial, or a minuscule may be, there is no single manuscript or group or manuscripts that can be followed mechanically, even though certain combinations of witnesses may deserve a greater degree of confidence than others. Rather, decisions in textual criticism must be worked out afresh, passage by passage (the local principle).
2. The principle that the original reading may be found in any single manuscript or version when it stands alone or nearly alone is only a theoretical possibility. Any form of eclecticism which accepts this principle will hardly succeed in establishing the original text of the New Testament; it will only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes.

These two seem logical in one regard. However, how does one "weigh" the value of the manuscripts? And how does one prevent the last sentence from happening, "only confirm the view of the text which it presupposes"?

Point one indicates that decisions must be worked out passage by passage, or locally.
This makes sense to a degree. But how do you work out a local passage without weighing the worth of the manuscripts which line up one one side or the other? And how do you know which are the more reliable overall manuscripts until you work out each passage?

Some notions such as the age of the text are mentioned. Certainly the age of the text may make it more likely that it contains a version earlier that some later modifications.

However, is the key issue old manuscripts or old readings? The Alexandrian text has older extant manuscripts. But there are evidences of the readings of the Byzantine text that predate any extant Byzantine manuscript.

Other considerations about age of text is that texts which were in constant use may wear out more quickly and need to be re-copied. This is usually claimed by Byzantine proponents. It is also noted that the climate of Egypt is more likely to preserve a text, so what we may see is not necessarily the oldest texts in general, but the oldest texts in that region.

Other thoughts on age of readings, manuscripts?

 

[tall73]

https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text

I found the above article interesting. It is Wallace's take on the Majority text discussion. Wallace is a critical scholar.

A few key quotes:

Majority text vs Textus Receptus:

In this writer's examination of Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text he has counted 1,838 differences between it and the Textus Receptus. This is indeed "something over a thousand" differences! Most notably the Majority Text excluded Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum (the Textus Receptus's rendering of 1 John 5:7-8 with its Trinitarian formula). As well, in the last six verses of Revelation, which Erasmus had to translate into Greek from Latin, there are 17 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The fact of almost 2,000 differences between these two texts, many of them quite significant, is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it should be rather disconcerting to Textus Receptus advocates who have been depending on Hodges's scholarship for some time. On the other hand it cries out for a fresh look, by New Testament students, at the Byzantine text-type, which has been seen only through a glass darkly in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.

Majority text vs. Critical text:

To be sure, the Majority Text stands much closer to the Textus Receptus than it does to the critical text. According to this writer's count there are 6,577 differences between the Majority Text and the critical text.

Majority vs. Majority:

Majority versus majority. Kilpatrick remarks, "Hodges' and Farstad's view must explain two features, first that there is no evidence for Hort's Syrian text before the fourth century, and second that the dominant text of the second and third centuries is so different." The fact of no early Byzantine manuscripts is a well-worn issue. Nevertheless three important questions are rarely brought into the discussion. First, why is it that not only are there no early Byzantine manuscripts (i.e., before the late fourth century), but also the Byzantine text-type, as far as the extant manuscripts demonstrate, did not become the majority until the ninth century? Does this not indicate that the principle of "majority rule" changes from century to century? Second, why do majority text advocates count only Greek manuscripts? Is it because inclusion of the Latin Vulgate, for example, with more than 8,000 extant copies (compared to less than 5,400 Greek manuscripts)--and a text-form closer to the critical text than to the majority text--would demolish their theory?

 

[JM]

I reject the secular, naturalistic manner of handing biblical manuscripts and the textual criticism by unbelievers. Wallace who would disagree with me in terms of which stream of mss are valid wrote, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty." source

The TR was the ecclesiastical Protestant text and the one I believe we should continue using. With the rest of historic Protestantism I confess the scripture, "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

I would recommend Muller's set titled Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics on the subject.

The TR:

"There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus."

"These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense."

source

I may not continue in this discussion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[classicalhero]

You should also consider the texts of languages around in the early stages of Christianity, such as the Syriac text, since it is a very early translation of the Bible, plus you have to consider the writings of the early church fathers who were disciples of the disciples, since they would be able to confirm what the writers of the books said. There is more evidence than just simply the Greek manuscripts we have. But one thing is for certain that Siniaticus and Vaticanaticus are errant copies with numerous errors in then.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I reject the secular, naturalistic manner of handing biblical manuscripts and the textual criticism by unbelievers. Wallace who would disagree with me in terms of which stream of mss are valid wrote, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty."source

Some people would question whether Dan Wallace is a “Christian”—but that is irrelevant to his teaching on Greek grammar and textual criticism. That which is known as the “critical text” is far superior in accuracy to the any of the texts that fall under the umbrella of the “Textus Receptus,” and the details of the theology of the men and women behind it is also irrelevant. Furthermore, whether or not Dan Wallace is a “Christian,” he should know better than to judge others. Moreover, had Dan Wallace gotten his education at a real seminary rather than at an indoctrination factory known as Dallas Theological Seminary, he would know that some conservative, evangelical scholars do not believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus “paid” for our sins, and that the belief that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead is not nearly as important as our allowing the resurrected Christ to live in our bodies without the restraint of our personal desires and ambitions.

Dan Wallace writes,

So many great biblical scholars were there: N. T. Wright, Jon Dominic Crossan, D. A. Carson, Bart Ehrman, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker, Alan Culpepper, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, Joel Marcus, April Deconick, Elaine Pagels, John Kloppenborg, R. B. Hays, Peter Enns, Buist Fanning, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Rikki Watts, Robert Gundry, Emanuel Tov, Walter Brueggemann, Eric Myers, Eugene Boring, J. K. Elliott—that’s just a small sampling of the names. Liberals and evangelicals, theists and atheists, those who are open and those who are hostile to the Christian faith—all were there.​

Of these, I am personally acquainted with: D. A. Carson, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker (he died, however, in 2012), Craig Evans, Buist Fanning, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Robert Gundry, and Eugene Boring. I do not agree with everything that these men believe, but all of them have contributed substantially to our knowledge of the Greek New Testament. I am also acquainted with Elaine Pagels, but I believe that she focuses far too much on the tragedies in her life rather than upon the truth of the New Testament.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You should also consider the texts of languages around in the early stages of Christianity, such as the Syriac text, since it is a very early translation of the Bible,

At a very early date, the New Testament documents were translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic. Ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in these languages are, of course, considered by textual critics.

plus you have to consider the writings of the early church fathers who were disciples of the disciples, since they would be able to confirm what the writers of the books said. There is more evidence than just simply the Greek manuscripts we have.

Are any of us unaware of any of this?

But one thing is for certain that Siniaticus and Vaticanaticus are errant copies with numerous errors in then.

Unless the truth of this statement is documented, should we not treat it as gibberish?

 

[JM]

PG, we can tell your thoughts and manners, faith and practice have been influenced by unbelievers and unbelief. Thank you for being crystal clear about now.

I am no longer following the thread.

 

[classicalhero]

Numerous threads have already pointed out just how poor those two manuscripts, that if you don't want to look into it, then don't bother me about them.

 

[OzSpen]

Some people would question whether Dan Wallace is a “Christian”....

What causes you to make such a statement? Dan Wallace is a Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary: http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/. Dallas Seminary is an eminent evangelical seminary that would not hire anyone who was not an evangelical Christian, so what causes you to doubt his Christian faith?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I reject the secular, naturalistic manner of handing biblical manuscripts and the textual criticism by unbelievers. Wallace who would disagree with me in terms of which stream of mss are valid wrote, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty."source

Some people would question whether Dan Wallace is a “Christian”—but that is irrelevant to his teaching on Greek grammar and textual criticism.

What causes you to make such a statement? Dan Wallace is aSenior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary:http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/. Dallas Seminary is an eminent evangelical seminary that would not hire anyone who was not an evangelical Christian, so what causes you to doubt his Christian faith?

I do not at all doubt that Daniel Wallace is a Christian, nor have I ever expressed any doubt on my part that he is. However, Dallas Theological Seminary is NOT an “an eminent evangelical seminary,” it is an indoctrination factory. No one is allowed to teach theology there without first completing a master’s degree at that very factory in which their particular brand of dispensationalism is poured into the heads of their products.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not at all doubt that Daniel Wallace is a Christian, nor have I ever expressed any doubt on my part that he is. However, Dallas Theological Seminary is NOT an “an eminent evangelical seminary,” it is an indoctrination factory. No one is allowed to teach theology there without first completing a master’s degree at that very factory in which their particular brand of dispensationalism is poured into the heads of their products.

You might not like the dispensational emphases at Dallas (and neither do I), but that does not detract from its being an eminent/prominent/renowned evangelical seminary.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You might not like the dispensational emphases at Dallas (and neither do I), but that does not detract from its being an eminent/prominent/renowned evangelical seminary.

Good Christian seminaries equip their students for the Christian ministry—whether that ministry may by pastoral, teaching, or something else. Equipping the students includes equipping them to study the scriptures so that they can learn for themselves what the scriptures teach; it does NOT include so thoroughly indoctrinating the students in a system of theology that they are no longer capable of learning the truth. Moreover, good Christian seminaries employ professors who represent a wide spectrum of theological thought and experience from who the students can learn. This is totally absent at DTS. The bottom line is that DTS does its students more harm than good.

A good gauge of the quality of a seminary’s professors is how much the seminary pays them. Top salaries attract top professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary is $74,351, slightly below the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary is $88,860, substantially above the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary is $98,963, far above the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors.

Note: The salaries quoted are the average salaries for full professors. The salaries for associate and assistant professors are significantly lower at all three of these institutions.

 

[OzSpen]

Good Christian seminaries equip their students for the Christian ministry—whether that ministry may by pastoral, teaching, or something else. Equipping the students includes equipping them to study the scriptures so that they can learn for themselves what the scriptures teach; it does NOT include so thoroughly indoctrinating the students in a system of theology that they are no longer capable of learning the truth. Moreover, good Christian seminaries employ professors who represent a wide spectrum of theological thought and experience from who the students can learn. This is totally absent at DTS. The bottom line is that DTS does its students more harm than good.

A good gauge of the quality of a seminary’s professors is how much the seminary pays them. Top salaries attract top professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary is $74,351, slightly below the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary is $88,860, substantially above the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors. The average annual salary for a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary is $98,963, far above the national average of $74,393 for seminary professors.

Note: The salaries quoted are the average salaries for full professors. The salaries for associate and assistant professors are significantly lower at all three of these institutions.

So are Claremont, Princeton, and Andover-Newton doing a better job at preparing students for ministry by refusing to engage in 'thoroughly indoctrinating the students in a system of theology that they are no longer capable of learning the truth'?

I have just completed my orals for my PhD in NT and passed. The most hostile person on the panel of 5 who interviewed me and was one of the examiners was a thorough liberal who intensely disliked my evangelical perspective. This was evident in the kinds of questions he posed.

He tackled me at so many levels that demonstrated he was not well equipped to favourably consider my evangelical responses at times. He is but one example of those trained in a liberal seminary not having a broad understanding that allows for a fair evangelical defence.

Have you taken courses at Dallas Seminary so that you know how they are indoctrinating students?

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[OzSpen]

But one thing is for certain that Siniaticus and Vaticanaticus are errant copies with numerous errors in then.

What standard are you using to determine that Siniaticus and Vaticanus are errant copies? What are the copies without error to which you compare them?

 

[DeaconDean]

What standard are you using to determine that Siniaticus and Vaticanus are errant copies? What are the copies without error to which you compare them?

I am also forced to agree here.

Even the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus disagree in 1005 "variant readings".

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.