Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Having grown up in the Hyles movement and since rejecting most of what I was taught in the movement, I am no longer KJVO in the extreme sense of the term. My position would be closest to PastorJ's - TRO.

My position is based upon what I was taught at Bible college and that is that the Received Text is based on over 5,000 manuscripts that are in agreement with one another and were found spread out all over the Middle East. The Critical Text, however, is based largely on fragments that do not always agree with each other and were found in basically one location. They are touted by some as being more authoritative because they are older.

Is this what the rest of you TR people were taught?

Those of you who don't have a problem with the CT (most modern versions are translated from it), what were you taught about the differing texts?

What I really don't want bandied back and forth here is MVs vs. KJV. We all know there are differences. That is because there are differences in the texts. I would like to know what you were taught about the differences between the texts and how you came to the conclusion that you have come to regarding them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In college I was told that the TR had over 5000 and the CT had only 2. I have learned that there are more than just 2 on the CT side.

To me the issue deals with preservation. The CT manuscripts do not match up to the doctrine of Biblical preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Part of the doctrine of preservation includes the fact that God promised that His people would use that text He preserved. That is true of the TR and its corresponding translations; however, that is not true of the Critical Text - one text hidden in a monastery and another in the Vatican library - neither being used at all, let alone by true Christians (in fact, the Greek Orthodox monks were actually burning the manuscript).

Isaiah 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views on this topic cannot be explained succinctly enough to fit into a single post on a forum like this. I'll be glad to interact as questions come up.

I'm still reading One Bible Only? by Beacham and Bauder. I'm finding that this book expresses exactly how I believe on this issue. I almost decided to post excerpts from it, but that would take time that I don't have. So, if anyone wants to know my position, read the book! :wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you Jerry, that is exactly what I was going to say. For almost 16-1700 years the CT was not used. It wasn't until Wescott-Hort used them to develop the CT in the late 1800's that it began to be used.

I am no Greek Scholar, but God's Word is clear that he will preserve His Word from Generation to Generation. (Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 40:8; Isa. 59:21)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In college I was told that the TR had over 5000 and the CT had only 2. I have learned that there are more than just 2 on the CT side.

To me the issue deals with preservation. The CT manuscripts do not match up to the doctrine of Biblical preservation.

I was only aware of two, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. What are the others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are various others, though those are the main two. Others used are the Alexandrius (something like that), the Septuagint - beyond that I don't remember the other names, though I have read various articles about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their are some seventy five or more papyri manuscripts some date as early as 200 A.D. P 52 which is a fragment of John's gospel dates about 125 0r 135 A.D. These were found in Egypt and its is how you look at the data whether you see God's hand in this or not. I believe that God allowed these manuscripts to come to light for a good reason. It has help us see as Adolf Diessman saw, that the writer's who penned the New Testament wrote in Koine Greek Which was the common language of the people.

These early papyri manuscripts have helped us better get closer to the first Century meaning of many words in the New Testament. Most of the five thousand Byzantine manuscripts referred to or 9th Century and later.

God Bless
John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are various others' date=' though those are the main two. Others used are the Alexandrius (something like that), the Septuagint - beyond that I don't remember the other names, though I have read various articles about them.[/quote']
The Alexandrian is a text type (as is the Byzantine). The documents contained in the Alexandrian text type are the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The Byzantine text type is the majority or received text.

The septuagint is a greek translation of the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their are some seventy five or more papyri manuscripts some date as early as 200 A.D. P 52 which is a fragment of John's gospel dates about 125 0r 135 A.D. These were found in Egypt and its is how you look at the data whether you see God's hand in this or not. I believe that God allowed these manuscripts to come to light for a good reason. It has help us see as Adolf Diessman saw, that the writer's who penned the New Testament wrote in Koine Greek Which was the common language of the people.

These early papyri manuscripts have helped us better get closer to the first Century meaning of many words in the New Testament. Most of the five thousand Byzantine manuscripts referred to or 9th Century and later.

God Bless
John

If I understand correctly, don't these papyri disagree with the Codeces Vatanicus and Sanaiticus and agree with the Textus Receptus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
The septuagint is a greek translation of the Old Testament.


Yes, a corrupted, changed translation of the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


If I understand correctly, don't these papyri disagree with the Codeces Vatanicus and Sanaiticus and agree with the Textus Receptus?


I don't know where you got your information on the agreement of the papyri manuscripts with the Byzantine, but in the apparatus of my Greek New Testament the papyri is more in agreement with Codex Siniaticus, codex Vaticanus and codex Alexandrinus.

God Bless
John
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I don't know where you got your information on the agreement of the papyri manuscripts with the Byzantine, but in the apparatus of my Greek New Testament the papyri is more in agreement with Codex Siniaticus, codex Vaticanus and codex Alexandrinus.

God Bless
John

The reliability of any editorial comments in a particular Greek New Testament, would depend on which translation those who compiled in relied on. Liberals lean toward the Alexandrian manuscripts and lump both the Alexandrinus and the Papyri, falsely into that category. The Codex Alenxandrinus is actually considered a Byzantine manuscript, not a Alexandrian manuscript like the codeces Sanaiticus and Vaticanus. After further study I find a consistency among references (with validity) that the early papyri aren't classified in either category, mainly because they are too fragmented. Therefore it would be innacurate to say they agree with any of them, and even more erroneous to claim that they agree with both the Alexandrinus (Byzantine) and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian), since the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript differ greatly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The reliability of any editorial comments in a particular Greek New Testament, would depend on which translation those who compiled in relied on. Liberals lean toward the Alexandrian manuscripts and lump both the Alexandrinus and the Papyri, falsely into that category. The Codex Alenxandrinus is actually considered a Byzantine manuscript, not a Alexandrian manuscript like the codeces Sanaiticus and Vaticanus. After further study I find a consistency among references (with validity) that the early papyri aren't classified in either category, mainly because they are too fragmented. Therefore it would be innacurate to say they agree with any of them, and even more erroneous to claim that they agree with both the Alexandrinus (Byzantine) and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian), since the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript differ greatly.


The reliability in any editorical choices included in a certain edition of the Greek New Testament is based on the copies of Greek manuscripts, which are not translations.

Liberals lean toward the Alexandrian manuscripts and lump both the Alexandrinus and the Papyri, falsely into that category. The Codex Alenxandrinus is actually considered a Byzantine manuscript, not a Alexandrian manuscript like the codeces Sanaiticus and Vaticanus.


"(3) The Alexandrinus Codex (4th to 5th centuries) was the first of all the great uncials to come into the hands of modern scholars. It was obtained in Alexandria and sent as a present to the king of England (1628) by Cyrellus Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus uncials with many other most important Bible manuscripts - Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and Syriac - came from Alexandria." (The International Standard Biblical Encylopedia) Clearly the Alexandrinus Codex is from Egypt.

After further study I find a consistency among references (with validity) that the early papyri aren't classified in either category, mainly because they are too fragmented. Therefore it would be innacurate to say they agree with any of them, and even more erroneous to claim that they agree with both the Alexandrinus (Byzantine) and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Alexandrian), since the Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript differ greatly


The many of the papyri manuscripts come form Oxyrhynchus Egypt. Many are considered in there text type to be Alexanderian, others are Western text type none are Byzantine. Yes much of them are fragmented, but they contain a considerable portion of the New Testament. They are not as reliable as other manuscripts, still have much value, In some cases they have proven the falsehood of many liberal acertains about the New Testament, such as p 52 containing a few lines of John 18 is dated 125 or 135 A.D. This refutes the liberal hypothesis that the Gospel of John was written at a much later time. First of all the agreement of phrases or words in the manuscripts is not based on the text type but if the words or phrase are in certain manuscripts as well as others. Sometimes the papyri manuscripts agree in the sense of having the same wording as the Alexanderian or Byzantine text types.

God Bless
John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...
  • Members

Note, critical text advocates mistakenly compare the Byzantyne text with the Alexandrian Text type.  Where this fails is the condition for the accuracy of the Byzantine text type is on the whole considered the "majority" or the constant witness among its thousands of unique manuscripts.  In contrast their is no such context for the Alexandrian text.  Contrary to the accepted standard for deriving an original text by finding the consistency in variant copies that "weed out" or identify unique anomalies as potential errors introduced by the copyist, the critical text does not have any sufficient sample size to do so.  This is exacerbated by the fact that the critical text bias depends mainly upon two codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which have been thoroughly and undisputedly recognized as containing a significantly large number of copyist errors for having such a highly valued witness to the biblical text.  When you consider that over a few consecutive verses, it is easier to find a disagreement between the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus codices than it is to find agreement, a contrary process is required, one which is highly subjective and eclectic.  Additional comparative studies show that the Vaticanus text aligns itself more with the Byzantine Majority text for a given New Testament book (Galatians for example) with fewer variants found than when doing a similar comparison between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  One should also note that the 5th century manuscript Alexandrinus, from which the Alexandrian text gets its name, contains a significant portion of the New Testament (all of the Gospels) that is found to be of the Byzantine text type.  There are also similar cases in other Alexandrian text witnesses found in early codices (Washingtonians, etc) and even in the earliest Papyri fragments as noted by both Sturtz and Zuntz.  Because of these Alexandrian text issues, the modern eclectic critical text is highly subjective on a biased "choice" of what may or may not be original and that these "rules" may change at any point or simply be different from that of another committee (anything but the Traditionally accepted text, if possible).   There is simply a number of Critical texts and myriad of biblical versions which have imputed themselves with the authority over the Bibles Traditional Text and subjected it to a biased and fabricate text of ones choosing that may have no manuscript witness or as little as only 1, 2 or three Greek manuscript witnesses...  It is therefore a misnomer to say that there is a comparison between the Alexandrian Text to Byzantine text - the Alexandrian texts just don't show an agreement amongst themselves on the whole as much as they do individually with the Universal Byzantine Text (See also Dr. Leslie McFall "Split texts" analysis).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One should also question the Critical Text theory that the Traditional text changed over time, and the Alexandrian text did not.  The statement is ludicrous from the standpoint that it is the Alexandrian texts which actually show the greatest amount of variants within their small sample size over the shortest period of time.  A seemingly contradictory statement to their theory is that it is claimed the Traditional Text is still 90%+ equivalent on the whole with the Alexandrian Text.  If the Traditional text evolved, why was the other 90% of the Byzantine text not affected? The answer is that the Byzantine text did not evolve over time, but that an amazing quality is seen in their manuscript witness by an overwhelming clear consistency between all of their manual copies, including both the earliest and latest copies.  Again, even the earliest Alexandrian codices and Papyri also testify in agreement with the consistent Byzantine readings.  For example, see Graham Thomason, The Relationship between Vaticanus & Sinaiticus and the Majority Text in Galatians, 24 October, 2014,     https://www.faraboveall.com/015_Textual/SinVat_Galatians.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...