CT or MT

The Majority Text (in one form or another) was the text used by the Church for the first 1,800 years of it's history, with the exception of a small group of Christians who resided in Alexandria, Egypt in the Third and Fourth Century.

I do not believe that God would keep better texts hidden for 1,800 years and from the majority of Christians who have lived, only to reveal them around the year 1850.

 

And you’d make a decision based upon what was discussed here? That’s ludicrous!
It’d be best to study it out for yourself, read some books.

It’s interesting that in their entirety, no ancient manuscript artifact completely agrees with either the critical text or majority text, so both of these texts haven’t been around for all that long.

Both are composites formed after gathering thousands of ancient documents, each which differ slightly from one other.

The differences between the two are miniscule.
Good translations from of either adequately convey God’s word to us.

Rob

 

MT, because it compares and deduces what is most likely and passes all tests. The CT uses a form to force the texts and make square pegs fit round holes, so just accept those lines of sound reasoning and stop arguing about it! You said you didnt want to argue, right? But why didnt you offer the 3rd option, RT ? of course the RT fits dramatically closer to the MT than into the CT, and there's good reason. It doesnt confound what has been received and passed down meticulously for nearly 4000 years = )

 

What's the RT?

 

Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden for 2000 years.

 

So? ...............

 

Which is closer to the Dead sea scrolls the CT or the MT?

 

RT = Received Text, or Textus Receptus. The TR/RT has no horse in this race as it is not a part of the OP question.

 

I favor the MT for many reasons, too many to explain here. I'll list a few.

1. It's the text of Greek speaking people down through the centuries. Would the Egyptians preserve a Greek text (Alexandrian) better than native speakers of Greek? No way! As an American fluent in Japanese, I have every book, set of outlines or tract I write corrected by Japanese, since they know their language best.

2. The CT (UBS/Nestles) is no longer just Alexandrian, but is now edited by an eclectic method. This means that there are many, many verses in the CT that appear in that form in no Greek mss (manuscripts).

3. The two main mss representing the Alexandrian text type appear to be copied by secular copiers (hired hands) rather than fervent believers. A believer would be more likely to get it right.

4. The MT just reads better in the Greek. It is smoother and has better grammar. So why would God's inspired word be literarily poorer?

5. Many of the passages left out of or doubted in the CT have poor reasoning behind their exclusion, such as the longer ending of Mark. The shorter ending (or leaving off either ending) is unbelievable to me.

6. A major principle of textual criticism going back to Westcott and Hort is that the shorter ending is more likely to be original. This makes no sense to me. As a NT translator I am much more likely to leave out a phrase or word than to add a word. I've been corrected many times by my editors on this.

I'd add more, but I have to run. :type:

 

So you know better than Metzger, Wallace and Comfort?

It may make no sense to you, but it's a generally-attested principle.

Do you think there are no pietistic expansions in the MT? Do think there are no interpolations?

 

Two things before I would reply:
1. I echo what Deacon said...this is a decent forum but you need to do your own homework and go out to do some heavy lifting. This is a BIG issue that doesn't get a lot of traction in our pews and chairs, but absolutely impacts how we conduct a major part of our ministry. There are some great articles, books, and monographs out there. Go read them and decide. Asking a question like this in a forum like this will get you both good and poor insights. It is often hard to determine which is which.

2. You can't toss out a question like that and then say "don't turn this into an argument" that is crazy talk. This is a HUGE argument here and this thread will inevitably devolve into such an argument.

Now for my reply within the parameters of the OP:

I prefer the CT because it allows us to use contemporary research and archeology to blend in with established/critical scholarship in really structuring an accurate view of the extant documents.

We are finding new old stuff all the time. As Israel and the surrounding communities dig deeper and find new stuff we are going to see some really cool things. While the MT is a good basis I believe the CT allows for a more accurate read of what the original authors were about in their task.

That is my opinion. I make no argument (well...other than the one I just made) than that. :thumbs:

 

Strange. Rippon refers to my post and Dr. Bob seems to be referring to it since he mentions Alexandria (which no one else on this thread has mentioned except a brief word by Thermodynamics). But since neither of these gentlemen has truly answered any of my points, I'll just stand pat.

Now for scholarly (and non KJVonly) sources that stand for the MT, I recommend the following to God's Servant:

Anything by Dr. Maurice Robinson, including the 23 page preface of the Byzantine Texform Greek NT and his articles in Translating the New Testmant, ed. by Stanley Porter and Mark Boda; the 36 page Introduction to the Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad; anything by John Burgon (old but good); The Identity of the NT Text, by Wilbur Pickering; The Byzantine Text-Type and NT Textual Criticism, by Harry Sturz; The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, ed. by Theodore Letis.

Plus there is a lot of other good stuff out there. Anyone who claims all the scholarship is on the side of the CT really needs to wake up and review their own pre-understandings.

Here are some links to stuff on the Internet by Dr. Robinson (the leading scholar defending the MT nowadays):

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-maurice-robinson.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zdm2h6Fs7b4C&dq=%22Maurice+Robinson%22&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=4LhSS6HsDo-TkAW9xPCrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15&ved=0CC4Q6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

Them's fight'n words! :smilewinkgrin:

Dr. Robinson present a decent argument and is certainly well worth reading.

Rob

 

Soitenly! :thumbs:

 

my guess is that they're ALEXandrians, Egyptians that've been kinda Hellenised. wld Americans or Aussies not speak English as much as, um, the English?

but it also represents the Majority n TR more comprehensively in the apparatus than vice versa.

i'm not so sure about that, either fr experience or scripture.

could it be that there's an unevenness of "literariness" within the canon itself? i'm told that 2 Peter is of considerably less literary quality than Hebrews or Luke-Acts. seems a non sequitor to suggest inspiration as driver of literary superiority, however the latter's defined.

actually there are something like 4 possible endings indicated in Metzger's textual commentary. personal agreeability of a particular argument is no indication of orthodoxy or validity.

there may be experiences n evidences fr antiquity that go the other way--experiences of monastic scribes rather than modern missionary-translators. there seems to be more examples of conflation.

 

The CT is the "restored" text. The MT (TR meaning Textus Receptus) is the "received" text. I prefer the MT because of God's care on the preservation of His Words. The CT is man's care.

 

Not quite a parallel situation. An Egyptian or Egyptian Jew speaking Greek as a second language is hardly the same as an American or Aussie speaking English as a first.

I've seen many MKs (including our son) grow up bilingual. One language always becomes the first language, depending on the education: in a Japanese school, or in an English school (international, MK or home school). The second language always suffers in fluency.

And this is a good step, long overdue. However, as I mentioned the many readings in an eclectic text that exist in no mss prove that the eclectic method still leaves much to be desired. I would almost rather it be straight Alexandrian (ala Westcott & Hort) then a mugwump text (I said almost :smilewinkgrin: ).

I think there is historical evidence of my point. Remember that the devout Hebrew scribes were so careful in their copying that they actually counted the number of letters in the OT and did their best to keep the copy exactly like the exemplar. Likewise, the Byzantine (except in Revelation) shows a better consistency than the Alexandrian or the Western text.

Your point simply emphasizes that God used all kinds of men to write the Scriptures, not that a generally more smoot Peter, for example, is not closer to the original.

But no one takes the other two seriously. Textual critics opt for either the "shorter ending" (Metzger's #2) or the "traditional ending" (Metzger's #4). And my argument is not about the "personal agreeability" of the shorter ending argument, but that it is not believable. Have you read Burgon's tome on Mark 16?

I really don't think human nature has changed that much.... :smilewinkgrin: