Nestle/Aland, Byzantine Majority Text or Textus Receptus. Which one?

[FerventDisciple]

Everyone from these opposing viewpoints seems to have in their mind convincing arguments and all of these positions have pros and cons. I've switched between all 3 positions and now I can say I just don't know. Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best? Those Greek texts can't all be right in the places they differ and there has to be a best translation doesn't there? Unless we accept relativism and it's all true which is devoid of logic.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Bro, I really don't think it matters to be perfectly honest with you. I am concerned with the TR because of the admissions Erasmus made himself concerning adding parts into his text after several revisions to appease church leadership. But even with such additions the TR is valuable and trustworthy.

It kills me when people accuse modern translations like the NIV, ESV, etc of subtracting from God's Word. It's obvious such people know nothing about textual criticism. I personally prefer a majority of witnesses such as provided in Nestle/Aland manuscripts as opposed to just 5/6 late witnesses of the TR.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Just to add as I didn't quite comprehend all your OP, I'm not entirely sure texts like N/A are wrong because they have some variations. The point of the N/A text is to try and piece together exactly what the original manuscripts would have looked like using the oldest and more reliable texts available.

The fact that the N/A text does not allow any heretical writings (such as the Gospel of Peter, or Thomas, Mary, etc) into the manuscript really adds some value I think to it. I feel very secure in utilizing modern versions that are based from the N/A for such reasons.

The thing that scares me tremendously about the Textus Receptus is it was compiled from only a handful of very late dated manuscripts (around the 10th century at the earliest if I remember correctly). Not only that but the RCC and CoE had huge roles in its composition. Erasmus was said to have made 2 complete versions of the TR before being pressured into adding the Comma Johanneum into the text. Of course that depends on if you accept certain witnesses to such stories.

Either way I think whichever a person chooses, God can reveal himself to them and they can know him through those scriptures accordingly.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Bro, I really don't think it matters to be perfectly honest with you. I am concerned with the TR because of the admissions Erasmus made himself concerning adding parts into his text after several revisions to appease church leadership. But even with such additions the TR is valuable and trustworthy.

It kills me when people accuse modern translations like the NIV, ESV, etc of subtracting from God's Word. It's obvious such people know nothing about textual criticism. I personally prefer a majority of witnesses such as provided in Nestle/Aland manuscripts as opposed to just 5/6 late witnesses of the TR.

But then you'd get the response that those 5/6 late witnesses are representative of many more which on the whole is true since it agrees with MT in most places. You can then turn it around on the Nestle Aland camp and say they are the one relying on the few witnesses as the MT is the bulk of all manuscripts. So they accuse the TR of using a small number of manuscripts yet they in their NA text in thousands of places adopt the minority reading with less MSS support. Just seems to be so many contractions in the mass of arguments.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Just to add as I didn't quite comprehend all your OP, I'm not entirely sure texts like N/A are wrong because they have some variations. The point of the N/A text is to try and piece together exactly what the original manuscripts would have looked like using the oldest and more reliable texts available.

The fact that the N/A text does not allow any heretical writings (such as the Gospel of Peter, or Thomas, Mary, etc) into the manuscript really adds some value I think to it. I feel very secure in utilizing modern versions that are based from the N/A for such reasons.

The thing that scares me tremendously about the Textus Receptus is it was compiled from only a handful of very late dated manuscripts (around the 10th century at the earliest if I remember correctly). Not only that but the RCC and CoE had huge roles in its composition. Erasmus was said to have made 2 complete versions of the TR before being pressured into adding the Comma Johanneum into the text. Of course that depends on if you accept certain witnesses to such stories.

Either way I think whichever a person chooses, God can reveal himself to them and they can know him through those scriptures accordingly.

One of the compilers of the NA text is Cardinal Martini who is a member of the Jesuits and the intro says this:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

Bruce Metzger has said the Erasmus Johannine comma story has no evidence.

It worries me that the compilers of what is now the NA text (Westcott, Hort, Aland, Nestle, Martini, Metzger) are people we wouldn't trust to teach Sunday school but it's fine when it comes to textual criticism and our new testament. I know Erasmus background but the TR wasn't solely his work, it was edited after by fine Christians like Stephanus and Beza.

See what I mean with all the contradictions in arguments?

 

[Biblicist]

. . . Bruce Metzger has said the Erasmus Johannine comma story has no evidence.

It worries me that the compilers of what is now the NA text (Westcott, Hort, Aland, Nestle, Martini, Metzger) are people we wouldn't trust to teach Sunday school but it's fine when it comes to textual criticism and our new testament. I know Erasmus background but the TR wasn't solely his work, it was edited after by fine Christians like Stephanus and Beza.

See what I mean with all the contradictions in arguments?

When it comes to the study of the Greek (or Hebrew) manuscripts you will probably be surprised to hear me say that it does not seem to matter if a particular scholar is Born Again or a devout liberal or even an atheist.

Unlike theology, which is a separate endeavour to the science behind the history and development of the Biblical languages, we certainly need to ensure that the various scholars are switched on enough for them to adequately expound on the Word of God; of course, being Born Again of the Spirit of God is a definite plus in anyones book.

As I tend to heavily rely on my theological commentaries, I tend to be very careful with the authors that I select and when I purchase a book on say Acts or First Corinthians I expect the author to be either Continuist where he is at least open to the Power of God; this means that he won't try and dismiss the role of the Holy Spirit in todays church whereas a cessationist will spend more of his time trying to explain away the Scriptures that talk of this continuing Power.

When it comes to the development of the contemporary Greek Text, which is the Nestle-Aland (28th Edition), I would not be surprised to discover if more than maybe one or two are actually Born Again (but I could easily be wrong). This means that if this is indeed the case, then these scholars will approach the Greek text with a fairly open mind as some probably think that the miracles that we see in the Scriptures are myths or allegories. This means that they will avoid the temptation to either embellish or dismiss the various Greek words that speak of the Power of God.

If we look at the brilliant scholar Erasmus who admitted that he had to hastily compile the Greek New Testament that his publisher had commissioned him to develop; he was in fact a humanist but many people are still reluctant to take away from his academic prowess - too bad he was a liberal. So even though the TR (behind the KJV) was written by a confessed liberal, this does not take away from the scholarship itself, where as I said, he even admitted that his work was a very hastily contrived document.

What about today?

As the vast majority (maybe all?) of todays better commentaries utilise the Nestle-Aland (25th to 28th edition) Greek text as their base, this means that if you want to move away from the Standard Greek Text to either the 'Majority' text or even the very dated TR, then you will have to avoid using these better commentaries as they will be in conflict with these non-academic texts.

 

[ebia]

Everyone from these opposing viewpoints seems to have in their mind convincing arguments and all of these positions have pros and cons. I've switched between all 3 positions and now I can say I just don't know. Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best? Those Greek texts can't all be right in the places they differ and there has to be a best translation doesn't there? Unless we accept relativism and it's all true which is devoid of logic.

It's not quite symetrical. A critical text, of which Nestle/Åland is the current, isn't claiming to be perfect. It's trying to be the best that can be recreated given what's currently known. It's always a work in progress and acknowledges uncertainty.

Whereas those who insist on the TR are doing so mostly because they want certainty. They want to believe that the text they are using is perfect.

 

[FerventDisciple]

When it comes to the study of the Greek (or Hebrew) manuscripts you will probably be surprised to hear me say that it does not seem to matter if a particular scholar is Born Again or a devout liberal or even an atheist.

Unlike theology, which is a separate endeavour to the science behind the history and development of the Biblical languages, we certainly need to ensure that the various scholars are switched on enough for them to adequately expound on the Word of God; of course, being Born Again of the Spirit of God is a definite plus in anyones book.

As I tend to heavily rely on my theological commentaries, I tend to be very careful with the authors that I select and when I purchase a book on say Acts or First Corinthians I expect the author to be either Continuist where he is at least open to the Power of God; this means that he won't try and dismiss the role of the Holy Spirit in todays church whereas a cessationist will spend more of his time trying to explain away the Scriptures that talk of this continuing Power.

When it comes to the development of the contemporary Greek Text, which is the Nestle-Aland (28th Edition), I would not be surprised to discover if more than maybe one or two are actually Born Again (but I could easily be wrong). This means that if this is indeed the case, then these scholars will approach the Greek text with a fairly open mind as some probably think that the miracles that we see in the Scriptures are myths or allegories. This means that they will avoid the temptation to either embellish or dismiss the various Greek words that speak of the Power of God.

If we look at the brilliant scholar Erasmus who admitted that he had to hastily compile the Greek New Testament that his publisher had commissioned him to develop; he was in fact a humanist but many people are still reluctant to take away from his academic prowess - too bad he was a liberal. So even though the TR (behind the KJV) was written by a confessed liberal, this does not take away from the scholarship itself, where as I said, he even admitted that his work was a very hastily contrived document.

What about today?

As the vast majority (maybe all?) of todays better commentaries utilise the Nestle-Aland (25th to 28th edition) Greek text as their base, this means that if you want to move away from the Standard Greek Text to either the 'Majority' text or even the very dated TR, then you will have to avoid using these better commentaries as they will be in conflict with these non-academic texts.

Interesting. So you don't think that a scholar's position on inerrancy, inspiration or preservation would make any difference on particularly difficult variants which require a decision to be made?

 

[ebia]

... the compilers of what is now the NA text (Westcott, Hort, Aland, Nestle, Martini, Metzger) are people we wouldn't trust to teach Sunday school ...

Says who?

 

[ebia]

If we look at the brilliant scholar Erasmus who admitted that he had to hastily compile the Greek New Testament that his publisher had commissioned him to develop; he was in fact a humanist but many people are still reluctant to take away from his academic prowess - too bad he was a liberal.

You do realise that what humanist meant then was nothing like what it means now?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Says who?

You do realise that what humanist meant then was nothing like what it means now?

Make a contribution to the OP please.

 

[Shane R]

I too have gone in several directions on this question over time. I now find myself favoring the Majority Text, respecting the Critical Texts, and having a limited use for the Received Text.

On a practical level, there is no really prominent Majority Text Bible translation in English. I do my college work from the NRSV except when a professor specifies (as in this term when the professor mandated NASB or NIV). I used to be, during my brief preaching career, an NASB user. For a time I was a huge promoter of HCSB, which I still like to read.

 

[ebia]

Make a contribution to the OP please.

Challenging wrong comments is a contribution.

 

[Unix]

FerventDisciple, why are You asking two questions: what textual basis should be used and which translation should be used? When it comes to the New Testament there's only one version that translates directly from the NA27/UBS4 and no-one is claiming that it's the best version although it is the best version occasionally. ALL other English Bible versions occasionally translate from a variant in the apparatus or from the Byzantine text in the New Testament. EDIT: and like shanethetheologian concluded there are no Majority Text versions to choose from.

Both internal and external or inner and outer (I don't know which terminology to use since I most recently studied it in a local language) textual criticism should be used.

In the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint should be used in addition to the Masoretic Text. I'd give the Septuagint preference in very many cases because it was what was actually used by both Jews and Christians, no matter if it's necessarily closest to the original.

There's more priorities than just closeness to the original.

Are You wanting to read in English or to read the New Testament in Greek or to read the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek?

 

[Unix]

I have recently hidden the HCSB in the Bible Study software where I had it. Never used it even once during the more than 2½ years I had it on the computer. And no - I barely use any online Bibles:

For a time I was a huge promoter of HCSB, which I still like to read.

 

[Unix]

I actually trust cardinal Martini, I buy small books by him. He has been in my favourite authors on my CF profile for a couple of years. He was a fine scholar and theologian. He died somewhat recently:

It worries me that the compilers of what is now the NA text (Westcott, Hort, Aland, Nestle, Martini, Metzger) are people we wouldn't trust to teach Sunday school but it's fine when it comes to textual criticism and our new testament.

 

[Unix]

And even more people, many times more people, are fooled by the worst versions for certain passages and led astray whether before or after God reveals Himself to them. Why are we talking about THE best version for the entire Bible anyway? It would be "convenient" to just point to one version for everything but it wouldn't be honest if knowing there are pretty bad problems with every version:

Either way I think whichever a person chooses, God can reveal himself to them and they can know him through those scriptures accordingly.

 

[Unix]

True, critical texts do change. There were many changes in the apparatus going from the preceding UBS versions to version 4 in the early '90s. The NA28 and UBS5 (this ongoing decade) introduce some significant changes both in the apparatuses and text.
Also, there are other important projects if someone wants to know of any:

It's not quite symetrical. A critical text, of which Nestle/Aland is the current, isn't claiming to be perfect. It's trying to be the best that can be recreated given what's currently known. It's always a work in progress and acknowledges uncertainty.

 

[Biblicist]

You do realise that what humanist meant then was nothing like what it means now?

That's a point worth bringing up; when the term 'humanism' is employed to refer to the scholars of the 1400's and 1500's it refers to their shift away from God's involvement with man and the earth to that of secularism where scientific reason reigns supreme. In the case of Erasmus it appears that this rather amazing (though contrary) individual had not gone the whole way toward secularism.

 

[Biblicist]

FerventDisciple. . . When it comes to the New Testament there's only one version that translates directly from the NA27/UBS4 and no-one is claiming that it's the best version although it is the best version occasionally. ALL other English Bible versions occasionally translate from a variant in the apparatus or from the Byzantine text in the New Testament. EDIT: and like shanethetheologian concluded there are no Majority Text versions to choose from. . .

This idea that all of the contemporary Bible versions "slavishly adopted the Greek text" is certainly one of those old wives tales. Undoubtedly the people who promote this piece of fantasy probably have little knowledge with the process of Bible translation.