Implications of textual criticism

[ByTheSpirit]

So I thought I would offer something I thought about and have been thinking about for some time as food for thought I guess in the matter of textual criticism.

I know I wrestle with the idea of the Textus Receptus being manipulated by the Church. Erasmus himself had several revisions of the text before it became common place. But is the Majority Text any better?

This is what I mean: some say that the Majority Text is probably the closest to the autographs of scripture we can get with any certainty. So does that mean that the Textus Receptus is not inspired and should be discarded all together?

This is my "food for thought" bit. If you are not willing to say the TR is fallible, then it must be infallible. If you cannot say the TR has fault, then you must accept it. For it cannot be the perfect word of God and still have fault in it.

Now I am not accusing anyone here. This thought actually is more for myself than anyone else, but I wanted to present it here for comments and insight.

Now I know the Majority Text is not "perfect" either. The point of my OP is that I know of some who say the MT or any other manuscript but the TR is errant and should not be trusted because it "takes away' from the true biblical text. Others say the exact opposite about the TR, in that it "adds" to the text.

Shouldn't we just settle the matter for ourselves as to which is inspired and which is not until a perfectly clear solution is available and allow each to decide for themselves which one to hold to? Some may be perfectly fine with either or. I am not sure which camp I am in yet, I do find validity in the TR. I am hesitant to accept it willingly knowing that certain passages in it are more than likely not inspired in the autographs.

But here's the thing, even in the places where the TR may add to scripture, such additions do not contradict other scripture so they are really not as "bad" as they may seem correct? and where the MT may "take away" from scripture, it doesn't "take away" any major doctrine does it? No...

 

[toLiJC]

don't worry about the tradition of the Holy Scripture, the church hardly let it be falsified through the centuries, at least because they feared God much enough to dare doing it knowing what their punishment could be - be sure it is comparatively true preserved, all rumors about great falsification are a speculation, but it is another matter whether the translation and (the) interpretation is correct enough, because there was for certain an incorrectness in this regard, that is why the right faith is the way to hear and right understand the Word of the true Lord God coming directly out of His Own Mouth

Blessings

 

[Job8]

This is what I mean: some say that the Majority Text is probably the closest to the autographs of scripture we can get with any certainty. So does that mean that the Textus Receptus is not inspired and should be discarded all together?

Someone has been feeding you either misinformation or disinformation. Here are the facts:

1. Only the original autographs (actual writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles) were inspired and therefore infallible. They do not exist today.

2. God preserved copies of copies of copies over the centuries so that there came about a Traditional Hebrew Text (the Masoretic Text) and a Traditional Greek Text (the Byzantine Text). For all intents and purposes this is the infallible Word of God when translated. There are minor variations in the majority of manuscripts which are of little or no significance. This is called Divine Preservation.

3. The manuscripts used by Erasmus (and other scholars) represented the traditional texts very closely, thus the Greek Text which was ultimately that of Stephens and the Elzevier brothers was called the Textus Receptus or the Received Text of the Greek New Testament.

4. Further research down to the 19th and 20th centuries confirmed that this text does indeed correspond to traditional texts, which represent THE MAJORITY of manuscripts.

5. Rationalistic and naturalistic scholars in the 19th century discovered a few ancient manuscripts which were Gnostic corruptions, but instead of discarding them, they elevated them above the majority. IOW 5 manuscripts were given more weight than 5,000 manuscripts (in a manner of speaking).

6. All modern Bible versions since 1881 are based on corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts, therefore they are unreliable. Thousands of words have been corrupted and at least 1,500 passages changed for doctrinal reasons.

7. At the same time, the anti-KJV and anti-TR and anti-Erasmus propaganda has been so strong, that the majority of Christians have believed the BIG LIE, and believe that the TR and the KJV are unreliable!

8. The bottom line is that the KJV was THE BIBLE for English-speaking Christians worldwide for over 350 years, and can be relied upon as the authentic Word of God. The same goes for the Textus Receptus.

9. In response to what I have just posted, you will get a multitude of naysayers. Don't listen to them and don't believe them. God has only one Bible. All the talk about superior manuscripts and superior modern versions is utter nonsense. And I will certainly not waste my time arguing with the naysayers.

10. There are also reliable translations in other languages based on the TR and the Masoretic Text, so that is not an issue.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Job8, thanks for your response. I will say that I am not "anti-KJV" because it is translated from the TR. I am "anti-KJV" because it is outdated. This is why I like the NKJV and even more the new Modern English Version (translated from the TR).

Now, as far as the majority text goes, there is some weight for saying that with the influx of modern translations being translated from the Majority Text that the church has slipped greatly in holiness and the likes. Does that reflect the texts most use? Hard to say, I doubt it has to do only with that, but there could be some correlation.

 

[johnford]

The present Bibles are generally compiled by lots of people who have scholarships in any number of different fields that stretch over decades .... skills far beyond anything you or I might possess. They have access to the extant texts and technology that simply did not exist as little as 50 years ago.

After that its a personal choice.

 

[toLiJC]

if you want to be sure you don't use a bad version of the Bible, use only the standard such as kjv, niv, esv, nas, isv, asv, erv, web, by comparing the newer with the older, but whatever version you will use, there will always be a need of right faith to be exercised/applied, for even the most authentic translations are full of many things hard to be understood only by reading

Blessings

 

[branchofthevine]

What about the Majority Text?

This web page is a good read on the subject, not only for the information, but also for the references on Textual Criticism at the bottom.

 

[Job8]

What about the Majority Text?

This web page is a good read on the subject, not only for the information, but also for the references on Textual Criticism at the bottom.

Something which most Christians (including pastors and teachers) are not aware of is that the entire body of manuscript evidence has not been fully collated as yet. (We do not have a true "Majority Text" but a close representation of it in the Byzantine Text). If that were to ever happen, it would prove that the Majority Text and the Masoretic Text are indeed the true Bible texts.

What happened to textual criticism beginning is the 17th century is that rationalistic and naturalistic scholars began to put forth their theories about the Bible text, while treating it as just another book. In spite of that there were a handful of true Christian conservative sholars who did their due diligence and upheld the traditional texts. Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, and a few others were formidable foes of the corrupted Minority Text.

 

[FerventDisciple]

So I thought I would offer something I thought about and have been thinking about for some time as food for thought I guess in the matter of textual criticism.

I know I wrestle with the idea of the Textus Receptus being manipulated by the Church. Erasmus himself had several revisions of the text before it became common place. But is the Majority Text any better?

This is what I mean: some say that the Majority Text is probably the closest to the autographs of scripture we can get with any certainty. So does that mean that the Textus Receptus is not inspired and should be discarded all together?

This is my "food for thought" bit. If you are not willing to say the TR is fallible, then it must be infallible. If you cannot say the TR has fault, then you must accept it. For it cannot be the perfect word of God and still have fault in it.

Now I am not accusing anyone here. This thought actually is more for myself than anyone else, but I wanted to present it here for comments and insight.

Now I know the Majority Text is not "perfect" either. The point of my OP is that I know of some who say the MT or any other manuscript but the TR is errant and should not be trusted because it "takes away' from the true biblical text. Others say the exact opposite about the TR, in that it "adds" to the text.

Shouldn't we just settle the matter for ourselves as to which is inspired and which is not until a perfectly clear solution is available and allow each to decide for themselves which one to hold to? Some may be perfectly fine with either or. I am not sure which camp I am in yet, I do find validity in the TR. I am hesitant to accept it willingly knowing that certain passages in it are more than likely not inspired in the autographs.

But here's the thing, even in the places where the TR may add to scripture, such additions do not contradict other scripture so they are really not as "bad" as they may seem correct? and where the MT may "take away" from scripture, it doesn't "take away" any major doctrine does it? No...

To say that any of the Nestle Aland Text, Majority Text or TR is perfect would be to say there is some kind of inspiration upon the compilers of such Greek texts. All were compiled by fallible men. That's not to say they are all equal, let's not fall into the illogical world of relativism. As you know I lean towards the Majority Text and in some places even the TR (Acts 8:37) but I would not ascribe perfection to either nor would it be possible to prove such a claim beyond taking it upon faith.

Just a word on the good old KJV. While it has been improved upon in places in others it has not. Some places where modern translations depart from it are not for the better. Titus 3:10 is one place that comes to mind where almost all modern translations water it down, even the NKJV which I highly value. And that's based on the Greek, not some emotional or traditional attachment to the KJV.

 

[branchofthevine]

Something which most Christians (including pastors and teachers) are not aware of is that the entire body of manuscript evidence has not been fully collated as yet. (We do not have a true "Majority Text" but a close representation of it in the Byzantine Text). If that were to ever happen, it would prove that the Majority Text and the Masoretic Text are indeed the true Bible texts.

What happened to textual criticism beginning is the 17th century is that rationalistic and naturalistic scholars began to put forth their theories about the Bible text, while treating it as just another book. In spite of that there were a handful of true Christian conservative sholars who did their due diligence and upheld the traditional texts. Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, and a few others were formidable foes of the corrupted Minority Text.

Well, that is definitely one way of looking at the history of such texts. I am not too much into the debate of declaring this text inspired instead of others, but another way of seeing these events is that through the discovery of older texts, like Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, we had access to a number of new perspectives, and question that needed answering.

for one, how come the older manuscripts have different readings than some of the later manuscripts? In trying to answer that question we had to adapt and investigate the manner of textual history more thoroughly.

Like, the discovery of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus changed the field of textual criticism pretty drastically just as the Dead Sea Scrolls have changed a number of fields permanently. Our understanding of the Scriptures has never been the same since these discoveries, and allow us to get a more accurate understanding of the text, and transmission of the text.