# Do you favor either the Critical or Majority Greek Text?



## Dachaser (Mar 3, 2017)

In regards to the one that would be best for either studying or translation use?
As I was taught in school some intro textual criticism, but that involved just the Critical Greek text, not the Majority/BZT text, so would there be any viable reason to use that one instead?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> In regards to the one that would be best for either studying or translation use?
> As I was taught in school some intro textual criticism, but that involved just the Critical Greek text, not the Majority/BZT text, so would there be any viable reason to use that one instead?



First, I think we need to make sure we do not associate textual criticism exclusively with the Critical Text. Textual criticism is/was very much involved in every major textual tradition, including the Majority and _Textus Receptus_. In this way, all three are "critical" texts.

Second, as to the scholarship question, scholarship is about looking at as wide a variety of sources as possible in a a particular field for the purpose of making sound and informed conclusions. To only use one Greek manuscript tradition, especially in the age of resources like The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and to commit oneself to the study of one set, family, or tradition of manuscripts (in _scholarship_, *not* translation; do not hear what I am not saying), would be, in my opinion, very un-scholarly.

Third, as to the translation question, obviously in that situation one must make a choice. It is impossible to be a translation of the Majority Text when the Critical Text is used as another basis. Using more than one textual tradition is by definition eclectic. It is to be assumed that, in order for a translation to take shape, scholarship must have already taken place, and thus a decision made regarding which manuscript/critical tradition is to be used for the particular work. That's why I separated scholarship and translation for the purpose of answering this question.

In the end, there are benefits and pitfalls to each, like most everything else.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> In regards to the one that would be best for either studying or translation use?



Are you looking for a Greek text from which to do your own translation?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 3, 2017)

KMK said:


> Are you looking for a Greek text from which to do your own translation?


I am currently using the Nestle-Aland 16th edition, with the UBS 3rd edition texts, but was wondering how much of a difference there is between them and the Majority text? And do not translate, but do use them to study the scriptures in their original languages...


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2017)

A Greek New Testament which proposes to offer a critical text is dependent on the information available at the time. With every new piece of information the text inevitably changes. New data does not need to come to light in order to create a change; it only requires a new method for looking at the data to compel change. "The critical text," therefore, does not exist. It cannot reach definitive form. If it did it would cease to be "critical." The idea of making an appeal to "the critical text" is a contradiction in terms.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 4, 2017)

I believe it is of practical necessity to accept a fixed, common text and no form of textual criticism will ever give us that. Therefore, I favor the TR as the common text with important Byzantine variants addressed in the apparatus. 

The TR is THE ONLY printed edition that can provide us with a common text being the historically established text of the Protestant Reformation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 6, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> The TR is THE ONLY printed edition that can provide us with a common text being the historically established text of the Protestant Reformation.



Out of curiousity, which TR edition is that? One of the Elzevir editions? One of Erasmus'? Scrivener's compilation from the late 1800s? Or some other?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Mar 6, 2017)

Logan said:


> Out of curiousity, which TR edition is that? One of the Elzevir editions? One of Erasmus'? Scrivener's compilation from the late 1800s? Or some other?



Maybe the one that the framers of the WCF used?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 6, 2017)

Logan said:


> Out of curiousity, which TR edition is that? One of the Elzevir editions? One of Erasmus'? Scrivener's compilation from the late 1800s? Or some other?



Since I'm not making any sort of absolutist sort of argument, the question of which edition of the TR is virtually irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things, the differences between the various editions of the TR are very minor and you have to look long and hard to find them. Where there are variants in the editions they should be footnoted in the apparatus along with other text critical observations.

Using the TR as the common text does not mean the exegete must go with every TR reading...this is why an apparatus would be helpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Mar 6, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> I believe it is of practical necessity to accept a fixed, common text and no form of textual criticism will ever give us that.



The _Textus Receptus _came about without any form textual criticism?


----------



## MW (Mar 6, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The _Textus Receptus _came about without any form textual criticism?



The textual criticism took place within the warp and woof of textual transmission and tradition on the firm belief that God had preserved His word in the church. As such it looks nothing like what is today called the science (or "the art") of textual criticism. There was no idea that the Scriptures must be reconstructed from scratch as if this were an ordinary piece of human writing subject to all the usual historical processes of corruption.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 6, 2017)

I'm not a pastor. For the OP, if you want something to practice translating for your studies I don't think it matters. I'm sure you'll eventually use the various texts no matter what side you fall on.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 6, 2017)

MW said:


> The textual criticism took place within the warp and woof of textual transmission and tradition on the firm belief that God had preserved His word in the church. As such it looks nothing like what is today called the science (or "the art") of textual criticism. There was no idea that the Scriptures must be reconstructed from scratch as if this were an ordinary piece of human writing subject to all the usual historical processes of corruption.



Well-put and well-taken. I was simply inquiring about the claim that "*no* form of textual criticism will ever give us" a "fixed, common text," which, frankly, makes me scratch my head in light of the fact that we can pinpoint a particular point in history when the "fixed, common text" referred to in the above post itself became "fixed [and] common"—and that through at least _a _form of textual criticism, albeit nothing close to what we see in today's eclectic text(s).

But, perhaps I am mistaken when I think that the "fixed, common text" referred to is the _Textus Receptus_. Perhaps it could be referring to a particular family of texts. Please correct me if so; I am eager to learn!


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 11, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Well-put and well-taken. I was simply inquiring about the claim that "*no* form of textual criticism will ever give us" a "fixed, common text," which, frankly, makes me scratch my head in light of the fact that we can pinpoint a particular point in history when the "fixed, common text" referred to in the above post itself became "fixed [and] common"—and that through at least _a _form of textual criticism, albeit nothing close to what we see in today's eclectic text(s).
> 
> But, perhaps I am mistaken when I think that the "fixed, common text" referred to is the _Textus Receptus_. Perhaps it could be referring to a particular family of texts. Please correct me if so; I am eager to learn!



I am referring to "textual criticism" as it is understood today.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 12, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> I believe it is of practical necessity to accept a fixed, common text and no form of textual criticism will ever give us that. Therefore, I favor the TR as the common text with important Byzantine variants addressed in the apparatus.
> 
> The TR is THE ONLY printed edition that can provide us with a common text being the historically established text of the Protestant Reformation.


Good to see you on here brother Truelove.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 14, 2017)

Logan said:


> Out of curiousity, which TR edition is that? One of the Elzevir editions? One of Erasmus'? Scrivener's compilation from the late 1800s? Or some other?


Great point, as there has really been NO single agreed upon standard text used even for the KJVO persons, as there were 5 different versions used by eramus at that time as the TR text!

Think that most would tend to see the 1894 edition of the Schriverner Greek text as being THE TR for today...

Reactions: Like 1


----------

