# "Majority" or "Recieved" vs. "Critical" text?



## matthew11v25

*\"Majority\" or \"Recieved\" vs. \"Critical\" text?*

Here on the board members generally use either the ESV or NKJV. I am interested...

1.Why the CT is being used more frequently now (newer translations, etc) and there have not been any translations of the RT (except NKJV 1979)? Is there a reason for this...maybe the NKJV is considered top of the line.

2.Does it really matter if you use a translation from CT or RT? Is the disagreement between use of CT and RT because of historical use, etc?

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by matthew11v25]

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by matthew11v25]


----------



## SolaScriptura

Well, the MT is simply called "majority" because the Byzantines made more copies of their family of texts than any other single group. It is not that it represents the majority consensus of all the texts of the various textual groups.
(It would be analogous to saying that the NIV is the "modern majority text" by virtue of the fact that there are more copies and versions of this one "type" of text than any other type. But ask yourself: does the fact that the publishers of the NIV manage to spit out more copies necessarily mean that it is the BEST translation? Though 1500 years from now biblical scholars may think so by virtue of the vast proliferation of it that they will find...)

If you actually use the critical apparatus in NA27, then you'll see that even when there are variants between the NA27 reading and the MT they are usually of a relatively insignificant nature - as are virtually all of even the semi-credible variants.


----------



## matthew11v25

I have seen many "pro-majority text" websites. But are there any articles, etc, that make good argument for CT?


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> Here on the board members generally use either the ESV or NKJV. I am interested...
> 
> 1.Why the CT is being used more frequently now (newer translations, etc) and there have not been any translations of the MT (except NKJ 1979)? Is there a reason for this...maybe the NKJV is considered top of the line.
> 
> 2.Does it really matter if you use a translation from CT or MT? Is the disagreement between use of CT and MT because of historical use, etc?



Great question.

The NKJV isn't based on the Majority Text, but the Textus Receptus (Received Text) . It is supposedly very close to the MT, much closer than the CT. Higher scholarship seems to think the CT is more reliable, although there are many who seem to think otherwise. My position has been that:

1) I will never be qualified to engage in textual criticism myself.

2) I might as well accept the longer ending of Mark, John 8, and all the other so called "additions", because I am not qualified to question their authenticity. 

3) I go with the NKJV.


----------



## Arch2k

I haven't dealved into textual criticism a whole lot, but Gordon Clark has a helpful article on the Trinity Foundation entitled "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism." He ends up supporting the Majority Text, with the best translation being the NKJV.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> The NKJV isn't based on the Majority Text, but the Textus Receptus (Received Text) .



Rick,

You are right. excuse the mix up.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I haven't dealved into textual criticism a whole lot, but Gordon Clark has a helpful article on the Trinity Foundation entitled "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism." He ends up supporting the Majority Text, with the best translation being the NKJV.



I would be interested to read his arguments. Before I purchase another Bible I want to understand the texts a little better.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew,

I'm a Textus Receptus guy (not KJVO, though the KJV is my preference; I also use the 1599 Geneva Bible). So, with that said, if you haven't read material from the Trinitarian Bible Society, you might want to check out their literature on textual criticism issues. It's pretty good, I think.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Trinitarian Bible Society, you might want to check out their literature on textual criticism issues. It's pretty good, I think.



Thanks Andrew.

Anyone know of any articles for the defense of CT?


----------



## SolaScriptura

I haven't read any of the articles on textual criticism posited above... but if they're anything like what I read back when I was actually interested in responding to those the-KJV-is-the-only-legitimate-translation clowns... then they'll say something to the effect that the critical text is liberal, those who use it do so to deny the Trinity, blah, blah, blah...
Again, I could be wrong (as I haven't read the articles recommended above) but I have had my fill of arguments for the MT.

I do not know of any particular article in favor of the CT. However, there are some good books/booklets that discuss the various issues involved in translation theory, etc...
I can tell you that after comparing the Greek manuscripts, though there are a few well documented cases where this is not true, in the vast majority of the cases I believe that the evidence leads to a vast confidence that the scribes who made copies of the biblical texts did a good job being faithful to keep the text preserved. I am convinced that a given versions translation theory is ultimately more significant than the text they start from.
I'd check out:
"Bible Translation Differences" by Leland Ryken

If you have some Greek knowledge, I'd recommend
"A Textual Commentary of the Greek NT" by Metzger - in it Metzger goes over the significant textual variants and explains why a given reading was accepted. Also, any good technical commentary on a given book of the Bible will do the same thing. 

Also... If you're really bored, or just needing some help falling asleep at night, there are many books published on various facets of textual criticism... and many are from a conservative standpoint. I'd recommend getting at least one in order to become familiar with the methodology and rationale... even if you ultimately decide that for you it'll be nothing but the Byzantine texts, thank you very much!

It is important to note that in the Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek NT, the MT is not ignored. It is one of many sources that are weighed and evaluated. The MT is a good source and you'll notice that whenever they deviate from it there is _usually_ good reason (like a mountain of evidence against it) or in some cases the evidence is virtually equal on both sides (example, in some cases half the sources will say "Jesus Christ" and the other half will say "Christ Jesus" in a given verse). 

By way of another illustration... keeping in mind that all the MT is is the Byzantine text... the person who says "If I want to know what the Bible says I'll just read the MT" is like the person who, when asked what the Reformed position on a given matter is, will just quote Calvin. Of course, Calvin is a good source... but he isn't the only source from which the Reformed position on any matter has been articulated!

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## heartoflesh

Here's some TR/MT resources by Theodore Letis:

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html


----------



## BlackCalvinist

CT/Reasoned Ecclecticism is en vogue. You won't find many defenses because.... it's the norm.

I tend to be a Maj/Byz Text person myself, but i'll read an ESV (the ESV is based off of the NA27 if I'm right), NIV or NASB. 

I have a few resources on my site regarding text transmission, textual critcism and such. I don't agree with providential preservationists like Hill, Holland (I think that's his name) and Letis because their argumentation is flawed, in my opinion. I still respect them though and proudly accept them as brothers in the Lord.

Robinson and Pierpont have a good article from their Majority text of the NT. It's on the web somewhere, but I'm too lazy now to go to my site and find the link.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> CT/Reasoned Ecclecticism is en vogue. You won't find many defenses because.... it's the norm.



interesting.


----------



## JOwen

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew,
> 
> I'm a Textus Receptus guy (not KJVO, though the KJV is my preference; I also use the 1599 Geneva Bible).


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> CT/Reasoned Ecclecticism is en vogue. You won't find many defenses because.... it's the norm.
> 
> I tend to be a Maj/Byz Text person myself, but i'll read an ESV (the ESV is based off of the NA27 if I'm right), NIV or NASB.
> 
> I have a few resources on my site regarding text transmission, textual critcism and such. I don't agree with providential preservationists like Hill, Holland (I think that's his name) and Letis because their argumentation is flawed, in my opinion. I still respect them though and proudly accept them as brothers in the Lord.
> 
> Robinson and Pierpont have a good article from their Majority text of the NT. It's on the web somewhere, but I'm too lazy now to go to my site and find the link.



I agree in the main.


----------



## Puritanhead

where is the ESV derived from?


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> where is the ESV derived from?



"The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV´s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition. In this regard the footnotes that accompany the ESV text are an integral part of the ESV translation, informing the reader of textual variations and difficulties and showing how these have been resolved by the ESV translation team. In addition to this, the footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding."

From: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/preface/


----------



## Authorised

Along with Andrew and Jerrold, I believe that the TR is the best available text for translation.


I use all the translations (mostly older) which have translated from this text, but my preference out of them is the Authorised version.


----------



## larryjf

> But are there any articles, etc, that make good argument for CT?


Here are some links that may be of interest...

Info on versions and textual criticism...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/

About the bible & ancient manuscripts...
http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/Contents.htm

This website is clearly pro-critical text...
http://www.bibletexts.com/

Info regarding different critical editions...
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> CT/Reasoned Ecclecticism is en vogue. You won't find many defenses because.... it's the norm.
> 
> I tend to be a Maj/Byz Text person myself, but i'll read an ESV (the ESV is based off of the NA27 if I'm right), NIV or NASB.
> 
> I have a few resources on my site regarding text transmission, textual critcism and such. I don't agree with providential preservationists like Hill, Holland (I think that's his name) and Letis because their argumentation is flawed, in my opinion. I still respect them though and proudly accept them as brothers in the Lord.
> 
> Robinson and Pierpont have a good article from their Majority text of the NT. It's on the web somewhere, but I'm too lazy now to go to my site and find the link.



It's the norm because the CT is simply a superior text. Older manuscripts, broader geographical representation, agreement with Fathers and versions, yyy.

One thing we can really thank all the godless pagans in Europe (specifically Germany) for is their hard work on recovering the text. Talk about providence...with a hint of irony.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Along with Andrew and Jerrold, I believe that the TR is the best available text for translation.
> 
> 
> I use all the translations (mostly older) which have translated from this text, but my preference out of them is the Authorised version.



Erasmus said of the TR that it was "thrown together, rather than edited." And he was the editor!


----------



## DocCas

I hesitate to begin posting on the forum commenting on such a potentially contentious topic but "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread." (Alexander Pope, 1688-1744), so, here goes!

I will consolidate responses to several posters in just one offering.

Two of the best books in print supporting/defending/defining the Critical Text position are _"The Text of the New Testament"_ by Bruce Metzger and _"The Text of the New Testament"_ by Kurt and Barbara Aland.

In juxtaposition to the above books would be _"The Identity of the New Testament Text"_ by Wilbur Pickering which defends the Traditional or Majority Text.

My studies in this field began about 50 years ago when there were few choices in Greek texts. My first Greek text was Stephens' 1550 edition as published by George Ricker Berry in 1897. (No, I am not _*that*_ old, it was a reprint!)

However, when in Seminary I was introduced to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, first edition of 1966. When the second edition came out in 1968 I immediately purchased the new and improved edition. Then in 1975 I purchased the third edition, and in 1993 I purchased the fourth edition.

I have found the UBS textual apparatus to be extremely useful in determining the scope of manuscript evidence supporting the different variants to be found in the Greek manuscripts.

However, after studying the theories of textual criticism and the rules for determining the most probably reading as put forth by Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, the Alands, etc., I was not entirely satisfied that their "rules of textual criticism" would lead to the correct reading. So I began to study the writings of Burgeon, Scrivener, Kenyon and others who seemed to take a slightly (or in Burgon's case, extremely) different position on some issues I believed to be important.

I soon came to the personal conclusion that the Byzantine textform was more likely to reflect the original reading than the Alexandrian textform which is largely reflected in the UBS editions of the Critical text.

So, today I champion the Byzantine textform but do not condemn the Alexandrian textform nor the editions of the Critical text emanating from it. (I still use my USB/4 and still find the textual apparatus to be the best presently in print.) However, I do prefer the Byzantine textform and read my Majority Text (both of them, Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont) as well as my "Textus Receptus" (Scrivener's 1894 edition) and consider them to be my base authority when determining the likelihood of a variant reading.

However, in my studies I have found that most of the charges leveled against the "Modern Versions" by those who espouse the "King James Only" movement are simply wrong. The vast majority of all the variants between the two major representatives of the differing textforms are minor and present no problems with any historic doctrine of the Christian faith.

What, in my opinion, must be avoided in this type of discussion is the precipitous insistence that one textform is unquestionably superior to the other. If it was unquestionable there wouldn't be so many questions! 

The criteria I use in my study of textual issues would include the following.

1. Number. The majority reading will most likely be the correct reading. Hort even agrees to this, then explains away why he ignored it.  

2. Age. The older reading will be closer to the autograph and will most likely preserve the original reading. However, there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. The oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. 

3. Acceptance, or historicity. The churches down through the ages of church history will have most likely used the correct texts. 

4. Geography. The Palestinian/Syrian/Asia Minor/Southern European churches were the churches to which the autographs were addressed and those churches were much more likely to have the correct readings as they had, at least for a time, the autographs to compare their copies to. 

5. Agreement. A variety of witnesses attest to the same reading, i.e., mss, Patristics, Versions, lectionaries, etc. It is an error to place, for instance, in my opinion, the lettered uncials above all other types of witnesses. We should look at all the variety of witnesses and see which reading is evident in all of the different types of witnesses across the entire spectrum of the evidence. 

6. Credibility. Credibility of a witness is of course a relative term. Among the witnesses to a reading, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as credible to most objective critics. However, virtually unknown cites, dragged from the depths of obscurity would probably not be credible witnesses. 

7. Context and other internal considerations. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context are important internal evidences for a reading. This has nothing to do with "transcriptional probability" or "intrinsic probability" as championed by Westcott and Hort. I agree with Bengel on this issue. "No conjecture is ever on any consideration to be listened to. It is safer to bracket any portion of the text, which may haply to appear to labour under inextricable difficulties." 

Good discussion. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Wannabee

Good post DocCas.

I was going to mention Metzger's book as well. You might find "How to Choose a Bible Version" by Robert Thomas of benefit as well. It's biased toward the NU/CT, but give a fair view of the MT. The TR has significant problems and simply didn't exist until Erasmus pulled it together. Although he did the best he could in the end, there are too many compromises.

I used to favor the MT, but now consider the NU to be better. The challenge is very indepth and in some places extremely complicated. There are no cut and dry answers and each variant has to be considered individually. DocCas has obviously put in much time and his discussion should be seriously considered.


----------



## JM

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> Here on the board members generally use either the ESV or NKJV. I am interested...
> 
> 1.Why the CT is being used more frequently now (newer translations, etc) and there have not been any translations of the RT (except NKJV 1979)? Is there a reason for this...maybe the NKJV is considered top of the line.
> 
> 2.Does it really matter if you use a translation from CT or RT? Is the disagreement between use of CT and RT because of historical use, etc?
> 
> [Edited on 3-24-2005 by matthew11v25]
> 
> [Edited on 3-24-2005 by matthew11v25]



I only use the KJV (I'm not a KJV onlyist/Ruckmanite), because I believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture, the words in Scripture are given to us by God. 

To be consistent in theology I would then view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation. The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both?

This doesn't mean a better translation can't be had, but it would have to be a literal translation based on the TR.


----------



## smallbeans

Hard Knox - that doesn't really work:

1. meaning of words - you are defining two concepts - "the eclectic text" and "dynamic equivalence" by looking up the words "eclectic" and "dynamic" in the dictionary and then relating them based on similarity of meaning. But that's not how you figure out what something is - the people who wrote that dictionary looked themselves at how the words were used and weren't reading biblical scholarship to figure out those meanings, you can almost be sure. We need to draw our definitions for concepts from the contexts in which those concepts are employed.

2. there is always a "with respect to whatness" of any statement. One may favor the majority text and yet prefer to translate it in such a way as to insure that the meaning comes across to modern English readers. That's because one might be a rigorist with respect to textual critical values and yet have a high value of the ease of communication with respect to translation. There's no obvious inconsistency there.

3. All translation work involves interpretive work. There's an unavoidability to it. So every bible interprets as it translates. I'm not sure what the dynamic equivalent of "quit you like men" is today, but it certainly wouldn't be inferior to that archaic expression in the KJV.

On this manuscript issue, I just don't understand why we would want to limit ourselves to any manuscript family - it seems like all the textual evidence is relevant, the only question is how to weigh that evidence. I'm sure that the translators of the ESV put plenty of footnotes into their text when they disagreed with the Nestle-Aland. But that's the beauty of the critical apparatus. You could literally take the Nestle Aland and, via the apparatus, read the "majority text." 

Frankly, I wish I could read any Greek text with greater facility, much less one particular text. My Greek abilities are so meager that even the worst English translations are better than I could do. That's why I appreciate translations like the ESV which try to look for root-word repetition and preserve it in translation. The idea in "root word repetition" is that you choose a way you're going to handle a particular Greek or Hebrew word in a given context and then strive to consistently use that English word rather than other synonyms. In written English, it is good style to vary your vocabulary. But in reading the Bible it is sometimes helpful to know when the original text used the same word over and over in order to make a point. And so that's why I like the ESV.

I do find the ESV hard to understand sometimes because, well, the Bible is hard to understand sometimes. That's why I still think it is probably not the best Bible for children since they need to be led by the hand. But for adults who can light a pipe and read something over and over and ponder it, the ESV is really great.


----------



## JM

I typed out a massive response and when I hit the reply button lost it! I thought about retyping it but I don't believe it to be a fruitful endeavor.

Peace


----------



## smallbeans

No problem. I didn't mean to get all pedantic. It probably comes from being really personally convicted by D.A. Carson's great book "Exegetical Fallacies" - a lot of seminary for me was spent reading these kind of critical thinking books and trying to make sure I wasn't reasoning fallaciously. That Carson book rocked me in a lot of ways because I was made aware of a lot of linguistic fallacies that I was unwittingly committing. It led me to read more about semantics, genre, context, and levels of discourse too, and those things convinced me even further of the importance of using clean intellectual tools.


----------



## RickyReformed

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew,
> 
> I'm a Textus Receptus guy (not KJVO, though the KJV is my preference; I also use the 1599 Geneva Bible).
Click to expand...




This article by Gary Crampton is very good http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=197

But Rick Larson's recommendation is even better. Letis is no textual slouch.


----------

