tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1746511610783390411..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted (Jan Krans) P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35354528653078062642023-10-01T02:41:32.907+01:002023-10-01T02:41:32.907+01:00It does not matter, for the quality of their work ... 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64206667838350731502023-04-24T17:48:57.675+01:002023-04-24T17:48:57.675+01:00According to early draft documents (by Samuel Ward...According 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" <br /><br />ref: https://youtu.be/VIQP1j8gmRg?t=110Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16833048186409425972023-01-08T02:17:05.830+00:002023-01-08T02:17:05.830+00:00Thank you all - I have a general understanding of ...Thank 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?<br />Keith CavanaughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-14551050092290546512022-08-18T23:23:13.629+01:002022-08-18T23:23:13.629+01:00What do you think of Scrivener’s very strong conde...What do you think of Scrivener’s very strong condemnation of Westcott and Hort’s text, in his 1886 preface?Alexander Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54108916198986691322022-08-01T02:11:09.316+01:002022-08-01T02:11:09.316+01:00Dear Jan-Krans Plaisier,
In his first edition 199...Dear Jan-Krans Plaisier,<br /><br />In 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?<br /><br /><br />Alexander Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50089549604387410342022-07-27T22:00:48.410+01:002022-07-27T22:00:48.410+01:00On reading through this thread, I am aware of two ...On 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.Alexander Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61634289499118579062022-03-08T15:32:44.131+00:002022-03-08T15:32:44.131+00:00Unknown made two points : the second about languag...Unknown made two points : the second about language, but the first about faith. Any comments on the faith issue?Alexander Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85635715373211145062022-03-08T15:05:05.884+00:002022-03-08T15:05:05.884+00:00I have always wondered why such objectors don'...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.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7297207190723069412022-03-07T20:04:11.544+00:002022-03-07T20:04:11.544+00:00Notice that the sentence you quoted refers only to...Notice that the sentence you quoted refers only to establishing the Greek text of the New Testament, and not translation into other languages like English.<br /><br />However, 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.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7810863555089718132022-03-06T16:55:21.310+00:002022-03-06T16:55:21.310+00:00There is one fundamental problem with "Only m...There 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?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047192042857073256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-531720798300139082021-12-06T09:48:11.405+00:002021-12-06T09:48:11.405+00:00That's a very good point. However, we do need ...That'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. Ainigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12270776952749711216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75350279780176966562021-12-06T05:59:26.989+00:002021-12-06T05:59:26.989+00:00Take a look at our posts tagged preservation.Take a look at our posts tagged <a href="http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/search/label/Preservation" rel="nofollow">preservation</a>.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38135024219982424072021-12-04T20:12:45.787+00:002021-12-04T20:12:45.787+00:00One test for the theological soundness of a view o...One 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.<br /><br />I 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.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47254358606911752562021-12-04T17:20:30.486+00:002021-12-04T17:20:30.486+00:00This is a question to all contributors of this blo...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. Ainigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12270776952749711216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68526391788181267082021-05-13T22:55:53.003+01:002021-05-13T22:55:53.003+01:00Wait a minute, what's wrong with Geneva :PWait a minute, what's wrong with Geneva :PAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269556110291502065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62741415344579881012021-03-16T21:10:40.813+00:002021-03-16T21:10:40.813+00:00Jan Krans Plaiseir,
Thankyou for your comments. ...Jan Krans Plaiseir, <br /><br />Thankyou 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.<br /><br />Having read your review of Tom Hollands work I would like to know.<br /><br />CP KNAPP<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08629438493245936598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64955190192777369782020-12-23T07:14:21.339+00:002020-12-23T07:14:21.339+00:00Dr. Krans,
Thanks for the reply. I respect a call...Dr. Krans,<br /><br />Thanks 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.<br /><br />"I still find it a rather loose way of speaking, simply because any or almost any NT manuscript can be called “ecclesiastical.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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..."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />M.M.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85490950843927922952020-12-21T13:26:11.171+00:002020-12-21T13:26:11.171+00:00The idea is of course that the Textus Receptus is ...The 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.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37082978198302523212020-12-21T03:17:03.485+00:002020-12-21T03:17:03.485+00:00I've been comparing manuscripts and editions i...I'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.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74057275756588516922020-12-19T20:22:39.411+00:002020-12-19T20:22:39.411+00:00PG, I think this view is the basic thesis of his b...PG, 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:<br />"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).<br /><br />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.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35361329162682820052020-12-19T16:55:46.552+00:002020-12-19T16:55:46.552+00:00Eric, that is very interesting about Letis and Ehr...Eric, that is very interesting about Letis and Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruptions. Do you know where he expressed those views?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41295854004311801642020-12-19T15:45:22.897+00:002020-12-19T15:45:22.897+00:00My impression is that Letis imparted some extra ba...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.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-67706889730231548182020-12-19T10:57:08.628+00:002020-12-19T10:57:08.628+00:00If it is clear what you mean, just stay happy and ...If it is clear what you mean, just stay happy and use any term you like.<br />Within 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.”<br />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.Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59363990712593198622020-12-18T18:44:11.868+00:002020-12-18T18:44:11.868+00:00If the term "Ecclesiastical text" doesn&...If 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.M.M.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39072761818646617132020-10-27T20:43:51.847+00:002020-10-27T20:43:51.847+00:00Regarding my first question - I believe both are e...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.<br /><br />You'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). The other CCnoreply@blogger.com