One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That article starts off with the correctly with the [preserved] Masoretic Text but then he compares it to the LXX [a translation] and then brings in the Syriac Peshitta which is another translation. We can agree that the original authors of the OT wrote in a singular language, not Hebrew AND Greek simultaneously. Therefore the LXX is nothing more than a translation from Hebrew to Greek. We can say the same for the Latin Vulgate. Show me different textual families in the Hebrew and you might have an argument but until you do, all you have is conjecture and a baseless assertion, no matter how many people cite it or say the same thing.
Translations can be used in textual criticism, though caution is necessary. Sometimes the differences may be due to a free translation, or even a misunderstanding of the original word, but at other times it is pretty obvious that they are reading a different base text (or in the case of unpointed Hebrew, they are reading a different set of vowels. You can see this easily by comparing English translations of the NT. In many places, the differences are due to translation approach, but there are plenty of places where the differences are due to different text critical decisions - i.e. they are witnesses to different Greek texts. In the case of the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls now sometimes give us direct evidence of the different Hebrew text.

By the way, as in the NT, this is not just micro differences. The Septuagint of Jeremiah is about 10% shorter than the MT and (in my view) attests a different edition of his collected prophecies (probably earlier, but not on that account necessarily "better")

OT text criticism is its own field and I just wanted to clarify a few basic facts. Of course, different people will deal with those facts differently.
 
My shop teacher in 8th grade told me, "If you keep your mouth shut everyone will think you're stupid, if you open your mouth everyone will know you're stupid." Early '60s before everyone got a passing grade regardless, and a prize win or lose. So at the risk of confirming his statement I'm going to put in my two bits, based on my experience.

I was very disturbed 40 years or so ago when I was told the NIV was a CT translation, and if not unintentionally erroneous, it was purposefully so. Eventually this started me on the literature pertaining to the TR vs CT English translations. I was convinced between D.A. Carson, and James White that I could safely read the latter, though missing verses, verses in brackets with footnotes did continue to make me uneasy.

Two things came to reassure me of the reliability of the CTs. One was doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for the past 8 consecutive years, and the other was beginning to self learn koine Greek. I hasten to add that I don't 'know' Greek, but I do know some Greek, and where to go to figure out a verse if I don't know it.

In the 8 years I've followed the reading plan I've used a different English translation each of those years. I've followed Gordon Fee's advice (How To Choose A Translation For All It's Worth) and used a Formal Equivalent (literal) and a Functional Equivalent (dynamic) in my daily/nightly reading of the plan. I've read the KJV year one, followed by the Geneva 1599, '95 NASB, NKJV, 2011 NIV, '89 NRSV, ESV, and this year the NLT.

As a result of reading these translations, comparing them, I'm personally satisfied that the CT based texts are 'close enough' to the TR based texts for me to have confidence I've got the Inspired Word of God in either text base. F.J.A. Hort said that the only major differences between the W&H translation and the TR made up 1/60th of the text.

We know what those controversial portions are by and large 1John 5:7-9, the women taken in adultery in John , and the three versions of the long ending of Mark. Still controversial to this day. I continue to read the KJV, I started with it, verses I've memorized are all from that text, and I even still pray in the language of the KJV ... a habit I cannot overcome. (I've decided I am okay with it) So I'm not anti KJV by any stretch of the imagination.

Something I ran into recently that some here might find interesting is an example of where a little Greek can help you out. I heard it said that Galatians 3:28 was mistranslated in the KJV. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

So I went to my Readers Edition of the GNT and sure enough, 'neither' (ουτε) is not in the text at that point but (ουκ) 'no/not.' So then I went to Bible Hub to compare that verse in different English Translations, and the only two I found which got it as it is in the koine Greek are the ASV 1901, and the ESV. The literal translation is "no male and female."

I suppose my point in bringing up that verse is to say that the venerable KJV is not the providentially preserved word of God in its entirety. I'm with B.B. Warfield, and many other greats of the Reformed Faith who accepted the RV as a reasonable revision of the AV. Whether it is Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul ... on and on. I trust my Bible and you should too.

https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm
 
Last edited:
Jimmy H. wrote... I suppose my point in bringing up that verse is to say that the venerable KJV is not the providentially protected word of God in its entirety.

No one is asserting this. Why must people constantly muddy the waters like this?
 
Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the providentially protected word of God in its entirety. Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.
 
Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the providentially protected word of God in its entirety. Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.
Brother ... I assume .... if the one sentence out of the many offends you I am sorry.

That said ... as I said in my previous answer to your criticism, I've been on this board for a lot of years, and been through this debate ad infinitum over the years, and that assertion, I assure you, has been made on this board in the past. If your next move is to ask me to prove it I won't bother. I've got other fish to fry.
I've no more to say on the matter. Good day.
 
Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the providentially protected word of God in its entirety. Or find anything resembling that. You ARE muddying the waters, unintentionally, carelessly or willfully.
I don’t like your tone in this thread, brother. Especially here it comes off as disrespectful to your elder.
 
I don’t like your tone in this thread, brother. Especially here it comes off as disrespectful to your elder.
Really? The tone police has arrived? A firm resistance to the interjection of an extraneous common smear that the TR position is the KJVO position is offensive? There is nothing disrespectful in my comment. It is however, firm. For what it's worth, I'd wager that Jimmy and I are within a few years in age so I'm not some punk mouthing off to one several decades older than I.

Learn the difference between firm, forceful and disrespectful before you presume to lecture another about tone. Your presumption is very.... well, it can only be described as disrespectful.
 
Brother ... I assume .... if the one sentence out of the many offends you I am sorry.

That said ... as I said in my previous answer to your criticism, I've been on this board for a lot of years, and been through this debate ad infinitum over the years, and that assertion, I assure you, has been made on this board in the past. If your next move is to ask me to prove it I won't bother. I've got other fish to fry.
I've no more to say on the matter. Good day.

I accept your apology. I'm not "offended". I'm just trying to keep the thread on track. As you said, the matter of KJV "preservation" has intruded on past threads so guarding against it, even firmly so, shouldn't be a surprise or unwelcome.
 
Really? The tone police has arrived? A firm resistance to the interjection of an extraneous common smear that the TR position is the KJVO position is offensive? There is nothing disrespectful in my comment. It is however, firm. For what it's worth, I'd wager that Jimmy and I are within a few years in age so I'm not some punk mouthing off to one several decades older than I.

Learn the difference between firm, forceful and disrespectful before you presume to lecture another about tone. Your presumption is very.... well, it can only be described as disrespectful.
Digging in your heels even further is a great way to end all discussion. Can’t say I didn’t try.
 
Please ratchet back if you see that you have gone too far, so that the thread may remain open. Please keep the conversation charitable toward one another.
 
Hello again William,

You said (post #33), “The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with ‘cogent evidences.’ There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.”

If I am talking about the Scriptures which undergird their own preservation in the minutiae, then these are also “direct words from Scripture”, equal to the creation account. For instance,

Jer 26:2, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”​
Deut 6:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”​
Isa 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”​
And then Jesus, in Matt 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”​

It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even to the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“every word” of which we must “live by”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.

These “poor, inconsistent ‘evidences’ ” you refer to, how can you speak of them so when you have no idea what they are? Nor which Scriptures they pertain to? You are answering a matter before you even hear of it! (Prov 18:13)

William, then you say this, “And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things.

“If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it.”

You may believe what you wish, but I can defend my position whatever your beliefs are – that’s the whole point of apologetic discussions. In my signature you may see in Textual Posts some of my defenses using a variety of methods, all of which are presuppositionally based. Even Van Til, though a staunch presup man, used evidences when it appropriately suited him.

Please, William, don’t try to school me in how to present my arguments. So far they have been effective, even though I have met some keen opponents who might differ!

All of this notwithstanding, I do appreciate your strong interest in this topic. It is an important matter.
 
Post #66
Go through this entire thread and find one comment that asserts the KJV is the providentially protected word of God in its entirety. Or find anything resembling that.

Post #73
It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even to the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“every word” of which we must “live by”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.
 
My concern in the matter of the text is primarily epistemological.

Of far greater importance than the actual differences between the TR and the CT is how we think about and approach the subject of the text. The purely empirical approach to the text as found within the critical establishment replaces the authenticity of the text in hand as preserved by God with a text authenticated by human reason. With flawed human reason as the ultimate source of authentication, one cannot be truly certain about any of it as new discoveries and changes in methodology leave ANY reading with the chance of future emendation.

In this way, the CT, and more accurately the praxis from which it is derived is an anti-canon which completely severs the matter of the text from canonical concerns. In the moving of this goal post, the questioning of some canonical books is now starting to show up in academic studies. Indeed, this is prevalent in almost all significant works/studies being done in the realm of the Christian canon.

We are quickly moving away from the Biblical & confessional understanding that the Scriptures are self-authenticating as we are creating a new Magisterium out of human reason.
 
My concern in the matter of the text is primarily epistemological.

Of far greater importance than the actual differences between the TR and the CT is how we think about and approach the subject of the text. The purely empirical approach to the text as found within the critical establishment replaces the authenticity of the text in hand as preserved by God with a text authenticated by human reason. With flawed human reason as the ultimate source of authentication, one cannot be truly certain about any of it as new discoveries and changes in methodology leave ANY reading with the chance of future emendation.

In this way, the CT, and more accurately the praxis from which it is derived is an anti-canon which completely severs the matter of the text from canonical concerns. In the moving of this goal post, the questioning of some canonical books is now starting to show up in academic studies. Indeed, this is prevalent in almost all significant works/studies being done in the realm of the Christian canon.

We are quickly moving away from the Biblical & confessional understanding that the Scriptures are self-authenticating as we are creating a new Magisterium out of human reason.
Without dealing with any specifics, the main reason I have come to the Byzantine/TR position is not really textual, but rather theological and philosophical, so your comment here resonates with me.
 
Hello again William,

You said (post #33), “The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with ‘cogent evidences.’ There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.”

If I am talking about the Scriptures which undergird their own preservation in the minutiae, then these are also “direct words from Scripture”, equal to the creation account. For instance,

Jer 26:2, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word”​
Deut 6:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”​
Isa 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”​
And then Jesus, in Matt 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”​

It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even to the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“every word” of which we must “live by”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.

These “poor, inconsistent ‘evidences’ ” you refer to, how can you speak of them so when you have no idea what they are? Nor which Scriptures they pertain to? You are answering a matter before you even hear of it! (Prov 18:13)

William, then you say this, “And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things.

“If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it.”

You may believe what you wish, but I can defend my position whatever your beliefs are – that’s the whole point of apologetic discussions. In my signature you may see in Textual Posts some of my defenses using a variety of methods, all of which are presuppositionally based. Even Van Til, though a staunch presup man, used evidences when it appropriately suited him.

Please, William, don’t try to school me in how to present my arguments. So far they have been effective, even though I have met some keen opponents who might differ!

All of this notwithstanding, I do appreciate your strong interest in this topic. It is an important matter.
I find none of that convincing nor strengthening your position, brother. But I appreciate your zeal.
 
The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.
 
The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.
Brother, my feathers aren’t ruffled, I just don’t care to talk to people with attitude. Not enough time in the day.

Secondly, do you think this is some kind of battleground, and you need to use force like you are up against an enemy?

We are all brothers here who are in complete agreement about the essentials of the faith.

Instead of using force to keep the thread on track, perhaps words seasoned with grace and love would do a better job.
 
Folks, a moderator has already made a general appeal to settle it down. Stay to the subject and let the moderators worry about tone and inappropriate behavior. If folks can't reign it in, the thread will be shut down.
Please ratchet back if you see that you have gone too far, so that the thread may remain open. Please keep the conversation charitable toward one another.
 
Graham, your labors and your attitude are appreciated.

It is easy to tear down, diss, and criticize – anyone can do that – but to labor in study and to love a topic, to the end of edifying, is more difficult. This thread deserves to be put to rest.
 
The above exchange with En Kristos, Jerusalem Blade and Taylor is why my post #66 was so forceful in an effort to keep the thread on track. Just about every thread on the TR eventually conflates the TR with the KJV or KJVO and then descends into chaos. Evidently my firmness ruffled the feathers of one or two but here we can see why it was necessary to guard against sloppy thinking.
I think one issue is that a lot of TR proponents themselves conflate the TR and KJV. It could be this is not purposeful, but it seems to be a minority of those holding to the TR position that do not also hold to the KJV as the only text that is approved to use. It seems many TR proponents will then go on to criticize other texts based on the TR (e.g. NKJV). I do agree though it is not far to say this is the case for all TR proponents.
 
Graham, your labors and your attitude are appreciated.

It is easy to tear down, diss, and criticize – anyone can do that – but to labor in study and to love a topic, to the end of edifying, is more difficult. This thread deserves to be put to rest.


Thank you Steve. I want the thread to stay on track. I especially appreciate Robert Truelove's recent comments about methodology and epistemology. I hope that gets developed further on this thread.

Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Robert Truelove's comment at last addresses enlightenment rationalism and modern methodology. Rationalism dispenses with the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and treats holy writ in the same manner as they treat mere human writings.

How much evidence have we that these copyists were either over-zealous or knavish? Do we know that the pair of sleepy monks who were droning over a given place in Mark, knew anything, or remembered anything, or cared anything, at the time, for the parallel place in Matthew? But the chief objection to this canon is that, like some others which evangelical critics have adopted from the mint of infidel rationalism, its sole probability is grounded in the assumption that the evangelists and apostles were not guided by inspiration. Let us adopt the Christian hypothesis, that the scenes of our Savior’s life were enacted, and his words spoken, in a given way, and that the several evangelists were inspired of God to record them infallibly; and the most harmonizing readings will obviously appear to us the most probable readings. https://sites.google.com/site/evangelictheology/d/dabney/dabneydis1/d0000001/untitledpost

Back in the pre-snowflake era, men could sling around rhetoric like "infidel rationalism" without being lectured to about their "tone". I'm trying to season this with grace as Aspiring Homesteader encouraged me to do. It is not meant to be a rebuke but rather an exhortation that we be a little more "durable" when things get rather direct. It's not "attitude" people sense. It is the kind of forceful manly rhetoric that used to characterize Christian debate and doctrine. I humbly suggest we re-acquaint ourselves with puritan writings and see the manner in which they dealt with their interlocutors. It would shock most contemporary Christians, even those who view themselves as Reformed. Our effeminate age simply cannot handle directness. We have unwittingly become a "fragile" generation. It is a sad characterization of our age but we need to recognize it when we see it and guard against it, in others and in ourselves.
 
Thank you Steve. I want the thread to stay on track. I especially appreciate Robert Truelove's recent comments about methodology and epistemology. I hope that gets developed further on this thread.

Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871). Robert Truelove's comment at last addresses enlightenment rationalism and modern methodology. Rationalism dispenses with the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and treats holy writ in the same manner as they treat mere human writings.



Back in the pre-snowflake era, men could sling around rhetoric like "infidel rationalism" without being lectured to about their "tone". I'm trying to season this with grace as Aspiring Homesteader encouraged me to do. It is not meant to be a rebuke but rather an exhortation that we be a little more "durable" when things get rather direct. It's not "attitude" people sense. It is the kind of forceful manly rhetoric that used to characterize Christian debate and doctrine. I humbly suggest we re-acquaint ourselves with puritan writings and see the manner in which they dealt with their interlocutors. It would shock most contemporary Christians, even those who view themselves as Reformed. Our effeminate age simply cannot handle directness. We have unwittingly become a "fragile" generation. It is a sad characterization of our age but we need to recognize it when we see it and guard against it, in others and in ourselves.
@NaphtaliPress, how am I at liberty to respond to implications of effeminacy and being a snowflake based upon a misjudged desire to see a fellow brother respected?

I don’t want to go beyond the moderators’ wishes.
 
Robert L. Dabney, noted American Presbyterian scholar who boldly opposed modernistic views of the Bible, warned that Evangelicals who accepted the modern text were adopting it “FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM” (Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871).
I've studied much more of the Old Princeton/early OPC guys on the issue of textual criticism, who were accepting of the new findings in textual criticism and were able to support in a Reformed bibliology perspective.

Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top