# For those with a Majority Text/ Textus Receptus preference



## nicnap (Sep 29, 2005)

Fred, Martin and a few others (I am not sure whom [or who?]),

I too am a Textus Receptus/Majority Text guy. I am simply wondering why you prefer this textual basis. For me, first in a long list is, the methodology of the critical text scholars... this is what I am looking for. I am just curious.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 29, 2005)

Hello Nick,
Three main reasons

1. It doesn't seem right to me to overlook, say, 90% of the manuscripts in favour of two admittedly older ones.

2. I am impressed with the work and scholarship of Dean Burgon and I haven't seen any of the C.T. supporters really get to grips with his findings (perhaps someone has, but if so, I haven't read it).

3. It seems clear that the early Church made a decision to go with the Byzantine text-type some time in the 4th or 5th Century. They were certainly not infallible but they were a lot closer to the originals than we are.

However, I try not to fall out with anybody over this question. There are very few places where it makes much different to the understanding of the text.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## nicnap (Sep 30, 2005)

I also try and not let this issue become a bone of contention. 

I notice that your three main reasons are very close to mine. I am wondering if this will be the case among others who prefer the TR/M. Oh well, I hope others respond and ease my curiosity.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Sep 30, 2005)

Byzantine readings, while not constant in manuscripts before 3rd C. do tend to have an older spot in antiquity (i.e.- you may have a reading in a 12 c. manuscript that is Byzantine and not found in any other mss. before 8th c. BUT the scribe writes a note in the margin that he chose this reading based on a 3rd c. manuscript he had access to that we don't). Mark 16:9-20 is a perfect example.

All manuscripts from one area are NECESSARILY going to read a certain way - Alexandrian readings were common to the area the mss. were found in.... DUH! So age of the manuscript does not necessarily prove original reading or likely original reading. 

nevertheless, I concur with Pierpont and Robinson - 88% of the text of the NT is settled and someone using an NIV won't come across any horrid teaching or things which would be blasphemous or contradictory for the most part. What's more, alternative readings DON'T go away, as Geisler has noted (see ? he's good for something after all). So across the breadth of 5366+ greek mss. we have the ENTIRE text of the original NT.... TC is just the science of finding out which one of those mss. has the original text of particular variant readings.

Of course, I believe God in His providence, made it that way. I could see folks worshipping a particular translation if we knew with 100% certainty that a particular text reading in EVERY case was THE correct one. Now, I don't wanna deny verbal-plenary inspiration (someone call me on it, if I am), but I believe that God allowed the small degree (realistically, .5% after you get past the other 11.5% that are stylistic, spelling and grammatical errors) of variants that crept in during the human process of transmission to keep us focused on Him and not on one particular text reading.


----------



## larryjf (Sep 30, 2005)

> I believe that God allowed the small degree (realistically, .5% after you get past the other 11.5% that are stylistic, spelling and grammatical errors) of variants that crept in during the human process of transmission to keep us focused on Him and not on one particular text reading.


I tend to think that if we had a 100% perfect manuscript people would be less focused on manuscripts and more on God. We focus so much on biblical manuscripts because they are not 100% perfect.

I think so much attention is put on manuscripts and translations precisely because scholars are trying to get back to the autographs. If we had the autographs, we wouldn't need all the attention focused on the manuscripts and such.

I also believe that the bible when read with the guidance of the Holy Spirit focuses a person more on God. It is really only when it is read in the flesh that it produces so many problems and divisions.

It is our sin that causes us to lose focus on God, not the bible.


----------



## nicnap (Oct 1, 2005)

Thanks Kerry and Larry. 

The intent of this thread is not to speak of the differences between the texts, but to give reasons why we hold what we hold. Those of us who prefer TR/M do so for a reason. We know all the "stats". We have done the research  , and are convinced of our position due to many hours of reading and thinking. I am *only* looking for the reasons others hold their positions, not the differences in thought. (I do not wish to start a CT/TR "debate"  ; I am sure there are other threads for this.) 

Thanks. 

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by nicnap]

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by nicnap]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 1, 2005)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - it IS our sin that causes us to lose focus. I agree. Folks can (and have) gotten obsessed with Bible translations being absolutely correct in every jot and tittle so as to neglect the weightier matters of the faith. For example, you have some KJVers who believe the 1611 KJV is 'advanced revelation' and if you don't accept it, you're not a believer (which is hilarious since they are usually using the 1789 or 1869 revision of the KJV anyway). 

As stated before - my research on the whole thing is essentially the same as Geislers' - 88% of the text settled, 11.5% of it being stylistic readings, grammar, spelling, word order in sentences, all with the same meaning and only .5 percent with real differences in meaning and none of it affects a single major doctrine in scripture.... All of that tied in with the internal witness of the scripture, and I have no problem with most modern translations, as long as they stay faithful to the greek and hebrew.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 1, 2005)

From what I understand, even though the Majority of texts aren't the oldest, the quotes of scripture in the writings of the early church fathers follow the readings of the majority text and not the oldest manuscripts which have their origin from Alexandria ( in which there is only a couple of copies). There are some major differences in readings. The diety issue comes up and other issues that take away from the Character of God. Some believe there is a gnostic smack in the Alexandria text.

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## nicnap (Dec 8, 2005)

I think the fathers supported the Byz.

TR&Maj. are not the same that is the reason they are /'ed in the title of the thread.

Weighing within yes. 

Wescott and Hort  yes. 

Sorry so brief-between exams at RTS...must study. Hopefully someone else will take this on.


----------



## Casey (Dec 8, 2005)

Anyone here read _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_ by Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen? He presents arguments that has convinced me of the superiority of the Majority/Byz Text (*not* the TR). Although, I just purchased _The Text of the New Testament_ by the Alands (and plan on getting Metzger's textual UBS commentary on the Greek text) to test my present position.  Honestly, the pure subjectivity involved in the Critical Text is alarming--can such preference determine what God's Word is? I follow the MT by presupposition and do not normally allow arguments for any variants.


----------



## Dag Fish (Feb 9, 2006)

(little late in the discussion but...) I agree with Mr. Bessette the Subjectivity of the CT is bothersome. Even non-christian. What do we think of theology that is based on the whim of the author? Surely we should not do this with the text of Scripture.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dag Fish_
> (little late in the discussion but...) I agree with Mr. Bessette the Subjectivity of the CT is bothersome. Even non-christian. What do we think of theology that is based on the whim of the author? Surely we should not do this with the text of Scripture.



I think this is a false dichotomy in the discussion of textual criticism. Both camps, whether CT or MT, have their personal biases and presuppositions about the legitimacy or superiority of one particular textual tradition over another. Neither is objective, nor are their methodologies objective. Both are subjective, as things are in most disciplines. Everyone has their presuppositions. The fact of the matter is, this should not be a matter of division or schism among believers, and it has become such - but not, I would propose, from the CT camp. Those who are rabidly MT-only or KJV-only are much more prone, historically so, to be schismatic or haughty towards non-MT or non-KJVO types, that I find the whole discussion and discipline of textual criticism of the Biblical texts to be unappealing, personally. Furthermore, I think it is only best to take both traditions into account when studying Scripture and the accuracy of a certain English rendering of a verse - not one or the other. Therefore, I suppose I am neither MT or CT, but prefer to take both into consideration.


----------



## Casey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think this is a false dichotomy in the discussion of textual criticism. Both camps, whether CT or MT, have their personal biases and presuppositions about the legitimacy or superiority of one particular textual tradition over another. Neither is objective, nor are their methodologies objective. Both are subjective, as things are in most disciplines. Everyone has their presuppositions. The fact of the matter is, this should not be a matter of division or schism among believers, and it has become such - but not, I would propose, from the CT camp. Those who are rabidly MT-only or KJV-only are much more prone, historically so, to be schismatic or haughty towards non-MT or non-KJVO types, that I find the whole discussion and discipline of textual criticism of the Biblical texts to be unappealing, personally. Furthermore, I think it is only best to take both traditions into account when studying Scripture and the accuracy of a certain English rendering of a verse - not one or the other. Therefore, I suppose I am neither MT or CT, but prefer to take both into consideration.


Forgive me if I sounded schismatic or haughty, that wasn't my intent. This is not a matter by which I test my ecclesiastical fellowship.  Anyway, I always check both texts as well when doing exegesis, since anyone may bring whichever translation they desire when coming to hear God's Word opened. It would be irresponsible to ignore a significant textual variant when someone sitting in the pew might be holding that very translation in their hands!

That being said, I still consider many of the arguments I heard from Metzger's textual commentary to be inadequate. Of course, it could be said, there is a matter of subjectivity on both sides in that even the MT has variants. I think the basic premise of the CT method that the oldest text presents the more original reading _sounds_ very objective, but in my humble opinion I don't believe it is correct.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 9, 2006)

I wasn't accusing anyone of being haughty or schismatic on this board, Casey. Don't worry.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 9, 2006)

I can feel the ...






[Edited on 2-9-2006 by larryjf]


----------



## Casey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wasn't accusing anyone of being haughty or schismatic on this board, Casey. Don't worry.


Glad there has been no offense. 

I think the Baptist churches have unfortunately been the recipients of schismatic movements over these issues--far more, it seems to me, than the Presbyterians.


----------



## JM (Mar 15, 2006)

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html

I agree with the above.


----------

