Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

That would be great. At present, though, it's hard to imagine. We don't have the number of scholars, the funds, or the leisure that the larger community that produces the NU has. Plus, it would have a very limited appeal, even among TR folks (there would be those who would be skeptical).

Robinson is a different story, though. He's a Byzantine guy (I know there's only a hair's breadth of difference between the texts, but the theoies are different). He, with Pierpoint, have put out a critical edition of the "Byzantine text type." Look up Byzantine Text Form 2005.

 

I can't think of an example where the Peshitta alone would influence a reading; it might be helpful for the translation of an obscure word, which is far more often an issue in the OT than the NT. And of course it might provide further support for a reading found in the LXX and at Qumran.

 

Hello,

I believe that the CT is inferior as it has not been kept pure in all ages. (WCF 1.8)

It seems that the CT contains newly discovered fragments that add or take away from the manuscripts that have always been known and preserved by the church.

If God inspired the Holy Writ and his church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it does not seem probable that he would allow corruption to his sacred manuscripts. Variants do not assume that the text is not authentic as the true reading can be distinguished by a collation of known and better manuscripts in the church's depository.

The science of textual criticism is important but it must not be primary or on par with what Holy Scripture says but instead subservient to it.

 

Why is it assumed that the manuscripts used in CT are ALL corrupted? You seem to only apply the above truth to the TR manuscripts. This does not seem logical and further seems to break your own rule. Unless you only view the TR manuscripts as being valid. Again, did God not preserve the other manuscripts?

 

I'd like someone to tell me what a TR manuscript is, or what the TR textual tradition is.

 

Lane,
Thanks--I think you may have missed my point. The TR isn't a manuscript tradition, nor are there "TR manuscripts." That kind of sloppy language keeps getting used on this thread, implying that only a limited "family" of manuscripts is consulted when criticism is done from a TR perspective. My understanding is that Beza, the KJV translators, etc. consulted texts of the so-called Alexandrian text type, as well as texts from the so-called Byzantine text type when doing their textual criticism.

 

I've posted the following before, long ago, in another thread where the TR vs the CT creds were being debated ... I post it again because I feel, from a CT perspective it is worth noting. FJA Hort, co translator with BF Westcott of a critical text of the GNT, wrote this in the introduction to his explanation of the W&H translation, 'Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek.' 1896, reprint Hendrikson 1988. Underlined and emboldened text, by me, are the points I wanted to stress.

 

Hello Jacob,

It would seem unlikely that these fragments were used earlier and then lost for it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

I believe that Scripture is the first principle in the supernatural order and is self- attesting. The text manifests the doctrine and the doctrine affirms the text.

Textual evidence is very important. But they are secondary and should conform to Scripture. The science of textual evidence according to natural man is fallible. Therefore it must be subjected and taken captive to faith.

 

I think there is unfortunately sloppy language all over, and I'm certainly guilty of it too. It seems that even TR advocates often disagree on what constitutes the TR (I could name five different views just from the members on this board)!

The TR published by TBS and that seems to be most common was in some sense a reconstruction from the KJV, by Scrivener, of the manuscripts and published texts available to the translators. Those manuscripts were no longer available so it seems to be something of an "eclectic text" (irony). My understanding is that it contains a few readings not found any surviving manuscript. Isn't that the sort of thing the CT gets criticized for?

I'm with Lane here. It's hard for me to see the major technical difference in process...

 

Hello Grant,

God did not preserve all the CT manuscripts throughout the ages. There are recent discoveries of fragments that have been lost for centuries. It seems unlikely that God would bestow such an inestimable treasure upon his church and then take it away.

 

The God I read of in scripture often gives and takes away as he sees fit NOT as it makes sense to us. I am not trying to totally imply that with the preservation of his word, as I believe he has preserved it in all ages and in more manuscripts than the TR is based on. I am not willing to say God did not have a GOOD plan with the CT just because I cannot understand all the ways our Lord works. Even if we had 0 bibles left in the world, the Lord would still provide for his sheep I assure you.

 

I agree about the sloppiness. Things get muddled pretty quickly in a venue like this. That's not to say anything against thr PB--it's just hard to have a technical conversation on an online forum.

I can't speak to the Scrivener issue. All I know is that the goal was to present the Greek that underlies the KJV.

 

It's an interesting goal, to be sure. Not necessarily a bad one but probably not the best one either.

 

Lane,
Please understand that my statement was not directed to you in particular. The OP speaks of a TR manuscript tradition, and that sort of language has been used here and there throughout the thread.

As for my point being clear, I assumed it would be understood in light of what I've said elsewhere in this thread. I've emphasized several times that there are no TR manuscripts, no TR manuscript tradition, etc., and that the various editions of the TR are critical editions of the Greek testament.

 

It's useful for those who use the KJV. There's no reason it should be viewed as the definitive edition, though.

 

Interestingly enough, I listened to James White presenting a class on the TR and textual criticism a week or two ago on youtube here. I had bought the edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, not knowing that it was the Scrivener translation.
Why would that be a problem ? Well ... according to David Norton, in his The King James Bible, A Short History, From Tyndale To Today, Skivener edited the original edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible by making changes he 'thought' were accurate, without the textual evidence to prove it.
Page 180;

In the aforementioned video @ 3:10 James White says that Scrivener used manuscripts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and compared them with one another, then back translated 'his' TR from the English translation of the KJV. Apparently Scrivener wanted a TR text that was as close as possible to what the KJV translators had. This was more difficult because they relied so much on Tyndale, further obscuring the original textual sources.

James White says, "This is a Greek text based on an English translation." JW says somewhere in the video, that there is no Greek manuscript in existence that reads exactly as the Scrivener translation.That said, it is a really nicely done edition, as far as the fonts, and the quality of the printed book. Whether Scrivener, as in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, allowed his presuppositional biases to influence his translation is something I wonder about. At this stage of my struggle to learn koine it isn't an issue, because I'm still a neophyte with a long way to go to have the ability to read it fluently. I only bring it up to disseminate the information.

 

We're getting pretty far afield of the OP, but I just want to say that, from what I understand, this is a very unfair representation of Scrivener's work. His NT is based on the KJV in the sense that he chose his Greek readings based on the KJV. His goal was to show the text which underlies the KJV. To be clear: Scrivener was not a TR guy--he held to the genealogical method, and preferred the so-called Byzantine text. Also, he did not have a superstitious attachment to the KJV--he helped produce the RV.

 

Well, the science of textual criticism has, as its burden, determining the true text of Scripture by comparing and contrasting all of the existing manuscripts (both fragments and entire manuscripts). So, its job is to determine what Scripture says - so it's not a matter of textual criticism being "subservient" to the Bible, since it's determining what the Bible says (while not being involved with its interpretation).

 

Brother Tyler, who do you identify as being unfair in representing Scivener's work ? if you're referring to my speculation regarding his handling of the text, that was based on Norton's description of Scrivener's editing of the CPB. I did not say that he translated based on his bias, if he had any, I said that I hoped he didn't.

 

I was mainly referring to White's statement about it being a Greek edition based on an English version. I'll have to watch the video myself--forgive me for commenting before having done so, but White isn't known for being terribly charitable toward those with whom he disagrees on textual-critical issues.

 

Thank you for the clarification Tyler. Here is a bit of info I found on a site devoted to the TR. I found it in a google search, so I don't endorse it since I only discovered it tonight, but below is a little bio of Scrivener's TR ;