# English Bible translations based on the majority text?



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

Hello all, I was wondering if there was any modern English Bibles that are based on the majority texts? I am not looking for ones based on the TR, but majority text. As far as I can tell these are two different things. If I am in error though, please let me know.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 31, 2022)

I understand a translation called the World English Bible is a Majority text Bible





World English Bible


World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible: Messianic Edition, World Messianic Bible, American Standard Version of the Holy Bible, Kahunapule Michael and Lori Johnson



worldenglish.bible

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

There is also Green’s Literal Translation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Hello all, I was wondering if there was any modern English Bibles that are based on the majority texts? I am not looking for ones based on the TR, but majority text. As far as I can tell these are two different things. If I am in error though, please let me know.


The TR and the majority text are 99.9% the same. One is the Byzantine text as edited by Erasmus, Stephanie, and Beza and the other is a modern edition of the Byzantine text with a little different comparative method. Given that there's already some variation between the TR editions, I tend to group the majority text with the TR.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The TR and the majority text are 99.9% the same. One is the Byzantine text as edited by Erasmus, Stephanie, and Beza and the other is a modern edition of the Byzantine text with a little different comparative method. Given that there's already some variation between the TR editions, I tend to group the majority text with the TR.


They are largely the same, but there are some major differences in the later Johannine literature, especially Revelation. In many places in Revelation, the TR agrees with neither the MT or CT.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

Thanks for the info. I will look into the web and greens. I also need to get myself a NKJV reference Bible with textual notes. I don't have one of those yet. I am realizing all I have is critical text translations, not that this is bad, but I wanted to do some comparing.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

I see that "The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible". Does this mean that the ASV is also majority text?


----------



## yeutter (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I see that "The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible". Does this mean that the ASV is also majority text?


No the 1901 ASV, like the 1886 RV were translations of the critical text.

Many people who like the ASV for its literal, if at times somewhat awkward translation.

I have not looked at the American Standard Version Byzantine Text, but I suspect it is someone taking the passages where the ASV differed from the majority Byzantine Text and re-translated the particular passages from the Byzantine. 
I

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I also need to get myself a NKJV reference Bible with textual notes.


This is s good plan for what you are seeking. The NKJV editors were Majority Text guys so even though it is TR in the main they pointed out Majority deviations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 1, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The TR and the majority text are 99.9% the same. One is the Byzantine text as edited by Erasmus, Stephanie, and Beza and the other is a modern edition of the Byzantine text with a little different comparative method. Given that there's already some variation between the TR editions, I tend to group the majority text with the TR.


I would disagree with this primarily because the methodology, at least as it is expressed today, is different. I'd also distinguish between the Majority Text (which I believe limits itself to Byzantine texts) and the Byzantine Priority, which, as the name suggests, prioritizes the Byzantine text but considers all textual evidence. TR methodology is significantly different in practice.



retroGRAD3 said:


> I see that "The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible". Does this mean that the ASV is also majority text?



The ASV (because it was public domain) was used as the base English translation for the WEB, but the underlying Greek text used the Byzantine Priority. And it is not a precise reproduction of the ASV either, as the entire flow has been re-worked. I've been using it for two years and have enjoyed it.

Honestly, you will be very hard pressed to notice differences from your CT translations unless you sit down and compare. You can find the WEB for free online.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Thanks for the info. I will look into the web and greens. I also need to get myself a NKJV reference Bible with textual notes. I don't have one of those yet. I am realizing all I have is critical text translations, not that this is bad, but I wanted to do some comparing.


I think that the NKJV you can read online at Bible Gateway has those textual notes. Unless there's a hard copy reference Bible with greater detail that I'm not aware of, that's primarily how I try to catch any text critical issues significant enough that I ought to be aware of them when I'm preparing.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 1, 2022)

Thanks for the info. I usually like to try and get paper versions as I'm not much of an ebook person. I understand it might be challenging for the WEB, but I will give it a try. Otherwise I will use the online versions.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 1, 2022)

As a summary, so it looks like there are only 2 TR translations (KJV, NKJV) and 2 Majority Text translations (WEB, Green) and every other english translation is using the Critical Text?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Thanks for the info. I usually like to try and get paper versions as I'm not much of an ebook person. I understand it might be challenging for the WEB, but I will give it a try. Otherwise I will use the online versions.


I wouldn’t get the WEB in physical copy. It is still something if a work in progress (thought not near as much as it was), as little edits are being suggested and made regularly.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I wouldn’t get the WEB in physical copy. It is still something if a work in progress (thought not near as much as it was), as little edits are being suggested and made regularly.


Yes, I was just researching them and the report did not look great at the moment. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 1, 2022)

Sorry for another double post but final question for now. 

Does anyone know of a good print copy of the NKJV with references and textual notes? I am looking for a nice one on good paper with good formatting, that isn't printed in China on cheap paper with no care.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sorry for another double post but final question for now.
> 
> Does anyone know of a good print copy of the NKJV with references and textual notes? I am looking for a nice one on good paper with good formatting, that isn't printed in China on cheap paper with no care.


Anything from Cambridge or Schuyler would be good, but you’re going to pay for it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> As a summary, so it looks like there are only 2 TR translations (KJV, NKJV) and 2 Majority Text translations (WEB, Green) and every other english translation is using the Critical Text?


There is an English Majority Text Version based on Robinson-Pierpont. As far as I know, it is only digital. But it is “Byzantine Priority” not strictly Majority

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## danekristjan (Feb 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> There is also Green’s Literal Translation.


Green translated from the TR fyi. But as you pointed out, while methodologies leading to the finished texts differ greatly, the text of the TR and the majority/Byzantine text are largely the same.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 1, 2022)

So in the end, I will use the online versions of the WEB for majority. Then, I ordered a Cambridge NKJV Clarion for a nice TR (also its not one that completely breaks the bank), which has references and textual notes. One day I think I will get a cambridge NASB (1995), which at the moment is my favorite critical text bible. Thanks all for the input.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Feb 1, 2022)

Another lesser known version is the EMTV: https://ebible.org/engemtv/INT01.htm

I think the NKJV with textual notes is the best option, as it will show you the differences of the TR with the MT (and CT).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Green translated from the TR fyi. But as you pointed out, while methodologies leading to the finished texts differ greatly, the text of the TR and the majority/Byzantine text are largely the same.


Oops! Yes, you're right. I was mistaken about Green's translation. I think I may have been confusing it with Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal New Testament, which _is_ based on the Majority Text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach (Feb 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Oops! Yes, you're right. I was mistaken about Green's translation. I think I may have been confusing it with Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal New Testament, which _is_ based on the Majority Text.


This thread is adding all kinds of Bibles to my to buy list and to my translations to compare document for sermon preparation! Do you know of any free electronic version for Zeolla's translation?

I don't know anything about him but a brief skim of his website says he's a fellow Penn State alumnus so he must be a good guy...


----------



## Physeter (Feb 1, 2022)

I have a KJV Thompson Chain that I enjoy. It cost me 80 dollars.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2022)

Zach said:


> This thread is adding all kinds of Bibles to my to buy list and to my translations to compare document for sermon preparation! Do you know of any free electronic version for Zeolla's translation?
> 
> I don't know anything about him but a brief skim of his website says he's a fellow Penn State alumnus so he must be a good guy...


I don’t think I know where you can get his translation for free. I looked a while back and came up empty.

His website is odd. For one thing, it looks like it was designed on Microsoft Frontpage in 1995. For another, his diversity of interests is…intriguing. lol

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 1, 2022)

I find it interesting how many people are MT (rather than TR) but not a single major translation is based on that text type. Not to denigrate the WEB but there’s not even anything on the order of a CSB or LSB in the majority text.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I find it interesting how many people are MT (rather than TR) but not a single major translation is based on that text type. Not to denigrate the WEB but there’s not even anything on the order of a CSB or LSB in the majority text.


It’s just not a well-known position or well-advocated-for position. Add to this that there is, in my estimation, a technocratic elitism surrounding the CT, which pressures many people to shy away from even questioning it. There is also such a large number of fruit-loop knuckleheads on the TR side that many of the more militant CT advocates, like James White, use it to their advantage, further bolstering CT elitism and, with it, greater fear of departure from the CT. These two groups usually take up so much air time that balanced voices such as Maurice Robinson get drowned out.

Not very eloquent, but this is my assessment.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> It’s just not a well-known position or well-advocated-for position. Add to this that there is, in my estimation, a technocratic elitism surrounding the CT, which pressures many people to shy away from even questioning it. There is also such a large number of fruit-loop knuckleheads on the TR side that many of the more militant CT advocates, like James White, use it to their advantage, further bolstering CT elitism and, with it, greater fear of departure from the CT. These two groups usually take up so much air time that balanced voices such as Maurice Robinson get drowned out.
> 
> Not very eloquent, but this is my assessment.


Bingo.

There is a contingency of us who do not hold to the CT position at the seminary. The breakdown of guys who hold to non-CT positions might be 2/3 MT and 1/3 TR. Myself and a few others hold to the TR position. What I've noticed though, is that most of the guys use the NKJV primarily. The MT guys really enjoy it and advocate for its use. I primarily use the KJV but always have my NKJV nearby for different translation methods (modern definitions from a translation committee in our time). I think they prefer it for the text notes, which give a pretty clear assessment of what the MT says without going to the Greek.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 1, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sorry for another double post but final question for now.
> 
> Does anyone know of a good print copy of the NKJV with references and textual notes? I am looking for a nice one on good paper with good formatting, that isn't printed in China on cheap paper with no care.


Jason, this is the ISBN for a NKJV such as you mentioned, though you'll have to hunt for a decent low-priced copy: 9781558196520

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Feb 2, 2022)

Jake said:


> Another lesser known version is the EMTV: https://ebible.org/engemtv/INT01.htm
> 
> I think the NKJV with textual notes is the best option, as it will show you the differences of the TR with the MT (and CT).


I agree. If you have the NKJV, you have a faithful translation with essentially a picture of the entire textual landscape. In the main body you have the text of the TR, and in the footnotes the places of difference in the critical and majority texts. A very useful too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2022)

You can download J. P. Green Sr's Modern King James and his Literal Translation of the Bible on E Sword. He was not a TR guy as I knew him but he was close. He would claim to be MT guy I believe. 

Yes, I knew J. P. Green Sr.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 2, 2022)

What would be the difference between a NKJV and a modern King James version or something like this?: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...entury-king-james-version-kj21-hardcover.html

Wasn't that the main purpose of the NKJV (or at least one of them)?


----------



## Jake (Feb 2, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What would be the difference between a NKJV and a modern King James version or something like this?: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...entury-king-james-version-kj21-hardcover.html
> 
> Wasn't that the main purpose of the NKJV (or at least one of them)?


NKJV is more in line with a fresh translation using the same textual basis as the KJV, whereas KJ21, UKJV, AKJV, etc. are just lightly modernized language while trying to not really translate any more than the KJV if possible.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 2, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> I agree. If you have the NKJV, you have a faithful translation with essentially a picture of the entire textual landscape. In the main body you have the text of the TR, and in the footnotes the places of difference in the critical and majority texts. A very useful too.


Dane, I agree the NKJV textual notes give you a picture of the entire textual landscape. That said these were done before Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority Text research. I'm unsure if they are a little out of date for that reason. Thoughts?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Quest (Feb 3, 2022)

https://kjvparallelbible.org/ is a website that compares the effect on English of the differences between the TR and CT. (I know the original question was about the Majority text v. CT, but perhaps it will be interesting.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 3, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Myself and a few others hold to the TR position. What I've noticed though, is that most of the guys use the NKJV primarily. The MT guys really enjoy it and advocate for its use. I primarily use the KJV but always have my NKJV nearby for different translation methods (modern definitions from a translation committee in our time). I think they prefer it for the text notes, which give a pretty clear assessment of what the MT says without going to the Greek.


Just genuinely interested - do you hold to the full TR including 1 John 5:7?


----------



## danekristjan (Feb 3, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Dane, I agree the NKJV textual notes give you a picture of the entire textual landscape. That said these were done before Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority Text research. I'm unsure if they are a little out of date for that reason. Thoughts?


That's a good point, but there have not been any significant changes in the text in that time that would affect the text. All of the major textual variants have been studied, debated, and documented in printed form since the reformation. So outside of the nitty gritty, you have everything you need in the NKJV for textual representation in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 3, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just genuinely interested - do you hold to the full TR including 1 John 5:7?


I'm not sure what you mean by "full TR," but I do indeed believe 1 John 5:7 is legitimate.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 3, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "full TR"…


I think he means, "Do you believe the TR in its entirety—including its unique readings, such as 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 16:5 and 22:19—is the correct text?"


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think he means, "Do you believe the TR in its entirety—including its unique readings, such as 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 16:5 and 22:19—is the correct text?"


Oh ok. Yes, I'm confident the TR in its entirety is the correct text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 3, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think he means, "Do you believe the TR in its entirety—including its unique readings, such as 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 16:5 and 22:19—is the correct text?"





J.L. Allen said:


> Oh ok. Yes, I'm confident the TR in its entirety is the correct text.


Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.

Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God"


I'm unfamiliar with this textual variant

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.
> 
> Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.
> 
> That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.


In the NT times, was the text stable when you had the Masoretic and LXX traditions? (I ask this as a question for my own learning)


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.


I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).

Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.

Edit edit: I would mentioned though that I am finding the NKJV a very good translation. There are times when the ESV almost states things like Yoda and other times when it does not seem to do a great job bringing out the full meaning from the Greek. I find in these situations that the NKJV translations seemed to do a better job (balancing the literal and dynamic aspects). That said, I am sure there are places where the reverse is true as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).
> 
> Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.
> 
> Edit edit: I would mentioned though that I am finding the NKJV a very good translation. There are times when the ESV almost states things like Yoda and other times when it does not seem to do a great job bringing out the full meaning from the Greek. I find in these situations that the NKJV translations seemed to do a better job (balancing the literal and dynamic aspects). That said, I am sure there are places where the reverse is true as well.


Any example of this ESV NKJV contrast?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Any example of this ESV NKJV contrast?


Yes, just recently I came across this one:

Mark 7: 25-28

ESV
But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

NKJV
For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.”

In the NKJV, it says "kept asking" and in the ESV it says "she begged him". My pastor preached on this last Sunday and said the Greek word here is a continuous action, so "kept asking him" would be the better translation I would think. Whereas the ESV simply states, she begged him. This could mean it was a continuous action, but it could also leave the door open for a one time event (with the way this story is stated in Mark at least).

Also, in the ESV it states "dogs". In the NKJV it states "little dogs". A friend recently told me the word here would better be translated "puppies" into English from the Greek. If that is so, then again, I think the NKJV gets closer to the mark (no pun intended). As someone who doesn't know Greek, I find it useful to get as close to what the Greek is actually trying to get across, and I realize now that a completely literal translation may not always be the best thing (although I think it's a good thing to shoot for). In this instance "little dogs" is softer than just saying "dogs". Please don't hear me trying to charge Jesus with being rude to the women either, I don't think this even with the word dogs. However, if the original Greek is puppies, then obviously the original writers were trying to communicate a specific picture as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Yes, just recently I came across this one:
> 
> Mark 7: 25-28
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insight. I agree with you in this instance. 

Pardon I didn’t mention but I was more interested in the Yoda character you mentioned. And I know this is subjective so would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Thanks for the insight. I agree with you in this instance.
> 
> Pardon I didn’t mention but I was more interested in the Yoda character you mentioned. And I know this is subjective so would like to hear your thoughts. Cheers


Oh with the Yoda reference, sometimes (not always) when I read passages in the ESV it seems like I am speaking the way Yoda does and it is very difficult when I am reading out loud.

Example of Yoda speaking:


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't really think you can solve this issue though just by claiming the TR is right and we shouldn't question it at all. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but there are people who claim the TR is like a re-inspired text (as in the Holy Spirit was directly involved with the people compiling the texts). If that is someone's belief, then they need to be able to actually defend that/proof it from scripture. Just saying it and leaving it at that, is no better then the Muslims saying that there are no variants in the Quran (this is related to the James White point you mentioned).
> 
> Edit: I do understand your overall concern though about the CT. However, I don't think we get around the issue by just pretending it doesn't exist (not saying you are doing this). I tend you hold to James White's positive view of the CT in that it shows us that the Bible has been preserved throughout time. It's a good thing there are so many manuscripts because we can see the purity. I do agree though that we shouldn't let the academy decide what is scripture or not, but there are some very godly men that are involved in textual criticism as well. I do not think their aim is to create confusion.


Jason,

I wouldn't at all claim that there is an inspiration of the TR editors/scholars. That would imply further revelation and, ironically, defeat the confessional stance on preservation (at least held by TR/MT advocates). However, we do believe that the word of God, as found in the TR, is the evidence of God's preservation of the inspired autograph in the apographs. It's a matter of God not only inspiring the text in the first place, but working through history by his providence to see that his Word is not perverted or lost.

I don't doubt that Bible-believing conservatives who hold to a CT position question the preservation of the text. I'm sure they are godly, too. The issue taken with that is the apparent inconsistency with the claim as it's been evaluated on the other side (more on that below).

Muslims actually find the CT position to confirm much of their opposition to the faith. You can read articles written by Dr. Jeff Riddle on that subject. Plus, the TR claims of preservation are distinctly Christian and are not like the claims Muslims make about the Quran.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes Taylor that is what I meant. I have been rethinking this issue myself because a number of good people in Reformed circles are going back to the TR. I note Taylor that your good friend Ryan Noah is one of them.
> 
> Johnathan, as I said I am thinking through the issue myself. On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.
> 
> That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 6:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.


Stephen,

I'm glad the "haze" is clearing on the topic. The CT position has had quite the public relations campaign, so to speak. I love Ryan! That guy is a dear brother and passionate about the topic without lacking grace towards others. The defenses for those texts are worth covering in detail. Unfortunately, I'm unable to dive into that at this time. I hope a more capable brother can address those things for you.

As to James White, see what I wrote to Jason.

The main consistency issues with the CT claims of preservation have to do with direction of reasoning. All of us (CT, TR, MT) make a deductive claim: God inspired the autographs of the NT. The difference comes after that. One side (CT) attempts to inductively reach their deductive claim. The other side deduces their view of preservation from the deductive claim.

That said, I don't think the critical text itself should be thrown out or that archaeological pursuits are folly. We should value these things. We should value all those manuscript witnesses and pieces of history that are directly connected to our brothers and sisters before us. It's that the TR position does not use those things as the lens to look at the rest of the manuscript evidence. Rather, it is that those things further build confidence in what we already have.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Jason,
> 
> I wouldn't at all claim that there is an inspiration of the TR editors/scholars. That would imply further revelation and, ironically, defeat the confessional stance on preservation (at least held by TR/MT advocates). However, we do believe that the word of God, as found in the TR, is the evidence of God's preservation of the inspired autograph in the apographs. It's a matter of God not only inspiring the text in the first place, but working through history by his providence to see that his Word is not perverted or lost.
> 
> ...


I guess a question I would have to ask is why do you believe it is the TR that is uniquely persevering God's word? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it not just as valid as the CT guys saying it is in fact the CT that preserves the text because you can see how things have developed but also how similar it is throughout time. Also, I have never found Jeff Riddle very convincing. I watched an online debate James White and him did and he was shown (in my opinion) to be very inconsistent. Basically he has one set of arguments day 1 and then completely switched his approach on day 2.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I guess a question I would have to ask is why do you believe it is the TR that is uniquely persevering God's word? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it not just as valid as the CT guys saying it is in fact the CT that preserves the text because you can see how things have developed but also how similar it is throughout time. Also, I have never found Jeff Riddle very convincing. I watched an online debate James White and him did and he was shown (in my opinion) to be very inconsistent. Basically he has one set of arguments day 1 and then completely switched his approach on day 2.


The CT criteria for what belongs and what doesn't is mostly not affirmed by those who oppose the position. The internal and external evidence claims prioritize the Alexandrian text with Codex Vaticanus held as most valuable. Older is necessarily better unless it is outside the Alexandrian text-types. This leads to two codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) given, I believe, undue priority. It's not that the CT is void of the Word of God. We just reject the claims that would give it priority.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 5, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I love Ryan! That guy is a dear brother and passionate about the topic without lacking grace towards others.


I have had some great email fellowship with him. He was at MARS with my pastor.


J.L. Allen said:


> The main consistency issues with the CT claims of preservation have to do with direction of reasoning. All of us (CT, TR, MT) make a deductive claim: God inspired the autographs of the NT. The difference comes after that. One side (CT) attempts to inductively reach their deductive claim. The other side deduces their view of preservation from the deductive claim.


Could you expand a little more on this?


J.L. Allen said:


> The internal and external evidence claims prioritize the Alexandrian text with Codex Vaticanus held as most valuable. Older is necessarily better unless it is outside the Alexandrian text-types. This leads to two codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) given, I believe, undue priority. It's not that the CT is void of the Word of God. We just reject the claims that would give it priority.


In that case why do you prefer the TR over the Byzantine Priority text?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 5, 2022)

Here is a historical book that deals with the topic. Dean Burgon

https://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/u...gon-and-jay-green-sr-2-hardcover-volumes.html
Unholy Hands on the Bible, Volume I

When the English Bible (the King James Version) was revised in 1881, the revision (the Revised Version) abandoned the Greek text of the New Testament that had been used until then, not only for the English Bible, but also for all the Bibles of the Reformation, e.g., Luther’s Bible, and the Dutch Bible authorized by the Synod of Dordt. The revision chose much of the newly chosen eclectic Greek text advocated by the textual scholars, Westcott and Hort. All subsequent English versions, except the New King James Version, the Modern King James Version, The Literal Translation of the Bible, and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible have used the Westcott-Hort (W-H) text, regarding the Greek Text of the KJV as an inferior text.
From Engelsma’s Review of This Book:
''One godly scholar opposed the change at the time of the revision in the late 19th century the English textual scholar, John W. Burgon. Burgon defended the Greek text of the KJV, which he called the Traditional Text and which is referred to today as the Majority Text (which has some 1,500 mostly minor differences with the Textus Receptus), as the authentic text of the New Testament Scripture. He criticized the W-H text as false and dangerous.''
[Unholy Hands on the Bible is basically the complete works of Burgon on the issue of the Greek text of Holy Scripture. It is, therefore, a powerful defense of the KJV and a devastating attack on all modern English translations of Scripture with the exception of the versions mentioned above.
''The work is not intended for the ordinary church member. It virtually demands some knowledge of the Greek. But preachers who are committed to the complete inspiration of Scripture should avail themselves of it, especially those who assume that the W-H text is the best text, and those who suppose that there is no significant doctrinal difference between the texts. It should be in the libraries of seminaries that hold the doctrine of verbal inspiration, and therefore have deep concern for the authentic text of the New Testament. It should be consulted in the classes on textual criticism. Reformed and Presbyterian churches that have removed the KJV from pew and pulpit and replaced it with the NIV would do well to reconsider in the light of the solid scholarly work and sharp warnings of Burgon. Ministers in the Protestant Reformed Churches and in other denominations that retain the KJV will learn that there are reasons for this retention in the Greek text, and will be able to teach their people the serious faults of the modern versions.
Included are an edited version of Burgon’s [volumes in] defense of the Greek text of the KJV, The Traditional Text of the New Testament, and an edited version of his main critique of the English Revised Version of 1881, The Revision Revised. The book also includes his careful, convincing treatments of controversial passages in the area of textual criticism and English translations. There is his God Manifested in the Flesh on II Timothy 3:16 (the W-H text and the modern English versions omit ‘God’ in this text). There is his study of John 7:53-8:11 (omitted in the modern versions), The Woman Taken in Adultery. There is his The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark (also omitted in the W-H text and in [many of] the modern versions).
...


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 5, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have had some great email fellowship with him. He was at MARS with my pastor.
> 
> Could you expand a little more on this?
> 
> In that case why do you prefer the TR over the Byzantine Priority text?


I'd definitely ask him about these things, too. He knows more than I do on the subject. 

However, I'd like to give an answer to your questions starting with the TR over the MT. My main objection (softly made) against adopting the MT as the primary text is their criteria of the most manuscripts for a given reading. (To the MT folks, if I'm missing thrust of this argument, please tell me). Regarding that argument, we've lost manuscripts over time due to the volatility of the world affairs and natural disasters. So, we have had more manuscripts in our possession (some of which were used in different editions of the TR) that have since been lost. Granted, we also find new manuscripts, too. Consistently speaking, that could change what reading is then favored at whatever section. The TR weighs those things differently (even, dare I say, critically) with the assumption of stability already being accomplished. No knew manuscript would or should overturn what the has had throughout the ages.

As for the inductive and deductive part: The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking. This does not mean there is exhaustive knowledge of how the text was preserved throughout history, but that it was preserved, and we don't need to attempt to recreate it to get to the autographs. In more modern times, the same methods for recreating any historical text inductively were also applied to the Bible and still are largely. How many copies are known and used by the Church, collated, weighed, and compared (this is an area of agreement, but again, criteria is different). Inductively, older is generally better (assuming that older must mean accurate). Sometimes it's trying to piece things together through the assumption that language was more primitive in one century over another and sometimes not. In other words, a pious scribe must have cleaned this portion up by changing the original wording. As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text). This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 5, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I'd definitely ask him about these things, too. He knows more than I do on the subject.
> 
> However, I'd like to give an answer to your questions starting with the TR over the MT. My main objection (softly made) against adopting the MT as the primary text is their criteria of the most manuscripts for a given reading. (To the MT folks, if I'm missing thrust of this argument, please tell me). Regarding that argument, we've lost manuscripts over time due to the volatility of the world affairs and natural disasters. So, we have had more manuscripts in our possession (some of which were used in different editions of the TR) that have since been lost. Granted, we also find new manuscripts, too. Consistently speaking, that could change what reading is then favored at whatever section. The TR weighs those things differently (even, dare I say, critically) with the assumption of stability already being accomplished. No knew manuscript would or should overturn what the has had throughout the ages.
> 
> As for the inductive and deductive part: The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking. This does not mean there is exhaustive knowledge of how the text was preserved throughout history, but that it was preserved, and we don't need to attempt to recreate it to get to the autographs. In more modern times, the same methods for recreating any historical text inductively were also applied to the Bible and still are largely. How many copies are known and used by the Church, collated, weighed, and compared (this is an area of agreement, but again, criteria is different). Inductively, older is generally better (assuming that older must mean accurate). Sometimes it's trying to piece things together through the assumption that language was more primitive in one century over another and sometimes not. In other words, a pious scribe must have cleaned this portion up by changing the original wording. As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text). This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.


What would you call what Erasmus was doing, assuming you won't say he was not "recreate(ing) it to get to the autographs"?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 5, 2022)

John Yap said:


> What would you call what Erasmus was doing, assuming you won't say he was not "recreate(ing) it to get to the autographs"?


Erasmus was going ad fontes for the purpose of a new Latin translation and at the very least get to the Greek underlying the Vulgate. He wanted to have an edition of the Greek NT for the West to refer to. So he collated mss from various church libraries and the Eastern churches.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> As a side note, this is also why some of us see a sort of "perforation" in the barrier between high text criticism and low text criticism (historical Jesus and historical text).


In one sense I fully agree. Higher criticism assumes a naturalistic approach to Biblical doctrine, and much modern textual criticism also assumes a naturalistic approach. As a matter of interest it is worth listening to the debate on Eph 3:9 between James White [JW] and Jeff Riddle [JR]. When JW tried to argue one uses a scholarly textual criticism to determine the text of ancient writers such as Plato, JR correctly argued that the Bible is not a naturalistic book - it is a supernatural book. That said I think the argument is a bit more nuanced. The KJV has a number of text notes that suggest certain phrases or verses are not part of scripture. See for example the KJV notes at Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. The KJV also appears to question parts of 1 John 2:23. Modern translations (including the NKJV) do not question this. I have previously mentioned Beza's textual emendation at Rev 16:5. My point is - do the KJV translators engage in some naturalistic textual criticism and doubt some passages of scripture with these changes/ footnotes? Someone like JW is quick to capitalise on these KJV textual issues. 


J.L. Allen said:


> This means that mindset and methods for one might be adapted and applied to the other. Here's the rub, though: we don't believe Virgil or Cicero or Plato are inspired writers. We believe the Bible is and infallibly so. I hope that helps.


See my comments above.

Coming back to the Eph 3:9 debate between JW and JR. I think JR was right to point out JW naturalistic assumptions. However JW pointed out that the slim textual evidence for the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 ignores the fact that God works through history. JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the *majority *of mss, but defended the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 by appealing to the *minority *of mss. It seems to me JW is correct on this point. That said I think JR was right to say that JW defence of the CT has produced a textual criticism that is uncertain and changing, based on the latest fads of modern textual scholars. 



J.L. Allen said:


> The TR position seems to be more inline with a presuppositional way of thinking.


This argument certainly has some appeal for me. Perhaps the best Reformed TR scholar who argued for this position is Edward Hills. It is interesting that James Price's book "King James Onlyism" ch 12 summarises Dr Hills argument and accuses him of circular reasoning. https://www.jamesdprice.com/images/King_James_Onlyism.pdf Maybe he is right. But is it not true that Presuppositional Apologetics has pointed out that all reasoning is circular by its nature. We presuppose the self-attesting nature of scripture based on the infallible authority of God who gave us the scriptures. 

In the final analysis I am back to my original argument. It may be good to have a new edition of the TR but in the few places where it is problematic, it would be wise to revise it by the weightier mss of the Byzantine tradition. 

It is worth listening to the JW and JR debate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I'm unfamiliar with this textual variant


I just 'clicked' as to what you are getting at. Typo fixed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Sorry for another double post but final question for now.
> 
> Does anyone know of a good print copy of the NKJV with references and textual notes? I am looking for a nice one on good paper with good formatting, that isn't printed in China on cheap paper with no care.


See here from me:






New Bible


Friends, In studying more on English translations, I have decided to switch my family over to primarily using the NKJV (we were using the ESV). Recently I purchased the below bible for my wife. I have never owned a bible this nice and so far it has far exceeded my expectations. Currently sold...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 6, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the *majority *of mss,


I believe this is a misrepresentation of JR’s position. The fact that it is an overwhelming majority reading is a demonstration of its reception by the church as authentic, and as such is a lower hurdle to cross w/r/t bringing other evidence to bear. But the TR position is _not_ equivalent to a _majority text_ position. JW sees an inconsistency because of his own presuppositions that JR does not hold.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I believe this is a misrepresentation of JR’s position. The fact that it is an overwhelming majority reading is a demonstration of its reception by the church as authentic, and as such is a lower hurdle to cross w/r/t bringing other evidence to bear. But the TR position is _not_ equivalent to a _majority text_ position. JW sees an inconsistency because of his own presuppositions that JR does not hold.


If it was a misrepresentation, JR did not appear to point that out very well in the debate.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I believe this is a misrepresentation of JR’s position. The fact that it is an overwhelming majority reading is a demonstration of its reception by the church as authentic, and as such is a lower hurdle to cross w/r/t bringing other evidence to bear. But the TR position is _not_ equivalent to a _majority text_ position. JW sees an inconsistency because of his own presuppositions that JR does not hold.


Yes you pointed out a bad choice of words on my part. My apologies. What JW said was the TR reading in Eph 3:9 is "almost non existent" JW makes his case about 23 minutes into the debate. I thought he made his case very well. JR had a 10 minute response. I did not find JR response convincing at this particular point (I have pointed out other area where JR is strong, so I aim to be fair). 

Now, if JW and JR were debating John 7:53-8:11 JW would say this passage has weaker evidence than the long ending of Mark. An esteemed Majority Text scholar such as Dr W Pickering also says this. But I am confident JW would not say the evidence for John 7:53-8:11 is "almost non existent". There is reasonable textual evidence for that passage in John's gospel. Not so in Eph 3:9. 

Hence I believe I was still correct to say:


Stephen L Smith said:


> In the final analysis I am back to my original argument. It may be good to have a new edition of the TR but in the few places where it is problematic, it would be wise to revise it by the weightier mss of the Byzantine tradition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If it was a misrepresentation, JR did not appear to point that out very well in the debate.


I think he addressed it later. I don’t care much for live debates, as the format limits what you can and want to address in the time allotted. Regardless, my larger point stands that “majority wins” is not the same as the received text position, but a majority reading (esp in the case of Mark 16, which has near-unanimous attestation throughout not only the Greek textual tradition but versions and ancient commentary) needs very little in the way of other forms of defense, but has to overcome a high hurdle to reject. 

In the case of the Ephesians variant, if one takes the position of it being received into the church as a true reading at the time of greatest scriptural reformation in the Christian era and being “set” in the editions going forth to the ends of the world from the printing press into faithful churches for the next 300+ years as a mark of God’s providential preservation, it must be defended on many other grounds since it is a minority reading.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 6, 2022)

BTW, on Rev 16:5 I’m not convinced it is conjectural emendation. Beza argued why the reading as it stood in the majority was impossible, argued what it *should* be on linguistic and doctrinal grounds, then claimed he restored the true reading _from an ancient manuscript_. Most scholars claim Beza was mistaken in his note given that no such Greek text exists now. But the lack of a text now is no evidence that there was never a text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 6, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes you pointed out a bad choice of words on my part. My apologies. What JW said was the TR reading in Eph 3:9 is "almost non existent" JW makes his case about 23 minutes into the debate. I thought he made his case very well. JR had a 10 minute response. I did not find JR response convincing at this particular point (I have pointed out other area where JR is strong, so I aim to be fair).
> 
> Now, if JW and JR were debating John 7:53-8:11 JW would say this passage has weaker evidence than the long ending of Mark. An esteemed Majority Text scholar such as Dr W Pickering also says this. But I am confident JW would not say the evidence for John 7:53-8:11 is "almost non existent". There is reasonable textual evidence for that passage in John's gospel. Not so in Eph 3:9.
> 
> Hence I believe I was still correct to say:


One might point out White’s inconsistency when he argues against the TR in Ephesians on the basis of “almost non-existent” evidence and then argues against the longer ending of Mark based on a precious few texts. The longer ending of Mark has better attestation in terms of manuscripts, versions, and quotations than several entire NT books.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> One might point out White’s inconsistency when he argues against the TR in Ephesians on the basis of “almost non-existent” evidence and then argues against the longer ending of Mark based on a precious few texts. The longer ending of Mark has better attestation in terms of manuscripts, versions, and quotations than several entire NT books.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 7, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Now, if JW and JR were debating John 7:53-8:11 JW would say this passage has weaker evidence than the long ending of Mark. An esteemed Majority Text scholar such as Dr W Pickering also says this.


Talking of these passages JR gave lectures on these at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London recently. I have not listened to them yet so cannot comment but those who enjoy JR on textual criticism, no doubt will find them informative.





School of Theology 2021 | The War Against the Authentic Biblical Text - Metropolitan Tabernacle


School of Theology 2019 |The Local Church | The Dynamism of the Local Church




www.metropolitantabernacle.org


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 7, 2022)

Ironic that the Tabernacle is promoting Riddle and TBS these days, when Spurgeon made positive reference to the textual basis of the Revised Version (if less to the translation itself)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 7, 2022)

The TR position would be more consistently defensible if it just stopped at an a priori assumption of complete divine providence and picked a single TR publication (e.g., Scrivener's 1881). 

It is when individual passages are defended that the methodology becomes inconsistent: e.g., the methodology used to defend 1 John 5:7 is applied no where else and the methodology used to defend the last few verses of Revelation is applied no where else. Using historical evidence inconsistently, adapted on a per-passage basis, just makes the entire methodology look a posteriori.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Jake (Feb 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> The TR position would be more consistently defensible if it just stopped at an a priori assumption of complete divine providence and picked a single TR publication (e.g., Scrivener's 1881).
> 
> It is when individual passages are defended that the methodology becomes inconsistent: e.g., the methodology used to defend 1 John 5:7 is applied no where else and the methodology used to defend the last few verses of Revelation is applied no where else. Using historical evidence inconsistently, adapted on a per-passage basis, just makes the entire methodology look a posteriori.


Agreed. This was my biggest takeaway from the JR v JW debate.

I also find it interesting that some TR advocates including JR are willing to concede to texts found in any text of the TR instead of defending the differences in the TR. Somehow I John 5:7 is excluded from this line of thought as early versions of the TR (and Bibles based on it, including the original Luther Bible), but I've not heard any TR advocates argue against the Comma.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I think he addressed it later. I don’t care much for live debates, as the format limits what you can and want to address in the time allotted. Regardless, my larger point stands that “majority wins” is not the same as the received text position, but a majority reading (esp in the case of Mark 16, which has near-unanimous attestation throughout not only the Greek textual tradition but versions and ancient commentary) needs very little in the way of other forms of defense, but has to overcome a high hurdle to reject.
> 
> In the case of the Ephesians variant, if one takes the position of it being received into the church as a true reading at the time of greatest scriptural reformation in the Christian era and being “set” in the editions going forth to the ends of the world from the printing press into faithful churches for the next 300+ years as a mark of God’s providential preservation, it must be defended on many other grounds since it is a minority reading.


Where was the preservation of the TR rendering of Eph 3:9 for the previous 1200 or so years? (I do not have the facts at hand so this is an honest question). And isn’t too much weight placed on the reformation-era printed versions with regards to providential preservation? I.e Wasn't the non-TR reading of Eph 3:9 always present, thus providentially preserved?

And what methodology was Erasmus using, when compiling what would be the TR? I assumed it wasn't a providential preservation methodology.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> The TR position would be more consistently defensible if it just stopped at an a priori assumption of complete divine providence and picked a single TR publication (e.g., Scrivener's 1881).
> 
> It is when individual passages are defended that the methodology becomes inconsistent: e.g., the methodology used to defend 1 John 5:7 is applied no where else and the methodology used to defend the last few verses of Revelation is applied no where else. Using historical evidence inconsistently, adapted on a per-passage basis, just makes the entire methodology look a posteriori.


Part of the issue is that the TR position is not Trying to reconstruct anything. It says God has preserved his word in the churches through all ages. Tomorrow’s archaeological discover can’t alter the text if it provides a reading unknown to God’s people up to now. It rejects a more evidentialist approach. This is why it appears inconsistent given CT presuppositions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Feb 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Part of the issue is that the TR position is not Trying to reconstruct anything. It says God has preserved his word in the churches through all ages. Tomorrow’s archaeological discover can’t alter the text if it provides a reading unknown to God’s people up to now. It rejects a more evidentialist approach. This is why it appears inconsistent given CT presuppositions.



I don't think I have CT presuppositions 

I mean that it seems more consistent just to state "I believe it was preserved" and not try to make the historical evidence fit. When one tries to find evidence for individual passages, the acceptable evidence varies depending on the situation. In a well-attested passage, the evidence is the "overwhelming agreement of the Greek church". In something like 1 John 5:7, the evidence is God's preserving the verse in the Latin to be restored in the Greek (as Hill held, yet no Reformer would have). Or the evidence is a quote from someone who thought that there probably were a lot of Greek texts that all happened to be destroyed, or some other conjecture.

If the evidence by definition _always_ proves the position, then it's not really evidence-based, it's position-based; and if it's not evidence-based, then bringing in evidence just confuses and weakens the position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Part of the issue is that the TR position is not Trying to reconstruct anything. It says God has preserved his word in the churches through all ages. Tomorrow’s archaeological discover can’t alter the text if it provides a reading unknown to God’s people up to now. It rejects a more evidentialist approach. This is why it appears inconsistent given CT presuppositions.


What was the name of the action Erasmus was doing, when he used different manuscripts to produce the Greek NT?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Part of the issue is that the TR position is not Trying to reconstruct anything.* It says God has preserved his word in the churches through all ages.* Tomorrow’s archaeological discover can’t alter the text if it provides a reading unknown to God’s people up to now. It rejects a more evidentialist approach. This is why it appears inconsistent given CT presuppositions.


CT believe the bolded as well. Also, it does not appear CT just change their opinion every time a dig discovers something. This seems to be a bit of a straw man.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jake (Feb 7, 2022)

John Yap said:


> What was the name of the action Erasmus was doing, when he used different manuscripts to produce the Greek NT?


I think the modern TR position is different than what Erasmus was doing. The process used by Erasmus, the KJV translators, etc. was trying to uncover the best version of what the original manuscripts said with what they had available.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 7, 2022)

Reformed Quest said:


> https://kjvparallelbible.org/ is a website that compares the effect on English of the differences between the TR and CT. (I know the original question was about the Majority text v. CT, but perhaps it will be interesting.)


This is a very useful site btw. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 7, 2022)

Jake said:


> I think the modern TR position is different than what Erasmus was doing. The process used by Erasmus, the KJV translators, etc. was trying to uncover the best version of what the original manuscripts said with what they had available.


I just want an understanding (with definitions and terms) of the TR position, of how the TR we hold in our hands came to be. Assuming Erasmus was not "reconstructing", a term which the TR position avoids.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 7, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Talking of these passages JR gave lectures on these at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London recently. I have not listened to them yet so cannot comment but those who enjoy JR on textual criticism, no doubt will find them informative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have not listened to these particular lectures, but how would a TR proponent answer the charge that the 2nd and 3rd lectures are not needed since it presumably it deals with evidence, and that the TR position really does not need to speak about the majority of this or that with regards especially to Mark 16? It would actually weaken their view if they talked about a majority of evidence to support a particular reading (Mk. 16.9-20), because that can be used against them with regards to 1 Jn 5:7. If I held onto the TR view, I would not want to speak about Mark 16 for this reason.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 7, 2022)

Hello John @John Yap , the TR proponent is certainly not averse to evidences, although our foundation is based on _presuppositions_ derived from Scripture itself. There may be times – I think of when a book came out some years ago seeking to debunk the authenticity of the OT accounts of Biblical persons in some OT books, particularly Genesis – that in the face of supposed evidences we cannot immediately refute, we stand on the Scripture attestations to itself and its direct inspiration of God and its utter trustworthiness in our defenses of it. We didn't have evidences at the moment (we did after some research and study) but we had our unshakeable convictions based on God's own words.

Evidences are very valuable in supporting our stands, though at rare times we stand apart from them on other bases. In my signature (below), the link Textual Posts will lead you to see my method in defending various TR / KJV views. By the way, I am not KJV _only_, but KJV _preferred_, as I recognize the validity and value of other differing versions. It is a nuanced position.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> In something like 1 John 5:7, the evidence is God's preserving the verse in the Latin to be restored in the Greek (as Hill held, yet no Reformer would have).


I would have to re-read Hills to see his argument. The common TR position is not that the Latin becomes authoritative just because I like it. Rather, where Greek evidence is scant (not non-existent) but versional and ecclesiastical evidence is strong, the version represents early Greek attestation even if it largely but not entirely fell out of the Greek through time. Many Reformed (including Calvin) and Puritans (Manton) and post-Puritan Reformed ( Calamy) held to the authenticity of the Comma, btw, and argued from Greek evidences. Not just manuscripts but grammar, style, etc.


----------



## JH (Feb 7, 2022)

As a TR proponent, I heartily do believe 1 John 5:7 should be received by sheer internal evidence, if nothing else. I do not doubt the authenticity of it for one moment. The passage is not even fluid without it, considering it contrasts heavenly and earthly witnesses, the passage about heavenly witnesses being entirely gone. And I do find it quite strange to say nonetheless, that most textual variants have to do with either the Trinity, or Christ's divinity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Feb 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> I don't think I have CT presuppositions
> 
> I mean that it seems more consistent just to state "I believe it was preserved" and not try to make the historical evidence fit. When one tries to find evidence for individual passages, the acceptable evidence varies depending on the situation. In a well-attested passage, the evidence is the "overwhelming agreement of the Greek church". In something like 1 John 5:7, the evidence is God's preserving the verse in the Latin to be restored in the Greek (as Hill held, yet no Reformer would have). Or the evidence is a quote from someone who thought that there probably were a lot of Greek texts that all happened to be destroyed, or some other conjecture.
> 
> If the evidence by definition _always_ proves the position, then it's not really evidence-based, it's position-based; and if it's not evidence-based, then bringing in evidence just confuses and weakens the position.


By that logic, the whole discipline of apologetics is unhelpful, because we receive the truth of God by faith, so if our our belief in God is (ultimately) not really evidence based, then bringing in evidence just confuses and weakens our position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Feb 8, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I would have to re-read Hills to see his argument. The common TR position is not that the Latin becomes authoritative just because I like it. Rather, where Greek evidence is scant (not non-existent) but versional and ecclesiastical evidence is strong, the version represents early Greek attestation even if it largely but not entirely fell out of the Greek through time. Many Reformed (including Calvin) and Puritans (Manton) and post-Puritan Reformed ( Calamy) held to the authenticity of the Comma, btw, and argued from Greek evidences. Not just manuscripts but grammar, style, etc.



I fully understand that is what is done, but that same methodology would be (and is) mocked when a CT proponent uses it to establish a particular reading. And that methodology certainly would not be used as evidence for other texts in the TR.

There is no early Greek attestation I am aware of (aside from supposed allusions by a couple of Church fathers that aren't even clearly referencing it). That it wasn't used in any of the Trinitarian controversies is strikingly odd.

By "largely but not entirely fell out of the Greek through time", well...I think there is one manuscript dated to the 1300s that has it. All the rest are either after Erasmus's printed edition or nor original to the manuscript. That's a pretty significant falling out. You would have to believe that the Arians succeeded in erasing it from the Greek, and that the Word of God was not, indeed, kept pure in all ages.

Calvin didn't exactly emphatically endorse it: "The whole of this verse has been by some omitted....But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading." (comments on 1 John 5:7)

All the Reformers who accepted it did so on the assumption that it had good Greek attestation. They didn't accept it first and then find the evidence to support it. They had a very different methodology than the TR proponents today have.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Feb 8, 2022)

Here are some quotes from Hill (King James Version Defended):
"In the second place, during the 16th century when the New Testament text was being printed for the first time, God worked providentially through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading."

(Can you think of a single Reformer that ever would have said something like that?)

Hill talks specifically about the Comma:
"As has been observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes.

The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629. The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate.

But whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. It was this usage which made men feel that this reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine."

He concludes:
"Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church."

Hill doesn't even try to use the Greek evidence, because he considers it weak. Instead he relies upon the Latin evidence and God's providence.

With Hill, he very simply believes that whatever is in the TR and King James is providential and thus accepts it. The problem I have with this view is that it picks one moment in time (and largely one people group) and says "providence didn't give past peoples a pure Bible, and additional textual collation isn't part of continuing providence in preserving a pure Bible, but for this one moment in history we had a pure Bible, regardless of any evidence to the contrary."

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 8, 2022)

By the way, I am not a fan of the CT (though I think much good work has been done there). I personally use the NKJV primarily. I have a great appreciation for the TR and think the evidence and argument is largely in its favor for a huge number of readings. However, I don't like how today's proponents are so rigidly attached to something to the point where they can accept Scrivener's 1881, which was built around the KJV and which contains combined readings which are found in no manuscript, yet reject any possible critique outside of printed TR editions. 

That's why I found Robinson's view to be a pleasantly balanced one: not throwing out the baby (Byzantine text) with the bathwater (TR) but recognizing that God's providence doesn't stop at one point in time and there is still room for work to be done.

If someone rejects this and just simply states "I want to pick a stable text" (e.g., pick a specific TR edition) then I can respect that, I just don't see it as an position that is without critique.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 8, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> By that logic, the whole discipline of apologetics is unhelpful, because we receive the truth of God by faith, so if our our belief in God is (ultimately) not really evidence based, then bringing in evidence just confuses and weakens our position.



I don't want to derail the thread of thought here, Just noting that I reject that comparison.


----------



## Logan (Feb 8, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> As a TR proponent, I heartily do believe 1 John 5:7 should be received by sheer internal evidence, if nothing else. I do not doubt the authenticity of it for one moment. The passage is not even fluid without it, considering it contrasts heavenly and earthly witnesses, the passage about heavenly witnesses being entirely gone. And I do find it quite strange to say nonetheless, that most textual variants have to do with either the Trinity, or Christ's divinity.



Here's a question for you: do you think I or anyone else on this board wants it to be inauthentic, or would we rather it be authentic? I for one would love to be convinced that it is original. One group here is trying very hard to defend the Scriptures from anything being taken away. And the other group is trying hard not to add anything to the Scriptures that God did not put there.

Both are admirable.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JH (Feb 8, 2022)

Logan, me saying "I doubt not the authenticity of it" was only in regards to MT and some TR guys rejecting or even doubting the legitimacy of it, since even within said camps, there is a variety of opinions. It was not intended to castigate those who hold to the CT position, as I do not doubt your sincerity or others here. As for CT "scholars", (Wasserman, Dan Wallace, Epp, Jan Krans, etc.) that's a different story.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 8, 2022)

I am not so rigidly attached to Scrivener’s 1881 to reject out of hand any discussion of variants. I do not think the KJV translators were infallible. I also think Robinson and Pickering have done tremendous work, despite not being TR guys (although Pickering’s view is quite odd). But I will reject tomorrow’s archaeological dig or computer algorithm that gives us New Testament readings that have been unknown to God’s people throughout history just because it proposes to be “earlier” or “more probable”. 

I have more to say about the CJ, but maybe this thread isn’t the place as it is taking us far afield of the OP. I’ll just say the evidence against is often presented in such a way as to be as biased against as many KJV-only folks present the evidence for.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## StevieG (Feb 8, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Logan, me saying "I doubt not the authenticity of it" was only in regards to MT and some TR guys rejecting or even doubting the legitimacy of it, since even within said camps, there is a variety of opinions. It was not intended to castigate those who hold to the CT position, as I do not doubt your sincerity or others here. As for CT "scholars", (Wasserman, Dan Wallace, Epp, Jan Krans, etc.) that's a different story.


I realise this might be taking us off topic, but would you be able to elaborate on your last sentence or even just point me in the right direction to look into on my own? I'm fairly new to this whole discussion and trying to make up my own mind.


----------



## JH (Feb 8, 2022)

StevieG said:


> I realise this might be taking us off topic, but would you be able to elaborate on your last sentence or even just point me in the right direction to look into on my own? I'm fairly new to this whole discussion and trying to make up my own mind.


It is not entirely off topic, but I will address it briefly. Many men who hold an esteemed position in the eyes of the textual criticism world are theological liberals, virgin birth deniers, agnostic, atheist, and woke. Now, one may say I'm simply poisoning the well (what most consider a fallacy); but I do believe it is a relevant thing to realize and consider.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.” - Dan Wallace

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” - Jan Krans

"In any case, for me a high view of Scripture is a matter of personal belief. I have no intention of trying to prove that this or that textual variant is the original word of God. I would like to work as a text-critic as if God didn't exist, so to speak. On the other hand, I have a personal faith which certainly affects also my scholarship, and I try to be honest about that. I am certain that other people's belief or disbelief affects what they do to. I prefer not to be put in a box of privileged white male text-critics who just pretend to do real scholarship." - Tommy Wasserman

You could find more insight into the TR position(s) on a blog called "Young Textless and Reformed". I do not hold to all the opinions posted there, but it is a good starting point. For a less polemic presentation of the TR position(s), as formerly mentioned, Jeff Riddle's Word Magazine series on SermonAudio is loaded with resources.

In all honesty, I do think you will be a sound Christian regardless of what side you come out on, though I pray people come to a TR position. God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. My only other word of advice is to not rush the process.

Edit: If I may add one last thing, I find both CT and TR advocates often trying to dismantle the other position, instead of defending their own. It really just ends up muddying the discussion. It's easier to speak against what you reject, than to defend what you believe in.

Edit 2: I see you are a pastoral intern; make sure you're consulting your elders in this matter as well.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 8, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Talking of these passages JR gave lectures on these at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London recently. I have not listened to them yet so cannot comment but those who enjoy JR on textual criticism, no doubt will find them informative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just to balance my other post, here is a discussion by the PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Dr M Everhard. He tends to defend the CT but speaks very fairly towards the TR and actually defends some TR readings. He is gracious and gentle in the discussion. I appreciate that.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 8, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just to balance my other post, here is a discussion by the PCA pastor and Jonathan Edwards scholar Dr M Everhard. He tends to defend the CT but speaks very fairly towards the TR and actually defends some TR readings. He is gracious and gentle in the discussion. I appreciate that.



I pressed play because I thought that I was going to get to see someone playing Street Fighter II. Once that did not materialise, I switched it off.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 8, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I pressed play because I thought that I was going to get to see someone playing Street Fighter II. Once that did not materialise, I switched it off.


Hey you prefer Street Fighter II to a discussion on the Bible? Looks like you are not as spiritual as you should be


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 8, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Hey you prefer Street Fighter II to a discussion on the Bible? Looks like you are not as spiritual as you should be



As an Ulster Protestant, moreover, I was rooting for the fighter in orange, not the one in green.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 8, 2022)

Hello Steve @StevieG ,

You will find a lot of good material from Jeff Riddle here: https://pvcc.academia.edu/JeffreyRiddle, and here: http://www.jeffriddle.net . He is scholarly and irenic.

I'd also refer you to my own writing on this topic here on PB - In my signature (below), the link Textual Posts will lead you to see my method in defending various TR / KJV views. As I noted earlier, I am not KJV _only_, but KJV _preferred_, as I recognize the validity and value of other differing versions. It is a nuanced position.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Santiago DO (Feb 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> One group here is trying very hard to defend the Scriptures from anything being taken away. And the other group is trying hard not to add anything to the Scriptures that God did not put there.
> 
> Both are admirable.



Is this warning (Revelation 22:18-19) "avoided" with this (Romans 14:22-23) declaration?


----------



## StevieG (Feb 9, 2022)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me @Jerrod Hess and @Jerusalem Blade. I appreciate the information you've provided and also the reminders both for patience in thinking this through and also whether I stick with the Bible I've been using for 15 years or make the decision to change, I'm still studying God's word.

Having did that, reading those quoted, especially the last one did make me feel a bit uncomfortable


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 9, 2022)

Steve, what Bible have you been using for 15 years?


----------



## StevieG (Feb 9, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Steve, what Bible have you been using for 15 years?


I've been using the ESV, although I'm only using it for my own personal devotions now because the church I've been placed in for my assistantship uses the original version of the NLT as their preaching and pew bible, so I'm currently having to go back and forth between them.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 9, 2022)

StevieG said:


> ...the church I've been placed in for my assistantship uses the original version of the NLT as their preaching and pew bible...


That's remarkable. I actually really like the NLT, but the most recent update is a _massive_ improvement over the original. The original is _far_ inferior.

What church is this? I would love to listen to one of the sermons.


----------



## StevieG (Feb 9, 2022)

Taylor said:


> That's remarkable. I actually really like the NLT, but the most recent update is a _massive_ improvement over the original. The original is _far_ inferior.
> 
> What church is this? I would love to listen to one of the sermons.


It definitely wouldn't be usual in PCI for sure. The church is called First Donegore Presbyterian Church. You can find all our Sunday livestreams there. With regards to the NLT, generally I think it is fairly good and certainly easy to read, but a bit strange when you are used to reading something else.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 9, 2022)

StevieG said:


> It definitely wouldn't be usual in PCI for sure. The church is called First Donegore Presbyterian Church. You can find all our Sunday livestreams there. With regards to the NLT, generally I think it is fairly good and certainly easy to read, *but a bit strange when you are used to reading something else*.


No doubt


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 9, 2022)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg/videos



Someone has made animations based on Textual issues.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 9, 2022)

Random post, somewhat related. I was at half price books today and found a mint condition NIV from 1978. Thought it was a good find.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 9, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Random post, somewhat related. I was at half price books today and found a mint condition NIV from 1978. Thought it was a good find.



I read Psalm 130 from the NIV (1978) in devotions earlier before I began reading Octavius Winslow's sermons on this psalm, _Soul Depths & Soul Heights_. I am taking a break from Peter Martyr Vermigli's commentary on Romans in order to read these sermons. So far, so good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 10, 2022)

Although it can be clear and plain speaking – which I much appreciate – the basic problem I have with the NLT is that it is based primarily (though not absolutely) on the Critical Text and omits / marginalizes significant NT readings. I can profitably read it, but not as the intact authoritative NT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Feb 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Random post, somewhat related. I was at half price books today and found a mint condition NIV from 1978. Thought it was a good find.


Half price books is the place to go


----------



## Georgiadis (Feb 21, 2022)

The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 21, 2022)

I have been reading a KJV for Forty years. 
Guess what I prefer? LOL

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 21, 2022)

Georgiadis said:


> The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!


This is incredible news. I cannot wait.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 21, 2022)

Georgiadis said:


> The guys over at Bible Hub (publishers of the Berean Bible translations) are working on aligning a version of their Greek NT with the Robinson-Pierp Majority Text. After that, they plan on modifying the Berean Study Bible translation to account for all of the big variants and flipping the footnotes so that the Majority Text is in the main text. They don’t have an official timeline yet but it’s in the works!


Saw this in FB. This could be the biggest English MT translation when it comes out. The BSB also reads very well and I’m looking forward to seeing it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 21, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Saw this in FB.


Link?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 22, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Link?


It’s a private FB group (look up Berean Study Bible Translation Group to join) but per someone at Bible Hub they hope to have the digital edition ready by early 2023.

Reactions: Love 1


----------

