Requesting basic manuscript information

[Username3000]

As some may know from other threads I have started, I am currently trying to find my way through the wilderness that is Bible versions and their underlying manuscripts. I have been reading past discussions on this topic, of which there is no shortage, but I am no closer to a personal conviction in the matter than when I had begun. There is such a large amount of information from each side of the CT/TR debate, that it begins to overwhelm and I don't know what to think.

Therefore, I would like to begin with the very basics. I am asking if those who are knowledgeable and competent in this area could post one (1) succint paragraph for the CT and one (1) for the TR explaing the fundamentals and essentials of each.

Please forgive me for yet another thread like this. I do not want it to become a debate, I just want a clear starting point on the issue. If you think someone is misrepresenting your preferred text type, please try to keep from going down that path too far.

Thank you.

 

[Logan]

The conclusion I have come to is that both of the main views tend to come at it from different starting positions, and that there are strong points and weak points in both. Here are a few I thought of quickly:

TR Pro:
Weight of use (been around for a long time)
Based largely upon widely circulated and referenced manuscripts (Byzantine)
Is stable (though this is perhaps misleading, since any given edition of the CT could also by definition be called "stable")

TR Con:
Does not have very good evidence for some readings
Was based originally off of comparatively few manuscripts
Still multiple variants of the TR

CT Pro:
An approach that looks at all biblical manuscripts
Is open to any better evidence
This approach has been supported by nearly every reformed theologian for the last 150 (?) years

CT Con:
Is prone to subjectivity in determining weight accorded to each manuscript
Has the potential for change over time
Makes use of manuscripts not widely available to the church for many years

 

[Peairtach]

I'm ordering a couple of books from Amazon to see if I can understand the issues more clearly:

New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide: David Alan Black: 9780801010743: Amazon.com: Books

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism: David Alan Black: 9780801022807: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.

 

[jwithnell]

Friend, God has promised to preserve his word throughtout the ages, and it is remarkable, despite the debates, how little the translations (as opposed to paraphrases) vary. A far more important question: how are you pursuing its study and application?

 

[God'sElectSaint]

As some may know from other threads I have started, I am currently trying to find my way through the wilderness that is Bible versions and their underlying manuscripts. I have been reading past discussions on this topic, of which there is no shortage, but I am no closer to a personal conviction in the matter than when I had begun. There is such a large amount of information from each side of the CT/TR debate, that it begins to overwhelm and I don't know what to think.

Therefore, I would like to begin with the very basics. I am asking if those who are knowledgeable and competent in this area could post one (1) succint paragraph for the CT and one (1) for the TR explaing the fundamentals and essentials of each.

Please forgive me for yet another thread like this. I do not want it to become a debate, I just want a clear starting point on the issue. If you think someone is misrepresenting your preferred text type, please try to keep from going down that path too far.

Thank you.

I am right with you Brother. I am struggling somewhat with this. There is A LOT of information and even more opinions on that information. My advice as I have said of late don't let your emotions blind you of any of the facts. And Jim makes a great point until you come to terms with this. Read both a good CT(ESV,NASB) translation and a good TR(KJV,NKJV) translation. I recommend the World English Bible as well which is mostly online(esword)I use it a little, it's based on the Majority Text not the TR.

 

[JimmyH]

To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.

Great advice. That is precisely what I do, only with a few more translations in the mix. You can go to Bible Gateway and select one translation, and add a parallel translation with the two side by side. I've done this quite a lot. They offer everything from mainstream translations to Young's Literal.

I haven't checked it out yet, but I was there the other day and they are providing Ligonier Ministries newly revised Reformation Study Bible notes for free, among other similar resources.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

To the OP. Don't feel you must come to a settled position immediately. Get an ESV (CT) and a NKJV (TR) and read them side by side when you study or do your devotions.

Great advice. That is precisely what I do, only with a few more translations in the mix. You can go to Bible Gateway and select one translation, and add a parallel translation with the two side by side. I've done this quite a lot. They offer everything from mainstream translations to Young's Literal.

I haven't checked it out yet, but I was there the other day and they are providing Ligonier Ministries newly revised Reformation Study Bible notes for free, among other similar resources.

If you don't know the original language well, multiple translations and strong's and all the other resources will more than suffice. I think we take for granted how blessed we are in the English world with regards to bible translations and the thousands of other resources we have. Really no excuse for anyone to not have a working knowledge of scripture!

 

[MW]

Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.

Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.

Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?

Is there a variant in 3 John?

 

[MW]

Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.

Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?

Is there a variant in 3 John?

3 John is the variant. That is the point of the exercise. Why accept the book of 3 John but not the last twelve verses of Mark? The exercise is intended to provoke thought on the way "canon" and "text" are interrelated.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Rather than a paragraph, how about an exercise.

Why is 3 John 1-14 undisputed, while Mark 16:9-20 is disputed?

Is there a variant in 3 John?

3 John is the variant. That is the point of the exercise. Why accept the book of 3 John but not the last twelve verses of Mark? The exercise is intended to provoke thought on the way "canon" and "text" are interrelated.

Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?

 

[MW]

Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?

Its canonicity was disputed in the early church. And some non-canonical books were sometimes used in the church. The question is, Why should a "book" be accepted on the basis of one set of principles and its "text" accepted on the basis of a different set of principles?

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Oh really I wasn't aware of that, it's not in the Alexandrian text-type?

Its canonicity was disputed in the early church. And some non-canonical books were sometimes used in the church. The question is, Why should a "book" be accepted on the basis of one set of principles and its "text" accepted on the basis of a different set of principles?

Never thought of that could you elaborate a little more?

 

[MW]

Never thought of that could you elaborate a little more?

Why is 3 John 1-14 accepted as the word of God and do not require a chain of manuscript evidence to establish them? Why aren't the last verses of Mark accepted as the word of God and require a chain of manuscript evidence to establish them?

 

[Username3000]

Thank you for the responses. I do use the ESV and KJV together currently, but I desire to have a primary translation for reading and memorization.

Logan, thank you for the overview.

Rev. Winzer, that is interesting, but I'm not ready to weigh it yet until I have my scale zeroed. If you wouldn't mind, I would really like to read your overview.

And yes, either way we are blessed with a wealth of resources, which should be helping us to live godly lives. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, that is interesting, but I'm not ready to weigh it yet until I have my scale zeroed. If you wouldn't mind, I would really like to read your overview.

There is no need to weigh in. The exercise was for personal use. It will zero the scale and show that the weight given to arguments based on hypothesised manuscripts is "more light than vanity."

My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.

 

[SeanAnderson]

I did originally support the CT and was convinced by the oldest manuscripts argument.

But then I was faced with the following issues:

1) For some readings deleted from the CT, there are older witnesses, for example some Church Fathers, than the oldest available manuscripts. There may be many manuscripts no longer available which favour TR readings.

2) Modern critical methods are not consistent. There is a philosophy which favours the shortest variant reading in the NT manuscripts, but then longer readings are added to the Masoretic Text based on the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3) There are verses which were removed in the CT which have since been added back in. There may be verses rejected in our current versions which are restored in years to come. I do not like this state of flux.

At the end of the day, however, I still like the ESV (though I now favour the KJV) and I take heart in the fact that even between the CT and the TR, there is very little difference compared to other historical manuscripts.

 

[DMcFadden]

One of the concerns of mine regarding the continued orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity is the too easy acceptance of the methods of criticism (both higher and lower) among conservative Christian scholars. A legacy of the Enlightenment, the critical mindset leads to a scholar affecting the mien of a white lab-coated scientist, treating the Word of God like a frozen slice sample under the microscope. The observer/scholar objectifies the Word, diligently plying his canon of methodological techniques in a "scientific" way, exercising sovereign control over it.

Textual criticism is nothing new. Even notables among the Fathers had to decide between variant readings. But, the use of it post Wescott and Hort seems to be done with presuppositions (or at least embedded biases) that could result in the same "lab coat" rationalism that may inevitably destroy the faith.

I am old enough to have watched orthodox schools and beloved professors participate in a drift to the left. It is difficult to believe that the methods of scholarly scrutiny are not part of the problem. My current denomination takes an official stand against "higher criticism" in its seminaries. So far, it has helped the group stay orthodox.

This is not to be construed as an anti-intellectual bias. The Reformers were diligent exegetes of the original languages. The issue is not one of scholarship, but what presuppositions will guide that scholarship. How you ask the questions, often determine the answers you will receive.

It would be nice to see a fuller debate, ala Pastor Winzer's comparisons in post #17, on the embedded biases of the various approaches to textual criticsm, the so-called "lower" criticism.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

There is no need to weigh in. The exercise was for personal use. It will zero the scale and show that the weight given to arguments based on hypothesised manuscripts is "more light than vanity."

My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.

The Reformers were diligent exegetes of the original languages. The issue is not one of scholarship, but what presuppositions will guide that scholarship. How you ask the questions, often determine the answers you will receive.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

One of the concerns of mine regarding the continued orthodoxy of evangelical Christianity is the too easy acceptance of the methods of criticism (both higher and lower) among conservative Christian scholars. A legacy of the Enlightenment, the critical mindset leads to a scholar affecting the mien of a white lab-coated scientist, treating the Word of God like a frozen slice sample under the microscope. The observer/scholar objectifies the Word, diligently plying his canon of methodological techniques in a "scientific" way, exercising sovereign control over it.

Textual criticism is nothing new. Even notables among the Fathers had to decide between variant readings. But, the use of it post Wescott and Hort seems to be done with presuppositions (or at least embedded biases) that could result in the same "lab coat" rationalism that may inevitably destroy the faith.

I am old enough to have watched orthodox schools and beloved professors participate in a drift to the left. It is difficult to believe that the methods of scholarly scrutiny are not part of the problem. My current denomination takes an official stand against "higher criticism" in its seminaries. So far, it has helped the group stay orthodox.

This is not to be construed as an anti-intellectual bias. The Reformers were diligent exegetes of the original languages. The issue is not one of scholarship, but what presuppositions will guide that scholarship. How you ask the questions, often determine the answers you will receive.

It would be nice to see a fuller debate, ala Pastor Winzer's comparisons in post #17, on the embedded biases of the various approaches to textual criticsm, the so-called "lower" criticism.

You make some excellent points Dennis! Thanks because you basically articulated how I feel. The state of flux is kinda startling and the Word of God is not to be treated like a science experiment. I do think the Alexandrian manuscripts can be profitable but the more I look into this unfortunately the CT does not reflect any specific manuscript.

With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.

Rev. Winzer your statements always hit home with me and you make an excellent point here.

 

[Logan]

My overview -- The TR is real; the CT is an idea. The TR is fixed; the CT is fluid. The TR is preserved; the CT is reconstructed, or in the case of eclectic criticism, deconstructed. The TR is "received;" the CT is "examined." With the TR I may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn; with the CT I am required to stand over the Word and exercise judgment upon it.

I have a hard time seeing this line of reasoning because of the TR's history.
The TR is "fixed" by convention (any revision is by definition, not a TR).
The TR is "preserved" only if you assume this is true about the portions like those Erasmus said he supplied from the Latin.
The TR is "received" only if you talk about one specific variant of the TR (Hills believed the KJV was one variant and it seems the TR in widest use is the one "reconstructed" by Scrivener from the KJV).
With the TR, you may humbly sit at the feet of the Word and learn, but you still are doing so with a text that men like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza "stood over and exercised judgment upon".

The CT has been very stable for many years. Let's say it continues to do so for 400 years. Will that put it on equal footing of being "fixed, preserved, and received"? Or will it always be an unattainable goal because the TR is older? Would a "critical text" based off of all known Byzantine manuscripts be considered better than the TR, or is the presupposition that the TR is God's preserved text preclude it being considered as worthy of pursuit?

I definitely have a sympathy for the position, but it does seem to make some assumptions that I've not been able to reconcile myself to. Yet I definitely see and take to heart the critiques of the CT.

 

[DMcFadden]

The CT has been very stable for many years.

First off, let's all agree that the Word of God is the Word of God regardless of translation or intramural arguments over mss.
Secondly, I readily confess that none of this is my field of expertise. My knowledge of textual criticism is pretty limited, having only gotten the CT arguments since college. My first real exposure to a case for the TR or Majority text was after joining the PB!

But, in what sense is the CT fixed? The SBL critical text is quite different from the one produced by the UBS. In Mark 1:41, for instance, was Jesus "indignant" or "moved with compassion"? Michael W. Holmes makes a number of critical judgments that are quite different from the text of WH or NA28. It sounds as if there is some wiggle room on what the CT is. If you can handle the difference between the SBL critical text and NA28 as fixed, then how can you argue against the variants to the TR or the MT?

We probably need to differentiate between those who defend the KJV text (e.g., Pastor Winzer) and those who believe that the Byzantine is superior to the Alexandrian (cf. Robinson-Pierpont). Many of the arguments used against the CT are really about privileging the Alexandrian readings (older) over the Byzantine ones (majority), or the old weigh vs. count debate. I'm guessing that the preservation arguments for the majority mss. are a bit different from those for the KJV per se.

Using a NT that represents a Bible in continuous use by actual worshipping Christians for centuries may be a sign of divine preservation too. And, is it so difficult to believe that such a Bible might be preferred to one discovered that may have been used by heretical sects, even it it is older? Wouldn't a Bible in continuous use help explain the absence of older mss? They were worn out and replaced by subsequent copies (and so on and so on).

If a "Living Bible" or copy of "The Message" got buried in the desert and discovered centuries later, would it necessarily be superior to a formal correspondence translation that had been in continuous use for centuries? Older does not necessarily equate with better.

 

[JimmyH]

If I may be so bold, speaking as a layman in this esteemed company, regarding the Word of God, I feel as if it is akin to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's statement regarding p0rnography, (paraphrasing) "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Am I mistaken or is it not true that of all of the Greek texts from which the RT, or CT are derived, they have been collated by one scholar, or a team of scholars. Judging which reading from the few to many manuscripts they worked with was the most accurate ?

That first century Christians never saw a complete NT ? The Bible that holds the record for continuous use is the Latin Vulgate @ 1,000 years ?

I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.

If it is not, please elaborate.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

This is good stuff I love the PB!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If a "Living Bible" or copy of "The Message" got buried in the desert and discovered centuries later

I am willing to risk the second part if we can do the first part

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.

Is this a doctrine of Scripture?

WCF 1.8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the
New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations),
being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are
therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But,
because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in
the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be
translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling
plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the
Scriptures, may have hope.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.

Is this a doctrine of Scripture?

WCF 1.8

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the
New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations),
being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are
therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But,
because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in
the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be
translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling
plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the
Scriptures, may have hope.

Yes it is, but is this doctrine not upheld in say, the ESV? Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.ESV Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. ESV

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If I may be so bold, speaking as a layman in this esteemed company, regarding the Word of God, I feel as if it is akin to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's statement regarding p0rnography, (paraphrasing) "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Am I mistaken or is it not true that of all of the Greek texts from which the RT, or CT are derived, they have been collated by one scholar, or a team of scholars. Judging which reading from the few to many manuscripts they worked with was the most accurate ?

That first century Christians never saw a complete NT ? The Bible that holds the record for continuous use is the Latin Vulgate @ 1,000 years ?

I have read, by CT advocates, that regardless of particular verses, portions of individual books footnoted or in brackets, no doctrine of Scripture is affected by mainstream CT translations such as the RV, ASV, ESV, NIV. Is this an accurate assessment.

If it is not, please elaborate.

Romecontends no such deposit existed until they declared it so well over a thousandyears later (1546 AD). History and God disagrees with them. Are we to believethat the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Councilof Trent? The history of the church makes it clear that the church did, infact, have a functioning canon long before the Council of Trent (or even thefourth-century councils). For example, Origen (died in 254 AD), well beforeAthanasius (died in 373 AD), is the earliest extant source to advocate thetwenty-seven-book New Testament canon.

 

[Logan]

But, in what sense is the CT fixed?

Dennis, if I may defend myself, I said "very stable" not "fixed", and I recognize that this is subjective, but that wasn't my main point.

I don't argue against variants in the TR or MT, I just think both sides should recognize that they exist. Sometimes it feels like the TR is presented as one uniform text with no variants that was in use in the Greek church, for millennia, by all the Reformers and Puritans and virtually all Christendom, and has never been revised. And that's just not true. The TR is subject to many of the criticisms that are laid against the CT, and my hope is that people would be frank about that.

And I have a deep sympathy for the argument that the most reliable texts would be the ones in continuous use (i.e., Byzantine). I wouldn't mind seeing a critical text based off of that, but let's be honest and say that the TR isn't entirely it. Erasmus stated of his compilation: "quanquam in calae hujus libri nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in graecis exemplaribus ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus. (Although in the writings of this book, you have yet discovered, we have added only from the Latin (the) several words being absent from us in our Greek copies.)". Hills' belief was that Erasmus providentially "recovered" from the Latin what had been "lost" to the Greek.

I'm not a huge fan of the Alexandrian texts and I think there is definitely merit to the argument that it is dangerous to use texts that had been "lost" to the church, so to speak. But in that case, wouldn't it be fair to also say that the Greek church would have ample reason to argue against Hills belief that portions of God's Word were "lost" to them only to be found in the Latin? Why is it acceptable that it was "recovered" or "purified" in the 1500s/1600s (TR), but not the 1800s/1900s (CT)?