Critical Text vs. Majority Text?

[sweaters]

In this sub-forum dwells much content that has provoked me to reassess my opinions on the text issues. I am aware of King James Onlyism, including its more less reputable proponents. But, I also becoming aware of a kind of "Critical Text Onlyism" so I am needless to say between a rock and a hard place.

However, I realize no manuscript family is without it's errors. With this in mind: which text family is more reliable? The Traditional or Critical text?



Sent from my Z930L using Tapatalk

 

[johnny]

Hi Sweaters,

Welcome to Puritanboard.
You will need to affix your signature to your posts.


I don't believe anyone on PB would ascribe to KJO, However,
You will find people who hold to the Textus Receptus (Received Text) position.
I lean this way myself, but I am no expert so I'll wait for someone else to chime in.

 

[Logan]

which text family is more reliable? The Traditional or Critical text?

If it was completely obvious, there would be no debate. Nobody wants an unreliable text. The difference is in the presuppositions with which one approaches textual transmission. Even so, a Christian can be confident that he holds God's word, no matter which text.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

 

[JimmyH]

which text family is more reliable? The Traditional or Critical text?

If it was completely obvious, there would be no debate. Nobody wants an unreliable text. The difference is in the presuppositions with which one approaches textual transmission. Even so, a Christian can be confident that he holds God's word, no matter which text.

Welcome to the PB. I'm in agreement with Logan. I'm not an expert in the original languages, or in text critical issues, but a day doesn't go by that I don't read my Bible. First the KJV, than the NIV, or ESV, depending on the day. This is following M'Cheyne's 1 year Bible Reading Plan, which I highly recommend. I find that reading the TR based KJV in parallel with the CT based texts, I have confidence in both textual families.

 

[Romans922]

I'm Majority Text guy.

However, that doesn't mean I am a KJV guy. This should not be so linked to the Majority Text position. Thank you.

 

[Robert Truelove]

which text family is more reliable? The Traditional or Critical text?

If it was completely obvious, there would be no debate. Nobody wants an unreliable text. The difference is in the presuppositions with which one approaches textual transmission. Even so, a Christian can be confident that he holds God's word, no matter which text.

Ditto that!

The best way to sum up my position is to say I start with the Textus Receptus and would like to see a future edition revised based upon Byzantine Priority principles of textual criticism. The result would represent "the best text".

 

[Robert Truelove]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority?

His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

A lot can happen in 3% but if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

 

[greenbaggins]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority?

His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

A lot can happen in 3% but if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

A hearty amen to this. That being said, it is still a valid question to ask (not implying Robert was denying this). Which tradition you favor has everything to do with how you weight the various criteria in textual criticism. For instance, if one ties God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and does not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries, then the TR/MT will likely be your choice. If you believe God's providence can work in preserving manuscripts outside the church as well as inside, then the CT will probably be your choice. As to individual variants, if you believe that the majority rules, then you will probably hold to the MT. If you believe that geographical distribution and the age of the manuscript is more important, then the CT will probably be your choice. It is extremely difficult to choose among these criteria, and there are strong arguments for both positions. Both positions are (usually) treated with respect on this board.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority?

His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

A lot can happen in 3% but if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

A hearty amen to this. That being said, it is still a valid question to ask (not implying Robert was denying this). Which tradition you favor has everything to do with how you weight the various criteria in textual criticism. For instance, if one ties God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and does not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries, then the TR/MT will likely be your choice. If you believe God's providence can work in preserving manuscripts outside the church as well as inside, then the CT will probably be your choice. As to individual variants, if you believe that the majority rules, then you will probably hold to the MT. If you believe that geographical distribution and the age of the manuscript is more important, then the CT will probably be your choice. It is extremely difficult to choose among these criteria, and there are strong arguments for both positions. Both positions are (usually) treated with respect on this board.

I've often heard the "geographical distribution" argument used for support of the CT, but I find that to be a rather weak point in its support. The reality is it highly favors the Alexandrian readings and that is the early text of upper Egypt. I think the geographical argument (as it applies to textual criticism) has been overused by BOTH sides of the textual debate.

I would add that "reasoned transmissionalism" (readings based on the wider scope of manuscript transmission throughout history), is more important than both geography and numbers. Reasoned transmissionalism combined with the majority witness is exceedingly compelling to me, which is why I favor Robinson's Byzantine Priority Theory.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...

What would you say the percentage difference is between the Critical Text and the Majority Text/Byzantine Priority?

His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

A lot can happen in 3% but if you are losing sleep over textual variants I hope this gives you some perspective.

A hearty amen to this. That being said, it is still a valid question to ask (not implying Robert was denying this). Which tradition you favor has everything to do with how you weight the various criteria in textual criticism. For instance, if one ties God's providence to the church in preserving manuscripts, and does not believe that God's providence works outside those boundaries, then the TR/MT will likely be your choice. If you believe God's providence can work in preserving manuscripts outside the church as well as inside, then the CT will probably be your choice. As to individual variants, if you believe that the majority rules, then you will probably hold to the MT. If you believe that geographical distribution and the age of the manuscript is more important, then the CT will probably be your choice. It is extremely difficult to choose among these criteria, and there are strong arguments for both positions. Both positions are (usually) treated with respect on this board.

I've often heard the "geographical distribution" argument used for support of the CT, but I find that to be a rather weak point in its support. The reality is it highly favors the Alexandrian readings and that is the early text of upper Egypt. I think the geographical argument (as it applies to textual criticism) has been overused by BOTH sides of the textual debate.

I would add that "reasoned transmissionalism" (readings based on the wider scope of manuscript transmission throughout history), is more important than both geography and numbers. Reasoned transmissionalism combined with the majority witness is exceedingly compelling to me, which is why I favor Robinson's Byzantine Priority Theory.

I agree. To me the geographical argument is akin to the argument that the CT is based on over 5000 manuscripts. In theory perhaps, but in reality the CT is almost entirely based on a few Alexandrian manuscripts.

 

[bookslover]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

Sort of makes you wonder what all the hubbub is about in the battles between proponents of this or that text family, and all the ink (both in pixel form and otherwise) that's been spilled about this over the years. Since it turns out that all the manuscripts and their families read virtually the same, then the rest is just picking nits, in my opinion.

 

[au5t1n]

I asked Dr. Maurice Robinson earlier today...His answer..."Easy answer: if all differences are included, including spelling issues, the difference is about 6%, with about 94% of the text the same in both. If only translatable differences are considered, the difference would be only about 3%."

Sort of makes you wonder what all the hubbub is about in the battles between proponents of this or that text family, and all the ink (both in pixel form and otherwise) that's been spilled about this over the years. Since it turns out that all the manuscripts and their families read virtually the same, then the rest is just picking nits, in my opinion.

"Nits" is an interesting choice of word here. In this context, it is not altogether dissimilar to the words "jot" and "tittle."

 

[reaganmarsh]

It's been a while since we had a good PB throw down over the ms traditions. About time to do it again. Just teasing.

I had a representative from the Gideons tell me recently that they're moving to the ESV for their main giveaway translation soon. My question for him was, "What about the textual/mss differences?" He replied that Crossway had provided them some sort of a TR-supplement for those texts which ESV normally footnotes, and they'd be placed in the normal text block.

If that's really the case, I'd be very interested in a copy...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I had a representative from the Gideons tell me recently that they're moving to the ESV for their main giveaway translation soon. My question for him was, "What about the textual/mss differences?" He replied that Crossway had provided them some sort of a TR-supplement for those texts which ESV normally footnotes, and they'd be placed in the normal text block.

If that's really the case, I'd be very interested in a copy...

So would I. Has anyone got a couple of spare copies lying around that they could mail to Reagan and me? I am sure Reagan would happily pay for both copies and the postage to Northern Ireland. After all, since he uncovers all these free-books on the internet, he must have plenty of cash to spare.

 

[reaganmarsh]

After all, since he uncovers all these free-books on the internet, he must have plenty of cash to spare.

As they say, brother, necessity is the mother of invention... ;-)