Provide proof

There is no "proof" that either side is superior.

 

Just for clarity, the NKJV is not a revision of the KJV, but it is a TR translation of the New Testament.

If people are to show proof that the Critical Text is better than the TR, may I ask which edition of the TR we are comparing it to?

 

agreed....

 

IF there were, would we have NIVonlyists? NASBonlyists?

 

Amen to that!

That should have been defined ion the OP...

 

Quite obviously there are differences between the two.

What you are really looking for is not proof but a logical argument.

Rob

 

I agree with ALL the above posts. This is another apples & oranges discussion. Are apples better than oranges? Yes, for making applesauce. Are oranges better than apples? Yes, for obtaining orange juice.

When we git dun wif this'n, kan wee kumpear fords & shevies?

 

The TR is a 'critical text', in several 'critical editions'.

The TR is a subset of the larger Byzantine/Majority text-family. The "Critical Text" from the OP is likely to be represented by the text-family known as Alexandrian, or Eclectic. There are other families (Western, for example), and there have been other ways to group documents, and different names applied to these groupings.

Every ancient language manuscript discovered has been found to have variants. When comparing different manuscripts, or witnesses, of a single text, it is not always apparent which variant is probably original and which is probably an error. A textual critic will sort through the variants and establish a 'critical text' that is intended to best represent the original by explaining the state of all extant witnesses. The TR is critically-edited compilation of several manuscripts readily available at the time.

A textual critic is a fallible human being. There is no scriptural revelation concerning the inspiration of textual critics; therefore, we can be sure they make errors in the creation of 'critical texts'. Erasmus was the critical editor of the first published printed edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), which much later, along with several other 'critical editions', became known collectively as the "textus receptus".

Erasmus' expertise was in Latin, and it was his desire to publish his Latin version of the NT that drove him to make his Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot which had many errors. In the 2nd (1519) edition the more familiar term Testamentum was used in the title. Those two editions did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8, known as the Comma Johanneum). The 3rd edition (1522) was the basis for the 1550 Stephanus edition presumably used by the translators of the Geneva Bible, and King James Version. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition (1527) containing three parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate, and his Latin text. He then used the available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In 1535 Erasmus published his final edition which dropped the Vulgate column.

In establishing the 'critical text', the textual critic considers both external evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and internal considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done). There are three fundamental approaches to textual criticism: stematics, copy-text editing, and eclecticism. Erasmus used the copy-text approach, which basically means that he selected a base text from a manuscript he thought to be reliable. The other methods are now considered to arrive at the original text with a higher level of certainty, especially in light of the many more manuscripts discovered and made available since the 17th century. More recent secular documents and archealogical finds have also contributed to the the ancient languages and customs knowledge pool.

Many modern 'critical editions' contain an apparatus that presents the evidence that the textual critic considered, the editor's analysis of that evidence, and a record of rejected variants.

All these flawed manuscripts were once a (or more likely, several) believer's trusted Bible!

 

Actually, it does.

I mentioned three reasons why the eclectic texts are generally considered superior to the TR: 1) the method employed by Erasmus to construct his text; 2) the relatively few manuscripts and resources used to compose the TR texts; and 3) more recent archealogical evidence and advancements in ancient languages that can now be applied with textual criticism.

Primarily, I was supporting my initial statement that the TRs are a critical text in the same character as more modern eclectic texts. I demostrated to a small degree that there really is no established TR text.

In the end it will be difficult to objectively hold superiority of one critical text over another, since they will be merely different. The question is why? It isn't so much the end results being compared that will tell us which is better, but rather the decisions and the 'canon' of erecting those critical texts.

 

I have not claimed that the Critical Text is better than one of the twenty plus editions of the Textus Receptus. I have not recommended the Critical Text. Thus, this topic has not been shown to relate to my view of Bible translation.

 

I agree with you. You see, many modern versions followed the CT rathar than the TR.

 

Sorry, I disagree with you.

 

See the bold above -- is that true?

 

Okay then Askjo, prove that either text body is better.

 

Rather than having two threads runnings. lets use this one thread for anyone to try and prove a superior text body.

As I see it the only way to prove it is to compare them to the originals, which we don't have.

 

Unless Jim clarifies things and tells us exactly what he’s looking for, this thread is dead in the water too.

As C4K says, conclusive proof requires the original documents.

In their absence
…we can provide strong and compelling evidence, relevant to the issue,
…we can provide a perfusion of witnesses to support the evidence,
…we can, so to say, plead a case before our peers.

But I don’t think this is what Jim is looking for.

I also think it's a bit too broad a topic to be handled adequately in a debate thread.

Rob

 

Amen!

On what authority or grounds do you disagree that there is no proof that either side is superior, Askjo? Is this based on fact? On your own opinion? On hearsay or what someone else said?

By all means, Askjo, please prove that either text body is better.