Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text

[Bakershalfdozen]

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.

[Pastorj]

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.

[Bakershalfdozen]

[quote="Pastorj"]To me the issue deals with preservation. The CT manuscripts do not match up to the doctrine of Biblical preservation.[/quote]

Thanks for the reply.

In what way does the CT not match the doctrine of Biblical preservation?

[Jerry]

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.

[Annie]

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

[Pastorj]

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.

[Danny Carlton]

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?

[Jerry]

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.

[John the Baptist]

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

[John81]

Good thread! :thumb

[Danny Carlton]

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.

[Danny Carlton]

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?

[Jerry]

The septuagint is a greek translation of the Old Testament.

Yes, a corrupted, changed translation of the OT.

[John the Baptist]

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

[Danny Carlton]

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.