NickCamp
Puritan Board Freshman
I have a question regarding the charge against earlier manuscripts in saying that they are corrupted. I am not saying that all who hold to the Majority text view or the Received Text do this, but I have noticed many state that they believe the manuscripts to be corrupt (though the best argumentation I have seen from them is based on the variations between the Critical text and Majority text).
My question is; Wouldn't it be more probable for the Majority Text or Received Text to be corrupted vs the Critical Text? I'm not saying it is, but for arguments sake it seems like corruption would be most likely found in the Majority Text or Received text.
My reasoning: We could say that Roman Catholic Church most corrupt before the Reformation sometime in between 700 C.E. or 1500 C.E. (the reformation being 1517). If that is when the church was most corrupt as a political institution, and the majority text dates between 1000 C.E. and 1500 C.E., how do you reckon those manuscripts not corrupted? They were produced within the time frame of the corrupt church. Not only this, but when looking at the received text, and considering that Erasmus was a humanist devout Catholic. You have a Catholic, creating a greek text that is based off of manuscripts formed within the time frame of a corrupted Roman Catholic Church. How would it be that those manuscripts be more "preserved" than the manuscripts of the critical text that date as early as 300 C.E.? Two hundred years from Christ himself vs a thousand. If ANY manuscripts were corrupted (which I don't believe any have been), it would have been the manuscripts of the received text, right?
My question is; Wouldn't it be more probable for the Majority Text or Received Text to be corrupted vs the Critical Text? I'm not saying it is, but for arguments sake it seems like corruption would be most likely found in the Majority Text or Received text.
My reasoning: We could say that Roman Catholic Church most corrupt before the Reformation sometime in between 700 C.E. or 1500 C.E. (the reformation being 1517). If that is when the church was most corrupt as a political institution, and the majority text dates between 1000 C.E. and 1500 C.E., how do you reckon those manuscripts not corrupted? They were produced within the time frame of the corrupt church. Not only this, but when looking at the received text, and considering that Erasmus was a humanist devout Catholic. You have a Catholic, creating a greek text that is based off of manuscripts formed within the time frame of a corrupted Roman Catholic Church. How would it be that those manuscripts be more "preserved" than the manuscripts of the critical text that date as early as 300 C.E.? Two hundred years from Christ himself vs a thousand. If ANY manuscripts were corrupted (which I don't believe any have been), it would have been the manuscripts of the received text, right?