Textus Receptus & the Majority Texts

[JM]

Please keep in mind this is the Semper Reformanda Forum. That means it is for FOR CALVINISTS and REFORMED folks.

Thanks.

_____________________________________________________________

I understand some of the finer details are missing in the lists below. These lists for example, do not differentiate between the TR and MT, but I think it is a good place to start a discussion.

As the confession states, "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."

What is your view on the Majority Text and it's types like the Textus Receptus?

Source:

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus
Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus
Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus
The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus
The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus
The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus
Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus
Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus
Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus
Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus
The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them)
The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus.


Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

85% of papyri used Textus Receptus, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort
97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 9 manuscripts used text of WH
99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used text WH
100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Is your point something to do with a linkage between a certain type of church and the underlying New Testament document? (because some people do try to defend the Textus Receptus using an ecclesiastical argument rather than centering on the textual evidence itself.)

Blessings.

 

[JM]

Thanks for the blessings! The question was, "What is your view on the Majority Text and it's types like the Textus Receptus?"

 

[faroukfarouk]

Thanks for the blessings! The question was, "What is your view on the Majority Text and it's types like the Textus Receptus?"

It's interesting that both the Byzantine manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514 resemble the Textus Receptus and more closely the Majority Text, however one defines it.

 

[JM]

I was kind of introduced to the MT and TR thru a Bible study at a Greek Orthodox Church years ago. They said, can confirm, the Fathers quoted the LXX and the TR so if I wanted a good translation get the AV. (Just and anecdotal.)

 

[faroukfarouk]

I was kind of introduced to the MT and TR thru a Bible study at a Greek Orthodox Church years ago. They said, can confirm, the Fathers quoted the LXX and the TR so if I wanted a good translation get the AV. (Just and anecdotal.)

This brings me back to my previous point which you discounted. Some people do argue for the Textus Receptus because of the ecclesiastical background of those who used it. As if to say, the Word is pure, therefore the church where it was used is also pure, therefore this form of the text gets its authority from the pure church through which it was preserved.

I find this most illogical, though.

It's the church, such as it may be, that gets any authority from the Word, and not the other way round. I do favor generally the Byzantine, Majority, Textus Receptus, though.

 

[JM]

That would not be the confessionally Reformed view I'm familiar with.

 

[faroukfarouk]

That would not be the confessionally Reformed view I'm familiar with.

No, although some Reformed people are inclined toward it; they would argue that up to the Reformation, the Orthodox church was the 'pure' institution that gave the text its preserved authority; then, after the Reformation, the Reformed are the real McCoy.

Again, I struggle with this.

Attributing textual preservation to the general providence of God seems infinitely preferable than beating people about the head on textual matters because they belong to the 'wrong' church institution (whether defined creedally or not) that supposedly gives the text of Scripture its authority.

 

[AMR]

Before brandplucked arrives with his unique view ( ) in anticipation of his upcoming debate with another member on the topic, I will lay out my view.

[FONT=&quot]I prefer the Byzantine manuscript tradition for my New Testament Bible translations, e.g., KJV or NKJV.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I use the two Englishman's Greek and Hebrew concordance volumes often when working with the Hebrew and the Greek. I often work directly with the The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: The Byzantine Greek Text & Verb Parsing and The New Testament in the Original Greek (Greek Edition).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a KJBOnlyist. In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV. Until that happens, I don’t see the harm in having to bear with a few outdated expressions for what I consider to be the best faithful translation of the inspired Holy Writ.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.[/FONT]

In other words, when we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgement upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgement. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgement on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.

The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord" -- to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, reformed piety taught that "the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157). It is contrary to reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, and to esteem them both as the Word of God.

[FONT=&quot]For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, and it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history. Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with the church seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort. Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the non-church authorized translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC-Q.157.

[/FONT]

 

[AndOne]

AMR -
Thanks for your post. I found it very helpful. I am curious to know
what you think of Geneva version of the Bible - 1599 version. I have a copy but struggle with understanding it from a modern English speaking perspective.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not King James Only, either, although I love and appreciate the King James.

The Majority / Byzantine background of the Textus Receptus is in my humble view a strength, not a weakness.

 

[HammerOfHeaven]

In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV.

You don't have to "hope" any longer, a very mild yet thorough and thoroughly faithful revision of the KJV has already been done. The KJ2000 or King James 2000 is available free online as one of the versions on Bible Hub. It is the work of a conservative doctor of theology and professor at Mid-Continent University, the late Dr. Robert A. Couric.

Dr. Couric took great care to retain the original word order of the King James, while updating all of the archaic language and making very minor corrections, especially in those relatively few places where further scholarship has shed light on words that were obscure to the King James translators.

Since I am unable to post the link, I would encourage everyone to check out the KJ2000 on Bible Hub (where it is also listed as the KJ2, not to be confused with Jay P. Green's KJ3!), and anyone who wants to own the app for $2.99 can search the internet for Dr. Couric's site which is still maintained by his sons.

 

[AMR]

AMR -
Thanks for your post. I found it very helpful. I am curious to know
what you think of Geneva version of the Bible - 1599 version. I have a copy but struggle with understanding it from a modern English speaking perspective.

Heh, so do I. That is why I own the following version:

1599 Geneva Bible (Black Bonded Leather Edition + CD Rom) - Christian Reader

 

[JM]

I guess we need to be "truthful" and admit the Bible is still a work in progress? We will get there eventually.

James White Encouraging Christians to be Truthful, More on Textual Criticism, Slippery Slopes + more [Dividing Line Audio & Video] | The Confessing Baptist

 

[abacabb3]

The Bible IS NOT a work in progress. However, theology, doctrine, and interpretation have been perfected over the years. So, if understanding gets nuanced over time, why wouldn't textual analysis while the Scripture itself cannot be broken?

 

[JM]

I was being sarcastic.

I understand the TR to be a Greek edition of the MT, the translators of the AV used Beza’s work for their underlying text. Beza, like Calvin and Luther wrestled with the Greek mss but essentially left them alone. They didn’t really perform textual criticism on the Greek. This view is often called “the logic of faith” and was used by Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc. to leave disputed texts like 1 John 5.7 in the Bible. (see Gill’s comments on 1 John 5.7 for textual reasons to leave it in) Francis Turretin was another who used the logic of faith to argue that true faith depends on the authenticity of Bible as AMR pointed out and he did so against Rome…Rome often claiming the scriptures where subject to error. You can see Turretin’s influence on the Reformed confessions and catechisms, “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.” (Westminster & London Baptist Confession) The confessionally Reformed view on scripture is that the Greek Text used by the church (the TR) was considered the Bible to the exclusion of other Greek Texts. No one performed textual criticism on the Greek, not to any great extent or influence, after Protestants began using Beza’s work. (see Muller in Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics)

 

[faroukfarouk]

I struggle with the 'ecclesiasitcal/Confessional' argument to make Scripture supposedly authentic.

I tend to think that attributing preservation to the general providence of God is a sounder idea. I do sympathize with the Majority/Byzantine background to the TR; what some proponents of the TR are apt to do, however, is to make the printed text supposedly 'validate' its manuscript sources.

 

[JM]

Worth a read: http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/241-1.pdf

 

[JM]

Eastern Orthodox discussing the Bible: http://www.christianforums.com/t7839817/

 

[JM]

The last few days I read over the articles on the TBS website. They were helpful in sorting out the modern idea of selecting the NT text rather than accepting the NT text as we have received it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55Nl6GtvSk