Provide proof

Interestingly Roger, the OP is questioning the superiority of one text over another. The only thing AVBunyan managed to do was show differences, not superiority.

There is no proof that the CT is superior. There are many good reasons to believe that it is. There are also good reasons to believe that the MajT is superior. There are no good reasons to believe that the TR is superior. But all of that falls short of hard proof.

 

I guess one has to define what they mean by "superiority".

My examples were generally submitted - not all CTs were guilty but most read the way I presented them - just check them out - a blind man can see it - or even a lost man can see the differences.

I know you have seen those before - nothing new - you missed my point.

Since all you have are the two families of texts then compare the two together.
Again - define what you folks mean by superior. What makes a text superior in your mindset?

BTW Larry - all you did was just say, "John didn't write it, it was never there, etc." Talking about preference and opinion! Real conclusive yourself.

Since the minority read the way I presented it and the majority reads with the verses or words in tact then why not just stick with the majority? Or do you actually like the examples I gave read and think the CTs are OK as a whole?

Ex. Because the blood is found elsewhere does this mean it is ok to take it out in Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:7?

Now - if you can lay out them both side by side and chose the CTs over the MTs then fine - I guess your definition of superior and mine differ.

Later :wavey:

 

Which doesn't make either of them right or wrong... only different.

Actually, the evidence is not about preference and opinion. When the CT was being put together, scholars looked over the differences. many were omitted because the word choices and syntax were DIFFERENT than the style and choices of the rest of the book... hence, it is most likely that they were added later by someone other than the original author. Deduction 101.

For the very reason I just stated.

Again, different doesn't mean wrong. When you choose your own measuring stick, nothing else will match it.

Only when the evidence says it was most likely added in later by someone else.

i have no doubt that our definitions are somewhat different on this subject, and maybe on others. But we both love the Lord and can agree to disagree.

 

You got me here Trotter.. :thumbs:

And herein lies the true foundation for true spiritual fellowship -

God bless ya Trotter :wavey:

 

I admit I am not a manuscript expert by no means – “A man has got to know his limitations.”

So – is the below assessment correct? I think I’ve seen these figures somewhere…

Majority Text makes up 90-95% of available manuscripts
Minority Texts (Critical Text?) – 5-10% makes up the rest


Please - fell free to correct the above if I have this wrong.


Thanks

 

I suppose, but most people define it as "better."

Yes, everyone can see the differences. Differences aren't the issue.

Perhaps because you didn't make it clear..

[qyote]Since all you have are the two families of texts then compare the two together.[/quote]Yes, I agree. That's what we did, and all you established is taht they are different. Everyone already knows that. You made no argument for one being superior.

Probabibility of accuracy. What about you?

Yes, that is all there is to say. That's the point. The EC reads differently because of how it practices textual criticism. If John (or whatever author) didn't say it, then it shouldnt' be there.

Because 100 copies of an error doesn't make it less an error. It is better to go with the one that is correct rather than the one that has the biggest pile of support. Obviously, it is more complex than that, but our goal is accuracy, not majority.

It is not about "liking" or disliking the examples. As a whole, the CTs are better, IMO. They are better because they practice a textual criticism that is more accurate.

It was't taken out of Col 1:14 or eph 1:7. You have framed the question in a prejudicial manner. If Paul didn't write it in Col 1:14 (and the evidence that he didn't is substantial to almost overwhelming) then it shouldn't be there. Textual criticism is not a practice driven by a theology book. We don't judge a reading based on whether or not it it preaches doctrine well. We judge it by whether or not it is what Paul said.

Why don't you complain that Col 1:14 doesn't say, "Jesus is Lord"? You don't complain because that's not what Paul said. And that is exactly why we don't complain that "the blood" isn't there. It isn't what Paul said in that verse.

In laying them side by side, I choose the CT in most cases (actually in all because the CT inclues the MajT readings). The text of the CT is based on a better approach to textual criticism, and therefore, is a superior text, IMO.

 

Without intending disrespect, why in teh world did you post a whole list of manuscript issues then? If you admittedly do not understand what you are talking about, wouldn't it be better to not post on the topic? Unless you are going to ask question to learn?

I am not sure why you would post so dogmatically on the subject with this admission.

 

Based on the relative weight that they give to manuscripts. They recognize that 100 copies of an error is still an error, and therefore, the majority is not automatically right. They recognize that the closer you get to the source, the less likely something is to be corrupted. We practice this in our lives everyday when we try to trace rumors back to the source, rather than believing it three or four generations later. They recognize that historically, copyists have had a tendency to simplify difficult readings. They recognize that copyists have had a tendency to lengthen readings.

So they weight manuscripts according to all these factors.

For instance, all other things equal, a manuscript from Ad400 is more likely to be correct than one from AD1000. There has been less time for it be copied and therefore less chance of an error.

All other things being equal, a reading that is harder is more likely to be correct than one that is easier, provided it is not too hard.

All other things being equal a reading that is shorter is more likely to be accurate than one that is longer.

Again, none of these things by themselves is conclusive, but they are weighed. The CT takes into account all readings, not just 5% as is commonly said. When people say that the CT is based on only 5% of manuscripts, they are incorrect. The CT actually takes into account all known manuscripts and the apparatus reflects the different readings, and the textual commentary explains why certain readings were chosen.

I think there are good reasons to hold to the Majority Text, reasons for which I have no answer. But I think there are better reasons to prefer the eclectic text.

 

OK then- what is their standard of judgment - what are thy judging based upon?

When you or they "John probably didn't write this" what are "they" basing this on?

There has to be a "baseline" or standard somewhere to base this judgement on - what is that standard?

Thanks

 

Your thoughts?

Donald Clark:

“The King James Bible agrees with the Majority Text (95%) which was copied from the Greek Vulgate. ALL modern versions have departed from the God preserved majority Text and instead are taken from the “rejected heap.” The move to cast aside 95% out of every 100 Greek texts is the most serious attack on God’s word that has ever been waged. The assumption of those who have departed from the Majority is a mockery of the faithfulness of God."



Dean Burgon:

“I am utterly disinclined to believe – so grossly improbable does it seem – that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 180 years much of the text of the Gospel had, in point of fact, to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodeled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owned their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.”

Is Dean Burgon right?


God bless :wavey:

 

As I noted earlier in this thread, I have not recommended the Critical Text. The typical KJV-only claim is that the Majority Text has 95%. I do not know that any one can present accurate percentages because of the fact that many many manuscripts claimed for the Majority or Byzantine text have never been collated and carefully examined. There are some non-majority text readings found in Byzantine manuscripts. It is said that there are even some places of variation among the Byzantine manuscripts where no reading is known to have a clear majority [among those manuscripts that have been collated and tabulated]. It is said that no true majority exists in a good number of places in the entire book of Revelation. Zane Hodges, one of the editors of one Majority Text, is said to have claimed a 80 to 20 (or 4:1) ratio for manuscripts supporting the majority Text. Even Hodges' ratio would definitely be wrong for the the book of Revelation.

While there are around 5,400 manuscripts for the New Testament, the great majority of them are incomplete and many of them have not been collated. It is said that only around 59 manuscripts have the entire New Testament. Since there are not 5,000 manuscripts in existence for most New Testament books, the claimed percentages for all majority text readings can be misleading or can give the wrong impression.

 

Consideration of the evidence, historical facts of transcription, etc. The differences between the MajT and the ET is the presuppositions about historical transcription, etc. (The TR is a whole different ballgame.)

 

How many actual Greek manuscripts were used as the basis for the printed editions of the Textus Receptus?

Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). The Cambridge History of the Bible pointed out that "Erasmus's Greek text was to remain the principal source" for that standard 1550 text of Stephanus (Vol. 2, p. 449).
Backus produced evidence that "suggests that [Theodore] Beza was largely dependent on the collations of the two Stephani for his MS variants" (p. 6). Scrivener affirmed that “Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza from the collator’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective” (Introduction, II, p. 191).

D. A. Waite wrote: "The Textus Receptus is based on over 99% of the totality of manuscripts that have been handed down from Apostolic times. As of 1967, this means over 5,210 manuscripts go along with and support the Textus Receptus. The manuscripts used by Erasmus, the Complutensian Polyglot, Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs were only valid and representative samples of the whole" (FUNDAMENTALIST DECEPTION, pp. 86-87).

KJV-only authors condemn the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad. One reason is that they claim that it was based on only 414 Greek manuscripts. D. A. Waite claimed: "414 is not a majority of anything compared to the over 5,255 manuscripts that we have as of 1967" (FUNDAMENTALIST DECEPTION, p. 87). Is not a collation of 414 Greek manuscripts a much larger representative sample of the Byzantine Text than the less than 25 to 50 manuscripts that seem to have been used for the Textus Receptus? If only the manuscripts that have been collated should be counted, on how many actual manuscripts can it be said that editions of the Textus Receptus were actually based?

KJV-only reasoning about this seems to be a little inconsistent.

 

Quite true, on the other hand, we shouldn't forget all the other witnesses such as scripture quotations in the writings of the Church Fathers, lectionaries and ancient translations all of which are helpful in the reconstruction of the text.

HankD

 

One need only a bit of study to learn the types of both INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL manuscript variants.

Many of the variants found in the early manuscripts we have today were there very early on. The early Christian community was generally not upper-class Jews but lower class gentiles. A professional copyist would have been unusual.

You are confusing Jewish Masoretic practice with early Christian epistles.
The Christian community had no such tradition.

Some ancient manuscripts have a long history of use. Having just visited the Exhibit on early Bibles at the Smithsonian in Washington, I have personally seen the fabulous condition of some of these early Bibles.
The Freer collection includes a Bible (Codex Washingtonensis) found by Theodore Beza, dated from the 400's AD with a 7th century cover.
This Bible was treated as a sacred object, holy and reverently for centuries, held with cloth covered hands in order to preserve it.
But this Bible is still noted to have a multitude of unusual variants.

You say, "highly probable" I really question your ability to set these odds.

This just doesn't make sense to me! Errors accumulate with time in hand written documents. It has been noted that NO TWO manuscripts are the exactly the same (this includes all those in the Byzantine/TR tradition too).

Rob

 

There are 3 groups of manuscripts -- TR vs CT:

1. Long readings

2. Full readings

3. Short readings.

Which one of 3 groups did the KJV follow?

Which one of 3 groups did modern versions follow?