# Which Greek Text?



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

Which do you prefer _Textus Receptus_ of _Novum Testamentum_ and why?

I am under the impression that the latter is based upon more greek texts and as such is a closer copy of the original, but I know alot here use the KJV which uses the _Textus Receptus_ so I am curious what everyone's thoughts are on the greek texts are.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

Here we go . . . .


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

(Here it goes)

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 02:45:28 EST-----

Ha, we both just did that at the exact same time.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

Should I be scared of the onslaught?


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> (Here it goes)
> 
> -----Added 12/2/2008 at 02:45:28 EST-----
> 
> Ha, we both just did that at the exact same time.




Uncanny, geniuses we be.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 2, 2008)

It's the difference between the NA27 and UBS4 eclectic critical text which underlies modern translations such as NASB, NIV, and ESV and the TR (e.g. Scrivener 1894) which underlies the KJV and NKJV.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Should I be scared of the onslaught?


Be afraid, very afraid. I'm still in recovery. So is my horse.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 2, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Should I be scared of the onslaught?
> ...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Should I be scared of the onslaught?
> ...


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 2, 2008)

I'd use the same one the Westminster divines used.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

Blueridge Believer said:


> I'd use the same one the Westminster divines used.




So no new textual criticism is warranted? No new archeological expeditions in search of new texts is needed?

Just asking for clarification.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> > I'd use the same one the Westminster divines used.
> ...



It's just that you will find strong feelings from both sides of the issue here as well as in between. And it has been hashed through on a number of old threads. So pick your poison.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Which do you prefer _Textus Receptus_ of _Novum Testamentum_ and why?
> 
> I am under the impression that the latter is based upon more greek texts and as such is a closer copy of the original, but I know alot here use the KJV which uses the _Textus Receptus_ so I am curious what everyone's thoughts are on the greek texts are.



Tell ya what. Read them all and get back to us. 

Really, I like to work through the critical texts and the TR versions myself. I tend toward the TR, but I'm not going to hold to every part of it rigidly(especially Revelation, as I understand the controversy). And then I "keep these things in my heart." In other words, if you are going to study the Greek, why not try to understand the whole controversy? You may find out that there is less there than meets the eye.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Tell ya what. Read them all and get back to us.
> 
> Really, I like to work through the critical texts and the TR versions myself. I tend toward the TR, but I'm not going to hold to every part of it rigidly(especially Revelation, as I understand the controversy). And then I "keep these things in my heart." *In other words, if you are going to study the Greek, why not try to understand the whole controversy? You may find out that there is less there than meets the eye.*



Absolutely.


----------



## sotzo (Dec 2, 2008)

I say go with the Vulgate.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2008)

Vic, I believe nailed it. At least that is my perspective as well.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you prefer _Textus Receptus_ of _Novum Testamentum_ and why?
> ...




Do you know of a NT that has the two paralleled?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



Not off hand. I have them in print. But Esword has free modules for both.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 2, 2008)

I have Esword, so I will check it out when I get home. Thanks


----------



## larryjf (Dec 2, 2008)

Also ask yourself what presuppositions you are going in with if you plan on researching the issue.

For instance, are you going into the research with the idea that we have to find the text of the NT or with the idea that the text has been preserved.

If it has been preserved, then is your presumption that it was preserved in places that are still being discovered or in the Church.

etc. etc.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Which do you prefer _Textus Receptus_ of _Novum Testamentum_ and why?
> 
> I am under the impression that the latter is based upon more greek texts and as such is a closer copy of the original, but I know alot here use the KJV which uses the _Textus Receptus_ so I am curious what everyone's thoughts are on the greek texts are.




My position is that I hold to the historic definition of Sola Scriptura and side with the historic Protestant position on the identification of the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts. So, I hold to the Ben Chayim Masoretic text of the Old Testament and what is commonly called the Received Text of the New as being the Providentially preserved and authentic texts of Scripture in Hebrew and Greek.

Conversely, I stand in opposition to the Romanist position and enlightenment school of textual criticism that flows from it. Hence, I reject and oppose the redefinition of the historic doctrine of Sola Scriptura and redefinition of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

There are numerous threads that have hashed out various details of this issue, maybe not exactly from the perspective you are asking, but you can go through many of the threads at your leisure.

Cordially,

Thomas


P.S. Apparently someone was offended by my statements above as they interpreted it as meaning that anyone that supports modern critical texts is a closet Romanist. That is not what I intended my statements to mean, and it shouldn't be read other than simply factual statements - there was no hidden insults in it. It was intended to simply be a factual statement, especially the second paragraph, derived from the understanding that Richard Simon is the father of textual criticism and the purpose of the discipline was to develop a weapon to attack the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high school days in the 1920's. At that time I began to read the commentaries of Charles Hodge, books that were a part of my Presbyterian heritage. I noticed that Hodge would sometimes mention variant readings, most however, just to show that he was knowledgeable, for he rarely departed from "the common text" (textus receptus) and "our English version" (King James). Even so my curiosity was roused, so that in 1931, when I was a sophomore at Yale University I took down C. R. Gregory's Canon and Text of the N. T. from a library shelf and began to read. I was dismayed at the large number of verses that, according to Gregory and his teachers Westcott and Hort, must be rejected from the Word of God. Nor was I much comforted by Gregory's assurance that the necessary damage had been done and the rest of the text had been placed on an unassailable basis. How could I be sure of this? It seemed to me that the only way to gain assurance on this point was to go to Westminster Seminary and study the question under the tutelage of Dr. Machen, who preached in New Haven rather frequently in those days, talking to Yale students at least twice.
I. DR. B. B. WARFIELD AND THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster (under Dr. Stonehouse) I found that the first day or so was mainly devoted to praising Dr. B. B. Warfield. He was lauded for being among the first to recognize the "epoch making" importance of the theory of Westcott and Hort and for establishing the Westcott and Hort tradition at Princeton Seminary, a tradition which was now being faithfully perpetuated at Westminster Seminary. To me, however, all this was very puzzling. Dr. Warfield was a renowned defender of the Reformed faith and of the Westminster Confession, yet in the department of New Testament textual criticism he agreed entirely with liberals such as Westcott, Hort and C. R. Gregory. He professed to agree with the statement of the Westminster Confession that the Scriptures by God's "singular care and providence" had been "kept pure in all ages", but it was obvious that this providential preservation of the Scriptures was of no importance to Dr. Warfield when he actually began to deal with the problems of the New Testament. When he engaged in New Testament textual criticism, Dr. Warfield ignored the providential preservation of the Scriptures and treated the text of the New Testament as he would the text of any book or writing. "It matters not whether the writing before us be a letter from a friend, or an inscription from Carchemish, or a copy of a morning newspaper, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or the Bible."
I may be reading back into my student days some of my later thinking, but it seems to me that even at that time I could see that the logic of Warfield's naturalistic New Testament textual criticism led steadily downward toward modernism and unbelief. For if the providential preservation of the Scriptures was not important for the study of the New Testament text, then it could not have been important for the history of the New Testament text. And if it had not been important for the history of the New Testament, then it must have been non-existent. It could not have been a fact. And if the providential preservation of the Scriptures was not a fact, why should the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures be regarded as a fact? Why would God infallibly inspire a book and then decline to preserve it providentially? For example, why would God infallibly inspire the Gospel of Mark and then permit (as Warfield thought possible) the ending of it (describing the resurrection appearances of Christ) to be lost?
II. WHY DR. WARFIELD WAS SO INCONSISTENT - HIS SCHOLASTIC HERITAGE
Why was Dr. Warfield so inconsistent in the realm of New Testament textual criticism? Dr. Van Til's course in apologetics enabled me to supply the answer to this question. Dr. Warfield's inconsistency was part of his scholastic inheritance, an error which had been handed down to him from the middle-ages. Let me explain.
During the middle-ages the school men tried to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church by separating faith from reason and praying from thinking. While dealing with dogma. faith and prayer were appropriate, but the study of philosophy was reason's province. So the medieval school men contended, and soon this doctrine of the separation of faith from reason became generally accepted throughout the medieval Roman Catholic Church.
The Protestant Reformers were fully occupied with other matters. Hence they spent but little time combating this medieval, Roman Catholic error of the separation of faith and reason. Hence this false scholastic doctrine survived the Reformation and soon became embedded in the thinking of conservative Protestants everywhere. In the 18th century Butler and Paley built their apologetic systems on this false principle of the separation of faith and reason, and in the 19th century, at Princeton and other conservative theological seminaries, this scholastic principle even governed the curriculum and the way in which the several subjects were taught. Systematic theology, practical theology and homiletics were placed in one box labeled FAITH. All the other subjects, including New Testament textual criticism, biblical introduction, apologetics and philosophy, were placed in another box labeled REASON.
We see now why Dr. Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of systematic theology.
The reason was that Dr. Warfield kept these subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic, he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box. Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking. 
III. DEAN BURGON - HIS EMPHASIS ON THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE
When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was spent in disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr. Warfield. This again aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation. I found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New Testament textual criticism. For this he was pronounced "unscholarly".
Actually, however, he was merely following the logic of faith. He believed that the New Testament was the infallibly inspired Word of God. Hence it had been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence, not secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves but publicly in the usage of God's Church. Hence the text found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts is the true text because this is the text that has been used by God's Church. As soon as I began to read Burgon's works, I was impressed by this logic of faith and also by the learned arguments by which Burgon refuted the contention of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, Hort, etc. Finally, after some years of hesitation, I definitely committed myself to his view in 1952.
But there are problems connected with Burgon's view. Burgon was a high Anglican who emphasized the role of bishops in the history of the Church. He believed that the New Testament text had been preserved mainly by the bishops of the ancient and medieval Church. Hence he defended the text found in the majority of the New Testaments manuscripts, but he would not defend the printed Textus Receptus because it had not been produced by bishops. He would, however, defend the King James Version because this had been produced by bishops. Here he was inconsistent because the King James Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus.
We solve this problem by substituting the biblical doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers for Burgon's high Anglicanism. Just as the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priests, so the New Testament text was preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, that is by true believers in every walk of life. And this providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the true text is found not only in the text of the majority of the New Testament manuscripts but more especially in the Textus Receptus and in faithful translations of the Textus Receptus, such as the King James Version. In short, the Textus Receptus represents the God-guided revision of the majority text.
Burgon mingled his faith with his New Testament textual criticism, urging the providential preservation of the Scriptures as the chief argument in favor of the traditional (majority) New Testament text. It was for this breach of etiquette that he was regarded as not truly scholarly. But isn't it possible to escape this stigma and still do a good job of defending the majority text? Isn't it possible to drop Burgon's emphasis on the special, providential preservation of Scripture and rely solely on more acceptable arguments? Hodges, Pickering and Van Bruggen seem to think that this is possible, but in so thinking they are badly mistaken. The same thing must be said of them that has just been said of Dr. Warfield. In spite of their good intentions, their thinking is pointed toward modernism and unbelief. For if the providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is unimportant for the defense of the New Testament text, then it must have been unimportant for the history of the New Testament text and hence non-existent and not a fact. And if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not a fact, why should we suppose that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is a fact? For inspiration and preservation go together.
Hodges and Pickering try to substitute their theory of statistical probability for Burgon's doctrine of the special providential preservation of the Scriptures. According to these two scholars, statistical probability shows that whenever the transmission of an ancient book has been normal, the best text is found in the majority of the manuscripts. The transmission of the New Testament text has been normal. Hence the text found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts is the best New Testament text.
In advancing this argument, however, Hodges and Pickering contradict themselves. For they both claim to believe in the providential preservation of the Scriptures, and if this providential preservation is a fact, then something is true of the New Testament which is not true of the transmission of other ancient books. Hence the transmission of the New Testament cannot have been normal. And even from a naturalistic point of view their argument is faulty. For the New Testament is a religious book, and the transmission of a religious book is never normal because it is transmitted mainly by believers who do not regard it as a normal book. 
IV. SCHOLASTICISM VERSUS THE LOGIC OF FAITH
Conservative theological seminaries organized on the scholastic model, separating faith and reason, inevitably become modernistic and unbelieving. The area allotted to reason is steadily enlarged and that remaining for faith correspondingly decreased. The box labeled FAITH is emptied, while REASON'S box is crammed to the full. This process of deterioration cannot be avoided because as soon as we give reason an equal place with faith in our thinking we have no true faith at all. God is the Supreme Reality, the Source of all things real, and therefore, we must believe on Him as such. We must allow nothing else to be as real to us as God. If we found even part of our thinking on a set of rational principles which are independent of God, then we are no longer believing but doubting.
We see, therefore, that if Westminster Seminary is to preserve itself from modernism, it must purge itself from all remnants of scholasticism. It must rid itself completely from every tendency to separate reason from faith. And especially must it do this in the department of New Testament textual criticism. In this area particularly it must put away the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort and others like them and follow the logic of faith, which runs like this:
Because the Gospel is true and necessary for the salvation of souls, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly inspired and has been preserved by God's special providence, not secretly in holes and caves, but publicly in the usage of God's Church. Moreover, this special providence did not cease with the invention of printing. Therefore, the true New Testament text is found today in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, in the Textus Receptus, and in the King James Version and other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. And therefore also this same preserving providence operating today through the agency of all those true believers, however humble, who retain and defend the King James Version. 

Article: _How Dr. Hills Became a KJV Believer _By Dr. E. F. Hills

Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin scholar and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the B.D. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field

Taken from KJV Believer


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 2, 2008)

Wow. Until I got to the bottom of this and saw this was an article you took from somewhere, all I could think the whole time I was reading it was, "You were in high school in the 1920s and you're still on the PB??"


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 2, 2008)

I know, that is why I put the article the way I did so that people can read it like so and conclude that it was not mine, but a repected reformed scholar and one who did the research/work for us to read the KJV/TR.


----------



## GTMOPC (Dec 2, 2008)

Blueridge Believer said:


> I'd use the same one the Westminster divines used.



Which one was that? (Forgive my ignorance, I really don't know!)


-----Added 12/2/2008 at 04:51:27 EST-----



victorbravo said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > victorbravo said:
> ...



Google "Davar3" I just ran across this free app. the other day similar to e-Sword. It has several versions of both the Greek and Hebrew texts.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 2, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



I have both (as Vic does) but I don't know if anyone has ever parallelled the two (the differences are so small that I'm not sure a market for a full parallel version would make sense). 

I am pretty sure that both the UBS4 and NA27 critical editions with the full text apparatus at the bottom of the pages includes all the places where the TR differs from the eclectic text.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Wow. Until I got to the bottom of this and saw this was an article you took from somewhere, all I could think the whole time I was reading it was, "You were in high school in the 1920s and you're still on the PB??"


----------



## nicnap (Dec 2, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high school days in the 1920's.



Whoa! I read that, and then checked your profile...then I realized you had put the entire article up. I was going to ask you the secret to your longevity and sharpness of mind. 

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 07:11:47 EST-----

After finishing the thread, I am glad I am not the only one who thought that.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 2, 2008)

People are saying stuff.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 2, 2008)

Textus Receptus - Anything that has Theodore Beza's seal of approval on it! Actually a real KJV user knows that not only is TR preserved, but that it is the closest to the originals. 

The idea that we have to 'find' out the NT is almost a myth. With so many manuscripts available, we don't have to look for hitherto unknown texts. The translators knew of most of the manuscripts that go into 'modern' versions, but rejected them. And for good reasons. I'm not a scholar, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to do a little historical research to find the truth either.


----------



## Honor (Dec 2, 2008)

it's all greek to me
 ok backing out slowly.... I just always wanted to say that...
sorry consider this your commercial break
now back to the topic.....


----------



## Grymir (Dec 2, 2008)

Honor said:


> it's all greek to me
> ok backing out slowly.... I just always wanted to say that...
> sorry consider this your commercial break
> now back to the topic.....


----------



## nicnap (Dec 2, 2008)

Honor said:


> it's all greek to me
> ok backing out slowly.... I just always wanted to say that...
> sorry consider this your commercial break
> now back to the topic.....


----------



## Grymir (Dec 2, 2008)

Hey y'all, I've been reading Rushdoony's "The Death of Meaning". One of the interesting statements is that modern philosophers differ from the ancients by method. Meaning, Plato, Socrates, and the other early ones were on a quest for the ultimate meaning, or metaphisics. Rushdoony said that the modern philosophers get wraped up in the method. That the method of knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. I was re-reading this thread while contemplating this.

hmmm


----------

