Translations & Manuscripts A Few Objections to A Majority Text Position

Logan · Oct 5, 2022

I appreciated your article. I don't know that I want to do a response but I am curious as to what point the church started just "receiving" the text of the TR? In some sense, yes, it is always received as authoritative. But as beyond any improvement by manuscripts?

Did Erasmus just "receive" it? No.
Did Stephanus? No.
Did Beza? No.
Did the KJV translators? No.
Did the church before Scrivener? I suppose you could say yes, but did "the church" after Scrivener?
Did all the commentators who used it but referenced other manuscripts that read differently just "receive" it? Were they wrong to reference other "better" manuscripts and readings?
Did the church "receive" the KJV in the same way as it "received" the TR, despite individuals not knowing anything about the underlying texts and manuscripts?
Does the church "receive" the critical text today? If not, why not?

At what point did the textual criticism by men like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener cease to be applicable and it's now supposed to be just "received"?

If God worked providentially to preserve his word in the TR, why isn't he working providentially in the CT? Don't get me wrong, I have issues with the methodology of the CT but I find reasoning of the TR to also be weak.

I find the concept of just "receiving" a text to be ill-defined and not particularly universal in application to all ages.

Blood-Bought Pilgrim · Oct 5, 2022

Logan said:
I appreciated your article. I don't know that I want to do a response but I am curious as to what point the church started just "receiving" the text of the TR? In some sense, yes, it is always received as authoritative. But as beyond any improvement by manuscripts?

Did Erasmus just "receive" it? No.
Did Stephanus? No.
Did Beza? No.
Did the KJV translators? No.
Did the church before Scrivener? I suppose you could say yes, but did "the church" after Scrivener?
Did all the commentators who used it but referenced other manuscripts that read differently just "receive" it? Were they wrong to reference other "better" manuscripts and readings?
Did the church "receive" the KJV in the same way as it "received" the TR, despite individuals not knowing anything about the underlying texts and manuscripts?
Does the church "receive" the critical text today? If not, why not?

At what point did the textual criticism by men like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the KJV translators, and Scrivener cease to be applicable and it's now supposed to be just "received"?

If God worked providentially to preserve his word in the TR, why isn't he working providentially in the CT? Don't get me wrong, I have issues with the methodology of the CT but I find reasoning of the TR to also be weak.

I find the concept of just "receiving" a text to be ill-defined and not particularly universal in application to all ages.

Perhaps it’s the language of “receiving that’s a stumbling block here? My point here is merely that if one does believe providential preservation is active in the manuscript tradition going into the Reformation era, it seems incongruous to then deny that the same providence would guide the standardization or, as I would argue, canonization of the text in a nearly universally recognized (by Protestants) form as printing became available. Given a basic belief in preservation it would be even more incongruous to say that the advent of printing saw the standardization of a text inferior to that of the manuscripts which had been in use. Of course this is aimed specifically at one holding the MT view, so it’s not an argument calculated to convince someone not holding that position.

To your point, while obviously men made decisions to create the editions of the TR, I would argue that we see a unified standardization of the text in such a way that we can speak of the canonization of the text, just as the Reformation era saw the final canonization of the books. (I would also argue that those two processes are inextricably linked, but that’s a separate can of worms).

That’s a very simplified version of the argument, but maybe it clarifies my point a little?

Blood-Bought Pilgrim · Oct 5, 2022

Also a note: I caught my own typo. I do realize the first edition of the TR was published in 1516, not 1416!

Stephen L Smith · Oct 6, 2022

I agree with Logan. Also, if you argue the TR has been received then the question is which TR? Not every edition of the TR has 'been kept pure in all ages' WCF 1:8.

For the record my main Bible is the NKJV. I am not a CT advocate.

Blood-Bought Pilgrim · Oct 7, 2022

For those coming across this in the future, here's a link to the article with my hasty typos fixed!

A Few Objections to a Majority Text Position

I have decided to write this article in response to a video posted by Pastor Matthew Everhard on the subject of the majority text. I want to...

workingintheword.blogspot.com

ParticularBaptist1677 · Feb 29, 2024

Blood-Bought Pilgrim said:
For those coming across this in the future, here's a link to the article with my hasty typos fixed!

A Few Objections to a Majority Text Position

I have decided to write this article in response to a video posted by Pastor Matthew Everhard on the subject of the majority text. I want to...

workingintheword.blogspot.com

I just watched this video that Everhard published 5 months before the video you posted where he advocates for the Critical Text. It is interesting to see how he sort of goes all in whatever position he holds, personally I like that about him. But it can be confusing trying to find out what text he advocates. He specifically said in this video that the earliest manuscripts are what should be thought of as the most reliable, not the majority reading. I am with you on the TR, it is so helpful to have the TBS Hebrew and Greek Bible in one volume by the way.

Translations & Manuscripts A Few Objections to A Majority Text Position

Comments

Logan

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

A Few Objections to a Majority Text Position

ParticularBaptist1677

A Few Objections to a Majority Text Position

Article information

Downloads

More in Translations & Manuscripts

Share this article

Forum statistics

Share this page