Textus Receptus V Critical Text

Not open for further replies.
Hi Backwoods. Here's a great read. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

This is written to defend the KJV, but it's history of the Critical Text is priceless!! Especially the Chapters on the history of unbelief, and the short history of modernism. The 'myth' of neutrality stuff is great, because that goes deeper than the 'superficial stuff' that goes around so much, ie, battling over which towns wrote what, or who edited what, or the ever so popular 'just look at those crazy KJV users'!

I know it's a link, but i couldn't write any better. And it is a great read. I couldn't stop once I started, and now I know far more than any Liberal Seminary Grad. Mwhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!
Here's a great read. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills


B. B. Warfield detected that presuppositions lay at the bottom of the two approaches, but Edward Hills was basically the first to take a consistently presuppositional method into the subject.
Here's a few highlights of the book, just to tease y'all into reading it!!

New Testament textual criticism cannot properly be said to have begun until the New Testament was first placed in print in 1516, one year before the commencement of the Protestant Reformation. Hence the first New Testament textual critics were editors such as Erasmus (1466-1536), printers such as Stephanus (1503-1559), and Reformers such as Calvin (1509-1564) and Beza (1519-1605). A study of Calvin's commentaries and the notes of Erasmus and Beza indicates that these 16th-century scholars had not worked out any clearly defined system of New Testament textual criticism. In this department of biblical study they were unmethodical, and some of their remarks concerning the New Testament canon and text reflect the humanistic culture in which they had been reared. But in their actual editing and printing of the New Testament they were guided by the common faith in the Received Text. For in their appeal to the New Testament against the errors of the papacy and the Roman Catholic doctrinal system these Reformers were not introducing a novelty but were falling back on a principle which long before the Reformation had been acknowledged by everyone. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was out of this common faith, therefore, that the printed Textus Receptus was born through the editorial labors of Erasmus and his successors under the guiding hand of God. Hence during the Reformation Period the approach to the New Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in holy Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient books.

(b) The Age of Rationalism - The Naturalistic Approach to the New Testament Text

After the commencement of the 17th century rationalists began to arise who laid aside the theological approach to the New Testament text and took up in its stead the naturalistic approach which makes no distinction between the text of the New Testament and that of a purely human book. Denying the common faith, they handled the New Testament text in a wholly secular way.


(c) The Age of Enlightenment—The Skeptical Approach to the New Testament Text

The last half of the 18th century in Germany was the age of "enlightenment" in which rationalism was positively encouraged by Frederick II, the "philosopher king," who reigned over Prussia 46 years (1740-86). Under these conditions the skepticism inherent in the naturalistic method of New Testament textual criticism was clearly brought out.


(a) Naturalistic Apologetics — The Fallacy of the Neutral Starting Point

This inconsistency in regard to the textual criticism of the Bible and especially of the New Testament has historical roots which reach back three hundred years to the late 17th century. At that time the deists and other unbelievers came up with a novel suggestion. "Let us not," they proposed, "begin our thinking by assuming the truth of Christianity. Let us rather take as our starting point only those truths on which Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mohammedans, and all good men of every religion and creed agree. Then, standing on this neutral platform of common agreement, let us test all religions and creeds by the light of reason."

Instead of rejecting this proposal as fundamentally unchristian, orthodox Protestant scholars accepted the challenge and during the 18th century developed various apologetic arguments, armed with which they endeavored to meet the unbelievers on their own chosen ground and, fighting in this neutral arena, to demonstrate the truth of historic Christianity and the error of infidelity. Unhappily, however, these orthodox champions did not realize that they had been out-maneuvered and that by the very act of adopting a neutral starting point they had already denied the faith that they intended to defend and had ensured that any argument that they might thereafter advance would be inconsistent.


These are just a few of the reasons why the TR is better than the CT. I know, y'all hear alot of the 'what has philosophy to do with theology' statements. The truth is that Theology is the Queen of the science's, and philosophy her handmaiden. The basis behind the anti philosophy approach has to do with the myth of neutrality statements above. The 'theological-philosophical' approach is unescapable. And that's alot of my problems with the 'modern' stuff. From Bible versions to church worship. They are all related, not seperate subjects.
Not open for further replies.