# Textus Receptus V Critical Text



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 31, 2008)

I'd like to hear some arguments either way. This whole argument is brand new to me...


----------



## Quickened (Aug 31, 2008)

Rather new to me aswell! I second this thread!


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 31, 2008)

It has been hashed out here in a few places, most notably here. Most of the major arguments are at least laid out there.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 31, 2008)

*A few sites from the TR side to start with.*



> Where did the Greek Textus Receptus come from? Disiderius Erasmus was born 1466, died 1537, the greatest genius of his age. He was courted by kings and emperors. The kings of France, Spain, and England each offered him anything in their realm, if he would become a citizen of his country. He turned them down. He was offered the cardinal’s hat; he turned that down. It was said, if he had pulled the right strings he could have become the pope, but he didn’t. Get this. In his youth Erasmus was brought up among the Brethren of the Common Life who held the Bible in great reverence and awe. Many of them were secret believers. Erasmus through life always had a similar reverence and respect for God’s Word. With his genius and erudition (his name was a household word all over the known world), he produced the Textus Receptus from nine manuscripts chosen with care from a very large mass. This Textus Receptus went through some 21 editions, published by the Elzivir brothers, Stephans, and Beza, the successor to Calvin. All of them great scholars, but from the first edition to the 21st of this Textus Receptus very few changes were made.




Found Here.


Also of interest is the Dean Burgun Society and David Otis Fuller and Trinitarian Bible Society.



> The Texts of the Bible used by the Trinitarian Bible Society
> The Hebrew Text: The Society uses the Hebrew Masoretic Text as the textual basis for the Old Testament in its translations. Great care was taken by the Jews over the centuries to preserve the Hebrew text in its purest form; their work produced what is commonly called the Masoretic Text. This text has been the standard Hebrew text for over one thousand years. When translating the Hebrew into other languages, occasionally ancient translations such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Aramaic Targums are consulted because of the difficulty of the Hebrew. But, because God gave the text originally in Hebrew, these ancient translations must be treated as secondary to the Hebrew. The Masoretic Text is the most reliable form of the text of the Old Testament, and is the basis of all of the Society's Old Testament publications.
> 
> The Greek Text: The Society uses the form of the Greek text of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. This is the text which underlies the New Testament of the Authorised Version and the other Reformation translations. It is a faithful representation of the text which the church in different parts of the world has used for centuries. It is the result of the textual studies of conservative scholars during the years both before and after the Reformation, and represents for the most part over 5,000 available Greek manuscripts. The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 31, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It has been hashed out here in a few places, most notably here. Most of the major arguments are at least laid out there.



This excellent discussion took place before I became a member here. 

Thank you for posting this very useful link. I have copied and saved the entire discussion to my hard drive for future study.


----------



## KMK (Sep 1, 2008)

Get ready for a *lot* of reading!


----------



## KMK (Sep 1, 2008)

After rereading the thread, I was once again edified by Rev Winzer's contribution in post 26:



> The fact that the TR has variants is irrelevant. It might even have had more variants than the critical text, and the fact would still have been irrelevant. The reason is, that the concept of the textus receptus contains within it a fundamental theological point which is abandoned when critics opt for an eclectic text. That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted. No one has laid claim to the idea that this uncorrupted Word of God is to be found in a single MS., and thereby excluded the possibility of variants. It is readily acknowledged that the preserved text is to be found amongst a multiplicity of MSS., and that therefore textual criticism of a kind is required. But it is maintained with the utmost confidence that *such critical work must proceed on the basis of faith in the Word of God, and that entails an unshaken commitment to the belief that the church possesses the Word of God and not merely something which approximates to it.*


__________________


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2008)

The only point I would differ with Matthew in that excellent post is whether advocates of the critical text think we have only an approximation of the NT. Some may think that way. But not Reformed text critics. As Scott Clark said on another thread, we have the NT in the manuscript tradition. It's there. Matthew's second to last sentence echoes my thoughts exactly, which is why I have always said that there should not be this huge distance between the two positions, as if CT and TR people are worlds apart, which would seem to be the case, if you read some people's comments.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 1, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> The only point I would differ with Matthew in that excellent post is whether advocates of the critical text think we have only an approximation of the NT. Some may think that way. But not Reformed text critics. As Scott Clark said on another thread, we have the NT in the manuscript tradition. It's there. Matthew's second to last sentence echoes my thoughts exactly, which is why I have always said that there should not be this huge distance between the two positions, as if CT and TR people are worlds apart, which would seem to be the case, if you read some people's comments.



But don't you have to say that the Reformers only had an approximation, even if you believe that we today have the complete deal? If they had more than an approximation then we can safely ignore the texts found in the 1800s without missing a beat. (That is setting aside the argument over what Erasmus and other had access to back in the Reformation Era)

CT


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > The only point I would differ with Matthew in that excellent post is whether advocates of the critical text think we have only an approximation of the NT. Some may think that way. But not Reformed text critics. As Scott Clark said on another thread, we have the NT in the manuscript tradition. It's there. Matthew's second to last sentence echoes my thoughts exactly, which is why I have always said that there should not be this huge distance between the two positions, as if CT and TR people are worlds apart, which would seem to be the case, if you read some people's comments.
> ...



If we could ignore the progress of knowledge and history, then there would be a problem with my position. But since the differences between the CT and the TR are so slight, and no major doctrines hinged on a TR reading, I have no hesitation in saying that the Reformers had the Word of God in that time. What I say is that we always should take into account all the manuscripts, whatever is available to us at any given time, and do the work of textual criticism.


----------



## KMK (Sep 1, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



Who is 'we'?


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2008)

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > ChristianTrader said:
> ...



We is all Reformed text critics. That is my position, which I know is controverted by my TR friends.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 1, 2008)

Benjamin and Brian,

Here -- in a post -- are some more links on the topic: A History Of The Authorized Version View Single Post. (The 5th link down is "Defending the Lord's Prayer 1".)



Hi Lane!

I heartily agree with what you say here: "...I have always said that there should not be this huge distance between the two positions, as if CT and TR people are worlds apart..." It is the case that the people I often learn the most from are not KJV / TR folks, but their hearts and minds are deep in Christ and His gospel. 

On another topic, have you written anything about "Theonomy"? I searched your site but couldn't find anything. I'm preparing something on it (contra).

Steve


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 1, 2008)

Lane, what do you think of the positions of Moises Silva on this issue?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 1, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> On another topic, have you written anything about "Theonomy"? I searched your site but couldn't find anything. I'm preparing something on it (contra).
> 
> Steve



I am a former Theonomist, but I still have some affinity for the position. Is there something in particular that you disagree with Theonomists concerning? Some parts of the position can be critiqued without running afoul of the confession, while others cannot be.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 1, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Lane, what do you think of the positions of Moises Silva on this issue?



Do you have a link or a Summary of Silva's position on this issue?

CT


----------



## cornopean (Sep 1, 2008)

Bible.org: The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

Bible.org: Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text

Bible.org: Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 1, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Lane, what do you think of the positions of Moises Silva on this issue?
> ...



No, that is why I asked Lane. Moises wrote _Biblical Greek and Reformed Textual Criticism_ Kirkland Printing, which the Westminster Bookstore sells in its "faculty" section. I didn't know if Moises was still at Westminster when Lane was in seminary or if he had already gone on to Gordon-Conwell.



> It would be misleading, I think, to suggest that Van Til disapproved of using the methods of probability in every respect. We may be quite sure that even he, upon hearing a weather forecast predicting a 90% probability of showers, would have canceled a Saturday picnic. [...] What provoked Van Til, of course, was Bishop Butler’s transference of such day-by-day decisions to matters about which the Bible speaks unequivocally, including especially the existence of God (also such affirmations as the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the divine authority of the Scriptures). Many other things, however, do no belong in the same category. Even some matters having to do with our Christian life lack firm certainty.



He then adds in a footnote:



> Even more fundamentally, Van Til objected to the use of possibility and probability arguments when presenting the gospel to unbelievers, on account of conflicting epistemologies: “For the natural man the idea of possibility is on the one hand identical with chance and on the other hand with that which the natural man himself can rationalize. For him only that is practically possible which man can himself order by his logical faculties. But the word possibility means for the Christan that which may happen in accord with the plan of God” (The Defense of the Faith [3d ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967] 144).



My wife and I had several NT classes from him in college (and he was my wife's Greek prof for two years).


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 1, 2008)

Steve first, then Dennis. 

I don't have anything on Theonomy on my blog. Haven't done any work on it. However, you can't really do any better than this book. There's no better book from the critic's standpoint, and there is certainly not any other book so often referred to in terms of a critique of it. 

Dennis, I don't remember having any problems with Silva's view (though I never had him as a professor: he left before I got there). I think the quotations you provided have more to do with the fact that even with a certain text, some things are not clear, which, of course, does not contradict the perspicuity of Scripture.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 1, 2008)

Lane,

I didn't think that this student of Van Til (as well as F.F. Bruce and James Barr!) would be heretical. Just curious if you had read his unpublished lecture notes that WTS advertise as must read books for new seminarians.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 2, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Lane,
> 
> I didn't think that this student of Van Til (as well as F.F. Bruce and James Barr!) would be heretical. Just curious if you had read his unpublished lecture notes that WTS advertise as must read books for new seminarians.



I have read them, but it's been awhile. What I remember is that Silva has a very level-headed view of textual criticism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 2, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve first, then Dennis.
> 
> I don't have anything on Theonomy on my blog. Haven't done any work on it. However, you can't really do any better than this book. There's no better book from the critic's standpoint, and there is certainly not any other book so often referred to in terms of a critique of it.
> 
> Dennis, I don't remember having any problems with Silva's view (though I never had him as a professor: he left before I got there). I think the quotations you provided have more to do with the fact that even with a certain text, some things are not clear, which, of course, does not contradict the perspicuity of Scripture.



With all do respect to the otherwise great Profs the book on the critique of theonomy done by WTS was sloppy, full of caricatures, misquotes, and strawmen. Sinclair Ferguson's chapter is the only real cogent and fair one of the bunch. Moises Silva does not even really talk about theonomy _per se_ instead spending his time critiquing Kline.


----------



## Quickened (Oct 19, 2008)

Thanks for the links! I will be looking through this all over the course of time


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

One word - BEZA!


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 19, 2008)

Grymir said:


> One word - BEZA!



BEZA???

You mean this one? _*Beza *_Semenew?







         

Oh, maybe you meant THIS BEZA???






 Now I got it!


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

DMcFadden - who is that?

And of course not. Unless she's Beza'a great, great, great, great, granddaughter and president of the Real KJV Users Who Dislike Barth's Theology Society of North America!


----------



## larryjf (Oct 19, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> If we could ignore the progress of knowledge and history, then there would be a problem with my position. But since the differences between the CT and the TR are so slight, and no major doctrines hinged on a TR reading, I have no hesitation in saying that the Reformers had the Word of God in that time. What I say is that we always should take into account all the manuscripts, whatever is available to us at any given time, and do the work of textual criticism.



I would agree that we shouldn't neglect the history of the text. I think part of the difference in "camps" is due to how they interpret the history.

An Alexandrian-type proponent may look at the lack of pre-4th century Byzantine-type manuscripts as evidence against them. While a Byzantine-type proponent will point out that while there are no pre-4th century Byzantine-type manuscripts, it also must be noted that there is no Byzantine history regarding its text during that time. Therefore they would probably argue that it's an unfair comparison with the lack of history over the Byzantine area.

The pro-Alexandrian "camp" may look at the Diocletian persecution as an answer to why there are no 4th century manuscripts in the Byzantine type, and conclude that the type was manufactured after the original manuscripts were destroyed. While the pro-Byzantine "camp" may look at the same persecution and conclude that the Church hid the most precious manuscripts from the hands of the persecutors and were only later free to reproduce them.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi Backwoods. Do a search and read all of Jerusalem Blade's posts. He is by far the most knowledgeable on the subject, and has helped me to delve more deeply into the subject than I thought possible.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 19, 2008)

Not really Grymir. This is a new argument for me...


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Most of the aruguments I hear are 'superficial' There is a lot of philosophical and 'translation methodology' differences between the two. And that is what cemented in me the TR text is best view. I'll try and find a few and post some links.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi Backwoods. Here's a great read. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

This is written to defend the KJV, but it's history of the Critical Text is priceless!! Especially the Chapters on the history of unbelief, and the short history of modernism. The 'myth' of neutrality stuff is great, because that goes deeper than the 'superficial stuff' that goes around so much, ie, battling over which towns wrote what, or who edited what, or the ever so popular 'just look at those crazy KJV users'!

I know it's a link, but i couldn't write any better. And it is a great read. I couldn't stop once I started, and now I know far more than any Liberal Seminary Grad. Mwhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Here's a great read. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills





B. B. Warfield detected that presuppositions lay at the bottom of the two approaches, but Edward Hills was basically the first to take a consistently presuppositional method into the subject.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 19, 2008)

Here's a few highlights of the book, just to tease y'all into reading it!!

New Testament textual criticism cannot properly be said to have begun until the New Testament was first placed in print in 1516, one year before the commencement of the Protestant Reformation. Hence the first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1536), printers such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1509-1564) and Beza (1519-1605). A study of Calvin's commentaries and the notes of Erasmus and Beza indicates that these 16th-century scholars had not worked out any clearly defined system of New Testament textual criticism. In this department of biblical study they were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared. But in their actual editing and printing of the New Testament they were guided by the common faith in the Received Text. For in their appeal to the New Testament against the errors of the papacy and the Roman Catholic doctrinal system these Reformers were not introducing a novelty but were falling back on a principle which long before the Reformation had been acknowledged by everyone. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was out of this common faith, therefore, that the printed Textus Receptus was born through the editorial labors of Erasmus and his successors under the guiding hand of God. Hence during the Reformation Period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books.


(b) The Age of Rationalism - The Naturalistic Approach to the New Testament Text


After the commencement of the 17th century rationalists began to arise who laid aside the theological approach to the New Testament text and took up in its stead the naturalistic approach which makes no distinction between the text of the New Testament and that of a purely human book. Denying the common faith, they handled the New Testament text in a wholly secular way. 

-----------------------

(c) The Age of Enlightenment—The Skeptical Approach to the New Testament Text


The last half of the 18th century in Germany was the age of "enlightenment" in which rationalism was positively encouraged by Frederick II, the "philosopher king," who reigned over Prussia 46 years (1740-86). Under these conditions the skepticism inherent in the naturalistic method of New Testament textual criticism was clearly brought out.

------------------------

(a) Naturalistic Apologetics — The Fallacy of the Neutral Starting Point


This inconsistency in regard to the textual criticism of the Bible and especially of the New Testament has historical roots which reach back three hundred years to the late 17th century. At that time the deists and other unbelievers came up with a novel suggestion. "Let us not," they proposed, "begin our thinking by assuming the truth of Christianity. Let us rather take as our starting point only those truths on which Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mohammedans, and all good men of every religion and creed agree. Then, standing on this neutral platform of common agreement, let us test all religions and creeds by the light of reason."


Instead of rejecting this proposal as fundamentally unchristian, orthodox Protestant scholars accepted the challenge and during the 18th century developed various apologetic arguments, armed with which they endeavored to meet the unbelievers on their own chosen ground and, fighting in this neutral arena, to demonstrate the truth of historic Christianity and the error of infidelity. Unhappily, however, these orthodox champions did not realize that they had been out-maneuvered and that by the very act of adopting a neutral starting point they had already denied the faith that they intended to defend and had ensured that any argument that they might thereafter advance would be inconsistent.

------------------------

These are just a few of the reasons why the TR is better than the CT. I know, y'all hear alot of the 'what has philosophy to do with theology' statements. The truth is that Theology is the Queen of the science's, and philosophy her handmaiden. The basis behind the anti philosophy approach has to do with the myth of neutrality statements above. The 'theological-philosophical' approach is unescapable. And that's alot of my problems with the 'modern' stuff. From Bible versions to church worship. They are all related, not seperate subjects.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Oct 20, 2008)

One of my future book projects is, _Codex Sinaticus: The Arian Bible._


----------

