retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
If it was a misrepresentation, JR did not appear to point that out very well in the debate.
English Bible translations based on the majority text?
- Thread starter retroGRAD3
- Start date
- Status
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:
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
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)
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
What was the name of the action Erasmus was doing, when he used different manuscripts to produce the Greek NT?
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
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.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Senior
This is a very useful site btw. Thanks for sharing.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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 Churchwww.metropolitantabernacle.org
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
Puritan Board Professor
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.
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.
Last edited:
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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 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.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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."
"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."
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I don't want to derail the thread of thought here, Just noting that I reject that comparison.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Last edited:
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
