Why the Textus Receptus cannot be accepted
In the discussion on the Textus Receptus two points of view exist that are diametrically opposed. I will first present the two views, and then demonstrate why only one of these can be sustained.In favour of the Textus Receptus
According to the first position the Textus Receptus has to be the one and only reliable text of the Greek New Testament. In other words it has to be the text that shows the correct reading at every single place of variation. Important historical-theological reasons are brought forward for this conclusion.Historically speaking the Textus Receptus was the Greek New Testament text of the Reformation, during which the Bible itself took centre stage. Theologically speaking the Reformation was God-willed and God-given. Hence God himself used the Textus Receptus for his plans, condoned it, and even guided the minds and hands of its editors. In short the Textus Receptus has to be perfect.
There is even a biblical foundation for this view, for numerous Bible verses show that nothing of God’s word shall be lost: God assures that the Bible is transmitted in a pure and unaltered form. This form is the Textus Receptus.
With this position comes the conviction that the entire textual history since the establishment of the Textus Receptus has to be seen as degradation. Every textual change and every critical voice has to be suspect. For this corollary, again, historical-theological grounds can be given. The time since the Reformation, notably the Enlightenment, is marked by gradual alienation from God and detrimental human autonomy. Driven by the Enlightenment spirit, people began to undermine the Textus Receptus. Therefore all later texts and editions have to be rejected as thinly veiled attacks on God’s word.
It will be clear already at this stage that this first position can only be valid for those who share its most important presupposition, namely the special character of the Reformation, although this presupposition itself does not necessarily lead to the unconditional acceptance of the Textus Receptus.
In favour of textual criticism
The second position regards the establishment of the correct text of the Greek New Testament—the text closest to what the authors wrote and published—as a purely scholarly endeavour. Textual criticism of the New Testament does not fundamentally differ from that of any other text from Antiquity. The basic task is always clear-cut: charting the entire transmission—everything preserved as manuscripts and other sources—and finding out by means of the best text-critical method available what is oldest and most original. Needless to say the transmission of each text may have had special characteristics which scholars will have to take into account.An immediate consequence of this position is that in principle the text-critical task is never finished. Methods can be refined and fresh manuscript finds can be made. Readers of the New Testament—just as for instance readers of Plato’s works—will have to live with a degree of uncertainty, even more so since there are cases that the available evidence does not allow for firm conclusions. Regrettably Bible translations and even source text editions more often than not hide even this relatively small degree of doubt from their readers.
This position inevitably leads to the conclusions that the Textus Receptus is outdated from a scholarly perspective. In the sixteenth century far fewer manuscripts were known, most of which contain the text in a later form, and text-critical methods were far less advanced.
Why the first position is wrong and the second is correct
The only correct position is the second one, for various reasons. Theologically speaking the first position suffers from a fatal a priori. It concludes from a historical phenomenon (the Reformation) to actions God must have taken. The second position is not hampered by such an a priori, since it is rooted in standard scholarly methods that are by definition neutral with regards to theological convictions. Therefore any mistrust against modern times and methods is refuted as well, since the research that has resulted in the modern critical text was not driven by lack of faith, but by a simple and straightforward question, namely: how can the New Testament texts as they left the hands of their authors be best reconstructed from all the available evidence? The editors of the Textus Receptus did not have the means to execute such a program, and also did not conceive of their task in the same way.In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.
Biblical texts on the reliability and preservation of God’s word have nothing to do with textual criticism, for the simple reason that the authors did not have copying processes in mind but only the value of the truths they conveyed. Besides, if the full weight of textual preservation were put upon those few verses, the result would amount to the surest proof that the Bible is not inerrant, since there exists not a single historical form of the text that has been available to everyone throughout history.
Historically speaking the Textus Receptus is undoubtedly outdated, as said, resting as it does upon far fewer sources and a far less developed method than known today. Moreover its editors did use the manuscripts available to them in a very irregular way, and did not follow consistently any method they had, whereas the demands of present-day scholarship guarantee that all evidence is taken into account and that methods are made explicit and subjected to scrutiny.
Some more on the Textus Receptus
The term “Textus Receptus” means “commonly accepted text,” and this is indeed how the Elzeviers presented the text of their 1633 edition in its preface. These famous words however expressed marketing rather than scholarship. They meant business. Moreover the term itself began to be widely used only in the first half of the nineteenth century, when the poor scholarly basis of the Textus Receptus had already become abundantly clear. Neither was there a “commonly accepted text” before the nineteenth century, but only a “commonly used text.” Not everyone was convinced of its value. Its place is better described as the default one—at least within Protestantism—without a proper foundation.There is actually not a single form of the Textus Receptus, since it exists in numerous editions that—just as manuscripts do—differ from each other. This fact is in itself not very important, for it does not touch upon the essential character of the Textus Receptus. However it does show that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century editors on occasion did not hesitate to alter the text according to their own views. The absence of a single definitive form of the Textus Receptus also puts its adherents in the unenviable position that they either have to make a choice or admit to the kind of uncertainty they usually fear. Many end up with an artificial form of the Textus Receptus, namely the Greek text as reflected by the King James Version, a Greek text however that never existed before Scrivener tried to reconstruct it in the nineteenth century.
The Textus Receptus does not equal the so-called majority text, that is, the text reconstructed by taking at any place of variation the reading found in most manuscripts. In general it does agree with the latter more often than not, but it also differs at numerous places, due to the manuscripts used by Erasmus and to all the interventions made by him and later editors. We are indeed very well informed on the origin and development of the Textus Receptus. The manuscripts used by Erasmus for his 1516 edition can still be consulted and provide a clear view of the decisions taken in the establishment of the text, and of the mistakes that were made. It turns out that a great many readings are more or less accidental: they would not have been part of the Textus Receptus had Erasmus used other manuscripts. Many other readings originated as haphazard and erroneous editorial interventions. Most of the peculiarities of Erasmus’ text remained unchanged in the Textus Receptus, but their true nature only became known a few centuries later, still to be obfuscated or denied by those who, in very un-Erasmian spirit, prefer the mudded stream over the clear fountain.
Thank you Tommy and Dr. Krans,
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What about when the TR differs from the critical text and the TR is correct (or probably correct), what then? Should one not accept it, or are we to believe that this is an impossiblity?
I agree with *much* of what is written, but to cast away the TR because a group of individuals are unreasonable and inconsistent in their defense of it seems harsh. This type of cookie cutter presentation of the situation is tending towards a false dichotomy and straw-man evaluation of the TR tradition (and it's defence) as a whole. We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here...because, (in truth,) there are other options and much nuance that can be added to this discussion. I don't see it as the TR-vs-textual criticism--because the TR is a historic monument of textual criticism, regardless of what some may think.
Dr. Krans writes:
"It turns out that a great many readings are more or less accidental: they would not have been part of the Textus Receptus had Erasmus used other manuscripts. Many other readings originated as haphazard and erroneous editorial interventions. Most of the peculiarities of Erasmus’ text remained unchanged in the Textus Receptus, but their true nature only became known a few centuries later,..."
Then why not just note these and correct them? This, again, doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to totally disregard the TR tradition. In fact, many of the quirks and oddities present within the TR tradition are not wholesale. Meaning, there is often an edition (or more) which contains the correct reading (e.g. I Jo.5:7). Which leads me to believe that the TR should be properly edited within itself (i.e., exclusively from readings found in the TR corpus) before any final conclusions and judgements can safely be made concerning the viability of it's text and continued use. So although I agree that the TR is not to be accepted as *perfect*, it should be acknowledged and given a proper respect. (Perhaps I missed a qualification or something that would alleviate my concerns?)
Respectfully.
I prefer a simple thought experiment: take away all editions that have ever been produced, and work exclusively with the manuscripts and other evidence. In other words (Wettstein’s words): there is no authority in printed editions (or in their readings). Or, in yet other words: why “edit” the Textus Receptus? Its good readings are not good because they are found therein, and its bad readings are so numerous that one better starts all over.
DeleteThat's definitely an interesting thought, and I would like to see a critical edition produced in such a way. But let's be honest, if it was an academic project Codex B (03) would be given precedence and therefore act as a (sort of) base text to some degree anyhow. Yet on the other hand, one could just as easily prefer the method of Bengel, and only print within the Text that which was included in a previous edition. And I would plead that an edition has as much authority as the manuscripts (and evidence) it's based upon, and the readings it contains.
DeleteBut, on a case by case basis I believe you are correct (on the micro level). Although, I think it would be dangerous to give just anyone the 'keys to the city' of the Greek NT and allow them free reign over adjudicating between the manuscript tradition and it's plethora of variants on a macro level. (Besides, it would be an absolutely Herculean task without some sort of standard to guide the way.)
But again, you're correct to state that the TR's: "good readings are not good because they are found therein"--but I personally would consider your following comment to apply more properly to the more modern critical text corpus, namely, "and its bad readings are so numerous that one better starts all over."
Unfortunately, there's no way to prove if either of our opinions is correct on this point. Either way, I would contend that the flagship edition of the TR (Stephanus 1550) is just as close (if not more trustworthy) to the original autographs than any standard modern critical text. The problem is, one of us is wrong: And the question presents itself, how can this issue be settled?
Hence, I would advocate for a critical revision of the TR based on strict principles and an enclosed method. Then we would at least have something to test more efficiently and effectively. As far as the TR goes anyway...
MMR,
DeleteSo your basic argument is that the manuscripts that the TR was based on are more accurate than any other group of manuscripts? Yet, you seem to have a peculiar disdain for B/03. Is this based on an actual study of B or just that it was not consulted in the production of the TR and is ‘valued’ by WH and many later textual critics?
Doesn’t the fact that there are multiple TR’s just establish that the TR is a critical text itself? Just one based on the limited manuscripts available at the time?
Certainly, you don’t hold to the TR for theological reasons rather text-critical ones, do you?
Tim
Tim,
DeleteYou ask: "So your basic argument is that the manuscripts that the TR was based on are more accurate than any other group of manuscripts?"
I wouldn't put it that way. If you want to qualify this a little more I'd be happy to respond futher. The TR would not be my personal choice of base text for revision if that's what you're getting at? Although I think the TR should be properly revised,--not to call it perfect--or even best, but to improve it throughout for the better. Hope that helps?
Tim writes: "Yet, you seem to have a peculiar disdain for B/03."
I wouldn't say that either. The mention of Vaticanus being utilized as a default base text was a 'matter of fact' type of observation, and in some ways a presumption in response to the method and praxis promoted by Dr. Krans, namely: "take away all editions that have ever been produced, and work exclusively with the manuscripts and other evidence. "
To which, I'm assuming, that B(03) will ultimately take precedence. And I think that this assumption would (and does) ring true in general amongst most critical text adherents. (Codex B taking precedence, and therefore being utilized as a sort of plumb bob or base text that is.)
Tim writes: "Is this based on an actual study of B or just that it was not consulted in the production of the TR and is ‘valued’ by WH and many later textual critics?"
Well, I never really expressed disdain, although admittedly, I'm not a fan of the codex being given so much weight. Erasmus did have access to a few hundred readings from B (365 if memory serves), but apparently was not swayed by it's influence. My opinion of B is strongly based upon my own personal evaluation of it's text and readings. I believe it to be an overly shortened text due to a mixture of haplography (primarily HT/HA omissions, common line skips, etc.), and some editing (i.e. cropping). With the uncial format being a chief contributer in my estimation.
Tim asks: "Doesn’t the fact that there are multiple TR’s just establish that the TR is a critical text itself? Just one based on the limited manuscripts available at the time?"
Yes.
"Certainly, you don’t hold to the TR for theological reasons rather text-critical ones, do you?"
I don't hold to the TR per se. I actually believe that there are a plethora of errors within the TR corpus collectively (many of which are of no consequence). It's just, I don't see the various critical texts as better. And either opinion cannot be absolutely proven empirically, therefore the common text of the people must needs be allowed a seat at the table (theoretically and in practice) in the text critical arena (in my view).
We should not be looking to remove the old landmarks, on the contrary,--we should probably be looking to improve them!
I think we need to drop the arguments that no single manuscript or TR looked like the KJV. No other English translation accurately reflects the Critical Text as printed. Additionally, no manuscript reads like any published edition of the Critical Text (or Tyndale's Greek New Testament). If the argument works just as well against your position, it's not a good argument. I also think the premise of this argument is fallacious - either you have a theological position or you have a rational position.
ReplyDeleteI still have yet to hear an answer to a common objection from the textual criticism camp either. I often hear the argument that the differences are insignificant or they don't change doctrine, they agree 95% or higher, etc. If that's the case, why is there so much bias against the TR?
It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards. That right there is a big reason I don't trust modern versions. Faith matters tremendously. Maybe not for you, but it does matter. Also there are a staggering amount of variances in the "oldest" copies verses the majority text and textus receipts. The Alexandria and Vanticanus codes are corrupted. Especially when they hardly agree on any verse in the New Testament. Thank you.
DeleteHi CC,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "I think we need to drop the arguments that no single manuscript or TR looked like the KJV. No other English translation accurately reflects the Critical Text as printed. Additionally, no manuscript reads like any published edition of the Critical Text (or Tyndale's Greek New Testament). If the argument works just as well against your position, it's not a good argument."
But there's a problem here, because other positions are not dependent upon maintaining absolute certainty. So the line of argumentation stands; and it should check some misconceptions about preservation in it's historical context.
CC
"I still have yet to hear an answer to a common objection from the textual criticism camp either. I often hear the argument that the differences are insignificant or they don't change doctrine, they agree 95% or higher, etc. If that's the case, why is there so much bias against the TR?"
That's a good question. Hort's dislike for the TR is notorious, and seemingly due to a dislike for staunch tradition and/or theological reasons (i.e. preference). I think much of the more negative tones towards the TR nowadays is a combination of Hort's residual effect and the constant reminder of being provoked (one way or another) by some of the more aggressive KJVO and TR-Only types. (If that makes any sense.)
I just stumbled across this and that other CC is not me. Not really sure why someone decided to use my handle, but I would mostly agree with what that person said.
DeleteCC
DeleteMy apologies - I am not an avid reader of the blog. I simply used my initials.
Regarding my first question - I believe both are eclectic texts, but produced using very different methodologies and theology. I would view the TR as a text family encompassing all of the various editions from Erasmus through the Elzevirs. It seems inconsistent for advocates of an eclectic text to use this argument against advocates of another eclectic text, especially when nobody in the CT camp expects their Bibles to read that way. It is my understanding that no translation blindly follows any CT edition - feel free to inform me if I am mistaken.
DeleteYou're second point may be correct. My experience is that I never heard of the TR-only or TR-preferred positions until seeing how much the KJV was bashed by CT proponents. "Read any Bible, all the translations are good... just not the KJV - boo, hiss." For what it's worth, I don't hear the same people advocating against the Geneva, NKJV, or MEV (though the last one probably isn't even on their radar).
Wait a minute, what's wrong with Geneva :P
DeleteAccording to early draft documents (by Samuel Ward, Discovered by Professor Jeffrey Miller) for the KJV, the Geneva was a primary translation document for the works along with the Greek TR documents as the Bishops Bible was considered "poorly translated"
Deleteref: https://youtu.be/VIQP1j8gmRg?t=110
To be honest, the reason why this school of thought cannot accept the TR is because it cannot give up its conclusions with respect to the Ecclesiastical texts. The TR is a reconciliation of the Ecclesiastical texts, and even though basically all the CT premises have been falsified which attempted to demonstrate the inferiority of these the Ecclesiastical texts, this school of thought will not under any circumstances reconsider the status of these texts. This stance isn't scientific but postmodern.
ReplyDeleteThe term ‘ecclesiastical text’ can mean everything and thus does not mean anything. The term ‘reconciliation’ probably means ‘mixture’, which does not mean much. In a way the Textus Receptus was indeed a mixed text, but the mixing was not guided by method or precise information. And simply stating that premises have been falsified does not make it so. Rejecting scholarship one does not like sounds actually rather postmodern.
DeleteIf the term "Ecclesiastical text" doesn't mean anything (as Dr. Krans insisted), then I find it rather curious that Dr. Metzger didn't make it past the first page of his renowned "Textual Commentary" without using the very same terminology (and in identical context) as Mr. Sheffield currently does. Perhaps it can mean different things to different people, (as many things can,) but there is obviously a definitive use of the term, generally speaking;–And that would be in accordance (essentially) with the use of Metzger, Letis, Sheffield and others,–as opposed to the sweeping discount of the terminology by Dr. Krans.
DeleteIf it is clear what you mean, just stay happy and use any term you like.
DeleteWithin my limited knowledge of English "ecclesiastical text" means “text connected with a church”. So I can see and accept what Metzger does, namely more or less using “ecclesiastical text” as a synonym for the Byzantine text (but he does so not very often, sometimes in the plural and sometimes with the qualification “later”). I still find it a rather loose way of speaking, simply because any or almost any NT manuscript can be called “ecclesiastical.”
The problem among the TR-onlyists goes deeper though: they like to use the moniker not in a descriptive but in a normative way, that is, from the historical fact that Erasmus’ text happened to become the (almost) exclusive text of the Reformation churches they jump to the affirmation that this was the text needed by the church (now singular), tailor-made for it by special providence, and unassailable. If ever you need an example of an is-ought fallacy, look no further.
My impression is that Letis imparted some extra baggage to the term "Ecclesiastical Text" that I’m sure Metzger didn't intend. For Letis, the term was intended to reflect his theology, with the Church as the caretaker of the Scriptures and even having a certain measure of authority to edit, change, and canonize the text right along with canonizing the delimitation of the books. Letis ardently opposed the doctrine of an inerrant original text and insisted that the most authoritative text is the text with all the readings that the Church has given us, whether those readings were in the original autographs or not. This Ecclesiastical Text was strictly the TR (I'm not sure what degree of variation between different TR texts Letis would allow), and not the Byzantine Text Type, nor the Vulgate or Peshitta (which were also in their own rights ecclesiastical texts). Letis highly praised Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and agreed with its general thesis, while holding that those acts of orthodox corruption throughout the history of the text were the divinely inspired work of the Church in caring for the text for which it was responsible. For him, the Church improved the text by making it conform more clearly to orthodoxy over time.
DeleteEric, that is very interesting about Letis and Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruptions. Do you know where he expressed those views?
DeletePG, I think this view is the basic thesis of his book, The Ecclesiastical Text, although I may have put it more emphatically than he ever does. He frequently brings up Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption, and always speaks of it in positively glowing terms. And the inerrancy of Warfield and others who seek after the autographs is the antagonist he attacks throughout the book from the first chapter on throughout the rest. One chapter in the book where I think he clearly stakes out the view I just described as the solution he sees to the problem of how to continue to use the TR in this post-critical world, without hiding our heads in the sand with respect to the advancements of knowledge of the biblical texts that critical scholarship has led to (of which he definitely sees Ehrman as a great example), is the chapter "Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians." Again, as he does with Ehrman, he speaks highly of Childs throughout the chapter, but it's not until the final paragraph of the chapter that he explicitly endorses the views he had been attributing to Childs up to that point. So it seems clear to me that he means to endorse the following description of Childs's position that he had given earlier in the chapter as what is also his own position:
Delete"To finally return to the thesis of this paper, this is perfectly in keeping with what served as sacred Scripture for the Protestant dogmaticians. The difference is that in Childs's method we approach the canonical texts in a post-critical way, fully informed that no ur text is necessarily discoverable." (p. 102).
To be sure, in the one chapter that he actually does engage in textual criticism, addressing the "only begotten God" variant in John 1:18, Letis argues that "only begotten Son" is both the original reading and the reading that belongs to the Ecclesiastical Text, so I don't think he ever really presents a case in his book where he talks about a reading that he positively concedes to be a later corruption that we must accept as part of the Ecclesiastical Text. The Johannine Comma would be a case where I would expect him to do that, but it would be easier to understand his position if he actually used an example like that to illustrate this point. The way he puts things is generally more along the lines of, "Let the academy wrestle with what readings are original, and to the extent that they do that in academically honest ways, more power to them. But for us in the Church, the question of what reading is original doesn't determine what's authoritative. We in the Church need not worry about those questions within the Church. What's authoritative within the Church is the Ecclesiastical Text." In fact, his chapter on John 1:18 almost seems to detract from the main thrust of the book inasmuch as he even engages in the question of which reading is original there.
Dr. Krans,
DeleteThanks for the reply. I respect a call for qualification (and clarification), but I think it's unwarranted to completely dismiss the term; primarily because the force of its underlying argument has already been granted.
"I still find it a rather loose way of speaking, simply because any or almost any NT manuscript can be called “ecclesiastical.”
Yes, but many can only be defined as such in a very limited capacity; especially in regards to the historical and/or geographic elements. And it's only the common text(s) of the Church that can be labeled in the more definitive sense, e.g. the Byz. Text (Greek Vulgate), the Peshitta (Syriac Vulgate) and the Latin Vulgate (as E. Rowe has already touched on). Outlier versions, MSS. and manuscript clusters prove themselves to be the exception–and not the rule. Therefore the terminology can only apply to them in a very restricted sense, and thus falls short of the general working definition. Which would seem to make the application somewhat futile. Even so, I agree that clarification is beneficial, and in some cases necessary.
As for the TR-Onlyist. I heartly agree that there are problems with their position and text. Yet, I wouldn't chastise the term "Ecclesiastical text" for the shortcomings of their particular methodology and praxis. If their position suffer loss, so be it..."The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son..."
And I have to agree with Eric Rowe, "that Letis imparted some extra baggage to the term." But once again, the baggage is truly that of Letis and not of the term itself. His personal methodology (or lack thereof) is wanting, and is also partially responsible for the current state of flux amongst some TR circles. Albeit, his early departure should be taken in account when evaluating the lacking aspects, and wanting developments of his particular stance. I'm sure that he would have enlarged upon his work if he only had the precious time.
Finally, it should be noted that those who drape themselves in the term would do well to follow the actual "Ecclesiastical Text" on a consistent basis when their preferred printed editions and/or translations present weakly attested readings to the contrary. An area in which Dr. Krans certainly hasn't left-how-he-found.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow that Dr. Krans has voiced such an extreme rejection of the Textus Receptus -- which is to say, in Matthew-Jude, the vast majority of disagreements between the TR and NA28, he rejects the majority reading -- are the ETC editors willing to consider sharing a similar essay of similar length that presents a different point of view?
ReplyDeleteI’m happy to give an alternate article a hearing, but don’t you have your own blog?
DeleteJames, you misunderstand and/or misrepresent my position. The Textus Receptus cannot be accepted as 1. an edition 2. for today. It was more or less understandable that the sixteenth century would produce such a text (though all particulars could have been different), but the Textus Receptus as a whole should be considered a thing of a very interesting past. That conclusionsays nothing about individual readings, or even about the majority of readings in the Textus Receptus, but only that it is not a valid base for text-critical work today. And if one opts for a reading also found in the Textus Receptus, that is not because one “agrees” with the Textus Receptus, but because two separate and completely different processes happen to have the same result.
DeleteJan Krans-Plaisier,
DeleteIn what way do you imagine I may have misrepresented your position? I merely observed that in the course of very thoroughly rejecting the Textus Receptus, you habitually reject the majority reading in Matthew-Jude. Is this inaccurate?
Peter,
DeleteYes; doesn't Dr. Krans-Plaisier also?
http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/
Yes it is. I do not think majority counts (because it is just a side effect of transmission and manuscript survival), but that is not the problem of the Textus Receptus. It is the sheer lack of method, control, and transparency, and clear overdose of improvisation, coincidence, and just bad luck. And I guess you agree with that.
DeleteJames, if you would like to submit something for consideration here, you know how to reach me.
DeleteNow that was funny!
DeleteTo put matters another way, if I were stranded on a desert island with only a TR edition available, I could be quite content. The same if my isolation were accompanied by only the WH or similar critical text editions. This, even though I would favor a quite different alternative.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if I had both a TR and a critical text edition on that island, I would also need a special coin to flip at points of difference.
Thanks for this. I agree. I just bought a Trinitarian Bible Society TR Greek New Testament so that I could read during my breaks while at work. I love the size and portability which is why I bought it. I have had great devotional reading in this edition. Just as much as I would with my NA28 or my THGNT. In the same way, I keep ny THGNT on my night stand because it is so pleasant to read (due to format and typesetting) and such a handy edition.
DeleteIt seems that there are a couple of different things being conflated here: 1) Does the TR have any value to a Christian? 2) Should the TR be the unquestioned authority for the original text? 3) Does the TR have any value for textual criticism today?
DeleteI think Jan's position is 1) Yes, 2) resounding No, and 3) No. I don't think anyone here would disagree on 1 and 2. 3 is more squishy, but even the Majority text arguments are based on the manuscript evidence and not the TR itself. While Jan isn't a Majority Text adherant, his arguments in this article doesn't foreclose on the Majority Text position.
Well put, Bob. That is indeed my position, and the relative proximity of Textus Receptus and Majority Text is neither an argument in favour of the former nor an argument against the latter.
DeleteI might add a 4) Is it worthwhile to study historical editions such as (the various forms of) the Textus Receptus? My work shows, I hope, that here a resounding Yes is in order.
I agree and was attempting to draw out this distinction with my statement above.
DeleteIn addition to my UBS 5, NA 28, THGNT, Hodges’ MT, Robinson’ BT, l’ve just added Scriveners’s TR to my quiver of GNT. It’s an open universe
ReplyDeleteI use Scrivener’s edition often. It’s very handy.
DeleteScrivener's editions of (a) the text followed in the AV; or (b) the text of Stephanus 1550? Of (b) I prefer the "Editio quarta ab E. Nestle correcta" of 1906.
DeleteSame here, Teunis.
DeleteWe're blessed, Peter.
DeleteWhat do you think of Scrivener’s very strong condemnation of Westcott and Hort’s text, in his 1886 preface?
DeleteDr. Krans,
ReplyDelete"In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards."
Are these opinions based upon any Biblical precedent or doctrine?
Not that I know. But the question itself feels a bit like consulting the Bible for the working of a computer. Perhaps something can be found, though, since people tend to be very creative when it comes to make the Bible confirm their ideas.
DeleteObviously an excursion down the road of confirmation bias isn't going to help anyone. But using the Biblical text to gain insight regarding the who, what, when, where and why of the various aspects concerning the preservation, custodianship, editing, transmission, etc. of the very same Biblical text, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
DeleteThis isn't the place for such discussions, so I'll let it be with one last question.
Would you also say that, "it does not matter" if a Bible teacher/preacher is a Christian or not? And in such a case, would an, "adherence to academic standards" also act as a sort of "saving grace"?
I've long been fascinated by the kinds of small, ostensibly insignificant details that can actually have a much greater psychological effect - often subconsciously.
ReplyDeleteOne such effect is the ability of scholarly or esoteric terms to reify and elevate ideas or thoughts that are deservedly much more mundane.
That's why lawyers, for example, always use sure Latin terms for everything. They wouldn't admit, for example, that they are simply conjecturing about the inner thoughts and intentions of a criminal suspect; rather, they'll talk about how they are "establishing mens rea" and suddenly their conjecturing will sound much more like actual concrete work!
I wonder if something of the same effect doesn't come from the use of the term "textus receptus" ? Despite the fact that the term is almost always followed by an explanation of its meaning, it nevertheless really sounds like an important elevated thing. I mean, imagine, if you can, you're a novice who doesn't know Latin, entering into this discussion for the very first time. The first time you hear a reference to this mysterious thing called "the textus receptus" , doesn't it just sound like something exalted? Something that was handed down by God on a mountain somewhere? What kind of bias does a term like that give birth to?
Maybe it might be better if we brought the textus receptus back down to earth. We could just call it "scrivener's text" . Not only would that be more historically accurate, it would make it clear to the TR crowd that the choice isn't between the work of God or the work of men, but rather between the older work of one man or the modern work of many men and women today.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Does the same analysis apply to titles like:
"The New Testament in the Original Greek"
Novum Testamentum Graece
or Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia?
A prejudicial title can always help nurture bias, but I don't think a plain English phrase like "the new testament in the original Greek" has the same esoteric ring to it.
DeleteRyan,
ReplyDelete"Maybe it might be better if we brought the textus receptus back down to earth. We could just call it "scrivener's text" . Not only would that be more historically accurate, it would make it clear to the TR crowd that the choice isn't between the work of God or the work of men, but rather between the older work of one man or the modern work of many men and women today."
The TR is a corpus primarily consisting of the numerous editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzivers. Dr. Scrivener had nothing to do with the production of TR in it's historical context. I'm not sure how promoting an ahistorical narrative can help make anything, "clear to the TR crowd", or anyone else for that matter.
On the contrary - attributing it to scrivener would be a much more historically accurate narrative than saying it was "received by all."
DeleteDr. Scrivener had nothing to do with the production of TR in it's historical context. Say it real slow a couple of times in a row and I think you'll get it.
ReplyDeleteI've been comparing manuscripts and editions in the Timothies, where, free of the heavy hand of Codex Vaticanus, the TR and critical editions agree for the full texts of eighty per cent of the verses. And the TR and RP themselves agree over 95% of the time; probably much more, if a detailed account were made. And outside the Gospels, Johannine Epistles, and Revelation, the TR is barely distinguishable from the majority text; examining the data from Stephen C. Carlson's work in Galatians, for example, shows the text of the TR to be closer to the Byzantine mean than any single Byzantine manuscript (or maybe it came in second by one reading, I don't recall exactly). So to speak of the TR as an historical oddity is one thing; but to reject it en toto, when for the vast majority of verses (varying somewhat by corpus) it reads no differently than any other printed text, seems to be a rather unbalanced response.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is of course that the Textus Receptus is to be rejected as would-be candidate for the best text of the New Testament. And then to state that it has some value because it is close to some other text is like saying that you are content with a blurred photograph when you can have a sharp one. If you cannot have the sharp one (when like Maurice Robinson you are stuck on a deserted island with only one printed edition of the Greek New Testament), then of course you are happy to have at least something, but a historical oddity as you call it is and remains an object of curiosity, no more.
DeleteDear Jan-Krans Plaisier,
DeleteIn his first edition 1995, and again in his second edition 2012, of his book, “Introduction to New Testament Criticism”, J Harold Greenlee said (page 65 of the second edition) that, technically, the TR is “far” from the original text, though he had, paradoxically, said in his previous sentence that the TR is “not a ‘bad’ or misleading text, either theologically or practically”. Is that to damn with faint praise? How can a text that is “far’ from the original text not be either a “bad” or “misleading” text? And just how far is “far”? From time to time, I have calculated the degree of difference from a “TR” text - usually, Scrivener’s 1881 Stephanus-1550-base, or his 1886 (1906 Nestlé-corrected) “KJV-base 1611” using Beza 1598 etc.); and I have concluded that, compared to the Nestlé-Aland series, the two bases agree between 91% and 94%, +/-2%. In a recent YouTube interview with Dwayne Green, entitled “How does the BYZANTINE TEXTFORM compare with the other Greek editions?”, Dr Maurice Robinson finds that, comparing : NA with Byz, 94% agreement; THGNT with Byz, 94% agreement; TR with Byz, 98.5% agreement; Patriarchal with Byz, 98.5%; if so, that would imply 92%/93% agreement between TR and NA. So, then, as both possibly theoretically, and certainly practically, we should do or say nothing to contemn TR or Byz or NA; and we really ought to think about publishing three-columned Greek New Testaments, as desk/study editions - text(s) on one A4 page and fuller apparatus (with notes?-cf BHQ) on a facing A4 page. Would you agree?
Jan Krans Plaiseir,
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your comments. For the record are you a beleiver in the risen LORD Jesus as expressed in the historic creeds Nicea/Chalcedon/ up to the WCF/ Synod of Dort etc.
Having read your review of Tom Hollands work I would like to know.
CP KNAPP
This is a question to all contributors of this blogg,(especially for you that reject TR). What is your view on the doctrine of preservation? Assuming that you believe in that doctrine, how do you define it? What implications does it have with respect to textual criticism and our view of scripture? I understand that this is a difficult and comprehensive question, but it is of critical importance that we have a view of preservation that is theologically sound simultanously as it is consistent with the manuscript data.
ReplyDeleteOne test for the theological soundness of a view of preservation is how consistent that view is with the views of Jesus and the apostles, as presented in the New Testament, where we encounter them quoting passages from the Old Testament in forms that vary from one another as well as from other witnesses to the text of the Old Testament that God has preserved for us in extant manuscripts. They were able to take up any given scroll that had a biblical text within it to which they happened to have access and treat it as authoritative revelation from God, without worrying about how it had variations from other scrolls of the same book.
DeleteI would say that any view of preservation that would not permit us to have the same level of toleration for textual variants that Jesus and the apostles had, as represented by their scriptural quotations in the New Testament would not be a theologically sound one.
Take a look at our posts tagged preservation.
DeleteThat's a very good point. However, we do need a more well-defined account of the doctrine than just saying taht. Secondly, its not always easy to decide that quoting passages shows acceptance of textual varation rather than acceptance of 'free' quotation if you know what I mean.
DeleteThere is one fundamental problem with "Only modern textual criticism approaches the original text of the New Testament as closely as humanly possible". If the Bible's texts were written by men, INSPIRED BY GOD, then wouldn't it make since that translating the context of such writings would require someone to understand the faith behind it? Also, a legitimate question: Do we think we are able to translate language text better now than those who did it back then, who were not removed from the language as we are, by many many generations?
ReplyDeleteNotice that the sentence you quoted refers only to establishing the Greek text of the New Testament, and not translation into other languages like English.
DeleteHowever, your last sentence isn't true. The KJV translators were also removed from the language of the NT by many, many generations. Not as many as we are, but almost as many. For them, just as much as us, it was necessary to learn ancient Greek as a foreign language through the study of ancient Greek documents. And in that respect, modern students of ancient Greek have much more of it available to them than the KJV translators did. This is not to say that they were not excellent at Greek. But they derived no benefit in knowing it just from being 400 years closer to the time of the NT than we are.
I have always wondered why such objectors don't talk about the Greek scholars involved in textual criticism. If our knowledge of the Greek language really is so insufficient that we couldn't do sufficiently accurate textual work, surely such scholars as Theodora Panella, Ekaterini Tsalampouni, Johannes Karavidopoulos, etc. would have let us know.
DeleteUnknown made two points : the second about language, but the first about faith. Any comments on the faith issue?
ReplyDeleteOn reading through this thread, I am aware of two fixed gulfs ; 1. the past gulf between yesteryear and today; and 2. the present gulf between US and UK. Well over sixty years ago, when I was a lad in Scotland, I learned, from academics and clergy and working man alike, that, while AV/KJV was the only Bible to be read and used in public (and we had superb editions of it!), RV ( or ASV in US) was the version to be studied alongside KJV, and that it could be freely mentioned even in public expositions etc.. At the same time, even workingmen, who had taught Greek to themselves and to one another, were well aware of both “received” and “critical” Greek New Testament(s) ; there was widespread use of such volumes as Bagster’s Englishman’s Greek New Testament, Scrivener’s several publications of Greek New Testament (one with KJV/RV parallel English), Souter’s Novum Testamentum Graece, etc.. I never heard of KJV-Onlyism or TR-Onlyism; but nor did I learn to contemn the productions of godly men who had gone before and who had given so much in the recovery of Biblical truth. When, over sixty years ago,I began to learn Latin and Greek, I read texts that had critical apparatus with variant readings, in the same way that, eg, Souter had, and I never thought it strange. Somewhere along the line, two things happened, each feeding on the other : a. TR and KJV were despised; and b. TR-and KJV- Onlyism were born — and US was and is the source of both. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy 03:15 to Timothy, he certainly did not mean that Timothy had read any Hebrew or Aramaic autographs; but neither did he reject the commonly-received copies in synagogues etc.! In modern terms, he condemns both “original-autographs” and “earliest-but-not-original” stances! What an inordinate amount of time, effort and money modern Americans are spending on this matter! Just as a closing thought : still around 30% of serious US Bible-readers prefer KJV; and, so, “TR” must also be high ( cf. the continued publication of the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Scrivener 1894 Greek New Testament)! We need to be publishing Greek New Testament in, say, three parallel columns - TR, Byz/MajT, CT; and to be inculcating an “if/then” approach to variant readings : if X is the reading, then xxxx will be the meaning: if Y is the reading, then yyyy will be the meaning; etc.. This approach is fruitful in taking the terror and heat of fierce argumentative debate.
ReplyDeleteThank you all - I have a general understanding of the different opinions stated here. I do have one practical and honest question for all the sides. If you had four lives to live and spent each one on an island with only one of the english translations from the TR, CT, Byz or MajT. How different would each of your four lives be in knowledge, relationship and walk with God?
ReplyDeleteKeith Cavanaugh
God Save the infallible New Testament as printed in UBS5 and NA28, which was never read by even a single Christian community from the 2nd century to the beginning of the 20th century! For better or worse, Antoniades' text preserves a living text that has in fact been read by Christians in divine liturgies since at least the ninth century.
ReplyDelete