Problems with the modern text-critical approach and the ESV

[Willem van Oranje]

The ESV is a fine translation in many ways. I use it for reference at times. However I am not convinced that it uses the correct textual approach or presuppositions.

As far as modern NT critical scholarship, (on which the ESV is based) I am not convinced that modern scholarship is working based on correct presuppositions. I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity. Such stalwarts as Metzger and Hort state this view clearly in their books which explain and defend their textual work.

The theory of corruption and restoration seems to contradict the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. Furthermore, it discards out of hand the diligent text-critical work done by the 4th century Church (note, the church, not the secular academy, that is significant,) and overturns it completely based on scanty evidence, (when we obviously don't have the same number, quality, or variety of manuscripts available today that the 4th century Church had. We've only been able to dig up a couple codices and some random fragments from that era.)

One separate concern that I have with the ESV is its tendency to make highly speculative emendations of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament through "revocalization" and/or relying on secondary texts like the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the DSS.

I am open to being proven wrong, if there are valid arguments. The problem is that I have not run across any convincing arguments in Metzger. He doesn't even really address the important observations and critical academic work done by Dean John Burgeon, who was speaking from a more ecclesiastically oriented perspective. It does not make for a convincing case when you simply reject an opposing argument out of hand instead of disproving it.

Now, who wants to show me why I'm wrong on this? Anyone?

 

[nicnap]

Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.

 

[greenbaggins]

I don't know that it's necessary to say that you're wrong on this issue. I, too, have reservations about some of Metzger's conclusions, even though I agree in general with his text-critical positions. Here's the thing: every text-critical issue has to be solved on an individual basis. Every text-critical problem is distinct in terms of its witnesses, external and internal evidence. The thing that Metzger has done for us is to show us his conclusions (the conclusions of the committee, not just of him), and then he wrote a text-critical commentary that explains why they came to the conclusions they did. If one therefore uses the NA27 or USB4, one can see the paper trail, and therefore make one's own conclusions. I disagree with Metzger's conclusions plenty of times, because I tend to weight certain kinds of evidence differently than he does. For instance, he heavily weights internal evidence. I am a bit leery of internal evidence, since it sometimes makes unnecessarily warranted assumptions about what the copiest would or would not have done. I weight geographical distribution much higher than Metzger does, and that for a very simple reason: a difference in the manuscripts that has wide geographical distribution is much less likely to have originated from bias or a particular school of copying. There are, of course, many different issues and criteria that have to be taken into account when weighting the evidence. I also tend to weight the Byzantine evidence higher than Metzger does, as well. I consider it a perfectly legitimate text-form among the others. I think it is more than possible to use the text-critical work done by Metzger without having the same assumptions that he does. It will result in different opinions. But I am skeptical that there are only two positions: TR purity versus Metzger's problematic (some would even say unbelieving) assumptions. Is there no middle ground here? I would reckon myself in the middle ground here, giving more weight to the Byzantine tradition than Metzger does, and not sharing Metzger's view of the history of the manuscript tradition, and yet also holding to many of the same text-critical principles that Metzger does.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I too am leaning toward the Traditional Text. I recently listened to a message by Rev. Malcom Watts of the Trinitarian Bible Society. He makes a very convincing argument for the Recieved Text. I would also agree that the Westminster (and the LBCF2) teach the doctrine of preservation. I am about to begin seminary study, but let me share a few thoughts from a "laymen's" viewpoint (I don't like the term layman..brother will suffice..ha!).

A few weeks ago I and several men from the church were studying the Scripture and working through each word from the Greek. One gentleman was using the Nestle/Aland text and I was following along on my iphone through Blue Letter Bible. I am pretty sure the BLB uses the Traditional Text, and most likely Scriveners. We noticed a signifcant difference in the translation of a word. We learned that it wasn't a matter of translation. Both translations were good for their respective text.

It was a matter of mss. And this raised a question in my heart and mind: So which word is God's word? Which word did He breath-out to the Apostle? It can't be both, because the words were completely different with different meanings. Now it must be granted that the word difference did not affect any significant doctrine of salvation, atonement, et. But it does affect the doctrine of preservation.

To the man or woman that will struggle with this, like me, it must be searched out and studied. And I know that I am beginning with certain presuppositions. I am beginning with the faith that God has indeed preserved His word(s) and that not ONE of them have perished. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away before His words would. Matt 24:35. I am well aware of the context of that passage, but I think we do no violence to the Word of God by taking a general principle from it.

Jesus said in John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." If I am to be held personally accountable to the words of Jesus, how can you tell me that He permitted them to be lost, corrupted, and to perish from man? I cannot believe this. To those who are pastors of God's hertitage, you ought to give this serious consideration and study that you may truly prove to be a man after God's own heart and feed the sheep on knowledge and understanding.

Concerning John William "Dean" Burgon, I believe he was a scholar of immense worth. Anyone concerned with this subject is lacking in their treatment of this who has not read Burgon and studies his work. I am presently corresponding with the British Library to obtain the 16 volume work Burgon did in indexing some 86,000 references to the text fo the NT out of the church fathers. The British Library posseses the work but has not imaged it yet. The most ecnomical way to obtain this is through low res imaging on microfilm. I am estimating it will run about $1200.00, but I am awaiting both an example of their work and a final quote of pricing. Anyone interested in this please feel free to contact me and I will forward you the emails I have received so far.

Thank you for raising this topic as I believe it is of utmost importance.

 

[TimV]

Geoff and Riley, just some food for thought, but if there were say, 250 Greek manuscripts of a New Testament verse, and the overwhelming number were of the Byzantine family of texts, and every single one of them differed from the reading of the Textus Receptus, would you be in favor of changing the Textus Receptus in that one case?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Geoff and Riley, just some food for thought, but if there were say, 250 Greek manuscripts of a New Testament verse, and the overwhelming number were of the Byzantine family of texts, and every single one of them differed from the reading of the Textus Receptus, would you be in favor of changing the Textus Receptus in that one case?

To be honest Tim, I don't know. Perhaps Riley could answer better. Let me say that I am not against textual criticism. It appears to me (under my limited knoweldge so far) that in establishing the NT text one MUST do textual criticism, and I am not certain that the text type is the only rule that should be considered when compliling the NT text.

 

[TimV]

Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it.

The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.

BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it.

The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.

BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.

Thanks for the information. Often when the subject is discussed there is criticism of Erasmus' text. I am still trying to collate the infromation surrounding Erasmus and I do understand that there were several revisions to his text, and that while his text was based on less manuscripts than were and now extant, those manuscripts did represent to a large degree the larger body of mss. Within the realm of the Received Text is not just Erasmus' text. There is the stephanus as well as others. The Trinitarian Bible Society, for example, uses the Scriveners. And I am still researching all the texts involved in the translation of the AV. I don't think it was just Erasmus' text.

 

[TimV]

Yes, there've been 106 (last I heard) editions of the TR. Remember AV is just the English translation of the TR, so they're two different subject. So for example Luther's Bible was based on the TR but wasn't the AV. And the Geneva Bible, which is in English and based on the TR also isn't the AV.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.

I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.

So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

I don't know that it's necessary to say that you're wrong on this issue. I, too, have reservations about some of Metzger's conclusions, even though I agree in general with his text-critical positions. Here's the thing: every text-critical issue has to be solved on an individual basis. Every text-critical problem is distinct in terms of its witnesses, external and internal evidence. The thing that Metzger has done for us is to show us his conclusions (the conclusions of the committee, not just of him), and then he wrote a text-critical commentary that explains why they came to the conclusions they did. If one therefore uses the NA27 or USB4, one can see the paper trail, and therefore make one's own conclusions. I disagree with Metzger's conclusions plenty of times, because I tend to weight certain kinds of evidence differently than he does. For instance, he heavily weights internal evidence. I am a bit leery of internal evidence, since it sometimes makes unnecessarily warranted assumptions about what the copiest would or would not have done. I weight geographical distribution much higher than Metzger does, and that for a very simple reason: a difference in the manuscripts that has wide geographical distribution is much less likely to have originated from bias or a particular school of copying. There are, of course, many different issues and criteria that have to be taken into account when weighting the evidence. I also tend to weight the Byzantine evidence higher than Metzger does, as well. I consider it a perfectly legitimate text-form among the others. I think it is more than possible to use the text-critical work done by Metzger without having the same assumptions that he does. It will result in different opinions. But I am skeptical that there are only two positions: TR purity versus Metzger's problematic (some would even say unbelieving) assumptions. Is there no middle ground here? I would reckon myself in the middle ground here, giving more weight to the Byzantine tradition than Metzger does, and not sharing Metzger's view of the history of the manuscript tradition, and yet also holding to many of the same text-critical principles that Metzger does.

So, let me ask, do you come out with an NT manuscript close to Metzger's, despite your philosophical disagreements?

As you note, we are surely endebted to Metzger and others for the work they've done in cataloging and classifying variant readings for us to compare and study. There is nothing like their apparatus work in the Text-Critical field.

Is it possible for you to take a third position? Yes, it's possible. You just might not have an acceptable English Bible translation to use based on your own critical text. Dean Burgeon himself departed from the Textus Receptus on many readings based on the textual evidence that he weighed. Yet one thing that I appreciate very much about his approach, was that he did not take it upon himself to produce a new critical edition to be translated for the use of churches. One man or a handful of scholars do not have the authority to change the text (Hebrew and Greek) of Scripture which has been passed down through the centuries since the Reformation. This is something that must be decided collectively by the whole church, as the Scriptures are our corporate possession, not an individual property. And because the Textus Receptus has been passed down from the time of the Reformation, that is, because a received text exists, and has been used in the churches ever since, therefore it would take quite a high burden of evidence to warrant the type of consensus that would depart from the received text. I find Burgeon's submission to authority here to be quite commendable and based on sound theological principles of the preservation of the Scriptures in God's church.

(In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Churches use the same (or nearly identical) Textus Receptus to this day as that which was passed to Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, etc. I know because I've checked. So that is even more testimony.)

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

Yes, as was said by Nicholas, we've been down this road a zillion times. There seem to be two main schools of thought when it comes to the TR only position. The "Reformed" position, which isn't held by many people would say that even though a word might be questionable, i.e. it may very well not be a word inspired by the Holy Spirit, the church can "receive" it.

The much more common KJO school of though is that held mostly by Fundamental Baptists, and it's frankly hard to get a straight answer out of them on that one.

BTW there are a couple places in the TR that just don't have any Byzantine (or any other) Greek witness. Erasmus had 6 portions of the NT available, and some of them were smudged. Today we have 5,800.

Tim,

I could possibly favor amending it, if the evidence warranted, but there are several other factors to consider than just the number of manuscripts. That is important, but not the only criterion. Plus, I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.

I find Dean Burgeon's principles of Textual Criticism to be very obejective, sound and convincing as a method. One of the important things which distinguishes his method from that of Metzger and Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland is that he considered the collective weight of all the criteria together, without assigning highest importance to one only, for example, the manuscript type.

Here is a list of Burgeon's criteria:

1. Antiquity (For Burgeon, this criterion was all about dating the variant. Any reliable source could establish the antiquity of a reading: codex, uncial, minuscule, quotes from the church fathers, Syriac or other early versions, etc. With this method, he was able to date many of the uniquely Byzantine readings much earlier than the earliest Byzantine exemplar, especially using his textual work in the church fathers.)

2. Number (The number of manuscripts supporting a reading)

3. Variety of Evidence (Catholicity, Geographic dispersion)

4. Respectability of Witnesses (Burgeon attempts to weigh sources based on objective criteria. I found his work helpful in this area.)

5. Continuity (or unbroken historical witness throughout all ages.)

6. Context (Internal evidence. E. g. are there a lot of problems with this manuscript in this passage?)

7. Internal Considerations, (or Reasonableness.)

 

[TimV]

I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.

That's never stopped anyone before. If you read the nasty letters between Jerome and Augustine you'll see the same reasoning. Augustine basically said the church should always use the Septuagint since that's the Bible the church has always used. The same as your "from the time of the Reformation" argument, but better, as you judge those things.

Jerome switched to the Hebrew OT. So again, as food for thought, are you glad he did? Even though the church at large didn't want him to?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I would want it to be a collective decision of the whole church and not just one congregation which decided to pick up the latest English version based on new text-criticism.

That's never stopped anyone before. If you read the nasty letters between Jerome and Augustine you'll see the same reasoning. Augustine basically said the church should always use the Septuagint since that's the Bible the church has always used. The same as your "from the time of the Reformation" argument, but better, as you judge those things.

Jerome switched to the Hebrew OT. So again, as food for thought, are you glad he did? Even though the church at large didn't want him to?

His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.

 

[TimV]

His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.

It was used by the West, but took a couple hundred years, right? So a single scholar could translate the Bible from a group of texts he thought better than the TR and it would be either vindicated or not after a couple hundred years? What kind of time framework are we talking about?

 

[nicnap]

Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.

I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.

So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?

Well, brother, if you also understood me correctly you would have noted that I also said that I do not agree with many of the translators notes...which means that I don't swallow all of the translation "hook, line & sinker." It is not that simple; you are tossing out the entire text when the vast majority of it agrees. In those places where there is agreement, I will indeed utilize that text. In those places where there is disagreement, of course I would include in my reading the MT/TR. But, if I go to pastor a church that has as its stated translation the ESV, and even has them as their pew Bibles, I will gladly for the sake of congregational unity utilize the ESV. It makes corporate worship "more" corporate if everyone is on the same page. Will I include a reason why I disagree with the text? Of course, and I would supply what I thought the best reading from the Greek text that I would be working from (TBS TR). It is an obstreperous jerk who will split a congregation for the sake of a translation based on his preferred text, or comes into a congregation demanding a submission to his preferred text...or who is not even willing to utilize that text/translation that the congregation has deemed to be what they wish to have. As it stands, is the ESV perfect? No. Do I have my reservations? Yes. But do the majority of Reformed congregation seem to be moving to have the ESV? Yes, and for that sake, I will carry it to those places.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

His translation was confirmed by being used by the entire Latin-speaking Church. I agree with this collective decision and believe that it was warranted due to the superior evidence in favor of the Masoretic Text.

It was used by the West, but took a couple hundred years, right? So a single scholar could translate the Bible from a group of texts he thought better than the TR and it would be either vindicated or not after a couple hundred years? What kind of time framework are we talking about?

It would be preferable if he would come to the church with his idea before beginning work, and work alongside other church scholars with the consent of the church. However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent. If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

Most of us have been down these roads and shared our thoughts...I am sure someone will be willing. I personally am a MT/TR guy, but I use the ESV because I think it is a great "unifier" of many congregations. It is our renewed "shot" at a universal Reformed translation. I, at times, do not like the translator's notes, but I can deal with them/explain them as I see fit. I am sure TimV will be along shortly to give you his side of things.

I share you concern for unity. I am increasingly seeing the proper OT/NT textforms as something which the broader church should be unified on, by making a collective decision which textform is to be appealed to in controversies and serve as the basis for translations to be used in the churches.

So, if I understand correctly, in a (broader) church which is undecided on which Bible translation to use, you favor a translation which is based on the NA27, which you view to be a corrupted NT text, for the sake of unity? Having the uncorrupted text of Scripture seems to me to be important enough to have a real debate over rather than just giving in to unmandated trends for the sake of unity when there is no declared unity on the subject, and many still favor the text that you view to be correct. No?

Well, brother, if you also understood me correctly you would have noted that I also said that I do not agree with many of the translators notes...which means that I don't swallow all of the translation "hook, line & sinker." It is not that simple; you are tossing out the entire text when the vast majority of it agrees. In those places where there is agreement, I will indeed utilize that text. In those places where there is disagreement, of course I would include in my reading the MT/TR. But, if I go to pastor a church that has as its stated translation the ESV, and even has them as their pew Bibles, I will gladly for the sake of congregational unity utilize the ESV. It makes corporate worship "more" corporate if everyone is on the same page. Will I include a reason why I disagree with the text? Of course, and I would supply what I thought the best reading from the Greek text that I would be working from (TBS TR). It is an obstreperous jerk who will split a congregation for the sake of a translation based on his preferred text, or comes into a congregation demanding a submission to his preferred text...or who is not even willing to utilize that text/translation that the congregation has deemed to be what they wish to have. As it stands, is the ESV perfect? No. Do I have my reservations? Yes. But do the majority of Reformed congregation seem to be moving to have the ESV? Yes, and for that sake, I will carry it to those places.

Nicholas,

I agree with your approach. If serving in a church which has collectively decided to use the ESV, I would do the same thing.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

But, let me add, that if I were actually a part of a church which used the ESV, I would try to convince them to switch to a true MT/TR based translation, if it could be done in a way which didn't disrupt the peace of the church. This would generally mean talking it over the the elders first of all.

 

[nicnap]

But, let me add, that if I were actually a part of a church which used the ESV, I would try to convince them to switch to a true MT/TR based translation, if it could be done in a way which didn't disrupt the peace of the church. This would generally mean talking it over the the elders first of all.

So long as that wasn't your first "order of business," and you'd been there a while, I could see that. But, making such a change is a BIG deal, especially if pew Bibles are involved, etc.

 

[TimV]

However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.

But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?

If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.

But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.

But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?

Ideally the OT text should have been decided by an ecumenical council. It is not helpful for relations between East and West that we are using different OT texts.

If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.

But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?

MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.

 

[Grimmson]

I guess I should begin by saying that I am not TR (Textus Receptus) only. Nor am I King James only. I am not for good reason, and that is the simple historical facts that neither of the documents as it has been established was around one and a half millennia ago. These facts must be remembered if one is going to try to apply the argument of a supernatural preserving of the text within the entire history of the church. And to my opinion these two positions is quite similar to the Vulgate only position that was applied against some like Wycliffe and going further back in time with the Septuagent (LXX) only position, against the Latin. In other words the real issue at hand here is tradition and how should the tradition be measured and tested in relation to the history of the church.

One of the greatest things in our age is the discovery of more and more manuscripts. Manuscripts written on vellium, that would in all practical purposes lasting longer then papyri. One example of this is Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest complete bible manuscripts that came from the 4th century. It is a historian’s dream come true, because it shows what people were reading as part of their bible. It witnesses what we would call the majority readings and has some interesting variants.

I do not think it is beyond a shadow of doubt that alterations of the original manuscripts took place. There was even reported variants and attempted work in various times in the Medieval period with attempts to restore the accuracy of the Latin biblical texts. We need to be careful not to make each word in our English Bible and Hebrew/Greek Bibles as inerrant, but is instead using WCF “keep pure in all ages” the reading of the text. There a big difference between preserving the reading and the written word. In other words the ideas were preserved in the reading, with over time more words added for clarification or changes in punctuation, word order, spelling of words, and chosen words applied (like the word used for daughter is different in Luke 8:48 of the Byzantine tradition compared to the Alexandrian tradition). Just because there are minor differences in various codices, does not make it less then the Word of God because the same doctrines and Christ are present with nothing added to or taken away that is essential for salvation and to lead one into righteousness. This idea gives me more of a connective continuity with my church family in all the ages of church. These differences is not to be seen completely as corruption, but instead the natural process of mistakes of developmental changes in the textual copying process. I think a case can be made for issues of tradition affecting the copying process where by the scribe would insert something because of some reason it seemed like a natural place for it to be inserted like with the Pericope De Adultera or a desire of harmonization all the of the gospels such as the Diatessaron. It is for these reasons I think modern day textual criticism is helpful and needed to apply within our own texts. It is not something we should fear. Non-Christian scholars can do good textual critical work based from common grace just like a non-christian mechanic can do good/proper work. The problem with the church doing it is many as of late are unprepared to do this work from a linguistic and historical perspective. Plus I would add that the denominational strive would make such a work undoable in today’s age.

I think another issue to point out regarding the Majority Text (Byzantine tradition) is that it is not the TR. Daniel Wallace and may others has published differences between the two, but I think it is fair to say that the TR is a derivative of the Majority Text.

Another important fact regarding the Majority Text is the reality that in the first millennium of the history of the church it was not the majority text. The Alexandrian tradition was the majority and that was clear in the fourth and fifth centuries. By the eighth century the Byzantine tradition really started to pick up against the Alexandrian tradition. By the ninth century there was an explosion of text manuscripts, at least as is implied by the current archeological applied data and current dating techniques. I think data like this helps to shape the constructed theories on the development of transmission as the texts are examined in their various periods and compared to other periods.

The TR is an early form of textual criticism that used a limited number of biblical manuscripts. Modern bibles, like the ESV, use the UBS and Nestle/Aland’s work that implemented a larger amount of manuscripts for textual critical study. In their work, they try to look at a variety of different manuscript evidence (including in regard to region the manuscript is found and dating there of). Work has been and is currently being done to compare Patristic quotes towards various codices as well. To decide which is the more likely reading of the text based on factors of historical data and exegetical flow of the text requires wisdom and knowledge to put the pieces together. What is worked on is based on the sovereignty of what God has given us.

Another issue of consideration we should approach here is in regards to the question of the Apostles use of manuscript texts. It is clear if you read your New Testament that the citations of people Luke or Paul, of the Old Testament does not always match well with the Masoretic of the Hebrew Bible. Instead what is quoted in the LXX. It is what the people had that they were ministering to. There was no correction of “well this is what the Masoretic texts really says.” There is clearly a different view of inspiration of scripture here that applied by the New Testament authors, unless one going to grant superiority over the LXX to the Hebrew; which I do not see happening in regards to those that hold to the WCF. I think these differences should be allowed in print and taught in our churches; otherwise we are no different then those in the Patristic and Medieval Church that wanted to purposely harmonize scripture (like with the Gospels), which truly shows tampering with the Word of God.

 

[TimV]

MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.

No, MT as in Majority Text. It is really different than the TR. Now, do we have liberty to choose one or the other?

 

[Grimmson]

MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.

No, MT as in Majority Text. It is really different than the TR. Now, do we have liberty to choose one or the other?

I wouldnt say they are really different. There maybe textually about 2000 areas of text that are different between the two.

Concerning liberty, that a good question. So let me answer it with a question. Do you know Greek? If not then just use a common English translation. If you do know Greek then read the NA27 and compare it to the TR and the Majority Text. That probably doesnt answer your question, but I see both as communicating the Word of God and I think there is wisdom in using a critical text that examines and uses a large number of manuscripts in the critical work. The more examined in time and location then the better I say.

 

[TimV]

I wouldnt say they are really different. There maybe textually about 2000 areas of text that are different between the two.

The question was mostly for Riley. They're either different or not. 2,000 or 18,0000 it's a matter of degree and not principle. His theory seems to be that for 400 years in part of the world, part of the church came to use the TR as it's main text, therefore we should all accept it. But if that's the case there are some serious questions as whether or not we should go back to using a Greek OT since Jerome did the switch without being sanctioned by "the church". The Alexandrian type text has been going through the same process as the Hebrew OT did in the middle of the first millennium AD. It suddenly comes on the scene, people hate it, it gets published anyway and after a hundred years or so outstrips the Byzantine type text in usage.

Another question is the Majority Text.

You can't have it both ways. Either we can choose the majority text instead of the TR or we can't. "The church" has never used the MT. The MT has changed every time a new batch of manuscripts come to light.

So, if (and this has been beaten to death here) every single Greek mss we have of Revelation 16:5 uses Holy One instead of Lord, should the church accept the change? Do we have the right to "receive" a corrupted reading? Do we have the right to run away from answering the question and still insist anyone who would change the TR to what Providence has preserved in the apographs is going to be thrown in the Lake of Fire?

Or, (again, beaten to death) if in Rev. 22:19 tree is found in 250 Greek mss and book is found in only 4, is there some sort of curse on people who would change the TR reading to what 99. something percent of Greek witnesses say? Do we have to wait for "church" approval to do it?

What would "church" approval look like? Whom would we insist attend this council?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

First of all, I would like to point out that I made no mention of the majority text. You are bringing it up for discussion. The majority text is simply a compilation of all the numerically superior readings for each word without regard to other factors which support authenticity. Number is an important criterion, but its not a sufficient test without the other factors. So no, I don't think the majority text is a good candidate to supplant the established Textus Receptus. And if it's not the received or approved New Testament, it shouldn't be used in the churches.

If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?

Note that I am arguing that the Septuagint was supplanted by the Masoretic Text based on overwhelming and convincing evidence of its authenticity vis a vis the Septuagint. Therefore, there should be no talk of reverting to the Septuagint. Furthermore, this is not a case where a more recent critical edition supplanted a received edition. This was a question of which received edition should be used by the church, the Hebrew original or a popular Greek version?

Also note that it is not in just one part of the world that the Textus Receptus has been used in the church. It has been used by all of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The only notable exception has been Roman Catholicism with its false reliance on one Latin version, the Vulgate.

However, if the church so decides, it may adopt a translation (or Heb/Gr texts) previously made, by common consent.

But how? It took several hundred years, while both the MT and LXX were both widely used, and still today the LXX is used in the East. Do you approve of the process used?

Ideally the OT text should have been decided by an ecumenical council. It is not helpful for relations between East and West that we are using different OT texts.

If/when there are any departures from the received MT/TR text, an extraordinarily high standard of proof needs to be found supporting the change.

But the TR and MT are different. Which one should the should the church pick? Or are we at liberty to use either even though there are really big differences? And how much difference between texts would you allow?

MT as in Masoretic Text. Yes, they are as different as Hebrew and Greek. No difference should be allowed between printed editions of the approved texts.

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

David,

The apostles, in their occasional use of the Seputagint, gave affirmation that imperfect translations may be used. However, it is not fair to say that they always quoted from the Septuagint. At times, they seems to have made a close translation of the Hebrew, where the Septuagint reading was not adequate to support the point they were making.

I have two main points regarding the rest of your post. 1. The proper textform is a decision that should be made collectively by the whole church and 2. There is not sufficient evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus represents a more authentic textform than the received text. In fact, evidence seems to point to the Codex Sinaiticus as being inferior.

---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 AM ----------

Tim,

The best scenario would be that the Hebrew and Greek textforms would be decided upon by the International Conference of Reformed Churches. Absent this, it could be addressed by NAPARC, or if not, by the OPC GA.

 

[larryjf]

I love the Received Text and think that it may be the best Greek NT. But i also love nicnap's point on the ESV being a "unifier."
When all is said and done i think having a common Bible is more important than our personal preferences. I, for one, use the ESV quite extensively simply because it is the Bible of my local church and it adds a great deal of uniformity when we are all on the same page (literally).

 

[LawrenceU]

If the Alexandrian text type is authentic, then why did the 4th century church reject it (based on the superior evidence they possessed compared to us) and entirely supplant it as a text form in following centuries?

That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence. We don't really know that. Also, there was a good bit more that mere textual criticism in those decisions.

BTW, I'm not pushing for the Wescott/Hort, NA position. I am just pointing out that this does not shore up your argument.

 

[TimV]

That is a pretty big assumption saying that they had superior evidence.

Exactly. And what Jerome did was to use the Byzantine type family for his translation? Or an old Latin tradition that we now believe inferior to both the Byzantine and Alexandrian family texts?

 

[ClayPot]

Riley,

I appreciate many of your thoughts. However, the statement, "I am suspicious of any work based on a theory that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted for many centuries before some German academics restored it to purity," appears to be an exaggeration. I don't think the general belief among Christians who hold to the critical text viewpoint would say (or believe) that the text was corrupted for centuries (or that it had to be restored by German scholars). If you compare the critical text to the textus receptus or the Majority text, the differences really aren't that great. I'm not saying that there are only a few variants, but that the variants of significance are few.

A more important detail is that I'm not sure you understand what the Textus Receptus is. Or maybe a better question is, "Which Textus Receptus?" Is the TR one of the Greek edition of Erasmus or Stephanus or something else? You get different answers depending on who you talk to. Either way, the TR was not the text "received" by the churches since the time of the Reformation. It wasn't the collective decision of the church as a whole to be the true text of the Bible. It was the text used to translate the KJV but that doesn't make it the received text of the church, even if the KJV was an extremely influential Bible. So I think that no matter which side you land as far as preferred manuscript tradition, we all must struggle in some way with the fact that there are differing Greek manuscripts in trying to know what the autographs of the Biblical books originally said.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Or, (again, beaten to death) if in Rev. 22:19 tree is found in 250 Greek mss and book is found in only 4, is there some sort of curse on people who would change the TR reading to what 99. something percent of Greek witnesses say? Do we have to wait for "church" approval to do it?

What would "church" approval look like? Whom would we insist attend this council?

Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone? Do you even know how many there are? Dan Wallace says there are at least 1000 that have not ever been photographed. Most of the extant TR manuscripts have never been examined as I understand it.

I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently. Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation.

BTW – I would be interested – do you accept the Westminster Catechism’s view of the Ending of the Lord’s Prayer and the usage of 1 John 5:7 in the proofs of the Confession? Does that not look like “church approval” to you? Do you subscribe totally to the WCF and Catechisms?

 

[TimV]

Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone?

We've been through that. Calvin and Hodges of this forum got a hold of Hoksier and checked. Four of about 250 have tree instead of book. If there are 1000 that haven't been looked at, then:

a) how many would include Revelation? A couple dozen?
b) what would be the odds of them significantly different than 250 collected from everywhere? I'll tell you: zero.

I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently.

Exactly!!! And that's what happened for the first 400 years of the Church! But it's a really poor excuse for not moving on from the LXX, and that's exactly what the church did. We moved on. Just like we're doing now. But with kicking and screaming, just like back then.

Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation.

I've got 250 mostly Byzantine texts. Erasmus had one smudged copy of Revelation. And you, like always, won't deal with Rev 16:5 where you simply don't have any textual witnesses.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Tim – how do you propose we decide definitively on Rev 22:19? Can you prove the extant manuscripts which differ from the TR constitute a majority? Have you examined all of them? Has anyone?

We've been through that. Calvin and Hodges of this forum got a hold of Hoksier and checked. Four of about 250 have tree instead of book. If there are 1000 that haven't been looked at, then:

a) how many would include Revelation? A couple dozen?
b) what would be the odds of them significantly different than 250 collected from everywhere? I'll tell you: zero.

I am amazed that someone who claims to be Confessional would be unsure of what Church approval is. Church approval would look like it has in the NT – the true saints of God received the Words, settled on them, and taught from them. We know exactly what this is what they have done for the last 400 years consistently.

Exactly!!! And that's what happened for the first 400 years of the Church! But it's a really poor excuse for not moving on from the LXX, and that's exactly what the church did. We moved on. Just like we're doing now. But with kicking and screaming, just like back then.

Before that, you do not know what they settled on for Rev 16:5 and neither do I. So where does that leave us? I have got 400 years of providence working through history – you have speculation.

I've got 250 mostly Byzantine texts. Erasmus had one smudged copy of Revelation. And you, like always, won't deal with Rev 16:5 where you simply don't have any textual witnesses.

I would be surprised if Calvin and Hodges had checked even a fraction of the evidence. Most of the Byzantine have never been audited on this or any other issue. That was one of Burgon's bugbears and nothing has moved on since then.

What church moved on from the LXX? I did not know you were part of the Church of Rome? There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.

As usual, you launch baseless accusations on those who disagree with you. I have already told you how I deal with Rev 16:5. You have admitted that there are actually manuscripts that back my position. So why the need to be abusive?

I note you avoided my questions - what objective and biblical method do you have that definitively settles the Rev 16:5 question? Do you believe the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer should be in our Catechism?