What respect? He said KJV only is for crazy conspiracy theorists. There is zero grace ok that statement, and no honesty since he doesn't seem to know anything about what Tyschendorf, Wescott and Hort and Nestle and Aland wrote against protestantism. Smooth talking means nothing when it's wrong.
Coming back to give rhis another listen, I enjoy Matts take on these issues. I have maintained my TR priority but use the CT as well, mainly in the NASB95, the ESV and NLT. Thankful for the choices we have, some have no Bible at all.
You hit the nail on the head when you said it comes down to antiquity or majority. This sums up the argument quite well in my opinion EXCEPT for our Confessional Bibliology brothers, they believe the TR because of their claim that it's providentially preserved. I would tend to fall more toward a majority text, more specifically the Byzantine type. Great video brother Matt! Loved your overview here.
Focusing on ancient manuscripts to the exclusion of all else sounds noble, and I agree that the THGNT is better than the NA; however, theologically, I cannot allow myself to think that for centuries the church had in its possession a corrupt text that we have to recover today.
I understand your concern on that issue, but my own theological position on the topic is based on which "church" had the Majority Text in its possession. The Western branch of Christianity had largely moved on to the Vulgate even before the Great Schism. Thus, it's the Eastern Orthodox Church that adopted and preserved the Byzantine text-type and turned it into the majority reading for most of the Middle Ages. The Vulgate wasn't completely in agreement with that text-type, so we already know that at least one side of early Christendom must have had a "corrupt text" throughout the centuries. So the pertinent theological question is this: do we think that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church has been sufficiently protected from corruption over the centuries? If we think that the RCC is truly infallible, as it claims to be, then the Vulgate's readings are to be preferred, and the Douay-Rheims is therefore more reliable than either the KJV or the ESV. If we think that the EOC has consistently preserved the precise faith of the apostles throughout the ages, as it claims, then the Majority Text must be favored. But if we're Protestants, then we already assume that both the RCC and EOC went off the theological rails at some point, so we really shouldn't be too convinced that they managed to keep the Bible spotless throughout all ages, either. (But both the Vulgate and the Majority Text are sufficiently good to meet the needs of Christians in any age, despite their corruptions. The Church never went without a Bible.)
@@jamessheffield4173 Yes. In fact, I'd say that the variants that appear within each regional text-type demonstrate that there is no stream of 100% reliable texts in any tradition. (I'd also argue that it really doesn't matter: the churches got along just fine over the centuries with these "corrupt texts," and the need to restore the exact text of the autographs is not essential in order for the New Testament to be reliable, since most of the differences have little theological impact.)
@@MAMoreno Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I don't have a problem with "throwing out" things that weren't part of the text in the first place. A reading's authenticity isn't determined by its adherence to later orthodoxy. While I don't see the "not yet" reading of John 7.8 as necessarily harmful to the text (and perhaps it correctly interprets the more ambiguous "not" of the preferred reading), I do see it as the perfect example of the kind of changes I would expect to happen to the text over time. The hard edges of the autographs get softened. The implicit theological implications of a verse suddenly become more explicit. Doxologies included in the liturgies slowly creep into the texts that inspired the liturgies. And so on. The church's interpretation and application of the text eventually become the text. It's all orthodox, so it's relatively harmless within the bounds of a church service, but it comes slightly at the expense of the New Testament's historical integrity as a record of 1st century Christianity.
It's also critical to point out that there isn't one iota of difference in the doctrine you'll get from properly exegeting the TR, and the doctrine you'll from properly exegeting the CT (in whatever flavor you prefer). You'll use some different proof texts on some questions (e.g., if you're a CT guy, you won't use 1 John 5:7 to defend the Trinity), but the doctrine you reach will be identical either way.
NIV ESV ASV NKJV all lordship salvation compared to KJV. “You are saved” Vs “You are being saved” Now what about including Darwinian evolution? “God made the animals” “God is making the animals” implying continual evil-lotion.
@@latenttweet The KJV teaches, every bit as clearly as any of the others you name, that you must accept Jesus as Lord by a true, living faith that's demonstrated by good works--see Roman 10:9 and James 2. That's "lordship salvation." As to evolution, unless you can provide specifics, poppycock. Read Genesis 1-2 in any of those translations and tell me honestly that they teach Darwinian evolution.
+1...The NKJV is sadly overlooked and more or less goes without fanfare, Duck Dynasty, et al billing aside. Love those footnotes too. Hopefully, the Massive Christian Wokesters' Hypermarketing Machine won't attempt to "update" it. It's just fine as-is =D
@@dwightsaxton7766 It's likely you're looking at NKJV from a different publisher that does not include footnotes. Some of them do have footnotes, including the one I use.
@@dwightsaxton7766 there are different "versions" of most Bibles, including "reader's versions" which have no chapter or verse numbers or anything else to take away from just reading it. Some Bibles don't have foot notes. Some don't have cross references. It's the text itself that is the "translation," not the extra bells and whistles.
Pastor, I am an Independent Baptist but I read widely. Charles Hodge’s three volume Systematic Theology is right next to John R Rice in my library. I absolutely love your channel! I’m also a TR/KJV guy (NOT an Onlyist) and I just want to say, thank you so much for being so gracious and for having a very respectful tone for the view that we hold too. I also want to check myself and make sure that I’m just as gracious in representing the Critical Text position and not just assuming or ascribing devious motives to other people (my camp can be guilty of that). Now, having said that, I don’t believe that all of the proponents of the Critical Text are somehow trying to distort the Word of GOD. I do admire their desire for collecting all the data but, I just can’t bring myself to accept theologically the CT position in saying that the Church had a corrupt text but that’s just me. I wish there was more love and less heat on this subject!
I stand in both camps and have stood in both camps and find myself many times stuck. I believe that there’s enough evidence for inclusion for the longer ending of Mark and the adulterous woman ( John 7-8)! I currently only have an issue with 1 John 5:7-8 as being scripture… Finally, the one caveat I have with the earlier copies being “ superior “ is that the few copies we have could easily be gnostic or incomplete ones . You would need many earlier copies imho but with the church persecution’s throughout the early centuries, I do not believe that we will ever find a complete NT, only small pieces of a chapter here or there.
@Coram Deo Assembly I think John 5:4 about the angel stirring the waters also poses a significant difficulty. In regard to the woman caught in adultery, I understand that that passage is found all over the place, including in some manuscripts of Luke. It seems that it was a story that was believed to be true and was too good to not include, but not original to the gospels, so later scribes tried to find a place for it. But I don't claim to know anything for sure. What I think is perhaps the greatest difficulty for the TR issue is the question of "Which TR?" We have to remember that the TR itself is not one manuscript but a collection of manuscripts that represent multiple revisions.
@@Kenneth-nVA Saint Irenaeus cited 1 John 5:7 in his work Against Heresies (written in II century). He was a disciple of a disciple of John. Did he used corrupted John's text, while Egyptian Christians used correct one? This is literally what the critics of this text are trying to convince us of. Personally, I believe in the correctness of Irenaeus' text.
I agree.After yrs of analyzing tr and ct mss trying to be logical and come down on the tr side.Our entire religion and faith was put forth by the tr and I can't just throw that overboard. Toni's husband
Great video. In my own study, aside from spelling and word order, the vast majority of variants can be described as either explanatory notes or convergence (where a reading in one account from one Gospel is accidentally included in that same account in another Gospel). Aside from these, there are a tiny handful of variants to consider.
I'm a critical text guy too brother given the reasons you pointed out and many others you didn't mention. I used to be an ardent KJV/TR only guy until I became open to reason and listened to the other side carefully, including the history of the TR, and that's when I relinquished my KJV/TR only stance and embraced the critical text gladly with thankfulness to the Lord for the preservation of His written Word.
What preservation? In your position the word was lost until it was rediscovered more than a thousand years later. At least be realistic. You don't believe in preservation or inerrancy, there is no other way to accept this idea. Be honest.
@@JesusProtects isn’t that convenient? Where was the reasoning? How do you go from 5,210 agreeable mss to less than 50 mss that were lost for the majority of Christianity?
@@JesusProtectsI'm confused, how many sermons were written in the false translation of 2 Chr 22:2? Seriously, where all of the TR errors are, how many sermons and messages were actually preached on them? Please explain how God couldn't work despite human error? Considering that, thanks to better science and God's providence, the truest text has been preserved and now brought back into cannon.
@@JesusProtectsa common assertion only tr and kjv onlyists believe, but it’s a straw man. If that’s what you are going to claim the modern critical text is, then you just shot yourself in the foot historically because the TRs don’t come into existence until the 16th and 17th centuries (yes, multiple TRs that disagree with each other). Before that, the form of the TR had not existed in the church or any individual manuscript as a single text throughout any point in church history. The kettle calls the pot black.
Brother Matthew! First, I really appreciate your channel. You have a humble demeanor I truly appreciate and love you in the Lord. You have really challenged me here but I think (for now-lol) my conclusions are different than yours. I have been ESV primarily and I realized after watching this video is because I was backwards. I've always insisted on a formal equivalence translation and I was more attracted to the ESV's contemporary English reading. However, I don't share your view on the critical texts; or a better way to say it is I'm not sure which is better. I'm with you wanting to have texts as close to the time of the apostles as possible BUT there are fewer, much fewer in some cases. Although we don't know for sure, I think I argument can be made that there are fewer because they were considered inferior at the time therefore less copies were made. I've also been troubled by some ESV footnotes that say things like, "the best manuscripts say" Ultimately, I think I can say (just like you I'm sure) I want the absolute complete word of Our Lord. I'm a Textus Truthus not receptus or critical. I've made the decision that the translation for me going forward may need to be the NKJV and the reason why is the extensive textual footnotes. I feel like they are the most complete of any translation. Am I missing anything here? I would appreciate anyone's comments on this. Thanks.
Thank you, Pastor, for this video on the history of the Greek New Testament of the Bible. I grew up with the King James, but I am going to buy an ESV now. As you suggested, I will use them both! Many thanks and may God bless you!
I've come to scholars videos that mentions that majority texts are mentioned by 1st/2nd century church fathers like Polycarp which means that Byzantine texts are extremely reliable for antiquity as well!
I don't understand why no one seems to hold the position that we can account for BOTH the critical AND the majority texts--in other words taking into account both the authority of age as well as the authority of church tradition and plurality. To me this seems like the most obvious, most even-handed, and very likely the most accurate representation of the original text.
This open-minded perspective doesn’t allow for puffed-up accusations that the other side is “wrong” though. How are we all supposed to not get along if we are level-headed instead of proud and quick to point out the inadequacies of others and their flawed reasoning abilities?
I was saved as a teenager, and my first Bible was an NIV, and i was shortly gifted A NASB by a friend. Shortly after this, i attended a revival service in which i was not permitted to even bring my "New Age" Bible inside and was supplied with A KJV for service that i couldn't understand. My pastor explained that the whole "critical " vrs received text issue . The explanation for reading/studying conservative translations that used the critical text seemed logical to me then. When i later studied Greek at Bible college we studied the critical text. Perhaps it is due to the fact that i have no sentimental attachment to translations such as the KJV OR NKJV and such that use the Textus Recepticus but ive never understood the logic behind the arguments for its use and translations based upon it. As a minister, why shouldn't i want to preach from a translation that is closest to the original language and not unintentionally preach from a passage, verse word not in the original manuscripts. I know as a minister you lcant constantly lecture on textual criticismbut its its my strong belief in the Inerrancy that makes me such a strong proponent of using and studying the critical tex and conservative translations based on it.
Good on you Dave. As I am studying on TR vs CT for the first time, it seems the ones who are arguing loudly are those on the KJV and TR side. I suspect they’ll disappear in the next 100 years.
Hey Matt! I appreciate your videos. Thank you! I have been studying this subject for the past 51 years and I have read everything I could lay my hands on, on both sides of the argument. I started off strongly on the side of the CT, but after about fourteen years, swung in favour of the Byzantine/Majority text. It is not possible to put 51 years of research into a few short paragraphs, but I will give a few of the main points. All critical texts are substantially eclectic, and are drawn principally from the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, a few readings from the Codex Alexandrinus. These manuscripts have no known antecedents or descendants. Indicating that no-one thought that they were worthy of copying. Also, they are in remarkably good condition compared to the majority texts, indicating that they were little used, and may have been discarded. The Alexandrian manuscripts are on average about 1200 words shorter than the majority texts. Proponents of the CT suggest that later scribes added words, but a study of the copying of manuscripts, both secular and non-secular, shows a greater propensity for omitting words than adding words. Also, early Christian scribes were Jewish and followed the Jewish scribal tradition of word for word perfection, even among the non-Jewish scribes. NT manuscripts typically were used in churches until they were becoming illegible, upon which they would be copied, and the old manuscript burned. This explains why there are no very early manuscripts of the majority texts. Comparing the NT quotations of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Irenaeus in their writings, with the Alexandrian manuscripts and the majority texts, they agree with the Majority, not the Alexandrian. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, quotes the entire 16th Chapter of Mark, including the last 12 verses. So, they could not have been added by later scribes. Please PM me if you would like further info.
I really appreciate your input here. I learned a few new things that I find very revealing. I spent some time when I was younger looking into this topic and a lot of what you write falls right in line with what I have believed and espoused. Thank you
So far this has to be one of the best comments elucidating the topic. What are suggested resources from both sides to build a better grasp on RT vs CT?
@damongreville2197 it is impossible for everyone to take time to study and analyze this issue personally in order to come up with well informed personal stand on this matter. Thus, sharing opinions such as what you put out here is really a valuable insight that one can consider in dealing with this issue. Thanks for sharing, and I would love to get hold of your study materials, or at least some guidance you could further share.
While what you're describing is very convincing to me, in practice I find most CT text choices factor in many counterintuitive things, I.e. "harder readings," "shorter readings," "more confusing readings," etc, I find that any search for ancient texts is complicated. I find there to be too many problems with each of the 3 bigger NT text crit camps for me to say yeah I feel comfortable with this. So I use whatever translation befits my context, in the past, that's been the ESV but at my current parish that's the NIV. But no matter what I use I always consult the Greek itself and end up translating/revising the translation I have myself as best I can and with ridiculous wealth of resources at my disposal.
The point about English priority is a really good point. As a French I will go beyond and say that this debate is practically non- existent in other languages. The story of the translation in the English speaking country play a big part in the debate.
I live in Peru and the arguments here are the same as in the states. The Reina Valera is the most used translation (and is an astounding piece of work). It was based on Erasmus' text. So, modern translations are frequently maligned and there are many conspiracy theories about the diabolical origins. But the reason for the debate is that the people love the wording and familiarity of the Reina Valera, not because they trust Erasmus' text more than the critical text.
The new edition of the Greek Textus Receptus that we're planning is a reader edition with uncommon words foonoted. TBS is publishing a new edition of their Scrivener text.
Another great job! Thanks for your clarity and agreeableness on this subject. Very few are willing to take it on so fairly. May God continue to bless your labors.
Excellent video. Regarding the “majority vs antiquity debate,” two rational, logical, common sense things need to be pointed out…. The reason why the majority text is the “majority” (in other words, there’s more of them than the critical text) is simply because: 1) the majority text is not as old as the critical text. Once again, common sense and logical thinking tells us that the older a text is, the less it’s chances are of surviving. There is no doubt that, in order for 5th century Christians to have had some access to the scriptures, they had to have had more manuscripts available for themselves than what we currently have from that time period. But they disappeared or fell apart over time. 2) earth’s population grew over time. So did the population of those calling themselves Christians. Once again, common sense and logical thinking tells us that there were more people calling themselves Christians 500 years ago than 1500 years ago. Thus 500 years ago, there were more people being able to make more bible manuscripts than could the people from the 5th century. That’s it. How the majority text became the majority has nothing to do with it being more favored by God or anything like it. I use bible translations coming from both TR and from the critical text. I enjoy both. But when there’s a clash between the two texts, I do what most scholars do. I go with the critical texts version as having more weight. Its just common sense. Those holding on to their beliefs that the TR is superior always and only, do so from an emotional place and not a logical place. It’s emotional because it’s what they’re accustomed to reading in their particular church, or because of inheriting it from their ancestors or their little circle of friends. Because of that, they find it emotionally hard to let go. Yes, of course, God preserved his word in both texts. But, come on…the critical text is 1000 years closer to the original text. What’s so hard about understanding that?
Nicholas Lunn has written a phenomenal work on the Longer Ending of Mark; he's a CT guy, and he argues very strongly for its authenticity with a significant new research. You might enjoy that. Craig Evans has said that this book shook his views on the topic.
Thank you for the thoughtful video. I believe James White and Doug Wilson are supposed to have a debate/discussion on this issue. I don’t recall the date.
I think you're correct in noting that we shouldn't favor a Greek text based on our preference for a certain English translation, but that's literally what the TR is--it's a Greek text prepared from the works of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and when those three differed, the editors went with whatever the KJV translators had done. That's the text that was sold as the "Textus Receptus."
You're thinking of Scrivener's 1894 edition, where he crafted a Greek NT based on the textual decisions of the King James translators. The _Textus_ _Receptus_ refers to all editions from Erasmus' first Greek NT in 1516 to the 1633 Elzivir edition, none of which is based on the King James Version.
Sorry I am late to this party, but I enjoyed your discussion and agree with you in large part. Personally I believe that which ever camp one is in, it makes great sense to use translations created from both the tr and the ct in our study. Recently mark ward has published on a web site an interesting comparison of the two that you might find interesting. They took the ct text and carefully created a text using the kjv style English and show them side by side. It's truly amazing at how small the overall differences there are. Anyway thanks for your video it was very appreciated.
I only know English so I also found Mark Ward's website comparing the TR and the CT to be very useful -- it's amazing how few differences they really have from each other and shows very well how the translators' interpretations and how they decide to phrase what they've read into English makes the largest difference between translations.
Pastor, thank you for putting this out. I’d like to learn more as to how the different type of manuscripts were used in translating the different Bibles we have today. I love the Word of God, read it every day. I have multiple translations and I tend to lean towards the ESV more. But, it would be great if you could explain how we got our Bibles today. Thank you and God bless you.
Thanks for your comments as always. You are always worth listening to. I am surprised that you would discount the influence of geography, however. Personally, I think there is the real potential for textual influence if there are certain heresies prevalent, in geographical areas, that can be brought to bear over copyists. More generally, there is a crucial point of the arguement that seems to be diminished by those saying there isn't much difference between the texts. Either we're saying someone has added to the text or someone has subtracted from the text or we have no way of knowing so we just take our pick. It's very convenient to just brush that off when it is pretty important from God's view; hence the warnings he gives.
Totally agree with your analysis. I'm really at a point where I'm I'm attempting to grasp the arguments for both sides. I've watched passionate apologists for both sides, even to the point "you're going to hell or you're not saved" due to the use of the opposite text they are arguing for (mostly in the Masoretic vs. TR spectrum. Sometimes I really think they are mostly arguing for the sake of being correct. I have to laugh a bit when a translation of a translation of a translation is the only translation authorized as the Word of God and can only be used. When I expanded into multiple translations and saw the beauty each one had to offer I realized we have to trust discernment by the Lord's leading and allow Him to carry us through our studying. It opened up my understanding and helped me realize any bias I had to any understanding, had no place in how I interpret. Rather, let the Spirit interpret as God wants us to learn. Really nothing is set in stone (except the ten commandments and cuneiform fragments or tablets) except the foundational truths that are the base and beginning to our wisdom. And the Word of God is alive and active, quick and powerful, quicke and myghtie in operation and sharper than any two-edged or double edged sword and piercing, or cutting through, or even penetrating, dividing asunder soul and spirit. If you follow my reasoning, most translations lead us to the heart of God. Except The Message translation - Oh Dear Lorde. With that being said, there are some semi or minor fundamental truths that are different between the texts. This is where the context of the paragraph, chapter, and whole book need closer examination to get to the root of the flaw. I have found multiple issues with the KJV and with the ESV and with others. This has not led me away from one text or another but has increased my awareness of flaws in translations. I am a lot more surveillant and question the writing no matter which text. I predominantly use the ESV but I have started to analyze the OG Septuagint to clarify my understanding within the Book of Daniel. I do look at 20+ translations (Masoretic and TR) as I go verse by verse to gain better insight but the Septuagint has helped me to gain a bigger picture in understanding or expanded the "what if" that scripture introduces. And my study has been going on for four months in Daniel with about two hours each morning spent analyzing the book. Currently at chapter 3:24. So it's a slow, in depth study analyzing the times, locations, and much background research for each verse. Just a jump into the lake of understanding of something like the Babylon Empire and the history of King Nebuchadnezzar is fascinating or treading the waters of the wisemen/magi takes you to so many places (like the Matthew account of the magi and how that sect came into being) once you get on the scent of it. Anyway, love it. Too much information?
Matthew, greetings from New Zealand "Middle Earth" :-). The Byzantine Priority position would argue it has TWO checks and balances when it comes to manuscript priority. First the Byzantine manuscripts are more numerous AND second, are spread out over a larger geographical area. I guess the debate is whether these two factors are as significant as antiquity.
Just watched your video, and it was great. You present your findings with a humble sincerity and that is a welcome change compared to other CT advocates. I had a few questions, and wanted to hear your thoughts on different views ive heard recently. One is that there is evidence of some of the Alexandrian texts being forgeries, which would take them out of antiquity. The second would be the idea that Majority text manuscripts appear newer because they were spread out and read so often, that there were more copying of them done due to them getting worn out quicker. It also would account for the supposed better condition of the Alexandrian text because it was never used due to so much of it missing when compared to the Majority Text or the TR. I don't have a side in this, but I love hearing both sides.
None yet I think? But I suspect the ESV will in a few years. The Tyndale came out very recently. However, it's interesting to note e.g ASV, RV and some other older works match up more with the Tyndale text (which uses the work of Tregelles as its basis) than the NA or WH.
For me, the telling statement was that this seems more a scholarly debate. I hadn't known about the issue until recently. I have the KJV, NKJV, NASB (1977 and 1995), ESV, NET, CSB, NIV and HCSB translations, but most of the Bibles I purchased were bought for their study materials, not for the particular translation (disclaimer: I don't use the one NIV I have because the translation isn't literal enough for my taste). I've heard good arguments for each position, but am not convinced fully by either, so I intend to keep all my translations. But, it must be said that as I prepare my Sunday school lessons, I tend toward the NKJV and NASB (1977 preferred; 1995 is ok). On the debate over Mark's ending, there is another, shorter ending about one verse long, and I prefer it because it flows more naturally from verse 8 to me; by contrast, the long ending seems rather abrupt, and some scholars don't think Mark wrote the long ending. And in all of this, I don't notice anything of doctrinal or theological importance compromised across the translations so far.
Hi Matt, love your videos . When it comes to the TR or the CT or perhaps the majority text. I came across a fellow who had personally copied a number of Greek NT. Books and found that he ended up with a shorter text not a longer text. That being said I just read a comment by a fellow who claims that the church fathers only quote from the Byzantine texts . He surmises that the reason that the alexandrian texts are not quoted is due to them being suspect in the early church. They were also found in fantastic shape, whereas he claims that the practice in the early church was to copy the text once it started to deteriorate and burn the old copy and claims that therefore we don’t have old Byzantine manuscripts. If true that would explain a few things.
Since you mentioned it, I would appreciate hearing your understanding of the end of Mark. We’re getting to it soon in our midweek Bible study and I’m really not sure what to do with it.
I prefer my ESV bible, but the church I go to reads the NKJV. I love both of those translations and the KJV as well. The ESV I love because they have great footnotes telling you if some manuscripts say this and others that. Mark 16:9-20 they keep in, but there are brackets around them to make sure you look at the footnotes. The same is done with John 7:53-8:11. Etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but there are a lot of good teachers out there but they focus too much on KJVO try to make you feel like you're practicing heresy, but also you got to remember that most don't know Greek or ancient hebrew.
Thank you so much for this open discussion. I have a question, more out of curiosity than anything else. Where was the Critical Text during the years of the reformation and even before? Was it used somewhere? When was it "discovered"? If it has been addressed and I missed it, apologies.
Probably the best answer to that would be to say that the Critical Text was preserved in the multitude of Greek manuscripts. It's important to note that that there is no single "critical text." After all, the Nestle-Aland is currently on its 28th or 29th revision or something like that.
@@koosvanzyl2605 I'm not sure of the percentage, but certainly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus play what might be oversized roles. The TR position has its own issue with there not being a single manuscript that we can call THE Textus Receptus, because it has undergone its own revision process.
@@koosvanzyl2605 Well what I was saying is that there are a number of different manuscripts that were derived from those copies. For instance, Erasmus produced the first manuscript that is now called the Textus Receptus. But he himself issued a few different revisions to the initial manuscript. And then his final manuscript was later revised by others, such as the revisions by Stephanus and Theodore Beza. The manuscript that is usually used to today is the Scrivener edition of 1881.
An argument for the Byzantine text type that makes sense to me is that the older copies of that are lost because they were heavily used and were in a wetter climate, whereas Alexandrian text types were in the desert where they could survive longer and were never a majority of the text, simply a smaller group of rarely used texts. I don't know where that leaves the Western Text type and the Latin and Syriac translations. I've heard it claimed that early chutch fathers either primarily quoted Alexandrian text types or primarily quoted Byzantine, and I am not sure who is telling the truth. I tend to better trust those who say the Alexandrian text type was quoted more.
Thanks for your analysis. I use the NKJV and the GNT. That way I have a fair comparison between versions based on the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland. It's amazing the difference between the two, particularly on few verses that speak to the Dirty of Christ, or lack thereof.
“I here pass over in silence, the interesting details of my travels…my audience with the Pope, Gregory XVI, in May, 1843…my intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, that surprising and celebrated linguist.” - When Were Our Own Gospels Written? By Constantine von Tischendorf, p. 27
You are approaching the text debate from a good position of believing the best about the intentions of others. You did not mention factors that persuade others to adopt a majority text priority position: 1. Papyrus lasts much longer in a dry climate like Egypt as opposed to a humid climate like Constantinople. Is our selection based on climate or other factors? 2. Alexandrian scribes have a reputation for shortening or summarizing texts, both pagan and Christian texts. The accuracy of the scribes should factor in our analysis. 3. Is there a reason why the scribes outside of Egypt did not copy the Egyptian copies in 200, 300 AD and later? 4. The critical text prefers the difficult reading based on the assumption that scribes will smooth them out over time. Is this a correct assumption? Maybe this is preferring the least skilled scribe over the good ones? 5. Many scripture quotations are included in writings of the early church fathers. For whatever reason, critical text advocates seem to dismiss this evidence.
I would love, as an intellectual exercise, maybe even something done by AI, to have an "earliest attestation" text and translation. Ever since I saw differences between P66 and Vaticanus, and how even then they were already making edits, I feel like "earliest across the board" would give a lot of insight and perspective.
It literally says in the NJKV 1979 and 1982 versions that the goal was to remove Verses from the bible so everyone can choose their version of the bible they like. And they even admit that the original greek text is more accurate that the 1881 westcott and hort They even wrote it as annotations in the 1979 1982 njkv bible Never thrust any greek manuscripts from westcott and hort
Majority text=thousands of texts that agree with each other Vs Critical text=less than 100 texts that do not agree with each other Paul mentioned people corrupting the Word even in the first century . The Majority Text was found where Paul and the Apostles actually went. Apollos was from Alexandria and had to be corrected about some of his beliefs. You must be willing to ignore way too much if you rely on the Critical text.
I haved friends who use the KJV because they love it. They are not KJV ONLY, thankfully. I've run across a few of those and when I find someone like that, I tend to avoid them. I tend towards the ESV myself. I have others that I look at to see how they match up, including the King James. Sometimes one is a bit better worded than the other.
Have you studied the 2nd thru the 5th century's use of Scripture? Knowing that they had to rely mostly on sermons and lectionary use of Scripture, how do you think they lived out their Christian experience? We are so blessed to have the Bible and even to have these sorts of controversies than not to have a printed Bible.
Could you also do a video explaining this CGBM thing in laymen’s terms, for a plough boy like myself? How will this affect future translations of the Bible? Thanks
Antiquity can be wrong also in the Alexandrian text were written around 200-400 Ad With that said there were some that went out from the apostles who taught another gospel. Haven't seen those with my own eyes, but i have heard that the Alexandrian were tainted. Thoughts?
That's the trap that we fall into thinking that the difference between the TR and Critical text aka Codex Sinaiticus, that there is a small difference. The added words or the placement of the words to the TR is intentional is such a way to alter the meaning of the entire book, or at least to steer us away from the coming of the Other significant person which causes us to read the bible in a very skewed way. So, the small difference leads to a large one.
Hey what about the apocrypha do you read those and or believe to be profitable but not inspired . What about those who are Christian and decides to adhere to those readings ? Just your thoughts on it .
The easy argument is "the oldest ones we've found must be closer to the original," but there is an argument to be made that the older ones we didn't know about until recently fell out of favour for a reason. We also don't know for sure that CT was definitely first. It's the oldest copy, sure, but large parts of history are unknown to us. It's entirely possible that the reason we don't have older TR copies is because they felt no need to preserve them, having already copied them so many times up until the oldest copies we have. Remember the way people in antiquity thought; they used "everyone know what a horse is" in the dictionary definition of "horse" back then. Why would those same people think "we absolutely have to preserve the oldest possible copy in case people a thousand years in the future don't understand that obviously the one everyone uses was the most accurate one." Just a theory, I'm not saying it is true. Just trying to provide a reason why the CT might not be automatically better. I'm sure there are other reasons why the CT is better besides "older better," but the point is that simply finding an older copy of one version does not necessarily imply that it is the definitive version.
My argument is neither for the most antiquitous nor for the most numerous. Paul brought the gospel to Asia minor first and I believe the Byzantine tradition preserves the most faithful presentation of the word. Although the Alexandrian texts can be traced to periods earlier than the Byzantine ones, the fact that the climate of Egypt preserves much more effectively than the climate of Galatia accounts for this fact. I believe both traditions go back to the same point in history and that the Alexandrian tradition is more ancient is possibly spurious. So, for those reasons I favour the RT. I agree that the difference is not fundamental, and that people are reading the Lord's word in whatever tradition is what's most important. I like your idea of a majority text based on say the first 1000 years rather than 500 to handicap Alexandria's climactic advantage or even an amalgam of both traditions.
This debate I also consider an in house debate. Rather than choosing the Textus Receptus editions over the Critical Text, I hold The Majority Text position, where the Textus Receptus editions would be a subset of the Majority Text manuscripts. And, having said that, The ESV Study Bible and Concordia Publishing Houses "The Lutheran Study Bible, not to be confused with the one used by the ELCA using the NRSV translation. My big problem with the Critical Text is that no classic manuscript ever used a combination of the Codes Vaticanus and the Alexandrian Codex. Yet, I want to know what is in both of those Codices. So, I use the KJV and NKJV and the Coverdale and New Coverdale Psalters for devotions. But, I use the ESV and the NKJV for study. So, the controversy is not even a big deal to me. Your personal position is fine. If we lived in your state and area, I would submit my family to you as a pastor, easily. God bless you and your family.
Thank you, Matthew, for bringing us along your journey on this critical matter. If a lay-person were to learn Greek to help understand the Greek NT text better, which route would you recommend?
There is a ton of ways to do it online these days (videos, classes, auditing courses, even "Rosetta Stone" type methods. Unfortunately I learned the "old fashioned" way which is through vocab notecards, parsings, writing out my paradigms by hand, and translating through thick and thin! There are some pretty good YT sites devoted to learning Greek too!
If the older changes verses, omits many verses, ect. Then you have to ask, why? Which one is correct? Older doesn't necessarily mean better. The epic of Gilgamesh is older, tons of pagan texts are older. Are they better?
@13:17 - some of the points here actually resonate with me as KJV/Textus Receptus guy. In the Bible, Egypt is pictured as a type of evil where GOD never wants his people to be. It just makes me uncomfortable getting my scripture from the same place associated with evil and the World in the Bible. The other point made after this one was about the history of the Textus Receptus. I'm familiar with how the Textus Receptus was there during the Reformation and the Great Awakening, and how the Puritans and Martyrs drew great strength from it. I don't think I've ever heard one account of how the critical text accomplished anything big for the Glory of GOD. I could be wrong, but it just seems like Christianity lost a lot of steam and a lot of heresy entered the church when we came up with modern bible translations. I'm not associating evil intentions on behalf of those who decided to tinker with the Bible (though I suspect some pride was involved). It just seems like once we got comfortable correcting GOD's word, there was no way to stop that train we put in motion.
Yikes, I don't know if Egypt is evil historically. It was an original cradle of Christianity oddly enough. But I do get your Old Testament reckoning. In agreement with you today, my worry is that our most ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts come from garbage dumps / landfills of Egypt! That does not make them bad either, but what about the oldest manuscripts of Turkey and Europe? Oops, Turkey and Egypt are cooler and more humid climates where manuscripts and modern books don't survive beyond a few hundred years. But the desert sands of Egypt, Arabia, and the Sahara desert do! Does that mean that we have to bow down at the feet of those manuscripts against the European Bible?
I am starting to think it does not really matter whether you are critical text or Textus Receptus. I think that a lot of people get caught in between either of these positions. Forgetting that God can use either or to further his own will. I think anybody can look at either side of this issue and maybe that is a good thing, but ultimately it isn't about what we do or what side we lean on. Ultimately it is about God and his plan for us. We should just be glad that God has anything to do with us at all.
I lean more majority text because I reason thusly, scripture consists of a discrete number of words, phrases, and sentences breathed out by God. These ALL are for our edification. That is the entire point of preservation as the Bible means it. Therefore, with those theological assumptions in mind, I want to consider textual variants that have a traceable pedigree from now on back as far as possible. I'm not greatly educated on the issue but it seems to me many of the manuscripts used now, weren't so much known to anyone for many centuries. So how could they edify? And if they could not edify, how could it be legimate?
We are not allowed to return to antiquity in order to create a new, improved theology. We're supposed to follow the creeds and confessions we've received. Creeds and confessions that developed over time. Likewise, we've received a Greek text that developed over time. It's not our place to return to antiquity in order to create a new, improved Greek text. See my point?
Doesn't this argument completely invalidate Protestantism? If we can't assume that the Christian faith "developed" into falsehood at some point, then there was no need for a Reformation. (Granted, if you're Catholic or Orthodox, then you're already convinced of this point.)
Real question here. Would you preach the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae to your congregation? Love your videos, I’ve been following for years.
Do you consider the "majority text" (M) to be different enough from the Textus Receptus that the arguments for each are unique or do you consider M and TR to be virtually the same?
The Majority Text is missing two key readings in the Textus Receptus: 1. Acts 8.37: Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 2. 1 John 5.7: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. These two verses are important to TR advocates for the following reasons: 1. Acts 8.37 would seem to support credobaptism, i.e. the notion that baptisms should properly follow a confession of faith rather than preceding it. 2. 1 John 5.7 is more explicitly Trinitarian (in a developed credal sense) than any other New Testament passage. However, both of these passages have the same weakness: they are barely present in the Greek manuscripts, instead receiving most of their support from Latin witnesses. This fact makes their originality to the texts quite suspect. If your arguments are based on the idea that the correct readings were preserved in a majority of the manuscripts, then you must necessarily reject the authenticity of these verses. On the other hand, if you hold them to be correct readings, then the argument that the TR resembles the majority of manuscripts is rendered moot, and we're again relying on an eclectic critical text rather than on a steady singular textual tradition that carried on throughout the ages.
I liked your discussion of antiquity vs. majority. I think one more category needs to be added, and that is geographical representation. Personally, I think the most significant testament to the authenticity of a reading is when it is represented by a geographically diverse set of witnesses. If a reading enjoys the majority of witnesses but is only found in one location (i.e., Byzantium), then I am not as convinced as I would be if the reading enjoyed the majority of witnesses _and_ _also_ enjoyed being represented in Byzantium, Spain, Alexandria, Italy, etc. Hopefully, that makes sense.
Fortunately, it’s not _either/or._ I use *BOTH,* thanks to the computer/internet age. I lean toward *_Critical Text,_* but have no objection to TR, either. If I were limited to a single translation, I’d probably choose a _Critical Text_ based translation, *WITH FULL FOOTNOTES* - IOW, including TR textual variants. Limit me to two? NIV and NKJV. For study, I might make it NASB + NKJV, but I prefer NIV for readability.
Since there is so many more manuscripts used for the majority text versus the critical text . I'll stick to the Textus Receptus. Not only for that reason alone but all these manuscripts (some 5600) although they were scattered all over Europe remained almost exactly word for word the same. In my mind that's proof of God's word being preserved! Just because something is older doesn't necessarily make it more reliable and age doesn't hold that much weight over the vast majority of texts (all being the same) in my mind. Also the way I understand it is a few of the majority texts are very close in time to the critical texts some within 50 years or so of the critical texts? Someone correct me if I'm wrong . So therefore, I personally will stick with the Textus Receptus for the reasons stated and continue to trust in the Byzantium texts along with the great scholars charged by King James that gave us the King James Bible.
The problem I have with the term "majority text" (you did imply this a couple times) is that the majority readings changed over time. Many of the majority readings only became majority 1,000 years into church history because of how popular a reading became in a city where a lot of copying was happening. That should not give any weight to any one reading.
The one thing to take into consideration is this. Are we looking to conform our beliefs to the word of God, or are we more interested in finding ways to conform the word of God to our beliefs? I have found that those who advocate for the Textus Receptus are more of the latter. They cling to what seems to provide proof of their preferred view of truth. So as a result, will willfully ignore anything that does not fit what they want the truth to be. Most of these people are KJV onlyers who cling to passages that seem to support their view of trinity. Despite using the bible on its own, will debunk their use of these verses, they stubbornly hold on to them. Showing that truth is not the goal for them.
Garmia 2, 1 gospels in Ethiopia. Are the word of God preserved by a near extinct language "Ge'ez," preventing outside scripture modifications. 84 books in total. I want to look into those 18 other books. Nonetheless, they confirm Jesus was and is God.
Textus Receptus Receptus of the Reformation Era vs 20th Century Westcott & Hort. You did not frame it correctly. Westcott & Hort consistently had an agenda. Agenda is the difference, more than the texts used.
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
I love your respect that you show for the guys on the other side, I think that's so necessary these days!
What respect? He said KJV only is for crazy conspiracy theorists. There is zero grace ok that statement, and no honesty since he doesn't seem to know anything about what Tyschendorf, Wescott and Hort and Nestle and Aland wrote against protestantism.
Smooth talking means nothing when it's wrong.
Love the way you help us think through this with questions
Coming back to give rhis another listen, I enjoy Matts take on these issues. I have maintained my TR priority but use the CT as well, mainly in the NASB95, the ESV and NLT. Thankful for the choices we have, some have no Bible at all.
Thanks for all your help. Don't see the need to choose. A blue collar member of the family. Peace.
You hit the nail on the head when you said it comes down to antiquity or majority. This sums up the argument quite well in my opinion EXCEPT for our Confessional Bibliology brothers, they believe the TR because of their claim that it's providentially preserved. I would tend to fall more toward a majority text, more specifically the Byzantine type. Great video brother Matt! Loved your overview here.
+1 agreed, and an upvote/comment for the filter algorithms.
Focusing on ancient manuscripts to the exclusion of all else sounds noble, and I agree that the THGNT is better than the NA; however, theologically, I cannot allow myself to think that for centuries the church had in its possession a corrupt text that we have to recover today.
I understand your concern on that issue, but my own theological position on the topic is based on which "church" had the Majority Text in its possession. The Western branch of Christianity had largely moved on to the Vulgate even before the Great Schism. Thus, it's the Eastern Orthodox Church that adopted and preserved the Byzantine text-type and turned it into the majority reading for most of the Middle Ages. The Vulgate wasn't completely in agreement with that text-type, so we already know that at least one side of early Christendom must have had a "corrupt text" throughout the centuries.
So the pertinent theological question is this: do we think that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church has been sufficiently protected from corruption over the centuries? If we think that the RCC is truly infallible, as it claims to be, then the Vulgate's readings are to be preferred, and the Douay-Rheims is therefore more reliable than either the KJV or the ESV. If we think that the EOC has consistently preserved the precise faith of the apostles throughout the ages, as it claims, then the Majority Text must be favored. But if we're Protestants, then we already assume that both the RCC and EOC went off the theological rails at some point, so we really shouldn't be too convinced that they managed to keep the Bible spotless throughout all ages, either. (But both the Vulgate and the Majority Text are sufficiently good to meet the needs of Christians in any age, despite their corruptions. The Church never went without a Bible.)
@@MAMoreno Then you believe like Anthony Hort that ALL the churches had corrupt texts throughout the centuries?
@@jamessheffield4173 Yes. In fact, I'd say that the variants that appear within each regional text-type demonstrate that there is no stream of 100% reliable texts in any tradition. (I'd also argue that it really doesn't matter: the churches got along just fine over the centuries with these "corrupt texts," and the need to restore the exact text of the autographs is not essential in order for the New Testament to be reliable, since most of the differences have little theological impact.)
@@MAMoreno Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173 I don't have a problem with "throwing out" things that weren't part of the text in the first place. A reading's authenticity isn't determined by its adherence to later orthodoxy. While I don't see the "not yet" reading of John 7.8 as necessarily harmful to the text (and perhaps it correctly interprets the more ambiguous "not" of the preferred reading), I do see it as the perfect example of the kind of changes I would expect to happen to the text over time.
The hard edges of the autographs get softened. The implicit theological implications of a verse suddenly become more explicit. Doxologies included in the liturgies slowly creep into the texts that inspired the liturgies. And so on. The church's interpretation and application of the text eventually become the text. It's all orthodox, so it's relatively harmless within the bounds of a church service, but it comes slightly at the expense of the New Testament's historical integrity as a record of 1st century Christianity.
It's also critical to point out that there isn't one iota of difference in the doctrine you'll get from properly exegeting the TR, and the doctrine you'll from properly exegeting the CT (in whatever flavor you prefer). You'll use some different proof texts on some questions (e.g., if you're a CT guy, you won't use 1 John 5:7 to defend the Trinity), but the doctrine you reach will be identical either way.
NIV ESV ASV NKJV all lordship salvation compared to KJV.
“You are saved”
Vs
“You are being saved”
Now what about including Darwinian evolution?
“God made the animals”
“God is making the animals” implying continual evil-lotion.
@@latenttweet The KJV teaches, every bit as clearly as any of the others you name, that you must accept Jesus as Lord by a true, living faith that's demonstrated by good works--see Roman 10:9 and James 2. That's "lordship salvation."
As to evolution, unless you can provide specifics, poppycock. Read Genesis 1-2 in any of those translations and tell me honestly that they teach Darwinian evolution.
I agree with you on all points! You’ll love the THGNT! Great video!
I read ESV NKJV & KJV and I feel like between those 3 I have all that I need. Especially with the footnotes of the NKJV.
+1...The NKJV is sadly overlooked and more or less goes without fanfare, Duck Dynasty, et al billing aside. Love those footnotes too. Hopefully, the Massive Christian Wokesters' Hypermarketing Machine won't attempt to "update" it. It's just fine as-is =D
There no foot note in the nkjv your wrong
@@dwightsaxton7766 It's likely you're looking at NKJV from a different publisher that does not include footnotes. Some of them do have footnotes, including the one I use.
@@dwightsaxton7766 there are different "versions" of most Bibles, including "reader's versions" which have no chapter or verse numbers or anything else to take away from just reading it. Some Bibles don't have foot notes. Some don't have cross references. It's the text itself that is the "translation," not the extra bells and whistles.
Thomas Nelson NKJV has the footnotes.
Pastor, I am an Independent Baptist but I read widely. Charles Hodge’s three volume Systematic Theology is right next to John R Rice in my library. I absolutely love your channel! I’m also a TR/KJV guy (NOT an Onlyist) and I just want to say, thank you so much for being so gracious and for having a very respectful tone for the view that we hold too. I also want to check myself and make sure that I’m just as gracious in representing the Critical Text position and not just assuming or ascribing devious motives to other people (my camp can be guilty of that). Now, having said that, I don’t believe that all of the proponents of the Critical Text are somehow trying to distort the Word of GOD. I do admire their desire for collecting all the data but, I just can’t bring myself to accept theologically the CT position in saying that the Church had a corrupt text but that’s just me.
I wish there was more love and less heat on this subject!
I stand in both camps and have stood in both camps and find myself many times stuck. I believe that there’s enough evidence for inclusion for the longer ending of Mark and the adulterous woman ( John 7-8)! I currently only have an issue with 1 John 5:7-8 as being scripture… Finally, the one caveat I have with the earlier copies being “ superior “ is that the few copies we have could easily be gnostic or incomplete ones . You would need many earlier copies imho but with the church persecution’s throughout the early centuries, I do not believe that we will ever find a complete NT, only small pieces of a chapter here or there.
@Coram Deo Assembly I think John 5:4 about the angel stirring the waters also poses a significant difficulty. In regard to the woman caught in adultery, I understand that that passage is found all over the place, including in some manuscripts of Luke. It seems that it was a story that was believed to be true and was too good to not include, but not original to the gospels, so later scribes tried to find a place for it.
But I don't claim to know anything for sure. What I think is perhaps the greatest difficulty for the TR issue is the question of "Which TR?" We have to remember that the TR itself is not one manuscript but a collection of manuscripts that represent multiple revisions.
This is maybe the kindest comment I have ever seen from a TR/KJV-preferred person. God bless you for your grace to brothers with whom you disagree. :)
@@Kenneth-nVA Saint Irenaeus cited 1 John 5:7 in his work Against Heresies (written in II century). He was a disciple of a disciple of John. Did he used corrupted John's text, while Egyptian Christians used correct one? This is literally what the critics of this text are trying to convince us of. Personally, I believe in the correctness of Irenaeus' text.
I agree.After yrs of analyzing tr and ct mss trying to be logical and come down on the tr side.Our entire religion and faith was put forth by the tr and I can't just throw that overboard. Toni's husband
I think you are absolutely correct. Well said. The CT is a great addition.
I appreciate your humility. Thanks, this was helpful.
I really enjoyed this, well done Matthew, very down to earth, also glad we have learned guys like you who can read Greek.
Great video. In my own study, aside from spelling and word order, the vast majority of variants can be described as either explanatory notes or convergence (where a reading in one account from one Gospel is accidentally included in that same account in another Gospel). Aside from these, there are a tiny handful of variants to consider.
I'm a critical text guy too brother given the reasons you pointed out and many others you didn't mention. I used to be an ardent KJV/TR only guy until I became open to reason and listened to the other side carefully, including the history of the TR, and that's when I relinquished my KJV/TR only stance and embraced the critical text gladly with thankfulness to the Lord for the preservation of His written Word.
What preservation? In your position the word was lost until it was rediscovered more than a thousand years later. At least be realistic. You don't believe in preservation or inerrancy, there is no other way to accept this idea. Be honest.
@@JesusProtects isn’t that convenient? Where was the reasoning? How do you go from 5,210 agreeable mss to less than 50 mss that were lost for the majority of Christianity?
@@JesusProtectsI'm confused, how many sermons were written in the false translation of 2 Chr 22:2? Seriously, where all of the TR errors are, how many sermons and messages were actually preached on them? Please explain how God couldn't work despite human error?
Considering that, thanks to better science and God's providence, the truest text has been preserved and now brought back into cannon.
@@JesusProtectsa common assertion only tr and kjv onlyists believe, but it’s a straw man. If that’s what you are going to claim the modern critical text is, then you just shot yourself in the foot historically because the TRs don’t come into existence until the 16th and 17th centuries (yes, multiple TRs that disagree with each other). Before that, the form of the TR had not existed in the church or any individual manuscript as a single text throughout any point in church history. The kettle calls the pot black.
Brother Matthew! First, I really appreciate your channel. You have a humble demeanor I truly appreciate and love you in the Lord. You have really challenged me here but I think (for now-lol) my conclusions are different than yours. I have been ESV primarily and I realized after watching this video is because I was backwards. I've always insisted on a formal equivalence translation and I was more attracted to the ESV's contemporary English reading. However, I don't share your view on the critical texts; or a better way to say it is I'm not sure which is better. I'm with you wanting to have texts as close to the time of the apostles as possible BUT there are fewer, much fewer in some cases. Although we don't know for sure, I think I argument can be made that there are fewer because they were considered inferior at the time therefore less copies were made. I've also been troubled by some ESV footnotes that say things like, "the best manuscripts say" Ultimately, I think I can say (just like you I'm sure) I want the absolute complete word of Our Lord. I'm a Textus Truthus not receptus or critical. I've made the decision that the translation for me going forward may need to be the NKJV and the reason why is the extensive textual footnotes. I feel like they are the most complete of any translation. Am I missing anything here? I would appreciate anyone's comments on this. Thanks.
Thank you, Pastor, for this video on the history of the Greek New Testament of the Bible. I grew up with the King James, but I am going to buy an ESV now. As you suggested, I will use them both! Many thanks and may God bless you!
I've come to scholars videos that mentions that majority texts are mentioned by 1st/2nd century church fathers like Polycarp which means that Byzantine texts are extremely reliable for antiquity as well!
I don't understand why no one seems to hold the position that we can account for BOTH the critical AND the majority texts--in other words taking into account both the authority of age as well as the authority of church tradition and plurality. To me this seems like the most obvious, most even-handed, and very likely the most accurate representation of the original text.
I agree with you.
This open-minded perspective doesn’t allow for puffed-up accusations that the other side is “wrong” though.
How are we all supposed to not get along if we are level-headed instead of proud and quick to point out the inadequacies of others and their flawed reasoning abilities?
@@jrcenina85 LOL Very true!! There's little profit or "influencer" status to be made from being a peace-maker.
My opinion best video on this topic.
The NKJV is the best version I have found as it lists all the variances in the notes. You get the best of both worlds.
Im looking for all variances in the Old Testament LXX vs MT. That would be cool.
@@trappedcat3615 It really would.
I was saved as a teenager, and my first Bible was an NIV, and i was shortly gifted A NASB by a friend. Shortly after this, i attended a revival service in which i was not permitted to even bring my "New Age" Bible inside and was supplied with A KJV for service that i couldn't understand. My pastor explained that the whole "critical " vrs received text issue . The explanation for reading/studying conservative translations that used the critical text seemed logical to me then. When i later studied Greek at Bible college we studied the critical text. Perhaps it is due to the fact that i have no sentimental attachment to translations such as the KJV OR NKJV and such that use the Textus Recepticus but ive never understood the logic behind the arguments for its use and translations based upon it. As a minister, why shouldn't i want to preach from a translation that is closest to the original language and not unintentionally preach from a passage, verse word not in the original manuscripts. I know as a minister you lcant constantly lecture on textual criticismbut its its my strong belief in the Inerrancy that makes me such a strong proponent of using and studying the critical tex and conservative translations based on it.
Good on you Dave. As I am studying on TR vs CT for the first time, it seems the ones who are arguing loudly are those on the KJV and TR side. I suspect they’ll disappear in the next 100 years.
Hey Matt! I appreciate your videos. Thank you!
I have been studying this subject for the past 51 years and I have read everything I could lay my hands on, on both sides of the argument. I started off strongly on the side of the CT, but after about fourteen years, swung in favour of the Byzantine/Majority text.
It is not possible to put 51 years of research into a few short paragraphs, but I will give a few of the main points.
All critical texts are substantially eclectic, and are drawn principally from the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, a few readings from the Codex Alexandrinus. These manuscripts have no known antecedents or descendants. Indicating that no-one thought that they were worthy of copying. Also, they are in remarkably good condition compared to the majority texts, indicating that they were little used, and may have been discarded.
The Alexandrian manuscripts are on average about 1200 words shorter than the majority texts. Proponents of the CT suggest that later scribes added words, but a study of the copying of manuscripts, both secular and non-secular, shows a greater propensity for omitting words than adding words. Also, early Christian scribes were Jewish and followed the Jewish scribal tradition of word for word perfection, even among the non-Jewish scribes.
NT manuscripts typically were used in churches until they were becoming illegible, upon which they would be copied, and the old manuscript burned. This explains why there are no very early manuscripts of the majority texts.
Comparing the NT quotations of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Irenaeus in their writings, with the Alexandrian manuscripts and the majority texts, they agree with the Majority, not the Alexandrian. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, quotes the entire 16th Chapter of Mark, including the last 12 verses. So, they could not have been added by later scribes.
Please PM me if you would like further info.
Thanks for sharing my man!
I really appreciate your input here. I learned a few new things that I find very revealing. I spent some time when I was younger looking into this topic and a lot of what you write falls right in line with what I have believed and espoused. Thank you
So far this has to be one of the best comments elucidating the topic. What are suggested resources from both sides to build a better grasp on RT vs CT?
@damongreville2197 it is impossible for everyone to take time to study and analyze this issue personally in order to come up with well informed personal stand on this matter. Thus, sharing opinions such as what you put out here is really a valuable insight that one can consider in dealing with this issue. Thanks for sharing, and I would love to get hold of your study materials, or at least some guidance you could further share.
While what you're describing is very convincing to me, in practice I find most CT text choices factor in many counterintuitive things, I.e. "harder readings," "shorter readings," "more confusing readings," etc, I find that any search for ancient texts is complicated. I find there to be too many problems with each of the 3 bigger NT text crit camps for me to say yeah I feel comfortable with this. So I use whatever translation befits my context, in the past, that's been the ESV but at my current parish that's the NIV. But no matter what I use I always consult the Greek itself and end up translating/revising the translation I have myself as best I can and with ridiculous wealth of resources at my disposal.
Great video Matt!
The point about English priority is a really good point. As a French I will go beyond and say that this debate is practically non- existent in other languages.
The story of the translation in the English speaking country play a big part in the debate.
Interesting! I have wondered about how such issues of translations & texts play out in other languages.
I live in Peru and the arguments here are the same as in the states. The Reina Valera is the most used translation (and is an astounding piece of work). It was based on Erasmus' text. So, modern translations are frequently maligned and there are many conspiracy theories about the diabolical origins. But the reason for the debate is that the people love the wording and familiarity of the Reina Valera, not because they trust Erasmus' text more than the critical text.
Didn't you know you're supposed to learn English to read God's Own King James Bible? 😂
The new edition of the Greek Textus Receptus that we're planning is a reader edition with uncommon words foonoted. TBS is publishing a new edition of their Scrivener text.
Sorry for the self promotion here, but have you seen my video on a new edition of a TR? We might have converging interests.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews No! But I'll watch now. Thanks
Another great job! Thanks for your clarity and agreeableness on this subject. Very few are willing to take it on so fairly. May God continue to bless your labors.
Thank you for this video!
Another winning, ASSIDUOUS talk. Thank you, Pastor!
Thank you, Brother Matt🌹🌹🌹🌹
Excellent video.
Regarding the “majority vs antiquity debate,” two rational, logical, common sense things need to be pointed out….
The reason why the majority text is the “majority” (in other words, there’s more of them than the critical text) is simply because:
1) the majority text is not as old as the critical text. Once again, common sense and logical thinking tells us that the older a text is, the less it’s chances are of surviving. There is no doubt that, in order for 5th century Christians to have had some access to the scriptures, they had to have had more manuscripts available for themselves than what we currently have from that time period. But they disappeared or fell apart over time.
2) earth’s population grew over time. So did the population of those calling themselves Christians. Once again, common sense and logical thinking tells us that there were more people calling themselves Christians 500 years ago than 1500 years ago. Thus 500 years ago, there were more people being able to make more bible manuscripts than could the people from the 5th century.
That’s it.
How the majority text became the majority has nothing to do with it being more favored by God or anything like it.
I use bible translations coming from both TR and from the critical text. I enjoy both. But when there’s a clash between the two texts, I do what most scholars do. I go with the critical texts version as having more weight. Its just common sense.
Those holding on to their beliefs that the TR is superior always and only, do so from an emotional place and not a logical place. It’s emotional because it’s what they’re accustomed to reading in their particular church, or because of inheriting it from their ancestors or their little circle of friends. Because of that, they find it emotionally hard to let go. Yes, of course, God preserved his word in both texts. But, come on…the critical text is 1000 years closer to the original text. What’s so hard about understanding that?
Nicholas Lunn has written a phenomenal work on the Longer Ending of Mark; he's a CT guy, and he argues very strongly for its authenticity with a significant new research. You might enjoy that. Craig Evans has said that this book shook his views on the topic.
Honda thank you for sharing this! I’ve never heard of a CT advocate promote the longer ending of Mark.
Lunn has been on my wish list for a while. Your comment prompted my purchase of the Kindle version, which I am reading now.
Thank you for the thoughtful video. I believe James White and Doug Wilson are supposed to have a debate/discussion on this issue. I don’t recall the date.
please make more videos on this topic
I think you're correct in noting that we shouldn't favor a Greek text based on our preference for a certain English translation, but that's literally what the TR is--it's a Greek text prepared from the works of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and when those three differed, the editors went with whatever the KJV translators had done. That's the text that was sold as the "Textus Receptus."
You're thinking of Scrivener's 1894 edition, where he crafted a Greek NT based on the textual decisions of the King James translators. The _Textus_ _Receptus_ refers to all editions from Erasmus' first Greek NT in 1516 to the 1633 Elzivir edition, none of which is based on the King James Version.
Sorry I am late to this party, but I enjoyed your discussion and agree with you in large part. Personally I believe that which ever camp one is in, it makes great sense to use translations created from both the tr and the ct in our study. Recently mark ward has published on a web site an interesting comparison of the two that you might find interesting. They took the ct text and carefully created a text using the kjv style English and show them side by side. It's truly amazing at how small the overall differences there are. Anyway thanks for your video it was very appreciated.
I only know English so I also found Mark Ward's website comparing the TR and the CT to be very useful -- it's amazing how few differences they really have from each other and shows very well how the translators' interpretations and how they decide to phrase what they've read into English makes the largest difference between translations.
Pastor, thank you for putting this out. I’d like to learn more as to how the different type of manuscripts were used in translating the different Bibles we have today. I love the Word of God, read it every day. I have multiple translations and I tend to lean towards the ESV more. But, it would be great if you could explain how we got our Bibles today. Thank you and God bless you.
Thanks for your comments as always. You are always worth listening to. I am surprised that you would discount the influence of geography, however. Personally, I think there is the real potential for textual influence if there are certain heresies prevalent, in geographical areas, that can be brought to bear over copyists.
More generally, there is a crucial point of the arguement that seems to be diminished by those saying there isn't much difference between the texts. Either we're saying someone has added to the text or someone has subtracted from the text or we have no way of knowing so we just take our pick. It's very convenient to just brush that off when it is pretty important from God's view; hence the warnings he gives.
Thank you.
The TR is the first Critical Text in Greek.
Totally agree with your analysis. I'm really at a point where I'm I'm attempting to grasp the arguments for both sides. I've watched passionate apologists for both sides, even to the point "you're going to hell or you're not saved" due to the use of the opposite text they are arguing for (mostly in the Masoretic vs. TR spectrum. Sometimes I really think they are mostly arguing for the sake of being correct. I have to laugh a bit when a translation of a translation of a translation is the only translation authorized as the Word of God and can only be used. When I expanded into multiple translations and saw the beauty each one had to offer I realized we have to trust discernment by the Lord's leading and allow Him to carry us through our studying. It opened up my understanding and helped me realize any bias I had to any understanding, had no place in how I interpret. Rather, let the Spirit interpret as God wants us to learn. Really nothing is set in stone (except the ten commandments and cuneiform fragments or tablets) except the foundational truths that are the base and beginning to our wisdom. And the Word of God is alive and active, quick and powerful, quicke and myghtie in operation and sharper than any two-edged or double edged sword and piercing, or cutting through, or even penetrating, dividing asunder soul and spirit. If you follow my reasoning, most translations lead us to the heart of God. Except The Message translation - Oh Dear Lorde.
With that being said, there are some semi or minor fundamental truths that are different between the texts. This is where the context of the paragraph, chapter, and whole book need closer examination to get to the root of the flaw. I have found multiple issues with the KJV and with the ESV and with others. This has not led me away from one text or another but has increased my awareness of flaws in translations. I am a lot more surveillant and question the writing no matter which text. I predominantly use the ESV but I have started to analyze the OG Septuagint to clarify my understanding within the Book of Daniel. I do look at 20+ translations (Masoretic and TR) as I go verse by verse to gain better insight but the Septuagint has helped me to gain a bigger picture in understanding or expanded the "what if" that scripture introduces. And my study has been going on for four months in Daniel with about two hours each morning spent analyzing the book. Currently at chapter 3:24. So it's a slow, in depth study analyzing the times, locations, and much background research for each verse. Just a jump into the lake of understanding of something like the Babylon Empire and the history of King Nebuchadnezzar is fascinating or treading the waters of the wisemen/magi takes you to so many places (like the Matthew account of the magi and how that sect came into being) once you get on the scent of it. Anyway, love it.
Too much information?
One detail I find is overlooked is that there are other forms of evidence besides manuscripts, eg. early church testimony
Matthew, greetings from New Zealand "Middle Earth" :-). The Byzantine Priority position would argue it has TWO checks and balances when it comes to manuscript priority. First the Byzantine manuscripts are more numerous AND second, are spread out over a larger geographical area. I guess the debate is whether these two factors are as significant as antiquity.
And they aren't.
Do you have a view on Robert Adam Boyd's translation of the Byzantine NT text, published in 2021? Thanks!
There's Cappadocian type text &, there's Byzantine type text mixed within other text type - early papyri in egypt
I read the NKJV - I’m not really very knowledgeable on all these different texts etc. do I have a good translation? Serious question
Yes!
Just watched your video, and it was great. You present your findings with a humble sincerity and that is a welcome change compared to other CT advocates.
I had a few questions, and wanted to hear your thoughts on different views ive heard recently.
One is that there is evidence of some of the Alexandrian texts being forgeries, which would take them out of antiquity.
The second would be the idea that Majority text manuscripts appear newer because they were spread out and read so often, that there were more copying of them done due to them getting worn out quicker. It also would account for the supposed better condition of the Alexandrian text because it was never used due to so much of it missing when compared to the Majority Text or the TR.
I don't have a side in this, but I love hearing both sides.
Is there a concordance for the Critical Text like there is Strongs concordance for the TR?
Thanks for this video!
Any translations that use the Tyndale House Greek NT as their source text? Thanks
None yet I think? But I suspect the ESV will in a few years. The Tyndale came out very recently.
However, it's interesting to note e.g ASV, RV and some other older works match up more with the Tyndale text (which uses the work of Tregelles as its basis) than the NA or WH.
For me, the telling statement was that this seems more a scholarly debate. I hadn't known about the issue until recently. I have the KJV, NKJV, NASB (1977 and 1995), ESV, NET, CSB, NIV and HCSB translations, but most of the Bibles I purchased were bought for their study materials, not for the particular translation (disclaimer: I don't use the one NIV I have because the translation isn't literal enough for my taste). I've heard good arguments for each position, but am not convinced fully by either, so I intend to keep all my translations. But, it must be said that as I prepare my Sunday school lessons, I tend toward the NKJV and NASB (1977 preferred; 1995 is ok). On the debate over Mark's ending, there is another, shorter ending about one verse long, and I prefer it because it flows more naturally from verse 8 to me; by contrast, the long ending seems rather abrupt, and some scholars don't think Mark wrote the long ending. And in all of this, I don't notice anything of doctrinal or theological importance compromised across the translations so far.
Of course you ascribe the best possible motives to everyone who corrupts the word of God; they don't even believe it, but their motives are pure.
Hi Matt, love your videos . When it comes to the TR or the CT or perhaps the majority text. I came across a fellow who had personally copied a number of Greek NT. Books and found that he ended up with a shorter text not a longer text. That being said I just read a comment by a fellow who claims that the church fathers only quote from the Byzantine texts . He surmises that the reason that the alexandrian texts are not quoted is due to them being suspect in the early church. They were also found in fantastic shape, whereas he claims that the practice in the early church was to copy the text once it started to deteriorate and burn the old copy and claims that therefore we don’t have old Byzantine manuscripts. If true that would explain a few things.
I'm certainly no scholar, but I lean more towards TR mainly just out familiarity. I'm not dogmatic about it, it's just a preference thing for me
Rationalism comes from the spirit of pride in man's intellect.
Thanks for sharing your reasons for preferring the Critical Text. Your points have been concise and insightful.
Since you mentioned it, I would appreciate hearing your understanding of the end of Mark. We’re getting to it soon in our midweek Bible study and I’m really not sure what to do with it.
A Crossway ESV-KJV parallel would sell, I believe. Thanks, Pastor Matt.
I prefer my ESV bible, but the church I go to reads the NKJV. I love both of those translations and the KJV as well. The ESV I love because they have great footnotes telling you if some manuscripts say this and others that. Mark 16:9-20 they keep in, but there are brackets around them to make sure you look at the footnotes. The same is done with John 7:53-8:11. Etc. I don't have a dog in this fight but there are a lot of good teachers out there but they focus too much on KJVO try to make you feel like you're practicing heresy, but also you got to remember that most don't know Greek or ancient hebrew.
Thank you so much for this open discussion. I have a question, more out of curiosity than anything else. Where was the Critical Text during the years of the reformation and even before? Was it used somewhere? When was it "discovered"? If it has been addressed and I missed it, apologies.
Probably the best answer to that would be to say that the Critical Text was preserved in the multitude of Greek manuscripts. It's important to note that that there is no single "critical text." After all, the Nestle-Aland is currently on its 28th or 29th revision or something like that.
@@sorenpx Thanks for that answer. I know it consists for about 95% of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
@@koosvanzyl2605 I'm not sure of the percentage, but certainly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus play what might be oversized roles. The TR position has its own issue with there not being a single manuscript that we can call THE Textus Receptus, because it has undergone its own revision process.
@@sorenpx Yes the TR has as I understand about 5000 old copies, which to my mind if compared critically, can also establish the correctness of the TR.
@@koosvanzyl2605 Well what I was saying is that there are a number of different manuscripts that were derived from those copies. For instance, Erasmus produced the first manuscript that is now called the Textus Receptus. But he himself issued a few different revisions to the initial manuscript. And then his final manuscript was later revised by others, such as the revisions by Stephanus and Theodore Beza. The manuscript that is usually used to today is the Scrivener edition of 1881.
An argument for the Byzantine text type that makes sense to me is that the older copies of that are lost because they were heavily used and were in a wetter climate, whereas Alexandrian text types were in the desert where they could survive longer and were never a majority of the text, simply a smaller group of rarely used texts. I don't know where that leaves the Western Text type and the Latin and Syriac translations. I've heard it claimed that early chutch fathers either primarily quoted Alexandrian text types or primarily quoted Byzantine, and I am not sure who is telling the truth. I tend to better trust those who say the Alexandrian text type was quoted more.
Thanks for your analysis. I use the NKJV and the GNT. That way I have a fair comparison between versions based on the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland. It's amazing the difference between the two, particularly on few verses that speak to the Dirty of Christ, or lack thereof.
“I here pass over in silence, the interesting details of my travels…my audience with the Pope, Gregory XVI, in May, 1843…my intercourse with Cardinal Mezzofanti, that surprising and celebrated linguist.”
- When Were Our Own Gospels Written? By Constantine von Tischendorf, p. 27
You are approaching the text debate from a good position of believing the best about the intentions of others. You did not mention factors that persuade others to adopt a majority text priority position:
1. Papyrus lasts much longer in a dry climate like Egypt as opposed to a humid climate like Constantinople. Is our selection based on climate or other factors?
2. Alexandrian scribes have a reputation for shortening or summarizing texts, both pagan and Christian texts. The accuracy of the scribes should factor in our analysis.
3. Is there a reason why the scribes outside of Egypt did not copy the Egyptian copies in 200, 300 AD and later?
4. The critical text prefers the difficult reading based on the assumption that scribes will smooth them out over time. Is this a correct assumption? Maybe this is preferring the least skilled scribe over the good ones?
5. Many scripture quotations are included in writings of the early church fathers. For whatever reason, critical text advocates seem to dismiss this evidence.
I would love, as an intellectual exercise, maybe even something done by AI, to have an "earliest attestation" text and translation. Ever since I saw differences between P66 and Vaticanus, and how even then they were already making edits, I feel like "earliest across the board" would give a lot of insight and perspective.
I see you have changed your view. Far from that disturbing me, that impresses me. You are really willing to consider the data.
When I'm out there on youtube I'm often asked what translation I use. I stop them in their tracks by saying "All of them!"
It literally says in the NJKV 1979 and 1982 versions that the goal was to remove Verses from the bible so everyone can choose their version of the bible they like.
And they even admit that the original greek text is more accurate that the 1881 westcott and hort
They even wrote it as annotations in the 1979 1982 njkv bible
Never thrust any greek manuscripts from westcott and hort
Majority text=thousands of texts that agree with each other
Vs
Critical text=less than 100 texts that do not agree with each other
Paul mentioned people corrupting the Word even in the first century .
The Majority Text was found where Paul and the Apostles actually went.
Apollos was from Alexandria and had to be corrected about some of his beliefs.
You must be willing to ignore way too much if you rely on the Critical text.
I haved friends who use the KJV because they love it. They are not KJV ONLY, thankfully. I've run across a few of those and when I find someone like that, I tend to avoid them. I tend towards the ESV myself. I have others that I look at to see how they match up, including the King James. Sometimes one is a bit better worded than the other.
Have you studied the 2nd thru the 5th century's use of Scripture? Knowing that they had to rely mostly on sermons and lectionary use of Scripture, how do you think they lived out their Christian experience? We are so blessed to have the Bible and even to have these sorts of controversies than not to have a printed Bible.
Could you also do a video explaining this CGBM thing in laymen’s terms, for a plough boy like myself? How will this affect future translations of the Bible? Thanks
Antiquity can be wrong also in the Alexandrian text were written around 200-400 Ad
With that said there were some that went out from the apostles who taught another gospel. Haven't seen those with my own eyes, but i have heard that the Alexandrian were tainted. Thoughts?
That's the trap that we fall into thinking that the difference between the TR and Critical text aka Codex Sinaiticus, that there is a small difference. The added words or the placement of the words to the TR is intentional is such a way to alter the meaning of the entire book, or at least to steer us away from the coming of the Other significant person which causes us to read the bible in a very skewed way. So, the small difference leads to a large one.
Did you consider CBGM in arriving at your decision?
Hey what about the apocrypha do you read those and or believe to be profitable but not inspired . What about those who are Christian and decides to adhere to those readings ? Just your thoughts on it .
The easy argument is "the oldest ones we've found must be closer to the original," but there is an argument to be made that the older ones we didn't know about until recently fell out of favour for a reason. We also don't know for sure that CT was definitely first. It's the oldest copy, sure, but large parts of history are unknown to us. It's entirely possible that the reason we don't have older TR copies is because they felt no need to preserve them, having already copied them so many times up until the oldest copies we have. Remember the way people in antiquity thought; they used "everyone know what a horse is" in the dictionary definition of "horse" back then. Why would those same people think "we absolutely have to preserve the oldest possible copy in case people a thousand years in the future don't understand that obviously the one everyone uses was the most accurate one."
Just a theory, I'm not saying it is true. Just trying to provide a reason why the CT might not be automatically better. I'm sure there are other reasons why the CT is better besides "older better," but the point is that simply finding an older copy of one version does not necessarily imply that it is the definitive version.
My argument is neither for the most antiquitous nor for the most numerous.
Paul brought the gospel to Asia minor first and I believe the Byzantine tradition preserves the most faithful presentation of the word. Although the Alexandrian texts can be traced to periods earlier than the Byzantine ones, the fact that the climate of Egypt preserves much more effectively than the climate of Galatia accounts for this fact. I believe both traditions go back to the same point in history and that the Alexandrian tradition is more ancient is possibly spurious. So, for those reasons I favour the RT.
I agree that the difference is not fundamental, and that people are reading the Lord's word in whatever tradition is what's most important.
I like your idea of a majority text based on say the first 1000 years rather than 500 to handicap Alexandria's climactic advantage or even an amalgam of both traditions.
This debate I also consider an in house debate.
Rather than choosing the Textus Receptus editions over the Critical Text, I hold The Majority Text position, where the Textus Receptus editions would be a subset of the Majority Text manuscripts.
And, having said that, The ESV Study Bible and Concordia Publishing Houses "The Lutheran Study Bible, not to be confused with the one used by the ELCA using the NRSV translation.
My big problem with the Critical Text is that no classic manuscript ever used a combination of the Codes Vaticanus and the Alexandrian Codex. Yet, I want to know what is in both of those Codices.
So, I use the KJV and NKJV and the Coverdale and New Coverdale Psalters for devotions. But, I use the ESV and the NKJV for study.
So, the controversy is not even a big deal to me.
Your personal position is fine. If we lived in your state and area, I would submit my family to you as a pastor, easily. God bless you and your family.
Thank you, Matthew, for bringing us along your journey on this critical matter. If a lay-person were to learn Greek to help understand the Greek NT text better, which route would you recommend?
There is a ton of ways to do it online these days (videos, classes, auditing courses, even "Rosetta Stone" type methods. Unfortunately I learned the "old fashioned" way which is through vocab notecards, parsings, writing out my paradigms by hand, and translating through thick and thin! There are some pretty good YT sites devoted to learning Greek too!
@@MatthewEverhard Thank you!
this critical matter.........ha ha no pun intended lol
@@NKDV76 Took you a year to see that? 🤣
If the older changes verses, omits many verses, ect. Then you have to ask, why? Which one is correct? Older doesn't necessarily mean better. The epic of Gilgamesh is older, tons of pagan texts are older. Are they better?
Matt are you grouping TR along with majority text? It sounds like that is what you were saying, but I could be wrong
@13:17 - some of the points here actually resonate with me as KJV/Textus Receptus guy. In the Bible, Egypt is pictured as a type of evil where GOD never wants his people to be. It just makes me uncomfortable getting my scripture from the same place associated with evil and the World in the Bible. The other point made after this one was about the history of the Textus Receptus. I'm familiar with how the Textus Receptus was there during the Reformation and the Great Awakening, and how the Puritans and Martyrs drew great strength from it. I don't think I've ever heard one account of how the critical text accomplished anything big for the Glory of GOD. I could be wrong, but it just seems like Christianity lost a lot of steam and a lot of heresy entered the church when we came up with modern bible translations. I'm not associating evil intentions on behalf of those who decided to tinker with the Bible (though I suspect some pride was involved). It just seems like once we got comfortable correcting GOD's word, there was no way to stop that train we put in motion.
Yikes, I don't know if Egypt is evil historically. It was an original cradle of Christianity oddly enough. But I do get your Old Testament reckoning. In agreement with you today, my worry is that our most ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts come from garbage dumps / landfills of Egypt! That does not make them bad either, but what about the oldest manuscripts of Turkey and Europe? Oops, Turkey and Egypt are cooler and more humid climates where manuscripts and modern books don't survive beyond a few hundred years. But the desert sands of Egypt, Arabia, and the Sahara desert do! Does that mean that we have to bow down at the feet of those manuscripts against the European Bible?
I am starting to think it does not really matter whether you are critical text or Textus Receptus. I think that a lot of people get caught in between either of these positions. Forgetting that God can use either or to further his own will. I think anybody can look at either side of this issue and maybe that is a good thing, but ultimately it isn't about what we do or what side we lean on. Ultimately it is about God and his plan for us. We should just be glad that God has anything to do with us at all.
I lean more majority text because I reason thusly, scripture consists of a discrete number of words, phrases, and sentences breathed out by God. These ALL are for our edification. That is the entire point of preservation as the Bible means it. Therefore, with those theological assumptions in mind, I want to consider textual variants that have a traceable pedigree from now on back as far as possible. I'm not greatly educated on the issue but it seems to me many of the manuscripts used now, weren't so much known to anyone for many centuries. So how could they edify? And if they could not edify, how could it be legimate?
We are not allowed to return to antiquity in order to create a new, improved theology. We're supposed to follow the creeds and confessions we've received. Creeds and confessions that developed over time. Likewise, we've received a Greek text that developed over time. It's not our place to return to antiquity in order to create a new, improved Greek text. See my point?
Doesn't this argument completely invalidate Protestantism? If we can't assume that the Christian faith "developed" into falsehood at some point, then there was no need for a Reformation. (Granted, if you're Catholic or Orthodox, then you're already convinced of this point.)
Real question here.
Would you preach the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae to your congregation?
Love your videos, I’ve been following for years.
Why would one do so considering these passages arr corrupt?
Do you consider the "majority text" (M) to be different enough from the Textus Receptus that the arguments for each are unique or do you consider M and TR to be virtually the same?
The Majority Text is missing two key readings in the Textus Receptus:
1. Acts 8.37: Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
2. 1 John 5.7: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
These two verses are important to TR advocates for the following reasons:
1. Acts 8.37 would seem to support credobaptism, i.e. the notion that baptisms should properly follow a confession of faith rather than preceding it.
2. 1 John 5.7 is more explicitly Trinitarian (in a developed credal sense) than any other New Testament passage.
However, both of these passages have the same weakness: they are barely present in the Greek manuscripts, instead receiving most of their support from Latin witnesses. This fact makes their originality to the texts quite suspect. If your arguments are based on the idea that the correct readings were preserved in a majority of the manuscripts, then you must necessarily reject the authenticity of these verses. On the other hand, if you hold them to be correct readings, then the argument that the TR resembles the majority of manuscripts is rendered moot, and we're again relying on an eclectic critical text rather than on a steady singular textual tradition that carried on throughout the ages.
what about the Magdalen Papyrus? Isnt it the oldest?
I liked your discussion of antiquity vs. majority. I think one more category needs to be added, and that is geographical representation. Personally, I think the most significant testament to the authenticity of a reading is when it is represented by a geographically diverse set of witnesses. If a reading enjoys the majority of witnesses but is only found in one location (i.e., Byzantium), then I am not as convinced as I would be if the reading enjoyed the majority of witnesses _and_ _also_ enjoyed being represented in Byzantium, Spain, Alexandria, Italy, etc. Hopefully, that makes sense.
Fortunately, it’s not _either/or._ I use *BOTH,* thanks to the computer/internet age. I lean toward *_Critical Text,_* but have no objection to TR, either. If I were limited to a single translation, I’d probably choose a _Critical Text_ based translation, *WITH FULL FOOTNOTES* - IOW, including TR textual variants.
Limit me to two? NIV and NKJV. For study, I might make it NASB + NKJV, but I prefer NIV for readability.
Since there is so many more manuscripts used for the majority text versus the critical text . I'll stick to the Textus Receptus. Not only for that reason alone but all these manuscripts (some 5600) although they were scattered all over Europe remained almost exactly word for word the same. In my mind that's proof of God's word being preserved! Just because something is older doesn't necessarily make it more reliable and age doesn't hold that much weight over the vast majority of texts (all being the same) in my mind. Also the way I understand it is a few of the majority texts are very close in time to the critical texts some within 50 years or so of the critical texts? Someone correct me if I'm wrong . So therefore, I personally will stick with the Textus Receptus for the reasons stated and continue to trust in the Byzantium texts along with the great scholars charged by King James that gave us the King James Bible.
Sadly, BOTH the "TR" and C.T. are based on a MINORITY Text- IF you work on it long enough and look at the variants.
The problem I have with the term "majority text" (you did imply this a couple times) is that the majority readings changed over time. Many of the majority readings only became majority 1,000 years into church history because of how popular a reading became in a city where a lot of copying was happening. That should not give any weight to any one reading.
The one thing to take into consideration is this. Are we looking to conform our beliefs to the word of God, or are we more interested in finding ways to conform the word of God to our beliefs? I have found that those who advocate for the Textus Receptus are more of the latter. They cling to what seems to provide proof of their preferred view of truth. So as a result, will willfully ignore anything that does not fit what they want the truth to be. Most of these people are KJV onlyers who cling to passages that seem to support their view of trinity. Despite using the bible on its own, will debunk their use of these verses, they stubbornly hold on to them. Showing that truth is not the goal for them.
Garmia 2, 1 gospels in Ethiopia. Are the word of God preserved by a near extinct language "Ge'ez," preventing outside scripture modifications. 84 books in total. I want to look into those 18 other books. Nonetheless, they confirm Jesus was and is God.
Textus Receptus Receptus of the Reformation Era vs 20th Century Westcott & Hort. You did not frame it correctly. Westcott & Hort consistently had an agenda.
Agenda is the difference, more than the texts used.
Older or ancient doesnt necessarily mean that its better or more reliable. its just older.
I am not a Christian, but love the bible and honest discussion's on its origins and compositions.