KJV-Textus Receptus "onlyism" in the Modern Reformed Community

Status
Not open for further replies.

BrianBowman

Posting Priviledges Revoked
Of late I notice many Scriptures quoted on the PuritanBoard are from the KJV and others cite the Textus Receptus as their preferred Greek Text. Perhaps this has already been discussed (and consequently someone could simply provide a thread reference), but it seems that the KJV is favored by some here. Could those who favor the KJV explain how their viewpoint converges/diverges with the typical "Right-Wing Fundy/Dispensational" who hold the KJV-only position?

Also, these often cite Dean Burgeon in defense of the textual-transmission heritage that the KJV is founded upon. Does his work truly refute the so-called advances in textual criticism of the past 150 years or so (i.e. the work of Westcott/Hort, the Alands, UBS, etc.) or is this simply an intramural argument concerning the which Bible presents whose pet doctrines more authoritatively?

Again, can someone present a cogent summary for the usage of the King James by some Modern Reformed Pastors/Scholars and do these men believe, like their fundamentalist counterparts, that the abhorrent problems in modern Evangelicalism can be traced to non-KJV Bible translations based on modern critical text work?
 
Brian,
Do a search for the threads, or just dig around in this forum. You rightly suppose the question has come up.

I suppose the primary difference between the "preference" some here have for the KJV/NKJV and the KJVonlyist is the word "preference". You aren't going to find much support for the idea that recognizing manuscript variations = liberalism on the PB.

Having said that, it only takes a studied glance at the relevant facts to realize that starting with the German higher-critics of the mid-19th century, the science of textual criticism has been dominated by unbelievers. These people are no more "neutral" than believers are. Their "fact-chasing" is permeated with naturalistic bias. So why do they get a free pass while Burgeon (old) or Lettis (modern) are dismissed? Simple. If you can avoid dealing with uncomfortable challenges by ad hominem abuse, you don't have to deal with uncomfortable challenges at all.

With the discovery of a couple older manuscripts that differed in some ways from the bulk of the texts (emmanating from the Byzantine era), it was posited that after several centuries the Eastern church just "officialized" one version of the Bible, but the African tradition represented an older, hence "purer" strain (never mind the multitude of differences between Siniaticus and Vaticanus!). Beside an obvious disdain for the doctrine of preservation and the equal reverence that all true believers have held for the integrity of God's Word over millenia, this theory cannot logically hold the water it's supposed to carry. Over time, the radical position of the critics has (been forced to) softened, but the Majority Text is still given short schrift.

The originals certainly could not last forever, but they were doubtless kept for decades or even centuries in the cities to which they were sent, mostly in Asia. Hence, for a long period of time copies were literally "verifiable". Where is it more likely that the "best" texts were circulating? In an isolated monastary in the desert?

I venture that most of the folks here with an affinity for the KJV/NKJV would not once posit that what we need is for everyone to just use one or the other (or both) to the exclusion of versions/translations. But it would be nice to see a new renaissance in textual studies that builds on the work of believing scholars started back in the days of the old humanism (ad fontes). Sturtz, Pierrepont, Letis (to a degree), and others made important contributions in the latter 20th century. The existence of two Majority Text (MT) options (not including the Trintarian Bible Society's "TR" Greek text) balancing out the Nestle and UBS critical text options is a nice start.

What we really need is a firm, rebuilt (biblical) philosophical foundation to the whole textual edifice. I think one of the pillars ought to be the restoration of respect for the Byzantine text-type (MT). A critically derived MT deserves at a minimum to be accorded an equal place at the table along with the oldest Alexandrine texts, and frankly (though he stopped short of claiming it) Sturtz proves that such a text is critically superior to anything available from the Alexandrine family, simply because there is so much less of Alex. to build a case out of. I.e., what Alex. gains by age it loses by paucity of evidence, its internal variations being so disruptive to its witness.

This post is long enough... (blahblahblah)
 
Thanks Bruce,

Given the history and depth of this topic, you have provided exactly what I was hoping for.
 
Are there any Bibles published today that are translated soley from the Majority Text?

Also, what is the main difference between the T.R. and the M.T.?
 
Are there any Bibles published today that are translated soley from the Majority Text?
I believe the World English Bible (WEB) uses the Majority Text. It is also in the public domain. It is also available as a download for e-sword.

Here's the WEB homepage...
http://www.ebible.org/
 
Originally posted by Greg
what is the main difference between the T.R. and the M.T.?
The T.R., as it is published today, is essentially a "reverse-engineered" Greek text for the KJV. We know that Erasmus' critical Greek text was basic to the work, and what other resources (both Greek manuscripts and prior English/other versions) were available to the translators. The "text behind the KJV translation" is reconstructed Greek out of which English decisions on rendering were made. There was no "universal Greek text" from which the KJV was translated.

The Majority Text is the direct decendent of the critical text work of the Renaissance/Reformation humanists like Erasmus. "Majority" refers to the majority of extant Greek manuscripts, which are of a certain "type", namely Byzantine. They form a "family" of manuscript evidence, one that is distinugishable from one or two other major lines, and additional minor lines. Men like Erasmus had access to certain old manuscripts, almost exclusively from the Byz. Empire, carried west by Greek Orthodox monks and scholars fleeing Turkish Islamic depradations.

Over centuries an even greater store of this manuscript tradition has come to light. This tradition has a high degree of uniformity. Of course, Greek functioned as the common tongue of Byz. Empire for a thousand years (not to mention the Bible itself written originally in koine {vulgar} Greek). As an aside: note the history of the KJV's impact on the English language--unifying usage and slowing down organic linguistic transformation.

The 20th century critics, finding ancient African manuscripts in the arid desert (preserving effect), claimed "earlier, therefore closer to original and thus purer." However, this is a purely materialist assumption, and not even a good one at that, having obvious logical flaws. Quickly, led by German rationalists, text-work relegated the Byzantine text type (M.T.) to step-child status. The uniformity of the text was postulated the work of 5th century revisers, who created an "official" version, and expunged all the evidence of other "versions". The evidence for this revision? Primarily the lack of evidence of "many manuscript traditions in Asia Minor," i.e. assuming the very thing that demanded proof.
 
Thanks for that link Larry.

Thank you Bruce for the reply. I have not studied textual criticism, but is there really a significant difference between the CT and the MT? Significant enough that it effects doctrine in certain points between the two?

I have heard of a couple of the variations: one being 1 John 5:7 of the TR, and the other one being the end of Mark's gospel (16:9-20) not being in all manuscripts. The footnote in the ESV says that some of the earliest manuscripts do not have this portion of Scripture.

Thanks.
 
I think its fair to say that the vast majority of variations from whichever family and all of them amount to a trifling matter. Those who foam at the mouth over "Christ Jesus" versus "Jesus Christ" in some place or other, or the longer ending to the Lord's Prayer omited from Matthew are simply putting their ignorance on display. Hostile critics love them, because they use them to make cartoons out of all their opponents, no matter how erudite and rational.

I don't think a version based exclusively on the M.T. is a desireable development. That errs in the other direction (for now we have a text where virtually all the hard decisions are made on the basis of bad logic and anti-supernatural bias). No single manuscript tradition is flawless, for everywhere, imperfect men worked on transmission. The whole body of textual material--including NT in ancient languages like Old Latin, Aramaic, etc., are all inaluable aids for determining exactly what God said, as best we can. Some falible person or committee is going to make those decisions inevitably, but the fact is that the truth lies there in full in the remains of the texts.

1 John 5:7 has a unique history. There is hardly any Greek manuscript evidence for it. That's a serious problem that must be dealt with. Erasmus felt the one late Greek text that had "come to light" between revisions of his critical edition, had been "made-to-order". I believe there has to be sober, faith-based discussion on matters like this.

The book of Mark has about 3 or 4 different endings. The "long" ending we typically find incorporates most of the debated language. If we have too much, it is better than too little, but it is an unresolved question. And there are others.

But there is no truth of the Bible that hangs on these questions. No biblical truth is of any value locked away in foreign languages. And there is no translation, version, or manuscript, faithfully undertaken (or even deliberately mangled like the JW's Bible), that fails to powerfully witness the Voice of the Lord, whenever it is truthfully and accurately presented.

The real weakness of the KJV-only (or Latin Vulgate-only) folks is that they share something with their hated foes--a belief in a perfection that is tangible and graspable. The "conservatives" lodge it in a tradition. The "liberals" lodge it in the critical process. The truth is in between and above both. We believe in supernatural revelation and preservation. We understand and admit the falibility of sinful man, even when motivated by the highest of intentions. I happen to think that it is supremely reasonable to begin by supposing that God preserved his Word most beneficially, purely, and efficiently in the original language and geographically where it was being used the most, Byzantium. From there we take in the other lines of preservation and compare and evaluate their witness.

We need a harmonious inspiration, transmission, preservation, and usage doctrinal blend. We need biblical a priori philosophy to inform our data interpretation. It just makes more sense to me to admit a Byzantine mss. priority, without idolizing it.
 
Howdy!

I am a Baptist, Fundamental with Reformed leanings.... I use and Love the King James Version of the Bible. I do feel it is a superior, Faithful, preservation of the Original Scrolls. (The Purtians of old did as well...:D) Nothing More, Nothing Less, I do not, however, subscribe to the False Doctrine of "Double Inspiration", that is promoted by such apostates as "Dr" Peter Ruckman of Florida.

This is strictly my personal position on the subject, and by no means is intended to convey the position of this board. :)

For the Elect's sake,

-Chuck
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Chuck, are you IFB?

Well, that sort of a hard question to answer. Doctrinally, Sort of, But I am kinda Disenchanted with the traditions of the IFB Churches, (I.E. Dress, music, Hair length, ect....)

(although to be perfectly clear, I am NOT a fan of the modern CCM/Contemporary worship music...)

I cannot honestly say, I am a 5 point Calvinist, More like a 4 pointer...

I hope that doesn't affect my status on this board. :(

For the Elect's Sake,

-Chuck

[Edited on 11-5-2005 by StudentoftheWord]
 
I don't know of Puritans who held to the purity of the KJV, but there were Puritans who believed in the purity of existing apographs and did not require autographs for such purity...

John Owen said,"the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies (apographa) in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her treasure."

Francis Turretin wrote in his Systematic Theology, "By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
 
Originally posted by StudentoftheWord
Sorry guys, I didn't come here to argue doctrine. :(

I'll just refrain from posting.

Thank you.

-Chuck

I didn't see any arguing. It just looked like someone was asking for clarification. You made a statement and someone wanted you to back it up. That wasn't arguing.
 
Many Puritans were men of prodigious learning. They would have been aware of many minor textual disagreements going back to the days of the Early Fathers. Yet this awareness did not diminish their unshakable conviction that they continued to hold in hand an indestructible revelation. It was the church's treasure, to be sure, and not one she would ever casually or carelessly surrender. The Word of God is the property of the universal church. And all have taken part in its providential preservation.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fair enough Chuck.........keep it neutral if that is what you prefer.
:handshake:

Well, I figure, if I try and defend my stance, the sources I use to quote from will be rejected as unrealiable, so, I figure what's the point?

Besides, The Bible says...:


(1 Corinthians 14:38 KJVR) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

'Nuff Said.

-Chuck
 
Chuck, I asked because I was raised IFB. I am familiar with their beliefs. If you have questions, please ask. The men on this board are very helpful.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Chuck, I asked because I was raised IFB. I am familiar with their beliefs. If you have questions, please ask. The men on this board are very helpful.

Thanks. :) But I'm quite happy being the IFB'er with Reformed leanings that I am... :)

-Chuck
 
Chuck, you may find it hard to believe but there are a few here that appreciate the Majority Texts over the Alexandrian text. What are your resources?


1 Corinthians 14:38 KJVR) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


'Nuff Said.

-Chuck

Are you implying that we are ignorant because we may have reason to disagree. We don't even know if we disagree. This seems to be unbecoming of Love in Christ.
 
Originally posted by StudentoftheWord
Howdy!

I am a Baptist, Fundamental with Reformed leanings.... I use and Love the King James Version of the Bible. I do feel it is a superior, Faithful, preservation of the Original Scrolls. (The Purtians of old did as well...:D) Nothing More, Nothing Less, I do not, however, subscribe to the False Doctrine of "Double Inspiration", that is promoted by such apostates as "Dr" Peter Ruckman of Florida.

This is strictly my personal position on the subject, and by no means is intended to convey the position of this board. :)

For the Elect's sake,

-Chuck

Actually, Most of the Puritans used the Geneva Bible translation.

DTK
 
Originally posted by DTK
Originally posted by StudentoftheWord
Howdy!

I am a Baptist, Fundamental with Reformed leanings.... I use and Love the King James Version of the Bible. I do feel it is a superior, Faithful, preservation of the Original Scrolls. (The Purtians of old did as well...:D) Nothing More, Nothing Less, I do not, however, subscribe to the False Doctrine of "Double Inspiration", that is promoted by such apostates as "Dr" Peter Ruckman of Florida.

This is strictly my personal position on the subject, and by no means is intended to convey the position of this board. :)

For the Elect's sake,

-Chuck

Actually, Most of the Puritans used the Geneva Bible translation.

DTK

My understanding is that the Geneva version was popular even after the 1611 KJV, but I believe by the time of the Westminster Assembly the KJV had gained general approval in Puritan circles. The Westminster documents, I think -- including the Bible version used in conjunction with the Annotations -- all quote the KJV. So I think it depends on which timeframe one is speaking of. The Westminster Puritans, I believe, primarily used the KJV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top