Textual Criticism/ Manuscript questions

[Claudiu]

A few questions:

1. From the time of the production of the Textus Receptus to the Westminster Divines, were any of the manuscripts used for the Critical Text available (i.e. Sinaiticus or Vaticanus)?
a. If so, how were these manuscripts viewed?
b. If viewed negatively, why?

2. Are there places where the TR or KJV differ from the Majority Text (say all, or most of the MT have the same word/phrasing yet the TR or KJV have a different word/phrasing)?
a. If so, which one is correct, the TR/KJV or the MT?
b. If the MT, then can we say that corrections can be made to improve the KJV (since the KJV didn't properly translate a word/phrase changes can and should be made)?

3. Do you foresee scholars moving towards the MT in the future, or is the CT here to stay in the academic community? I ask because if the MT gains favor again, maybe the church can work together with "conservative" scholars and produce a modern translation based on the MT. I wonder if this will ever happen.

Note: I'm still reading up on the textual criticism issue and don't know exactly where I fall. For 5 years now I've been reading from the KJV, but this year I'm reading from the ESV to give it a try. In my opinion, the arguments (from a Reformed perspective) are strong both ways. There is a lot of material to look at just here and books to read on this subject, but I appreciate the brothers who have devoted a lot of time here on the PuritanBoard defending their positions.

 

[rbcbob]

1. From the time of the production of the Textus Receptus to the Westminster Divines, were any of the manuscripts used for the Critical Text available (i.e. Sinaiticus or Vaticanus)?

The Sinaiticus was "discovered" in the middle 1800's by Tischendorf. It is anyone's guess how long it had been unused when he found it in a waste basket at the Monastery. The Westminster Divines had no access to the Sinaiticus.

2. Are there places where the TR or KJV differ from the Majority Text (say all, or most of the MT have the same word/phrasing yet the TR or KJV have a different word/phrasing)?

There are indeed differences between the Byzantine family of MSS (Majority Text) and the Textus Receptus.

3. Do you foresee scholars moving towards the MT in the future, or is the CT here to stay in the academic community?

There is a very slow, but steady movement among scholars either embracing the Majority Text or becoming willing to consider it seriously.

 

[MW]

1. From the time of the production of the Textus Receptus to the Westminster Divines, were any of the manuscripts used for the Critical Text available (i.e. Sinaiticus or Vaticanus)?
a. If so, how were these manuscripts viewed?
b. If viewed negatively, why?

Not the mss., but the readings in them were known and circulated. They were looked on favourably by Romanists because they could argue the originals are corrupted and use it to maintain their tenet that the Scriptures depend on the authority of the church. The Romanists were opposed by the Reformers, who argued for the purity of the originals and the corruption of variants. When the Rhemists brought out their NT with corrupted readings it was rejected by the Puritans.

2. Are there places where the TR or KJV differ from the Majority Text (say all, or most of the MT have the same word/phrasing yet the TR or KJV have a different word/phrasing)?
a. If so, which one is correct, the TR/KJV or the MT?
b. If the MT, then can we say that corrections can be made to improve the KJV (since the KJV didn't properly translate a word/phrase changes can and should be made)?

TR and MT mean different things to different people. There is no single ms. in either case which sets them apart. They are more the result of a different approach to textual criticism. Texts in the TR which are only contained in a minority of mss. would likely be rejected by a Majority Text approach. I say "likely" because every approach must at times accept readings which only have a minority of witnesses. Obviously the acceptance of a reading as correct will depend on the approach one has adopted.

3. Do you foresee scholars moving towards the MT in the future, or is the CT here to stay in the academic community? I ask because if the MT gains favor again, maybe the church can work together with "conservative" scholars and produce a modern translation based on the MT. I wonder if this will ever happen.

Since modern scholarship has gained something of an uncontested consensus on an eclectic approach it will be very difficult to move from that position. Reformation is always possible; should scholars come to affirm the divine inspiration and preservation of holy Scripture one can hope that they will adopt a consistent reformed approach to holy Scripture and return to the TR.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Lots of questions!

An answer to some that will require your further study on this complicated topic:

View attachment 2695

View attachment 2696

Most of the published NKJV bibles will provide notes showing the textual variations between the TR and the MT, which is around two to three thousand depending upon what one claims to be "the TR" and "the MT".

Other potentially useful items for your further research:

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
Statistical comparison of editions of the Greek New Testament

And, our own JB's wonderful collection:

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jerusalem-blade/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-268/

AMR

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

The Vaticanus (B) manuscript was well known both to Erasmus and to the Reformers. It was considered a corrupt manuscript, and, consequently it was not used in the collation of the Textus Receptus. Here is a link to a website that is pro-Vaticanus, and, yet, they point out a major problem with the text:

W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

One of the principles used by Erasmus, and the Reformers, was that if a text showed deliberate signs of tampering - such as the Vaticanus - they considered it corrupt and not authoritative when it comes to collating the Greek Text.

The TR and the MT differ, according to Wallace, in about 1,800 different places. When I wrote and asked Mr. Wallace for a listing of the differences he told me that they are marked in his copy of the MT, and that many of these differences are in the instrument of the MT (the footnotes). But even if this is the case - there are roughly 180,000 words in the New Testament - so the TR and MT differ about 1% of the time (one word in one hundred).

The prejudice against the TR by modern scholars is so great that I do not foresee any chance (outside of Providence) for modern scholars to change their mind. Much of this is exasperated by the KJO movement.

Hope this helps,

Rob

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

That Erasmus knew of Vaticanus (B) was proved by Scrivener:

c. F.A. Scrivener writes: “The manuscript (Vaticanus) is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglot) through Sepulveda to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles ... he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published 1535, Erasmus cites the reading kauda, ch xxvii. 16 ... from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Codex B is the only known Greek witness, except for a corrector of Cod. Aleph, Scrivener, Frederick Henry, A Plain Introduction To The Criticism of the New Testament, (Eugene:Wipf & Stock, 1997), v.1, pg. 109.”

-RPW

 

[Claudiu]

Thank you for answering some of the questions that have been on my mind.

I just started reading JB's collection. There is a lot to go through, so it will take some time! On top of that I want to read books such as The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts by Edward F. Hills.