Switching from the Critical Text to the Traditional Text was very hard especially for me because I was trained to have a bias towards it. The academic world as a whole does not accept the TR, Ecclesiastical, Byzantine, Majority or KJV. However, we have to follow our conscience & hearts no matter what man says. Personally, I think we are seeing a shift towards the Traditional Text basis. Seek ye out the book of the Lord. (Isaiah 34:16)
I was saved in 1988 under the KJV. From there, over the years I have used the NIV, NASB95, ESV, NLT, and others. After really studying things out with prayer, I begin to question what is going on? Why is this missing, or words are not right. I learned that the Textus Receptus is just the name of a book put together by many manuscripts from different places. The world didn't just get a bible after Desiderius Erasmus published his Textus Receptus in 1516. What I found was the manuscripts he used, bibles as far back as 100 to 150 ad, line up with it. I'm not here to write a book or say I'm a KJV oiliest, but if I where, would that be a bad thing? Only God knows how many millions of souls have been led to Jesus from the TR based bibles. I still love to look at the NLT from time to time. Even the NIV for notes here and there. My go to though is the NKJV with the KJV close by. I watched a video on how to read old English, so now I really want a copy of the Geneva bible. Would be fun. Anyway, that is all I have.
@o0o_OutCast_o0o Brother, I am glad to hear that you are saved. I love the KJV too! I am not KJV only but I have no problems with that position. All translations based on the Textus Receptus or Byzantine family are okay in my book! They are all God's Word preserved through the centuries. With any translation, I do kind of check against the KJV and make sure that nothing is completely off. The 1599 Geneva Bible from Tolle Legge is great. I am currently reading the Interlinear NT from Jay P. Green.
Yeah, it’s being marketed to the highest level from publishers that have more money than we even realize. It’s crept into seminaries and the like. There can only be so many changes before people realize. Also I saw something that the Book of Mormon had less changes then modern translations so
Burgon's principles for assessing the reliability of NT textual reading: antiquity, number of manuscripts that support the reading, consent of witnesses (manuscripts, translations, quotations in writings of early church etc), variety of evidence (eg., geographical spread), respectability of witnesses, continuity of tradition, context of passage in which reading is found, reasonableness.
I’ve been blessed by both of you guys also. Thank you for this. The YT algorithms leading to this video are a great proof for optimillenialism. :) such a good blessing.
I appreciate the clear distinctions here between textual families and particular translations. Too often 1611 KJV is conflated with TR and or Byzantine texts. As an American and now Presbyterian I favor the Geneva Bible as my primary translation which shares a lot of history with KJV but the whole issue is far more complex than the KJV Only folks let on.
Read Edward Freer Hills, Dean John William Burgon, Herman Hoskier, and Theodore Letis and this will help you jump over the fence you've been teetering on. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" and not to choose is to choose not to. You'll see what I mean after your journey Careful not to drown in the ocean of textual crit
A very worthwhile discussion on a controversial topic amongst bible scholars. I have moved gradually toward a Majority text position. It seems to make the most sense.
Purchased Pastor Everhard’s book when it was introduced at the start of this video. After reading just a few pages I would highly recommend it for even longtime believers.
Thank you so much for this interesting discussion. I offer this perspective respectfully & charitably. From an Orthodox perspective, it sounds very strange to hear clearly devout and seeking Christians talk about “tradition” as though it existed up until the Third Century then was somehow put on pause for 1300 years until the Sixteenth Century. This is an epic blind spot. I truly hope that these brothers find that for which their hearts are clearly seeking in great and good faith. God bless!
As a former EC (Evangelical Christian) this was always one of the most glaring issues/concerns that Protestants in general never answered convincingly.
This was a great discussion about what the WORD of GOD is. It's a sad commentary on the depth of modern Christianity that this video didn't get more views or comments.
Great video. Good discussion. My thoughts: If we only had the Alexandrian texts, would we still have the Gospel and all the crucial Christian doctrines? Yes! If we only had the majority texts, would we miss the Alexandrian texts? No!
Some food for thought, because I had the same issue too. Good promised to preserve his word, everyone will say in the original languages and yes that’s true. But he is the creator of theof universe if God wants to preserve His word in any language he can. Paul I believe said faith comes by hearing the word. Also modern bibles have to renew copyrights and have to change 5-10% of the text every time. So that adds up to a lot of changes with multiple copyrights. At least the bare minimum of the esv is that they are not updating it all the time now so at least there is that. My advice get a kjv, nkjv or Mev, 1560 Geneva , maybe even a daouy rheims bible.
I thought this was a wonderful open-minded discussion. I believe that as long as we are honest-hearted truth seekers and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our quest that God will lead us. Growth comes in steps in stages. Sometimes positions and views must be modified or left behind. This can be a great trial, even fearful and humiliating, but if we are willing to be led and have a humble spirit we are safe. May God connect truth seekers with truth teachers.
It is right to value every piece of information we have concerning the GNT. We should consider ever extant manuscript. But that is distinctively the CT position, not the MT position.
My top texts are the Tyndale Greek New Testament and the Byzantine favoring the Tyndale but using and respecting both. My biggest reason for using those rather than NA or UBS is these texts are based only on Greek manuscripts representing what I believe is the best of the two major streams.
You guys are BRAVE AND CORRECT!!! I’m pastor of Park Meadows Church in Corsicana, Tx (have served there 40 yrs). I studied manuscript evidence for 2 years in my early 30s. You guys articulate the correct position so well!! THANK YOU!!
Appreciate your comment and these shepherds collaborating to bring us knowledge of the word we have. God bless the three of you and may God continue to keep you close.
“We are a … Bible believing church.” … as opposed to all those other churches that don’t believe in the Bible lol let me know where I can find one of those. All jokes aside glad to hear you’re making the switch!
With the Critical Text view, you can never definitively declare truth, because the Masoretic Text and Nestle-Aland could change at any moment to supposedly more accurately reflect the original autographs. They will continue to be revised indefinitely, so there will never be any closure on the text of scripture. You’ll never be able to hold up a Bible and definitively say, “This is the word of God.”
While many recognize that English translations differ in their wording, many do not know that within the Greek texts themselves there are differences. No wonder there are those that think there is just one that is correct. They don't know Greek! I would have liked to hear of the 1901ASV mentioned, as it has fallen out of favor over the years. But I love it! MT 23:38 ASV “Behold, your house is left unto you [p]desolate.” Note; Some ancient authorities omit desolate. The removal of that word changes what out Lord actually said to those Pharisees. Here is why the ASV is so important in a few places. The word “desolate” crept into later texts, probably by a scribe. The ASV is translated from the Westcott and Hort 1881 Critical Text using the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, both 6th century, as their basis. The ASV was published before C.I. Schofield's Reference Bible which came out in 1909. A pre-Schofield reference bible is rare but VERY informative. Many are not aware of this important translation in our English bible history. In fact it is the very first critical text English bible!
@@garysears9444 No I don't. But the actual note at the bottom of the page for MT 23:38 reads "Some ancient authorities omit desolate." The actual manuscript evidence will have to be found elsewhere. Sinaiticus reads: "Behold, your house is left to you deserted."
Cool ! I didn’t know Matthew changed to Majority text. You’re really starting to peak my interest in looking into why the majority text may be the better view. I’m still critical text though
I’m just skeptical of the methods of reasoned eclecticism to produce a better text than a consensus of our manuscripts. It’s a difference between a preservation view vs a reconstruction view to over simplify.
It’s interesting how when he did his own research he came to this realization. I’ve noticed this with people that become kjv only or majority text preferred its from their own research and prayer. The ones that are all about the critical text seem to be regurgitating the marketing for the big publishers that own the translations, half the time it’s almost a paraphrase of the pretense to these translations. Just something I’ve noticed
Pastor Matt, I love your videos . I’m concerned about statements that we are ‘sinners’!? Doesn’t God present those in Christ unto Himself as Christ himself? Col 1:21-22, 2cor5:17,18. This is my struggle with my own church as well the emphasis put on sin and minimizing sin in our lives as opposed to seeing ourselves in Christ is in my opinion become an idol in my church. A member of a Canadian reformed church….
About the longer ending of mark, I do agree it was not originally written by mark himself. I’m guessing mark didn’t manage to complete it and somebody else or his disciples finished it. If scholars don’t have an issue to the ending of Deuteronomy not being written by Moses, then why not mark?
Great interview. Just a question... any thoughts about why there are no primarily MT translations in light of all the arguments for a MT position? The NKJV is about as close as one can get since it at least footnotes MT variants. Arthur Farstad was working on one before his passing, but his vision of one never came to full fruition.Thanks for all you guys do.
I think it's mainly due to the fact that the MT position has been a kind of underground movement. Up until just the last few years with the rise of RUclips there was no forum to discuss the virtues of the MT. Every seminary was in either in the TR camp or the CT camp. So without some large institution behind its publication there has never been a scholarly attempt to translate the MT into any modern languages. The few that exist have been the product of individuals who don't have credentials that scholars would respect. However, I think that is about to change. I believe with the help of powerful software, a growing interest in the MT, and the ability to quickly collate, print, and publish books, we'll almost certainly see a scholarly English translation published in the next 2 to 3 years!
@@lloydcrooks712 Yes, I own a copy and love it! But the English version it contains is the NKJV which is based on the TR. Plus, I don’t believe it’s still in print nowadays. I believe Pickering’s stuff is not printed by any of the large Bible publishers and is only available in digital or paperback format if I’m not mistaken. I have a digital copy of Pickering’s translation and find it serviceable enough-though I find Pickering himself to be a turn-off. He has an extremely narrow and hyper-opinionated view compared to most other Majority Text scholars.
World English Bible claims to be MT. From what I’ve read of it (which is little because it’s not a popular translation) it does seem to take majority readings. It’s public domain if you want to read it online. The EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible) is based off the Patriarchal Text of 1904, which I believe is MT. The latter translation is a New Testament only translation.
Thanks, very interesting. Something ironic struck me… that those who hold to “groupthink” i.e. the majority academic view, favouring the critical text, do not accept the majority text view!
Great video. Out of curiosity, in your opinion, which English translation best matches this moderate view of majority text? Perhaps NASB or NKJV since they keep the longer ending of Mark (and things of like nature) into the actual text instead of footnotes?
Well of major translations, probably the NKJV if you take not of their “MT”footnotes. My friend Adam Boyd has down a single person translation which is good.
@Kyle C Can you interact with the arguments vs making unsubstantiated claims. Every modern scholar agrees that those examples in the KJV are mistranslations.
I am up for a good think about John's revelation. Make it so, please... As a historian, preponderance of evidence frequently trumps attempts at dating in a final appraisal. As an example, one primary source in my area of research, a diarist named Joseph Dodderidge, can only be regarded as reliable when his statements are otherwise corroborated by other documentary, graphic, or archaeological sources. It is a forensic approach. And if guilt or innocence of serious criminal charges is determined in this manner, perhaps a similar approach should have some bearing on the textual debate.
My one comment is that I feel there is a push to apply the same rules to the Bible as we apply to any other field. In effect solving a spiritual matter through physical methods. While I support scientific method for most subjects I’d much rather hear that conclusions in this particular matter are being sought out with fasting and prayer.
My first Greek teachers not only taught me from the critical text 1 of them was an editor 3:03 of the NIV. I went to two more seminaries and never heard of the Majority Test. I do not if they were ignorant or did not want to tell us of other options but after I left school did some research of my own and met the editors of the NKJV which is based on the KJV but makes adjustments from the Majority text. I game to believe that the Majority text is at least as good as if not superior to the critical text. I also know that among critical text proponents there are some who do not believe in inspiration and inherency while among Majority text proponents this does not seem to be a problem.
The Critical Text has essentially created something new in many places. Something that doesn’t really exist in our manuscript tradition. So it only makes sense to me to stick with the documents themselves.
You say that like the Textus Receptus isn't something that never existed in the manuscript tradition as well (the "book of life" in Revelation 22, for example)@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
…Also, with regard to 1 Jn5.7 it was referred to by Cyprian in the 3rd century; within the Greek Lectionaries 5th Century; Jerome believed it should have been included in Ad 382 and many others so how did they know this information if it were not in ancient manuscripts that existed at the time? Anyway bravo, again for helping some of us older guys articulate the lack of logic behind the Westcott/Hort theory.
I enjoyed the video. But i have a question. If the majority text is superior then what translation comes from the majority text. Kjv nkjv anything else
Depends on if you are looking for a major translation work done by a major publisher. Or independent translations. A few of those are available. Here is one. ebible.org/bible/details.php?id=engasvbt
Thank you so much for this interview! I would like to know, and I'm not sure if you would know. Did Jerome use the TR like text or did he use the Critical text in translation of the Latin Vulgate? The reason I ask this is that Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate in his English translation. Thank you😊
Great question. We don’t have an original of Jerome’s translation either. So in some respects the copies we do have do resemble the TR. But not in every detail. In fact, sometimes it would side with the CT.
Can Christians who love GoD and His Word and want to please Him and be used by Him, refer to and study both Texts forms to arrive at the best possible interpretation of a verse or verses ?
I am really curious about why the students Everhard mentions would want to be missionaries if they didn't know people need to be saved from their sins.
I was struck by that as well -- to recoil from the gospel when one is a missionary? I would've really been curious to take those who were struggling out to coffee and ask them in the most polite way possible, "What were you thinking the goal of your missionary work was to be? Why did you feel called to this service? Before this class, what was your interpretation of the good news you were going to be spreading?" It's just... incomprehensible, yet I could see it easily happening considering the conversations I've had with certain people over the years.
The problem with the MT and using the terminology (even if the methodology is properly nuanced) is that a majority of witnesses is not necessarily proof of authenticity. So logically it's unscientific on its face. Secondly, there are other types of important evidence that are seemingly discounted by making the majority of Greek MSS. a touchstone (or something close to it) viz. the Versions, the Fathers, and internal considerations. Thirdly, it was the overall position (and writings) of primarily Burgon and Scrivener that ultimately gave rise to the MT in recent decades, and yet neither of them were MT-nor would they advocate for the use of such simplified terminology. Again, *Number* is only *one* of Burgon's "Notes of Truth." And neither Scrivener or Burgon would ever suffer a methodology that's primary focus is on the counting of noses. It should be obvious that a strict MT would be built upon an indefensible methodology, regardless of how solid or good a text it produces. Which means it must be heavily nuanced... probably to the point where the term "majority text" is no longer helpful and/or applicable.
Yes. I read a really interesting article when the RP text came out. Hodge was defending his terminology as I recall. I haven’t been terribly precise on this, because I don’t think the label is all that important. It’s only when the Byzantine text is sharply divided that the methodologies of HF and RP really show. But your point is well taken. Blessings my friend!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thank you! FWIW, I don't advocate for either position (MT or BYZ priority). And personally, I wouldn't recommend restricting the variant pool (in the sense of viability) to only where "the Byzantine text is sharply divided." (I see this as a major weakness amongst some MT/BYZ advocates.) I agree that substance is more important than labels, but labels are important-and should be helpful I think. When a label causes confusion the position suffers (as do onlookers), because clarity is essential in regards to methodology. The reason I'm bringing it up is because If someone is somewhere in-between the BYZ and TR position (like you have explained elsewhere), then none of the above terminology properly fits said position. (Unless you have moved over to a BYZ priority position as of late?) I also sometimes wonder how much divergence is acceptable (in Dr. Robinson's eyes) from (1) his text, and (2) his claim that the BYZ text is the original text-type and therefore essentially identical with the autographs, to still be regarded as BYZ priority. Thinking out loud: It kinda seems like some people are slowly moving over from the TR position, and some others have reconsidered the CT position lately; both sides seemingly finding middle ground. I'd like to see those in the middle properly labeled and defined. Otherwise we'll end up with another false dichotomy like the TR vs CT one that's overtaken the minds of many laymen and pastors alike over the past few years. Albiet, this time we'll have TR vs BYZ/MT or CT vs BYZ/MT. Sorry for rambling on. Thanks again for the reply, and all your hard work on your channel! Godspeed
My main problem with arguing about the majority of texts are this :way that's like saying if I go to a bookstore and I want the best book on say the C programming language. I could go with the one that has been used since the language was created written by kernigan and Richie which seems to be very very popular, but hasn't been updated in a very long time. Or I could go by say an O'Reilly text to kind of summarizes the platform anew. Now this is different than what he was arguing I think. He was arguing that ancient text differences may not agree with majority. But if everybody goes and buys a pink Axolotl plushie because they think it's best, and years later you're wondering why are there all these pink axolotl plushies being found buried with people? And then arguing that somehow there's a spiritual significance because of that quantity of evidence since nobody at all it seems, to be buried with a blue Axolotl plushie.. this analogy in my mind is actually not a good reason to make any decisions. I'm not saying I disagree with what he's saying about the majority text perhaps being a better translation, but the argument of frequency belies the human propensity to repeat what it likes to hear far more easily, than it likes to buy or repeat what it is uncomfortable hear. And let's be honest there's much in the gospel that is uncomfortable to many of us at some point in our life. Again I'm not saying his choice on the texts are right or wrong I'm not a text scholar nor do I claim to be. But to me when you look at science for example remember for a long time science said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it, then at some point later on, a few people started pointing out that it's actually round and the Earth revolves around the sun. If you made an argument saying look at all these old writings that that say this I mean how could they be wrong. That, scientifically doesn't actually hold water in science. I'm not sure why it necessarily must hold water on matters of faith and let's face it, choosing text still requires faith. This is my opinion. I'm not arguing over which text I believe is best in this case. The other thing that kind of bugs me internally when I think about this and this is not an argument to receive anything that looks like a deviation, we have many texts in the Bible that are very easy to understand that warn us about false prophets and false teachers. But they're also seems to be this thread throughout the entire gospel that calls us out to be separated from what the world, what everyone else says is right, now it may just be an emotional feeling in me but presuming that because everybody in history and this majority view of text said something this way that it must be true gives me pause because I hear Christ calling us out to stand out from the world. And we know that Chris and them in the past was misused by many. Isn't that why the Reformation happened in the first place?
Years ago I had a minister who confessed to me that he held to a majority text position when in our church federation the consensus has been one of a critical text position since the 1970’s. I didn’t know what that meant , thank you for helping me understand. When they told me that the oldest texts were most trustworthy I to this day think that makes logical sense but then so does that I would find the most trustworthy texts in the area where they were first sent and used, modern day turkey and Greece and Rome, right? Now vaticanus obviously comes from Rome yet I have never considered it authoritative. Siniaticus comes out of a Sinai monastery again not authoritative in my opinion.
Consider a particular manuscript, like one from the 7th century. That manuscript will deviate from the original autograph in a particular set of ways. If that manuscript was subsequently copied 10 times, it will have the same deviations from the autograph. If it was copied 1000 times, it will have the same deviations from the autograph. Yet according to this video, this particular manuscript magically becomes more accurate if it was copied a lot
I know what you are saying. And we didn’t mean to imply that. The fourth principle laid out by Dr. Maurice Robinson is that, “Wherever possible, the raw number of MSS should be intelligently reduced. ‘Genealogical method’ is accepted whenever such can be firmly established. ‘Family’ groups such as f1 and f13 have long been cited under one siglum, and a few MSS are known copies of earlier extant witnesses. In many other cases a close genealogical connection can be established and thus mere numbers can be reduced in a proper manner.” In cases like above and your hypothetical manuscript, these would only be counted as one witness. Hope that helps! Blessings and thanks for watching!
Brothers, please help me reconcile this, this is an honest question... The sample of manuscripts we currently have is not statistically representative of the entire population of manuscripts that have ever existed. It is believed -I think- that over a million manuscripts were destroyed over the two world wars alone, how many other million of manuscripts have been destroyed and lost in two thousand years? This leaves us with an objectively not representative sample of manuscripts. In other words, it does not matter that other ancient works only have a handful of witnesses and the new testament has 6,000. Those 6,000 are not statistically representative of the entire population of manuscripts that have ever existed, and hence any conclusions that you make based on that sample do not objectively speak of the entire tradition of manuscripts. This is from a statical point of view. It is like me meeting 3 Americans in Istanbul, and deriving all conclusions about "all Americans"only from my interactions with those 3 people. My thought is: Textual criticism is not scientific, most if not all of its canons and many of the practices are speculative at best. And textual criticism as a speculative practice should not have any weight on deciding the text of the new testament. So then how do we determine the text of the New testament? I think, By faith. I think that things are more simple than what we think. We men want to make things complicated. And in making things complicated we don't realise we open a door for questions to the faith that we will never be able to answer from a secular standard. I mean, we will never be able to give a full satisfying answer to Bart Erhman based on textual criticism standards, we can only do it by faith. A faith based answer is what Erhman is offended by and can not comprehend, simply because he is dead spiritually. I'm not sure why we do all those things. I think it is quite simple, by faith, faith in the providential work of God through the church. God gave the old testament to the Jews and the new testament to the church. As simple as that. Many of the books were not necessarily written by prophets or apostles, but by whom God intended to write them. Even some of the accounts of Scripture were preserved by the oral tradition of the church. Scripture is not what the apostles wrote only, Scripture is what God intended us to have as his inscripturated Word. Many times given through the apostles, other times by other authors that wrote, added and edited. I'm still working through this and remain in between the majority and TR position. Leaning towards the TR because of my reasoning above. The recognition of the canon and the reformation are the main providential events after the fall of Jerusalem. Please if anyone can help me see or clarify anything in my reasoning, I would highly appreciate it.
These men are more valuable than MANY presidents. I believe they well articulated your question at 14:15. Your answer at 18:30. And stay away from Barf Err-man. HE'S A POS.
The good thing about the Byzantine text is that it is spread over a wide geographical area. Von Soden had large swaths of the Byzantine MSS examined prior to the World Wars: Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt / hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (4 vols., Berlin: Glaue, 1902-1910). So, to my mind, there is really no major problem here. The Byzantine tradition has reminded stable for at 1600 years.
It doesn't matter all that much. Read the ESV, it's great. Read the NKJV, it's great. The KJV is fine if you live in 1600-1700s or are a scholar of Shakespeare because the English is old and elevated. We no longer speak like that and numerous English words in the KJV no longer mean today what they meant then. If you must have TR, then NKJV or MEV is for you. If you're honest, all the questionable TR portions of scripture are left in the CT translations, either bracketed or in foot notes. 99% of the textual variations do not matter. The CT says "Jesus" the TR says "Jesus Christ". Those are the majority of the differences. There are only a small handful of places where the variations could change the meaning of a particular verse, but NO WHERE does it change the greater theological meaning. Frankly, there are much MUCH bigger variants and issues with the Old Testament than with the NT manuscripts. Your New Testament is fine regardless of TR or CT in translation. Again, use both. If you take a HARD position on this like KJV only-ism and don't actually learn Koine Greek... Like Paul said: "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." -1 Tim 1:5-7
... also, I don't understand why there aren't TR editions of modern Bibles? Why don't they publish NIV TR, NLT TR, NASB TR editions, etc etc? I think it would help people trust the modern translation work and give people more options. The fact is the KJV is not easy to read, for those not brought up in the church.
I prefer the Majority text myself but I use all editions of the Greek testament. It matters not which I use at any given time. I may have my Nestle Greek NT of 1904 or Stephaus 1550 or Erasmus 1516 or Beza's 1598 or the Wescott and Hort text of 1881 or my UBS 26th edition or the Majority text as published by Thomas Nelson which is the basis of the NJKV. At any rate, it is all Greek NT to me! 😆 When it comes down to it, those few passages Mark 16 John 8 1 John 5, being the most notable examples is where the controversy lies. I agree with Matt here. For those who take an inflexable and unrelenting position I leave you in the hand of God. The KJV only crowd are beyond hope and embody fanaticism in the extreme. Imagine believing that the KJV actually corrects the original texts and is superior?
For me, the work in biblical numerics that Brandon Peterson has done has been largely decisive in not only converting me to the TR position, but also in bringing me to the position of believing that God's fingerprints are on the KJV in a way that they simply aren't on other translations. We talked a little bit about his work here in the comments before. He runs the YT channel Truth Is Christ. He's published an entire book now with his findings. Even if you just look at the "Greatest Hits" of what he's come up with I think it's quite difficult to dismiss it as coincidence.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That's just the tip of the iceberg. His book is almost 600 pages and it's all data with no fluff. He has some much longer videos than the one you watched as well and I know he's working on another video that I've actually seen a preview of and it's quite interesting.
My interaction with the critical text (UBS 3rd edition) has led me to be suspicious of the principles underlying the editors' choices. John 9:4 is a classic example of weird choices. All that I can say is that no Christian is under any obligation to trust the editors' decisions.
Let's say I buy a pair of shoes and discover they hurt my feet, so I put them on the closet shelf and never wear them again. I buy another pair that is similar but different, and this pair doesn't hurt my feet. I wear them, then when they're thrown out I toss them on the garbage pile and buy another pair just like them. 1000 years from now archeologists dig up my house and say "well we have this massive pile of shoes but they are newer, and we have this one set over here that is older. The pair that is older must be what he wore since it is definitely older." The conclusion is flawed because they were not there and don't know why the one pair is older but different from the majority. Text critics say that older is better. Better than what? The manuscripts from that same time that we don't have? How can we say that the "oldest" is automatically the "best", or the most accurate to the original (which we clearly do not have)? The Majority Text position seems to make the most sense to me. Good video!
Good analogy, except that the first pair were not what everyone else was wearing, or that the first pair was made poorly, or lacked adequate stitching, which is why they were put on the shelf and never used, or consigned to the trash bin. But the rest of your analogy rings true: biblical "scientists" a thousand years later find the first pair (which was flawed) and then, wanting to make a name for themselves in the academic world, declare that the first pair must have been superior to all the other later pairs because they are older and have less stitching...
I feel like people often take a majority text position because they don't want the "baggage" of defending the textus receptus -- i.e. being labeled as KJVO, defending the three heavenly witnesses, etc. They therefore try to take this sort of supposed middle ground, like being a moderate, because heaven forbid they should feel uncomfortable defending the traditional text of the Protestant Reformation from academia, and prevent atheism and doubt from creeping into the church.
I am going to say I think the critical text (Sinaiticus) was forged by Ludendorff I think the Byzantine (majority text) is still antiquity and I don't buy that the Alexandrian or Sinaiticus is older.
I am certain that most of the majority-text folks are sincere, but the position is more mysticism than real understanding of how the majority text was arrived at.
The issue with the KJV is that it uses “Easter” instead of “Passover” in acts 12:4.. it also uses 1 John 5:7. Which Erasmus translated from the Latin vulgate rather than the majority text.. The new King James Version does fix the Passover Easter issue, but not the 1 John 5:7 issue. Plus I think the Geneva Bible would be more accurate then either the new or the original 1611 King James Version.. I wish there was a translation that used both the majority text and critical text and carefully translated it based on the collective majority and earlier dating.. we should also note that in exodus actually having the Tetragrammaton when his name is given to Moses would be favored aswell. What do y’all think?! I personally prefer read/study the amplified version alongside a NASB, ESV, or NKJV. The CSB and NIV are easier reads and give more understanding.. I’m quite skeptical of the NRSV, NLT, MSG, Etc. Again what do y’all think?! And Prefer?!
...1. First, God created the general, (or 'masculine') cosmos and the special (or 'feminine') Earth (Genesis 1:1). 2. Then God was concerned for how the Earth, as its own general subject, has the most valuable thing about itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2). 3. Then God was concerned for how all that water is to have a special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10); 4. Then God was concerned for how that water cycle is to have a special beneficiary and member, namely water-based life forms, as such (vs. 11-12); 5. Then God was concerned for how all those water-based life forms are to have a special category, namely animal life (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25); 6. Then God was concerned for how animal life is to have its own special category, namely human life (vs. 26-28); 7. Finally, God was concerned that the general man is to have the special woman (Genesis 2:21-23). This seven-fold cosmic Divine Design can be seen both in the completed Creation and in Genesis 1-2. So there is nothing of happenstance either in (X) or (Y): (X) there are exactly five things that Genesis 1 reports that God names, (Y) these five things easily seem to be the five basic non-biological factors of Earth's water cycle: Names 1 and 2: binary cyclically distributed thermal regulation ( v. 4-5 ); Name 3: radiologically mediative atmosphere ( vs. 6-8 ); Names 4 and 5: binary thermal surface distribution system ( vs. 9-10 ) Of the six days of the Creation Workweek, it commonly is assumed that the work of Day Two is not given any Divine esteem of 'good'. I argue that it does, by what the work of Day Two is merely part of. Specifically, I suggest that the land and sea of the first half of Day Three is not alone that which God calls 'good' at that point of Day Three. For the land and the sea are mere subsystems of the Earth's water cycle. On this view, that which God calls 'good' on the first half of Day Three is the water cycle. In other words, that which God calls 'good' at that point is the *combination* of the five factors I already mentioned. On this view, that which God calls 'good' on the first half of Day Three is the water cycle. In other words, that which God calls 'good' at that point is the *combination* of the five factors I mentioned above. So God does not actually fail to call the work of Day Two 'good'. Nor does that work lack such esteem. For, that esteem is IMPLIED in that that work is part the 'good' which is the water cycle. In short, FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION. The account is NOT a form-first concern. After all, Genesis 1 is mainly about an actual process, miraculous as it was, of creating and assembling the actual ecology of the actual Earth. This is NOT to be reduced to an a-chronological list of mere 'items'. Even a grocery list typically implies that an actual, lovingly prepared meal is intended. So, consider a listing of the parts of a woman, as such. Ought we to say that such a listing is NOT intended to be describing a woman? Is each item on the list merely an abstract kind of 'rule'-following form? God forbid. So God does not actually fail to call the work of Day Two 'good'. He calls that work 'good' as part of the thing that that work is a part of, namely that life-critical thing, the water cycle, which is completed upon the formation of land and sea. After all, Genesis 1 is mainly about an actual process, miraculous as it was, of creating and assembling the actual ecology of the actual Earth. This is NOT to be treated as if it could just as well be an a-chronological list of mere 'items'. Even a grocery list typically implies that an actual, lovingly prepared meal is intended. And, considering what it is to be given a list that self-evidently is of the basic parts of a woman, as such, God forbid that we think it better to treat this list as if it is NOT intended to be describing a woman!
Very good video- I do believe that the critical text advocates have to acknowledge that the critical text is supported by the Vatican. As reform as most critical text advocates are, I would hesitate to use a translation that is supported by a church that sought to persecute and end the publishing of a textus receptus or even the majority text.
The received text or textus receptus is the text transferred from believer to believer and contained the inspired Word of God. Neither the critical text nor the majority text match the text of the TR and thus continue to propagate fallacy and corruption. The wescott and hort are never used in my study unless I am studying the adversary and his playbook.
A well-known US Southern Baptist YT preacher and staunch KJV only pusher has advised me that all other versions are impure and that also applies to original Hebrew and Greek texts. He is of the view that it is not possible to be 'truly' saved unless one uses KJV only. I asked if that meant that the thousands of 'native language' bibles I had sent to China, Thailand, Burma, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan were wasted and that the new (non-KJV English speaking Asian) owners could not hope to be 'truly' saved? He was silent on that. I would also assume that the thief on the cross could not have been 'truly' saved and that Jesus was 'truly' deceived to have suggested that he was. I assume also that our KJV only Southern Baptist YT preacher friend also believes that nobody was truly saved prior to 1611. Which means that the holy, infallible and perfectly inspired KJV was interpreted from 'pure' texts no longer available and penned by unsaved scribes. The good news is this, that particular preacher and the others like him, will be asked to give an account of their teaching to the One who hung on the cross next to the thief. 888AussieMate
Help with my understanding of categories: Critical Text = "Oldest is Good" Textus Receptus = "What ever is in the TR is good". Majority Text = "The most quantity of instances" Do I have that generally correct? Which english translations use the majority text?
![Jelly Roll - Dead End Road (From Twisters: The Album) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_Mb8CqKW4R8/mqdefault.jpg)
Hearing about textual criticism from someone with a kind, pastoral heart was a breath of fresh air!
Switching from the Critical Text to the Traditional Text was very hard especially for me because I was trained to have a bias towards it. The academic world as a whole does not accept the TR, Ecclesiastical, Byzantine, Majority or KJV. However, we have to follow our conscience & hearts no matter what man says. Personally, I think we are seeing a shift towards the Traditional Text basis. Seek ye out the book of the Lord. (Isaiah 34:16)
Proud of you, I hope you have stuck with it.
I was saved in 1988 under the KJV. From there, over the years I have used the NIV, NASB95, ESV, NLT, and others. After really studying things out with prayer, I begin to question what is going on? Why is this missing, or words are not right. I learned that the Textus Receptus is just the name of a book put together by many manuscripts from different places. The world didn't just get a bible after Desiderius Erasmus published his Textus Receptus in 1516. What I found was the manuscripts he used, bibles as far back as 100 to 150 ad, line up with it.
I'm not here to write a book or say I'm a KJV oiliest, but if I where, would that be a bad thing? Only God knows how many millions of souls have been led to Jesus from the TR based bibles. I still love to look at the NLT from time to time. Even the NIV for notes here and there. My go to though is the NKJV with the KJV close by.
I watched a video on how to read old English, so now I really want a copy of the Geneva bible. Would be fun. Anyway, that is all I have.
@o0o_OutCast_o0o Brother, I am glad to hear that you are saved.
I love the KJV too! I am not KJV only but I have no problems with that position. All translations based on the Textus Receptus or Byzantine family are okay in my book! They are all God's Word preserved through the centuries. With any translation, I do kind of check against the KJV and make sure that nothing is completely off. The 1599 Geneva Bible from Tolle Legge is great. I am currently reading the Interlinear NT from Jay P. Green.
Yeah, it’s being marketed to the highest level from publishers that have more money than we even realize. It’s crept into seminaries and the like. There can only be so many changes before people realize. Also I saw something that the Book of Mormon had less changes then modern translations so
Thank you. Good information.
Thank you for this interview!
Burgon's principles for assessing the reliability of NT textual reading: antiquity, number of manuscripts that support the reading, consent of witnesses (manuscripts, translations, quotations in writings of early church etc), variety of evidence (eg., geographical spread), respectability of witnesses, continuity of tradition, context of passage in which reading is found, reasonableness.
Great conversation! Thank you both!
Great chat guys!
Excellent interview! Definitely interested in hearing that Revelation discussion!
Another great video.
Thanks, brothers! These paradigm shifts can be difficult, especially when you undergo paradigm shifts publicly.
I’ve been blessed by both of you guys also. Thank you for this.
The YT algorithms leading to this video are a great proof for optimillenialism. :) such a good blessing.
TY for this!!
Thanks for watching!
So proud to hear this! I made the same change!
Excellent interview saw his interview with Dwayne Green appreciated his journey agree with majority text view which is quite stable
Great job of editing this interview. Very impressive. Pastor Matt is my favorite internet theologian.
He was one of the first RUclipsrs I subscribed to years ago.
awesome two of my favorite youtubers !
You're the best!
Wow wow wow one of the best and smart clarification about how to view, adopt and respect different point of view in the Critical text TR and CT..
I appreciate the clear distinctions here between textual families and particular translations. Too often 1611 KJV is conflated with TR and or Byzantine texts. As an American and now Presbyterian I favor the Geneva Bible as my primary translation which shares a lot of history with KJV but the whole issue is far more complex than the KJV Only folks let on.
Great video guys! I follow both of you and love textual criticism. Not sold on the majority text yet, but I’m listening and open minded.
Read Edward Freer Hills, Dean John William Burgon, Herman Hoskier, and Theodore Letis and this will help you jump over the fence you've been teetering on. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" and not to choose is to choose not to. You'll see what I mean after your journey
Careful not to drown in the ocean of textual crit
Lol i follow you both. The reason i clicked the video is because you both are together and i enjoy Greek.
Thanks! Appreciate you watching!
Hey hey! Two of my favorite youtubers! If Brian from Bezelt3 and Jason from dear woke christian were here this would be a party! So excited you guys.
Appreciate you, brother!
I'm all ears👂👍
Thank you for sharing your strong endorsement for the Majority text.
Happy to share!
Yes interested in Everhard's view of eschatology.
I THINK he said he is optimistic amill but if you wanna know for sure you would have to dig around his channel.
Great arguments! I prefer the Majority Text myself.
Pastor Matt is a great guy.
A very worthwhile discussion on a controversial topic amongst bible scholars. I have moved gradually toward a Majority text position. It seems to make the most sense.
Purchased Pastor Everhard’s book when it was introduced at the start of this video. After reading just a few pages I would highly recommend it for even longtime believers.
Beautiful Lovely Excellent
Explaining the Word is very important. Thanks for writing this Book.
I love these guys. My brothers in Christ!
Still new to this topic. I could listen for hours.
Thank you so much for this interesting discussion.
I offer this perspective respectfully & charitably.
From an Orthodox perspective, it sounds very strange to hear clearly devout and seeking Christians talk about “tradition” as though it existed up until the Third Century then was somehow put on pause for 1300 years until the Sixteenth Century. This is an epic blind spot.
I truly hope that these brothers find that for which their hearts are clearly seeking in great and good faith. God bless!
Thanks for popping in!
As a former EC (Evangelical Christian) this was always one of the most glaring issues/concerns that Protestants in general never answered convincingly.
Wonderful conversation, thank you both for your faithfulness to God’s Word.
When capitalized, "Word" refers to Jesus, not the Bible. Please stop deifying the Bible.
@@whoavadis1984 Welcome to Reformed Christian Doctrine 101. Where Jesus is the incarnate Word, and trolls don’t matter….
This was a great discussion about what the WORD of GOD is. It's a sad commentary on the depth of modern Christianity that this video didn't get more views or comments.
Great video. Good discussion.
My thoughts: If we only had the Alexandrian texts, would we still have the Gospel and all the crucial Christian doctrines? Yes!
If we only had the majority texts, would we miss the Alexandrian texts? No!
I too have wrangled over this issue. I still am. It's refreshing to hear a pastor talk so openly and wisely about his journey.
Some food for thought, because I had the same issue too. Good promised to preserve his word, everyone will say in the original languages and yes that’s true. But he is the creator of theof universe if God wants to preserve His word in any language he can. Paul I believe said faith comes by hearing the word.
Also modern bibles have to renew copyrights and have to change 5-10% of the text every time. So that adds up to a lot of changes with multiple copyrights. At least the bare minimum of the esv is that they are not updating it all the time now so at least there is that.
My advice get a kjv, nkjv or Mev, 1560 Geneva , maybe even a daouy rheims bible.
I followed the link to Amazon for the book and it is being sold for $60.00!
Goodness. I bet he doesn’t even know that.
I thought this was a wonderful open-minded discussion. I believe that as long as we are honest-hearted truth seekers and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our quest that God will lead us.
Growth comes in steps in stages. Sometimes positions and views must be modified or left behind. This can be a great trial, even fearful and humiliating, but if we are willing to be led and have a humble spirit we are safe.
May God connect truth seekers with truth teachers.
It is right to value every piece of information we have concerning the GNT. We should consider ever extant manuscript. But that is distinctively the CT position, not the MT position.
Thanks for popping in! Looks like you have a nice channel that folks should check out. Blessings!
Excellent video. I enjoyed it very much!
My top texts are the Tyndale Greek New Testament and the Byzantine favoring the Tyndale but using and respecting both. My biggest reason for using those rather than NA or UBS is these texts are based only on Greek manuscripts representing what I believe is the best of the two major streams.
You guys are BRAVE AND CORRECT!!! I’m pastor of Park Meadows Church in Corsicana, Tx (have served there 40 yrs). I studied manuscript evidence for 2 years in my early 30s. You guys articulate the correct position so well!! THANK YOU!!
Appreciate your comment and these shepherds collaborating to bring us knowledge of the word we have. God bless the three of you and may God continue to keep you close.
I’m going to refer one of my friends to your church. He lives in Corsicana
“We are a … Bible believing church.” … as opposed to all those other churches that don’t believe in the Bible lol let me know where I can find one of those. All jokes aside glad to hear you’re making the switch!
What resources should I read to learn more about the Majority Text position? What should I have in my library?
With the Critical Text view, you can never definitively declare truth, because the Masoretic Text and Nestle-Aland could change at any moment to supposedly more accurately reflect the original autographs. They will continue to be revised indefinitely, so there will never be any closure on the text of scripture. You’ll never be able to hold up a Bible and definitively say, “This is the word of God.”
While many recognize that English translations differ in their wording, many do not know that within the Greek texts themselves there are differences.
No wonder there are those that think there is just one that is correct. They don't know Greek! I would have liked to hear of the 1901ASV mentioned, as it has fallen out of favor over the years. But I love it! MT 23:38 ASV “Behold, your house is left unto you [p]desolate.”
Note; Some ancient authorities omit desolate.
The removal of that word changes what out Lord actually said to those Pharisees.
Here is why the ASV is so important in a few places. The word “desolate” crept into later texts, probably by a scribe. The ASV is translated from the Westcott and Hort 1881 Critical Text using the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, both 6th century, as their basis. The ASV was published before C.I. Schofield's Reference Bible which came out in 1909. A pre-Schofield reference bible is rare but VERY informative. Many are not aware of this important translation in our English bible history. In fact it is the very first critical text English bible!
@@garysears9444 No I don't. But the actual note at the bottom of the page for MT 23:38 reads "Some ancient authorities omit desolate." The actual manuscript evidence will have to be found elsewhere. Sinaiticus reads: "Behold, your house is left to you deserted."
I heard RC Sproul say that his interaction with ministers of the gospel brought him to believe that few of them understood what the gospel message is.
Cool ! I didn’t know Matthew changed to Majority text. You’re really starting to peak my interest in looking into why the majority text may be the better view. I’m still critical text though
I’m just skeptical of the methods of reasoned eclecticism to produce a better text than a consensus of our manuscripts. It’s a difference between a preservation view vs a reconstruction view to over simplify.
*pique
It’s interesting how when he did his own research he came to this realization. I’ve noticed this with people that become kjv only or majority text preferred its from their own research and prayer.
The ones that are all about the critical text seem to be regurgitating the marketing for the big publishers that own the translations, half the time it’s almost a paraphrase of the pretense to these translations. Just something I’ve noticed
Pastor Matt, I love your videos . I’m concerned about statements that we are ‘sinners’!? Doesn’t God present those in Christ unto Himself as Christ himself? Col 1:21-22, 2cor5:17,18. This is my struggle with my own church as well the emphasis put on sin and minimizing sin in our lives as opposed to seeing ourselves in Christ is in my opinion become an idol in my church. A member of a Canadian reformed church….
About the longer ending of mark, I do agree it was not originally written by mark himself. I’m guessing mark didn’t manage to complete it and somebody else or his disciples finished it. If scholars don’t have an issue to the ending of Deuteronomy not being written by Moses, then why not mark?
Great interview. Just a question... any thoughts about why there are no primarily MT translations in light of all the arguments for a MT position? The NKJV is about as close as one can get since it at least footnotes MT variants. Arthur Farstad was working on one before his passing, but his vision of one never came to full fruition.Thanks for all you guys do.
There are a few but they haven’t gained wide distribution. I just don’t think there is a market for them honestly.
I think it's mainly due to the fact that the MT position has been a kind of underground movement. Up until just the last few years with the rise of RUclips there was no forum to discuss the virtues of the MT. Every seminary was in either in the TR camp or the CT camp. So without some large institution behind its publication there has never been a scholarly attempt to translate the MT into any modern languages. The few that exist have been the product of individuals who don't have credentials that scholars would respect. However, I think that is about to change. I believe with the help of powerful software, a growing interest in the MT, and the ability to quickly collate, print, and publish books, we'll almost certainly see a scholarly English translation published in the next 2 to 3 years!
Hodges and farstad did produce an interlinear new testament which is pretty good RP has an English translation plus Wilbur pickering
@@lloydcrooks712 Yes, I own a copy and love it! But the English version it contains is the NKJV which is based on the TR. Plus, I don’t believe it’s still in print nowadays. I believe Pickering’s stuff is not printed by any of the large Bible publishers and is only available in digital or paperback format if I’m not mistaken. I have a digital copy of Pickering’s translation and find it serviceable enough-though I find Pickering himself to be a turn-off. He has an extremely narrow and hyper-opinionated view compared to most other Majority Text scholars.
World English Bible claims to be MT. From what I’ve read of it (which is little because it’s not a popular translation) it does seem to take majority readings. It’s public domain if you want to read it online. The EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible) is based off the Patriarchal Text of 1904, which I believe is MT. The latter translation is a New Testament only translation.
Thanks, very interesting. Something ironic struck me… that those who hold to “groupthink” i.e. the majority academic view, favouring the critical text, do not accept the majority text view!
Great video. Out of curiosity, in your opinion, which English translation best matches this moderate view of majority text? Perhaps NASB or NKJV since they keep the longer ending of Mark (and things of like nature) into the actual text instead of footnotes?
Well of major translations, probably the NKJV if you take not of their “MT”footnotes. My friend Adam Boyd has down a single person translation which is good.
Great video brothers I love the ESV and the KJV equally but trust the KJV more for reasons you have talked about. God bless you guys
Glad you trust Easter and straing at a gnat. The esv is superior to the KJV in every way.
@@jwatson181 James, your ignorance is showing.
@Kyle C Can you interact with the arguments vs making unsubstantiated claims. Every modern scholar agrees that those examples in the KJV are mistranslations.
@@jwatson181 "Every" "modern" "scholar". If that is your argument, then you may want to look into the matter further from a less flimsy point of view.
@Kyle C So you dislike Christian scholars that know Hebrew and Greek. That is a strange position.
Why not both?
Everhard reads the NKJV.
Does anyone know about the WEB (World English Bible)? Is it based on the Majority Text?
It is
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks for the reply!
Any comments on Chris Pinto’s documentary about the writing of Codex Sinaiticus?
I haven’t watched it unfortunately
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Ever read George Lamsa’s translation of the Peshitta?
@@tedwood3982 not all of it. But parts of it
I am up for a good think about John's revelation. Make it so, please...
As a historian, preponderance of evidence frequently trumps attempts at dating in a final appraisal. As an example, one primary source in my area of research, a diarist named Joseph Dodderidge, can only be regarded as reliable when his statements are otherwise corroborated by other documentary, graphic, or archaeological sources. It is a forensic approach. And if guilt or innocence of serious criminal charges is determined in this manner, perhaps a similar approach should have some bearing on the textual debate.
20:35
He said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
Jhn6:12 []
My one comment is that I feel there is a push to apply the same rules to the Bible as we apply to any other field. In effect solving a spiritual matter through physical methods. While I support scientific method for most subjects I’d much rather hear that conclusions in this particular matter are being sought out with fasting and prayer.
My first Greek teachers not only taught me from the critical text 1 of them was an editor 3:03 of the NIV. I went to two more seminaries and never heard of the Majority Test. I do not if they were ignorant or did not want to tell us of other options but after I left school did some research of my own and met the editors of the NKJV which is based on the KJV but makes adjustments from the Majority text. I game to believe that the Majority text is at least as good as if not superior to the critical text. I also know that among critical text proponents there are some who do not believe in inspiration and inherency while among Majority text proponents this does not seem to be a problem.
The Critical Text has essentially created something new in many places. Something that doesn’t really exist in our manuscript tradition. So it only makes sense to me to stick with the documents themselves.
You say that like the Textus Receptus isn't something that never existed in the manuscript tradition as well (the "book of life" in Revelation 22, for example)@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews
@@justinj_00 I don’t hold to the Textus Receptus as the most accurate text so I’m not sure what you mean.
…Also, with regard to 1 Jn5.7 it was referred to by Cyprian in the 3rd century; within the Greek Lectionaries 5th Century; Jerome believed it should have been included in Ad 382 and many others so how did they know this information if it were not in ancient manuscripts that existed at the time? Anyway bravo, again for helping some of us older guys articulate the lack of logic behind the Westcott/Hort theory.
I like how literally everything you said isn't true lol.
Switching to the TR just because it was used by reformers is the worst reason ever.
I enjoyed the video. But i have a question. If the majority text is superior then what translation comes from the majority text. Kjv nkjv anything else
We covered this in our last video on the revival of the Byzantine text.
Neither the KJV nor the NKJV are Majority Text translations. They are Textus Receptus translations.
How do I get a copy of Souls. I'd like to read it. MikeInMinnesota
Amazon pre order👍
@@gabesmith9171 found it. Ordered and excited to read it. Mike
What translation do you believe is closest to the MT?
Depends on if you are looking for a major translation work done by a major publisher. Or independent translations. A few of those are available. Here is one. ebible.org/bible/details.php?id=engasvbt
WEB Bible.
Thank you so much for this interview! I would like to know, and I'm not sure if you would know. Did Jerome use the TR like text or did he use the Critical text in translation of the Latin Vulgate? The reason I ask this is that Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate in his English translation. Thank you😊
Great question. We don’t have an original of Jerome’s translation either. So in some respects the copies we do have do resemble the TR. But not in every detail. In fact, sometimes it would side with the CT.
Can Christians who love GoD and His Word and want to please Him and be used by Him, refer to and study both Texts forms to arrive at the best possible interpretation of a verse or verses ?
What about Westcott and Hort spiritualist translates and the Jesuits influence
I am really curious about why the students Everhard mentions would want to be missionaries if they didn't know people need to be saved from their sins.
I was struck by that as well -- to recoil from the gospel when one is a missionary? I would've really been curious to take those who were struggling out to coffee and ask them in the most polite way possible, "What were you thinking the goal of your missionary work was to be? Why did you feel called to this service? Before this class, what was your interpretation of the good news you were going to be spreading?"
It's just... incomprehensible, yet I could see it easily happening considering the conversations I've had with certain people over the years.
Which version does Pastor Everhard preach from? Still the ESV?
I am pretty sure, yes
After studying and reading the King James Bible for 20yrs. The Light came on. As for modern versions, Niv-Esv-NLT, etc. a shorter text, not for me.
The problem with the MT and using the terminology (even if the methodology is properly nuanced) is that a majority of witnesses is not necessarily proof of authenticity. So logically it's unscientific on its face. Secondly, there are other types of important evidence that are seemingly discounted by making the majority of Greek MSS. a touchstone (or something close to it) viz. the Versions, the Fathers, and internal considerations. Thirdly, it was the overall position (and writings) of primarily Burgon and Scrivener that ultimately gave rise to the MT in recent decades, and yet neither of them were MT-nor would they advocate for the use of such simplified terminology. Again, *Number* is only *one* of Burgon's "Notes of Truth." And neither Scrivener or Burgon would ever suffer a methodology that's primary focus is on the counting of noses. It should be obvious that a strict MT would be built upon an indefensible methodology, regardless of how solid or good a text it produces. Which means it must be heavily nuanced... probably to the point where the term "majority text" is no longer helpful and/or applicable.
Yes. I read a really interesting article when the RP text came out. Hodge was defending his terminology as I recall. I haven’t been terribly precise on this, because I don’t think the label is all that important. It’s only when the Byzantine text is sharply divided that the methodologies of HF and RP really show. But your point is well taken. Blessings my friend!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews thank you! FWIW, I don't advocate for either position (MT or BYZ priority). And personally, I wouldn't recommend restricting the variant pool (in the sense of viability) to only where "the Byzantine text is sharply divided." (I see this as a major weakness amongst some MT/BYZ advocates.)
I agree that substance is more important than labels, but labels are important-and should be helpful I think. When a label causes confusion the position suffers (as do onlookers), because clarity is essential in regards to methodology. The reason I'm bringing it up is because If someone is somewhere in-between the BYZ and TR position (like you have explained elsewhere), then none of the above terminology properly fits said position. (Unless you have moved over to a BYZ priority position as of late?) I also sometimes wonder how much divergence is acceptable (in Dr. Robinson's eyes) from (1) his text, and (2) his claim that the BYZ text is the original text-type and therefore essentially identical with the autographs, to still be regarded as BYZ priority.
Thinking out loud: It kinda seems like some people are slowly moving over from the TR position, and some others have reconsidered the CT position lately; both sides seemingly finding middle ground. I'd like to see those in the middle properly labeled and defined. Otherwise we'll end up with another false dichotomy like the TR vs CT one that's overtaken the minds of many laymen and pastors alike over the past few years. Albiet, this time we'll have TR vs BYZ/MT or CT vs BYZ/MT. Sorry for rambling on. Thanks again for the reply, and all your hard work on your channel! Godspeed
My main problem with arguing about the majority of texts are this :way that's like saying if I go to a bookstore and I want the best book on say the C programming language. I could go with the one that has been used since the language was created written by kernigan and Richie which seems to be very very popular, but hasn't been updated in a very long time. Or I could go by say an O'Reilly text to kind of summarizes the platform anew.
Now this is different than what he was arguing I think. He was arguing that ancient text differences may not agree with majority. But if everybody goes and buys a pink Axolotl plushie because they think it's best, and years later you're wondering why are there all these pink axolotl plushies being found buried with people? And then arguing that somehow there's a spiritual significance because of that quantity of evidence since nobody at all it seems, to be buried with a blue Axolotl plushie..
this analogy in my mind is actually not a good reason to make any decisions. I'm not saying I disagree with what he's saying about the majority text perhaps being a better translation, but the argument of frequency belies the human propensity to repeat what it likes to hear far more easily, than it likes to buy or repeat what it is uncomfortable hear.
And let's be honest there's much in the gospel that is uncomfortable to many of us at some point in our life. Again I'm not saying his choice on the texts are right or wrong I'm not a text scholar nor do I claim to be. But to me when you look at science for example remember for a long time science said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it, then at some point later on, a few people started pointing out that it's actually round and the Earth revolves around the sun. If you made an argument saying look at all these old writings that that say this I mean how could they be wrong. That, scientifically doesn't actually hold water in science.
I'm not sure why it necessarily must hold water on matters of faith and let's face it, choosing text still requires faith. This is my opinion. I'm not arguing over which text I believe is best in this case.
The other thing that kind of bugs me internally when I think about this and this is not an argument to receive anything that looks like a deviation, we have many texts in the Bible that are very easy to understand that warn us about false prophets and false teachers. But they're also seems to be this thread throughout the entire gospel that calls us out to be separated from what the world, what everyone else says is right, now it may just be an emotional feeling in me but presuming that because everybody in history and this majority view of text said something this way that it must be true gives me pause because I hear Christ calling us out to stand out from the world. And we know that Chris and them in the past was misused by many. Isn't that why the Reformation happened in the first place?
Years ago I had a minister who confessed to me that he held to a majority text position when in our church federation the consensus has been one of a critical text position since the 1970’s. I didn’t know what that meant , thank you for helping me understand. When they told me that the oldest texts were most trustworthy I to this day think that makes logical sense but then so does that I would find the most trustworthy texts in the area where they were first sent and used, modern day turkey and Greece and Rome, right? Now vaticanus obviously comes from Rome yet I have never considered it authoritative. Siniaticus comes out of a Sinai monastery again not authoritative in my opinion.
Consider a particular manuscript, like one from the 7th century. That manuscript will deviate from the original autograph in a particular set of ways. If that manuscript was subsequently copied 10 times, it will have the same deviations from the autograph. If it was copied 1000 times, it will have the same deviations from the autograph. Yet according to this video, this particular manuscript magically becomes more accurate if it was copied a lot
I know what you are saying. And we didn’t mean to imply that. The fourth principle laid out by Dr. Maurice Robinson is that, “Wherever possible, the raw number of MSS should be intelligently reduced. ‘Genealogical method’ is accepted whenever such can be firmly established. ‘Family’ groups such as f1 and f13 have long been cited under one siglum, and a few MSS are known copies of earlier extant witnesses. In many other cases a close genealogical connection can be established and thus mere numbers can be reduced in a proper manner.”
In cases like above and your hypothetical manuscript, these would only be counted as one witness. Hope that helps! Blessings and thanks for watching!
Brothers, please help me reconcile this, this is an honest question...
The sample of manuscripts we currently have is not statistically representative of the entire population of manuscripts that have ever existed.
It is believed -I think- that over a million manuscripts were destroyed over the two world wars alone, how many other million of manuscripts have been destroyed and lost in two thousand years?
This leaves us with an objectively not representative sample of manuscripts. In other words, it does not matter that other ancient works only have a handful of witnesses and the new testament has 6,000. Those 6,000 are not statistically representative of the entire population of manuscripts that have ever existed, and hence any conclusions that you make based on that sample do not objectively speak of the entire tradition of manuscripts. This is from a statical point of view.
It is like me meeting 3 Americans in Istanbul, and deriving all conclusions about "all Americans"only from my interactions with those 3 people.
My thought is: Textual criticism is not scientific, most if not all of its canons and many of the practices are speculative at best. And textual criticism as a speculative practice should not have any weight on deciding the text of the new testament.
So then how do we determine the text of the New testament?
I think, By faith.
I think that things are more simple than what we think.
We men want to make things complicated. And in making things complicated we don't realise we open a door for questions to the faith that we will never be able to answer from a secular standard.
I mean, we will never be able to give a full satisfying answer to Bart Erhman based on textual criticism standards, we can only do it by faith. A faith based answer is what Erhman is offended by and can not comprehend, simply because he is dead spiritually. I'm not sure why we do all those things. I think it is quite simple, by faith, faith in the providential work of God through the church.
God gave the old testament to the Jews and the new testament to the church. As simple as that. Many of the books were not necessarily written by prophets or apostles, but by whom God intended to write them. Even some of the accounts of Scripture were preserved by the oral tradition of the church. Scripture is not what the apostles wrote only, Scripture is what God intended us to have as his inscripturated Word. Many times given through the apostles, other times by other authors that wrote, added and edited.
I'm still working through this and remain in between the majority and TR position. Leaning towards the TR because of my reasoning above. The recognition of the canon and the reformation are the main providential events after the fall of Jerusalem.
Please if anyone can help me see or clarify anything in my reasoning, I would highly appreciate it.
These men are more valuable than MANY presidents. I believe they well articulated your question at 14:15. Your answer at 18:30. And stay away from Barf Err-man. HE'S A POS.
The good thing about the Byzantine text is that it is spread over a wide geographical area. Von Soden had large swaths of the Byzantine MSS examined prior to the World Wars: Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt / hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (4 vols., Berlin: Glaue, 1902-1910). So, to my mind, there is really no major problem here. The Byzantine tradition has reminded stable for at 1600 years.
It doesn't matter all that much. Read the ESV, it's great. Read the NKJV, it's great. The KJV is fine if you live in 1600-1700s or are a scholar of Shakespeare because the English is old and elevated. We no longer speak like that and numerous English words in the KJV no longer mean today what they meant then. If you must have TR, then NKJV or MEV is for you. If you're honest, all the questionable TR portions of scripture are left in the CT translations, either bracketed or in foot notes. 99% of the textual variations do not matter. The CT says "Jesus" the TR says "Jesus Christ". Those are the majority of the differences. There are only a small handful of places where the variations could change the meaning of a particular verse, but NO WHERE does it change the greater theological meaning.
Frankly, there are much MUCH bigger variants and issues with the Old Testament than with the NT manuscripts. Your New Testament is fine regardless of TR or CT in translation. Again, use both. If you take a HARD position on this like KJV only-ism and don't actually learn Koine Greek... Like Paul said:
"The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." -1 Tim 1:5-7
Thank you for your comments. May the Lord bless you.
... also, I don't understand why there aren't TR editions of modern Bibles? Why don't they publish NIV TR, NLT TR, NASB TR editions, etc etc? I think it would help people trust the modern translation work and give people more options. The fact is the KJV is not easy to read, for those not brought up in the church.
The MEV would be a good choice for a TR translation that is easy to understand or the NKJV.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews but why only 2? The TR deserves just as much attention as the critical text
The mev is a good one
Still waiting for Brother Matt to amend his CT support video.
I prefer the Majority text myself but I use all editions of the Greek testament. It matters not which I use at any given time. I may have my Nestle Greek NT of 1904 or Stephaus 1550 or Erasmus 1516 or Beza's 1598 or the Wescott and Hort text of 1881 or my UBS 26th edition or the Majority text as published by Thomas Nelson which is the basis of the NJKV. At any rate, it is all Greek NT to me! 😆
When it comes down to it, those few passages Mark 16 John 8
1 John 5, being the most notable examples is where the controversy lies. I agree with Matt here. For those who take an inflexable and unrelenting position I leave you in the hand of God. The KJV only crowd are beyond hope and embody fanaticism in the extreme. Imagine believing that the KJV actually corrects the original texts and is superior?
Wonderful interview and discussion style. A little too much up front time advertising his book. Would appgetting more quickly on topic.
Why would the writers of the new testament need an English Dictionary?
Sorry I don’t follow you.
@@garysears9444 ahh, he was being funny I think
@@garysears9444 he just meant they did not have a dictionary with the "correct" spelling of words back then in the way we have dictionaries today.
For me, the work in biblical numerics that Brandon Peterson has done has been largely decisive in not only converting me to the TR position, but also in bringing me to the position of believing that God's fingerprints are on the KJV in a way that they simply aren't on other translations.
We talked a little bit about his work here in the comments before. He runs the YT channel Truth Is Christ. He's published an entire book now with his findings. Even if you just look at the "Greatest Hits" of what he's come up with I think it's quite difficult to dismiss it as coincidence.
It’s definitely interesting. I wasn’t convinced but I enjoyed watching what you sent me to.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews That's just the tip of the iceberg. His book is almost 600 pages and it's all data with no fluff. He has some much longer videos than the one you watched as well and I know he's working on another video that I've actually seen a preview of and it's quite interesting.
My interaction with the critical text (UBS 3rd edition) has led me to be suspicious of the principles underlying the editors' choices. John 9:4 is a classic example of weird choices. All that I can say is that no Christian is under any obligation to trust the editors' decisions.
Let's say I buy a pair of shoes and discover they hurt my feet, so I put them on the closet shelf and never wear them again. I buy another pair that is similar but different, and this pair doesn't hurt my feet. I wear them, then when they're thrown out I toss them on the garbage pile and buy another pair just like them.
1000 years from now archeologists dig up my house and say "well we have this massive pile of shoes but they are newer, and we have this one set over here that is older. The pair that is older must be what he wore since it is definitely older." The conclusion is flawed because they were not there and don't know why the one pair is older but different from the majority.
Text critics say that older is better. Better than what? The manuscripts from that same time that we don't have? How can we say that the "oldest" is automatically the "best", or the most accurate to the original (which we clearly do not have)?
The Majority Text position seems to make the most sense to me.
Good video!
Precisely
Good analogy, except that the first pair were not what everyone else was wearing, or that the first pair was made poorly, or lacked adequate stitching, which is why they were put on the shelf and never used, or consigned to the trash bin. But the rest of your analogy rings true: biblical "scientists" a thousand years later find the first pair (which was flawed) and then, wanting to make a name for themselves in the academic world, declare that the first pair must have been superior to all the other later pairs because they are older and have less stitching...
A reformed Christian talking about a clear presentation of the Gospel. Imma go get the popcorn.
I feel like people often take a majority text position because they don't want the "baggage" of defending the textus receptus -- i.e. being labeled as KJVO, defending the three heavenly witnesses, etc. They therefore try to take this sort of supposed middle ground, like being a moderate, because heaven forbid they should feel uncomfortable defending the traditional text of the Protestant Reformation from academia, and prevent atheism and doubt from creeping into the church.
I am going to say I think the critical text (Sinaiticus) was forged by Ludendorff I think the Byzantine (majority text) is still antiquity and I don't buy that the Alexandrian or Sinaiticus is older.
Thomas Nelson and Crossway … listen up! Who is finally going to give us what we need? A true MT version … maybe just don’t call it the MTV
I am certain that most of the majority-text folks are sincere, but the position is more mysticism than real understanding of how the majority text was arrived at.
What do you mean?
The issue with the KJV is that it uses “Easter” instead of “Passover” in acts 12:4.. it also uses 1 John 5:7. Which Erasmus translated from the Latin vulgate rather than the majority text.. The new King James Version does fix the Passover Easter issue, but not the 1 John 5:7 issue.
Plus I think the Geneva Bible would be more accurate then either the new or the original 1611 King James Version..
I wish there was a translation that used both the majority text and critical text and carefully translated it based on the collective majority and earlier dating.. we should also note that in exodus actually having the Tetragrammaton when his name is given to Moses would be favored aswell.
What do y’all think?!
I personally prefer read/study the amplified version alongside a NASB, ESV, or NKJV. The CSB and NIV are easier reads and give more understanding.. I’m quite skeptical of the NRSV, NLT, MSG, Etc.
Again what do y’all think?! And Prefer?!
more skateboarding :)
My skateboarding would at least be amusing. He is pretty good.
...1. First, God created the general, (or 'masculine') cosmos and the special (or 'feminine') Earth (Genesis 1:1).
2. Then God was concerned for how the Earth, as its own general subject, has the most valuable thing about itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2).
3. Then God was concerned for how all that water is to have a special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10);
4. Then God was concerned for how that water cycle is to have a special beneficiary and member, namely water-based life forms, as such (vs. 11-12);
5. Then God was concerned for how all those water-based life forms are to have a special category, namely animal life (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25);
6. Then God was concerned for how animal life is to have its own special category, namely human life (vs. 26-28);
7. Finally, God was concerned that the general man is to have the special woman (Genesis 2:21-23).
This seven-fold cosmic Divine Design can be seen both in the completed Creation and in Genesis 1-2.
So there is nothing of happenstance either in (X) or (Y):
(X) there are exactly five things that Genesis 1 reports that God names,
(Y) these five things easily seem to be the five basic non-biological factors of Earth's water cycle:
Names 1 and 2: binary cyclically distributed thermal regulation ( v. 4-5 );
Name 3: radiologically mediative atmosphere ( vs. 6-8 );
Names 4 and 5: binary thermal surface distribution system ( vs. 9-10 )
Of the six days of the Creation Workweek, it commonly is assumed that the work of Day Two is not given any Divine esteem of 'good'. I argue that it does, by what the work of Day Two is merely part of. Specifically, I suggest that the land and sea of the first half of Day Three is not alone that which God calls 'good' at that point of Day Three. For the land and the sea are mere subsystems of the Earth's water cycle. On this view, that which God calls 'good' on the first half of Day Three is the water cycle.
In other words, that which God calls 'good' at that point is the *combination* of the five factors I already mentioned.
On this view, that which God calls 'good' on the first half of Day Three is the water cycle. In other words, that which God calls 'good' at that point is the *combination* of the five factors I mentioned above. So God does not actually fail to call the work of Day Two 'good'. Nor does that work lack such esteem. For, that esteem is IMPLIED in that that work is part the 'good' which is the water cycle. In short, FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION. The account is NOT a form-first concern.
After all, Genesis 1 is mainly about an actual process, miraculous as it was, of creating and assembling the actual ecology of the actual Earth. This is NOT to be reduced to an a-chronological list of mere 'items'. Even a grocery list typically implies that an actual, lovingly prepared meal is intended.
So, consider a listing of the parts of a woman, as such. Ought we to say that such a listing is NOT intended to be describing a woman? Is each item on the list merely an abstract kind of 'rule'-following form? God forbid.
So God does not actually fail to call the work of Day Two 'good'. He calls that work 'good' as part of the thing that that work is a part of, namely that life-critical thing, the water cycle, which is completed upon the formation of land and sea. After all, Genesis 1 is mainly about an actual process, miraculous as it was, of creating and assembling the actual ecology of the actual Earth. This is NOT to be treated as if it could just as well be an a-chronological list of mere 'items'. Even a grocery list typically implies that an actual, lovingly prepared meal is intended. And, considering what it is to be given a list that self-evidently is of the basic parts of a woman, as such, God forbid that we think it better to treat this list as if it is NOT intended to be describing a woman!
Didn't Athenasius quote 1 John 5 v 6-8?
Not the Trinitarian portion found in the TR.
Most preterist use the CT, but you are a preterist who uses the RT. Who knew!
What does RT stand for?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Received Text.
@@artemusbowdler7508 ahh I should have caught that. Thanks for interacting with my videos! Appreciate you!
Very good video- I do believe that the critical text advocates have to acknowledge that the critical text is supported by the Vatican. As reform as most critical text advocates are, I would hesitate to use a translation that is supported by a church that sought to persecute and end the publishing of a textus receptus or even the majority text.
The received text or textus receptus is the text transferred from believer to believer and contained the inspired Word of God. Neither the critical text nor the majority text match the text of the TR and thus continue to propagate fallacy and corruption. The wescott and hort are never used in my study unless I am studying the adversary and his playbook.
Thanks for popping in Jeff and sharing your thoughts, blessings!
Absolutely, my pleasure. All praise, honor and glory be to Jesus Christ our LORD.
Yes... The review of Revelation would be much appreciated. Thank you!
A well-known US Southern Baptist YT preacher and staunch KJV only pusher has advised me that all other versions are impure and that also applies to original Hebrew and Greek texts. He is of the view that it is not possible to be 'truly' saved unless one uses KJV only.
I asked if that meant that the thousands of 'native language' bibles I had sent to China, Thailand, Burma, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan were wasted and that the new (non-KJV English speaking Asian) owners could not hope to be 'truly' saved? He was silent on that.
I would also assume that the thief on the cross could not have been 'truly' saved and that Jesus was 'truly' deceived to have suggested that he was.
I assume also that our KJV only Southern Baptist YT preacher friend also believes that nobody was truly saved prior to 1611. Which means that the holy, infallible and perfectly inspired KJV was interpreted from 'pure' texts no longer available and penned by unsaved scribes.
The good news is this, that particular preacher and the others like him, will be asked to give an account of their teaching to the One who hung on the cross next to the thief.
888AussieMate
Help with my understanding of categories:
Critical Text = "Oldest is Good"
Textus Receptus = "What ever is in the TR is good".
Majority Text = "The most quantity of instances"
Do I have that generally correct?
Which english translations use the majority text?
Each one would need nuancing. But that’s what it looks like from a 30,000 foot view.
majoritybible.com/msb.pdf
join us we have coffe and dougnuts