Question regarding textual criticism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by wfdfiremedic, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. wfdfiremedic

    wfdfiremedic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, there are many on here who are much more educated in this than me. My question is this: Are the scriptures that comprise the Alexandian text from an earlier time period than the texts that support the TR/MT?

    Another question: How can one argue that texts that have been declared later in date of writting are supperior to those that were found to be written earlier. For instance, the TR has many passages that are not found in the CT. From my little understanding, the texts that comprise the CT are declared to be earlier in writting. Therefore, how can one say that scribes did not add additions to the texts in the TR/MT?

    Not trying to start a war. IMHO, there are no doctrinal significances, so I don't truly care. The bottom line is that I want to understand this argument.

    |In Christ,
    Chris
     
  2. wfdfiremedic

    wfdfiremedic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    For instance, I have asked this to my Pastor who is TR preferred. His reply was that the Church was essentially established in the regions of Antioch, where I understand the scripts for the TR/MT originate. Therefore, what would one trust more? However, I still find an argument waging in my mind as to; if there are earlier known scriptures, who is to say that scribes did not augment texts to reflect their own ideas?

    Moreover, I have read that Alexandrian texts were influenced by gnostic beliefs. Is there truth to this?

    -Chris
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are certainly those who know much more about this subject than I. I read many very good books on this subject, but it was nearly 30 years ago and quite frankly I have almost forgotten everything I read.

    The TR texts are newer than the CT. However, those who argue the TR say this is because the TR texts were constantly being used and wore out. New copies were written and the old worn out texts destroyed, usually out of respect like we burn an old flag. Therefore the texts the KJB translators used were not as old as the CT texts.

    However, there is much evidence supporting these newer texts from writings of church fathers well before the CT texts.

    The CT texts have a problem in that they were generally found at one point of time. There is almost no evidence of supporting texts earlier, and they were not used afterward as well.

    The TR on the other hand can be traced as far back as the 2nd century through the writings of church fathers.

    So, in actuality, there is much evidence for the Received Text well before the Critical Text.

     
    #3 Winman, Jul 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2010
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is another article that shows there are many ancient texts and writings by church fathers well before the CT that support the RT.

    There is much more to this article that can be found here.

    http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/received.htm
     
  5. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thus, on the very face of the evidence, it is nonsense to say that the Received Text is “is only based on seven late manuscripts.”

    Based on and agreement are two different terms. This writer is confusing them. There are today over 5200(actually closer to over 5600, but using his number) but not during the time of the KJV. He is right that the TR usually is the majority reading, but not always. There are differences between the TR and the Majority Text.

    So on the very face of the evidence, it makes perfect sense to say that the Received Text is only based on seven late manuscripts. It would be nonsense to say that it is in agreement with only seven late manuscripts.
     
  6. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original question asked if the CT should be preferred over the TR because of age, but there is much evidence that supports the TR text that dates well before any CT texts.

     
  7. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Winman, you do know that Ellicott spearheaded the revision of the KJV, don't you? And I didn't know he wrote in ALL CAPS and bold as your quote suggests. Also, I don't know any "textual authorities" who say that 99 percent of all Greek manuscripts contain the "Received Text."

    As to the OP: since the earliest survivable Greek manuscripts are all from Egypt, it is therefore not surprising that they all tend to lean Alexandrian. Consequently, if one wishes to reconstruct the third-century Bible of the Alexandrians from these manuscripts and the Alexandrian fathers and versions, he can do so fairly confidently. But most are not satisfied with this and wish to go back as far as possible, even attempting to reconstruct the original itself. Hence the need to consider the earliest manuscripts and other textual witnesses from all regions. When one does this, he finds that the Alexandrian manuscripts show marks of revision: for example, they confuse King Asa with the popular psalmist Asaph (Matt 1:7-8), and King Amon with the popular prophet Amos (Matt 1:10), they introduce passages from one gospel into another (such as John 19:34 after Matt 27:49), they remove passages that were seen to support certain positions of the many cults that surrounded them (such as the ascetic passages in Matt 17:21; Mark 9:29; 1 Cor 7:5 -- such changes are called "orthodox corruptions," corruptions by the orthodox in their fight against the "heretics"), they smooth over the text to make it less offensive (such as Matt 17:20 where they lessen the charge against the disciples' lack of faith), etc. The main point to remember is that the "earliest manuscripts" generally derive from only one region (Egypt) and still were made 150-200 years after the originals, which factors, by themselves, are insufficient to demand our wholehearted and uncritical trust.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  8. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as that all caps, I just copied and pasted, I did not alter that quote in any way whatsoever.

    As you said though, there are many documents that are not Greek that predate all known Greek texts, and these support the Eastern or Antioch line of texts.

    From the first chapter of Modern Versions Unmasked

    Here is the entire article

    http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtutoc.htm
     
  9. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see...
    If you are saying that there are some Byzantine readings that are older than the Alexandrian reading, then sure. But as a whole, the Alexandrian texts are older than the Byzantine texts.
     
  10. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allow me to quote the first part of your quotation from the original source:

    "The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts,--that is to say the manuscripts which are written in running hand and not in capital or (as they are technically called) uncial letters. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus to a great body of manuscripts of which the earliest are assigned to the ninth century." Check out especially the last clause of this quotation!

    Also, where the quote picks up again, the author you quote from quotes Ellicott very improperly. I will quote him from the original here:

    "This remarkable statement [of Dr. Hort that was just quoted] completes the pedigree of the Received Text. That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was, as Dr. Hort is careful to remind us, at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them."

    So your author fails to state that this was actually Dr. Hort's own claim. He/she doesn't even add ellipses where he/she omits text from the supposed quotation! No bolding, no all-caps, as your quotation indicated! Terribly disingenuous! Did you even know that the argument you were using was actually conceded and supplied by the "evil and malicious" Dr. Hort himself? One has to laugh.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  11. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fine, so Hort agreed that there were texts supporting the RT back to remote antiquity. Doesn't that answer the original question?

    Look, I don't write all these articles. Years ago I had many good books on this subject but no more. Today I use the internet to find articles to support arguments. It is true, these articles are not always completely accurate, but that can be said for both sides of this argument.

    All I am trying to do is show the original poster that there is a great many writings going back as far as the 2nd century that support the TR.

    You don't deny that do you?
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of some WH men admitted that the TR is the key over the CT gone back to early 2nd Century. Another scholar admitted that many readings of the TR agreed with the KJV gone back to early 2nd Century. I realize there is a great vagueness between the CT and the TR because most liberal scholars and most textual critics favors the CT over the TR [hateful speech snipped - warning to Ask that if you want to stick around, watch your mouth]
     
    #12 Askjo, Jul 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2010
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Bob Jones University, which uses the CT, is a bastion of liberal education, to be sure! Actually, almost every conservative educational institution that teaches Greek uses the UBS' Greek New Testament.
     
  14. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    You quote academically dishonest sources that inaccurately portray the facts. Your sources cannot be trusted, and if your opinion is based them, it is highly likely that your opinion is flawed as well.
     
  15. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both sides do that. Don't they?

    For instance one of those articles said the supporters of the CT leave the impression that there are not supporting texts for the RT that date well before the CT when they know there are. Isn't that true?

    And that is all I was trying to show, there is much evidence for the RT that dates well before the CT.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe that GOD preserves/presents His own word as HE jolly well chooses. We may sit & theorize that "THIS text is better than THAT text" or "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller", but it's GOD'S word, and HE superintends it. And part of that superintending is presenting it in the languages HE has given mankind to use, languages HE causes/allows to change as time passes.

    WE are blessed in English by having some 700 years of Bible versions made by some great men of God such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and others. We have their work, plus that of contemporary translators as well.

    OTOH, Satan, the greatest deceiver & trickster of all, plays both sides of the fence. He invents such false doctrines as KJVO, the current edition of which comes from a cult official's book, while at the same time, warring against the KJV and other older English versions. He has so far been successful in almost-completely suppressing the Genevs Bible and other older versions, while causing rebellion against both the KJV and modern versions.

    I hope to see more people accepting both the older and newer English versions, as GOD intended when He caused each to be made, and to see that KJVO, as well as rejection of the KJV, is a tool of Satan's.
     
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, brother.
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Calling someone a "liar" is not tolerated on the BB. Just saying.
     
  19. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Age is only one factor. It counts for something, but not nearly so much as some try to promote.

    If you find a biblical text that is old, that is all you really know. It is old. That does not mean it is accurate, there were people perverting the scriptures or writing false scriptures from the beginning.

    The problem is the Critical Text is missing many verses and passages that appeared in early writings of the church fathers and also appear in the Received Text later.

    Though the Critical Text is older than the Received Text, the Received Text is supported by many early writings such as the early church fathers and the scriptures written in other languages.

    So, being older does not necessarily mean accurate. If you find an old corrupt text, that is just what it is, an old, but corrupt text.
     
    #19 Winman, Jul 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2010
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    That would only be true if by TR you meant ONLY the 1516 edition of Erasmus. The actual manuscripts in his possession dated from the 11th through the 15th century. But, when compared to the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts the variants are minor.

    However, his later editions, and those of Beza, the Elzivirs, Stephens, etc., had more manuscripts as their basis.

    The fact is, that of the 5500 odd Greek manuscripts currently extant over 95% of them concur with the textform represented by the Traditional Text.
     

Share This Page

Loading...