Ken,
On pages 45, 82, and 107-8 the text Chapell uses is the NIV. This need not detract in the slightest from the excellence of his book (my favorite commentator, Wm. Hendriksen, uses the Critical Text).
No doubt in Chapell's view he considers the CT the reliable text and the marginal notes give him warning concerning "spurious texts." He feels secure in the judgment of the editors who introduced those notes, which originally were Westcott and Hort. This is what he means when he says,
Quote:
|
A good study Bible prepared by scholars who accept the Bible's full authority will give preachers ample warning of a questionable text and will grant us the confidence that we are preaching in accord with the Spirit's imprimatur.
|
Personally, I like the margin notes in the NKJV so as to give me a heads-up on the variants other textforms use.
A minister should educate the flock as to the basics of text criticism and what, in his view, are the reliable Scriptures.
In fact, variants
from the TR 1894 (i.e., disagreeing with it) are the spurious. Though, as Bill says, they are "insignificant" in the main. Clearly we should agreeably disagree on which textform has "the Spirit's imprimatur."
In preaching, His 'imprimatur" on our hearts and minds is the crux of the matter.
Steve