Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
In the midst of William Cunningham’s lectures discussing the providential preservation of scripture and textual criticism, he articulated his views concerning the accuracy of the Textus Receptus: ...
Most of the editions of the Greek Testament which have since been published in this country or upon the Continent have been based mainly upon Griesbach’s, or at least have in some form or other exhibited the principal of his various readings. Most of those who have examined this subject with attention have been of opinion that, upon the whole, Griesbach’s text is more pure and correct, approaches nearer to the original text of the inspired authors than the textus receptus, and I am disposed to think that this opinion is correct. At the same time I do not know anything which is better fitted to give a distinct and vivid impression of the substantial identity of all MSS. of the New Testament, of the extremely narrow range within which the investigation of the various readings from the application of all existing materials lies, and of the insignificance of the results which have been derived from the researches of critics as distinguished from interpreters, than just to run the eye over the inner margin of Griesbach’s New Testament.
There you have at one view all the words and phrases which he has removed from the textus receptus to make room for his own emendations, and you cannot fail to be struck with their utter insignificance, both in number and importance. And you will thus be very decidedly confirmed in your convictions of the purity and integrity of the text of the New Testament. And while it may be admitted that upon the whole and in general Griesbach’s text is preferable to the textus receptus, this does not hold in the case of each particular reading with respect to which they differ. ...
For more, see William Cunningham: Holding the centre-ground on the Textus Receptus.
Most of the editions of the Greek Testament which have since been published in this country or upon the Continent have been based mainly upon Griesbach’s, or at least have in some form or other exhibited the principal of his various readings. Most of those who have examined this subject with attention have been of opinion that, upon the whole, Griesbach’s text is more pure and correct, approaches nearer to the original text of the inspired authors than the textus receptus, and I am disposed to think that this opinion is correct. At the same time I do not know anything which is better fitted to give a distinct and vivid impression of the substantial identity of all MSS. of the New Testament, of the extremely narrow range within which the investigation of the various readings from the application of all existing materials lies, and of the insignificance of the results which have been derived from the researches of critics as distinguished from interpreters, than just to run the eye over the inner margin of Griesbach’s New Testament.
There you have at one view all the words and phrases which he has removed from the textus receptus to make room for his own emendations, and you cannot fail to be struck with their utter insignificance, both in number and importance. And you will thus be very decidedly confirmed in your convictions of the purity and integrity of the text of the New Testament. And while it may be admitted that upon the whole and in general Griesbach’s text is preferable to the textus receptus, this does not hold in the case of each particular reading with respect to which they differ. ...
For more, see William Cunningham: Holding the centre-ground on the Textus Receptus.
