Majority Text, Textus Receptus or Critical Text?

[Nomad]

I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing here but the Textus Receptus is another name for the Traditional Text or Majority Text...

This is incorrect. The TR and the Majority Text are not identical.

"But the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts." - Daniel B. Wallace

http://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

"There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity." - Daniel B. Wallace

http://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

Daniel Baird Wallace (June 5, 1952-) is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary where he has been tenured since 1995. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, that is digitizing all known manuscripts of the bible (by taking digital photographs).

"There once were many ancient manuscripts containing the Byzantine text, manuscripts much older than B6 (Vaticanus) and ALEPH (Sinaiticus), but they were read so constantly and copied so frequently that finally they wore out and perished. This is why only a few ancient Byzantine manuscripts are extant today. The main reason why B, ALEPH and other non-Byzantine manuscripts have survived to the present day is because they (all Alexandrian text types, which includes B and ALEPH) were rejected by the Greek church as faulty and so were not used". (Which Bible, Fuller, pg.7)

These are unproven King James Onlyist arguments. Ancient manuscripts that may or may not have existed are not available for examination. Any argument that is based on the supposed existence of these manuscripts is futile as there is no way to know if they contained a disputed reading such as the Comma Johanneum.

Also, Fuller merely asserts that the Eastern Church rejected Alexandrian texts. Where is his proof?

 

[Stan]

This can be a barn burner of a topic, so be sure that we will moderate it closely, but which manuscript family do you favor and why?

Let's try to avoid saying bad things about others, but you are welcome to list reasons why you distrust or choose one over the other.

As most modern English translations use the GNT Morph, I prefer it as well. It is more accurate and reliable than the TR. Bottom line though is I trust the major translations like NIV, NASB and others. I also really like the new MOUNCE NT.

This is incorrect. The TR and the Majority Text are not identical.

"But the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts." - Daniel B. Wallace

http://bible.org/art...-they-identical

"There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time. Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity." - Daniel B. Wallace

http://bible.org/art...-they-identical

Daniel Baird Wallace (June 5, 1952-) is professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary where he has been tenured since 1995. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, that is digitizing all known manuscripts of the bible (by taking digital photographs).




These are unproven King James Onlyist arguments. Ancient manuscripts that may or may not have existed are not available for examination. Any argument that is based on the supposed existence of these manuscripts is futile as there is no way to know if they contained a disputed reading such as the Comma Johanneum.

Also, Fuller merely asserts that the Eastern Church rejected Alexandrian texts. Where is his proof?

Here's an article Dan Wallace published last month.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

 

[Nomad]

Here's an article Dan Wallace published last month.

http://danielbwallac...le-translation/

Yes, Daniel Wallace's articles are always informative. Thanks for the link.

 

[HammerStone]

Nomad and I have a history on this topic - and thanks to him I was able to go back and reevaluate what I know and believe.

The TR is not the same thing as the MT. I'd argue that the TR is a subset of the MT at best and the case can reasonably be made, it would seem, that the TR may not even be that. Essentially while the MT texts are much more numerous, they are all later - so you are indeed working from the supposition that they replace what had been removed. I know that we obviously have lost manuscripts and the climate in Alexandria was more conducive to preserving copies, but you would have to think that if the hypothesis about older Byzantine texts were true, there would be a reasonable bit of evidence somewhere along the way. Perhaps a Byzantine text discovered in a dry climate or something along those lines.

For the Comma Johanneum example - there are reliable manuscripts (I understand) that show this clause in the margin notes. It seems quite reasonable that this clause made its way into the text.

I want to mention that the NKJV, which is TR and MT based, is my #2 Bible right now, so I don't totally discount the tradition.

 

[Nomad]

The TR is not the same thing as the MT. I'd argue that the TR is a subset of the MT at best and the case can reasonably be made, it would seem, that the TR may not even be that. Essentially while the MT texts are much more numerous, they are all later ...

I probably should have explained the difference a little more for those who are not familiar with this issue. Erasmus constructed the TR with about six manuscripts. That's all he had and most scholars would agree that he did a pretty good job with what he had at his disposal. We now possess about 5700 Greek manuscripts of the NT. His six differ from the Majority Text in about 2000 places according to Daniel B. Wallace. That's 99% agreement.

Now about the Majority Text... When some use the term "Majority Text" they are referring to the Byzantine text type as a whole because they are more numerous than other text types. Today the term is used more commonly to refer to a textual critical method. That is, the Majority Text stands for a critical Byzantine text that only includes readings that represent the "majority" or "consensus" of the existing Byzantine text type.

There are two books I'd like to recommend for those who would like to pursue this topic.

The Text Of The New Testament - Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (You may recognize Kurt Aland as one of the editors of the Novum Testamentum Graece, otherwise know as the Nestle-Aland critical text.)

The King James Only Controversy - James R. White

There is an excellent online resource as well. http://www.bible-res...m/majority.html

For the Comma Johanneum example - there are reliable manuscripts (I understand) that show this clause in the margin notes. It seems quite reasonable that this clause made its way into the text.

There are eight. Four have the Comma in the text and four include it as a marginal note. See the link below for a list of these manuscripts.

James White addresses the Comma Johanneum in more depth than we can here in his "The King James Only Controversy." There is also an online resource - http://www.bible-res....com/comma.html

Since you mentioned one of your English version preferences, I'll mention mine. I prefer the English Standard Version simply because it utilizes good modern English without resorting to a dynamic equivalent rendering or a paraphrase. The NASB '95 revision is similar in this regard, but I still prefer the ESV.

I would just like to interject a qualifying note here. I do not discourage those who prefer the KJV. By all means read it if you're comfortable with old English. I grew up reading the KJV and I have great respect for it -- just don't tell me it's the best available or that it's the only English translation sanctioned by God.

 

[Rex]

I would just like to interject a qualifying note here. I do not discourage those who prefer the KJV. By all means read it if you're comfortable with old English. I grew up reading the KJV and I have great respect for it -- just don't tell me it's the best available or that it's the only English translation sanctioned by God.

I'd just like to thank the people that spend their lives insuring integrity.
The last line there is similar to believing God only speaks English, or Hebrew.

Thanks Nomad for sharing your knowledge on a subject you have a great passion for.

 

[Stan]

I'd just like to thank the people that spend their lives insuring integrity.
The last line there is similar to believing God only speaks English, or Hebrew.

Thanks Nomad for sharing your knowledge on a subject you have a great passion for.

Amen and to those who have and do work tirelessly to provide excellant translation of the Greek Bible into the Englsih Bible.

 

[HammerStone]

Now about the Majority Text... When some use the term "Majority Text" they are referring to the Byzantine text type as a whole because they are more numerous than other text types. Today the term is used more commonly to refer to a textual critical method. That is, the Majority Text stands for a critical Byzantine text that only includes readings that represent the "majority" or "consensus" of the existing Byzantine text type.

An excellent point. One of the things I've come across in this debate is people like to use half statistics. One of the arguments I've seen advanced against the CT is that it's not a true text in one sense of the concept. The CT is instead the scholarly result of the texts that we do have, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. It's a true statement to say that it won't read like any single manuscript, but as you pointed out, this holds true for the MT as well. I think this refutes one of the major lines of attack against the CT.

It's easy to get caught up in the differences, but they're not that substantial. As you also said, there is not a single instance of any major doctrine being affected by the verses.

Since you mentioned one of your English version preferences, I'll mention mine. I prefer the English Standard Version simply because it utilizes good modern English without resorting to a dynamic equivalent rendering or a paraphrase. The NASB '95 revision is similar in this regard, but I still prefer the ESV.

I would just like to interject a qualifying note here. I do not discourage those who prefer the KJV. By all means read it if you're comfortable with old English. I grew up reading the KJV and I have great respect for it -- just don't tell me it's the best available or that it's the only English translation sanctioned by God.

Yes, the ESV is my primary Bible of choice. It's also been chosen by my Pastor as our church's version of choice. I merely mentioned my usage of the NKJV because these suggestions sometimes come down to fanboyism.

 

[Rex]

An excellent point. One of the things I've come across in this debate is people like to use half statistics.

Yes surry ree and it started in the garden,

I have very limited knowledge on the subject but I do have about 10 bibles, fox book of martyrs, Josephus, and a couple commentary's on my phone.
I like the NKJV but I don't strictly adhere to one or the other. Sometime simply switching from one version to another helps provide a bit more insight.
The age we live in certainly provides some useful tools to the Lord, or maybe its simply crutches for the lame, God knows I need help

 

[Netchaplain]

This is incorrect. The TR and the Majority Text are not identical.

"The Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence." http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/textusr1.html

"The inspired text is more faithfully represented by the Majority Text - sometime called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text (Textus Receptus - Latin) or the Traditional Text - than by the modern critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies." Fuller/Which Bible/pg.6

Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text." http://ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html

"The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text." http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

"From Europe to the Near East, 95% of the Bibles were based upon the text known as the Byzantine, Antioch, Textus Receptus, or Majority text." http://www.churchgrowth.cc/content_Textus_Receptus.htm

 

[Stan]

I am very interested in the following story on the oldest manuscripts found.

http://www.csntm.org/ last story on the page. Although we are to live by faith, every once in a while it is great to get affirmation of one's beliefs.​

 

[Nomad]

"The Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence." http://www.angelfire...1/textusr1.html

"The inspired text is more faithfully represented by the Majority Text - sometime called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text (Textus Receptus - Latin) or the Traditional Text - than by the modern critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies." Fuller/Which Bible/pg.6

Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text." http://ecclesia.org/...anuscripts.html

"The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text." http://www.1611kingj..._receptus.html/

"From Europe to the Near East, 95% of the Bibles were based upon the text known as the Byzantine, Antioch, Textus Receptus, or Majority text." http://www.churchgro...us_Receptus.htm

What part of "Erasmus constructed the TR with about six manuscripts" and "The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places" don't you understand?

What we have here is someone digging their heels in and refusing to deal with the facts. I give you scholars such as Kurt Aland, James White and Daniel Wallace who present the facts as they stand. These men all work in the field of NT manuscipts and Koine Greek. You give me King James Onlyist, David Fuller and "Brother Terry." You give me "ecclesia.org," "1611KingJamesBible.org" and "ChurchGrowth.cc." The authors of these sites refuse to identify themselves and apparently have zero credentials. They do not work in the field at all and the factual errors in their "articles" are glaring.

The author found at "ecclesia.org" makes the following comment:

"What school (seminary) did we go to, and what degrees do we have? Well, there's only one school mentioned in scripture, and that was a school of a tyrant (Acts 19:9). And a "degree" is a Masonic concept, not a scriptural one."

What an asinine statement. Enough said.

The author found at "1611KingJamesBible.org makes this comment:

"The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians."

Really??? The TR, which was constructed in the 16th century was used by Christians for 2000 years??? I have a news flash for this guy... the Latin Vulgate reigned supreme in the West for a thousand years before the TR came into existence. How do you like that?

The author found at ChurchGrowth .cc makes this comment:

"The modern English versions are from one text from Alexandria, Egypt, assuming that older is better."

One text from Alexandria, assuming older is better??? What unabashed ignorance! What a simplistic, (and flat out wrong), view of modern textual criticism.

Come on NetChaplain, are you kidding me with this nonsense? I know some may find this harsh, but the truth is at stake here. I certainly hope that you're not really an ordained Pastor, because if you are, I feel sorry for those under your leadership.

 

[Netchaplain]

Nomad, it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, as possibly evidenced by your unkind statements and if so, my apologies. When you disagree with someone, you should share it in kindness to avoid the possible accusation of being argumentative, which the believer shouldn't engage. "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men]" (2 Tim 2:24).

I would rather you let me know if I posted something that caused you to seem offended. How we treat one another is more important to me than sharing beliefs with one another!

 

[THE Gypsy]

I don't have a preference. Personally, I am very thankful for the various Bible apps, cross referencing and study tools available.

 

[Netchaplain]

Nomad, I forgot to let you know that though what I posted concerning your reply may have been an admonishment, it did not offend me and I'll never hold it against you.

My posts in this thread concerning HammerStone's subject, or any other, is never with the intent to contend with disagreeable opposition. I post to get at the truth of issues from all of us, not to challenge anyone's beliefs.

Though I have much more I'd like to share on this subject, I feel that not doing so would more advisable in my case, to avoid the appearance of challenging.

God's blessings to our Families!