I havent spent much time researching it though, so its merely an at a glance opinion. It conjures in my mind imagery from that classic Sir Knight of the Splendid Way when the Gray Questioner began placing casual doubt in the mind of Gods servant, until he was lost on a sea of doubt and confusion. The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text, was the version of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and is accepted by the Church as its official version. This actually makes a lot of sense if you look at the Greek word used. Thats definitely possible maybe even likely but by no means certain. Do you really know for a fact what those churches were using during that period, when you have less than 1% of the evidence? Also study the practice of the Muslims in burning countless Bibles as they advanced. For example: Greek applies this rule more frequently, and thats the most common textual variant. Are there other signs that this translation is really not that different from other modern translations? Their theory has since been categorically proven wrong, partially by new manuscript findings. For a sense of scale, weve already seen that (doing the math and estimating) there are ~6470 textual variations between the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. A translation based on the official text of the Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople. (The text was essentially unchanged in the intervening 26thedition, which had essentially the same text as the third edition of the UBSGreek New Testament.) You can simply cite the website. Westcott & Hort thought the Byzantine text family resulted from some scribes combining the other two text types to try and get closer to the original document (much like they were doing). In English, we have this rule too. Im not sure I would agree, but Im not sure Id disagree either. So if the Confessional Position wants to say the Textus Receptus was perfectly preserved by God and inerrant, then then we must ask: which Textus Receptus? You need to ask which of the 27 possible versions they will pick, because none of them are identical with another. We have to assume that the original was a medium [= vulgate] text The longer texts were gradually shaken out: leads us to assume a medium text or vulgate in existence during the whole time of the hand-transmission of Homer, This consideration revives the view that the Homeric vulgate was in existence before the Alexandrian period [Such]. They arent the only ones to say this either. You asked: Has recent textual criticism increased our faith in God?. is the same as that of the tenth-century minuscules.43, 23. One appears to be of mediocre quality, the other of good quality. Any uncertainty is 100% uncertainty Right? That begs the question: Where did it come from? The answer is in the name: it comes from a (man-made) confession of faith. I admire the zeal textual scholars have in combing through myriads of manuscripts in an effort to better understand Gods word. More accurately than any other ancient document by a HUGE margin but that doesnt mean we have it perfectly. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. I am wondering about your opinion of Wilbur Pickering and his stand on Family 35. Notice too, that in Homer the shorter Alexandrian text type was regarded to be the result of scholarly revision. To condense/paraphrase verses 9-10: woman was made for man, so she must be under male authority. Contextually, that makes perfect sense. This isnt altogether uncommon with ancient manuscripts, but it does mean some places represent a 10th or 11th century version, not a 4th century version. The testimony of the papyruses aligning with Alexandrian or Byzantian manuscripts It would be okay even if you were angry (though Im glad you arent), Im nearly impossible to offend. One scholar said of the Western text type: Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness. Unsurprisingly, they arent given too much weight because of this freeness. (Assuming they had multiple manuscripts to choose from.). Further, Westcott and Hort agreed that the common text (Byzantine text) had at its root a text that was as old as or older than their oldest manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Not only is the parallel between NT transmissional history and that of Homer striking, it would appear that normal scribal activity and transmissional continuity would preserve in most manuscripts not only a very ancient text, but, Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said, the extant versional manuscripts are virtually triple the extant Greek manuscripts in number. Therefore, roughly 4 out of every 5 verses (81.3%) in one manuscript disagrees in at least one place in the other. Now consider the mass of evidenceagainstthe concept of tenacity:the hundreds of singular readings that appears in ancient manuscripts, but of which there is no trace in later manuscripts. The Alexandrian text is about 5% smaller than the Byzantine text, and there are some differences in words between the two texts. These . I simply do not believe that. In English the indefinite article a gets an n added when the next word starts with a vowel. The one thing I will mention is Hort at least was motivated to eliminate the Textus Receptus from the public eye, as he considered it vile. Its so well known, its often just called Westcott & Hort. They knew clearly which ones were the true Words of God. One could even make the case that the Textus Receptus is overall the best Greek New Testament out there. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are a different text type? Remember The Word is one of Jesus main titles, especially in the writings of John. Regardless of the third quotation they bring up, why is it ridiculous if thats what Erasmus explicitly stated he did, and included this statement in his annotations, and gave the reason why he included it in his annotations? (Sort of). Textus Receptus readings generally provide stronger doctrine. Now, I think they are overstating the case slightly (as youll see when we look at Codex Sinaiticus). and you accidentally skip When do you think the church lost the true preserved Word of God? Source: The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, p. xi. The KJV is a translation of an edition of the Greek New Testament text called the Textus Receptus. This is so helpful. Im truly awed that someone created a single sentence for marketing that has echoed through the centuries. Pietersma, Albert and Wright, Benjamin. (One of the major places they differ is in The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8, and theres an article about whether it was added or removed right here on Berean Patriot. However, it must be noted that the Western church changed languages in the 600s with the adoption of the Vulgate as its official version. The Septuagint text is the text that the Church has preserved. , (Note: I have an article on Whats the Best Bible Translation? Thats a ~1.4% variation, which is still fairly significant. The Confessional Position is the exact opposite. However, that not necessarily the case. Codex Sinaiticus was found by a man named Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf, at St. Catherines monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. The fact that the Byzantine Text type dominates the manuscript copies is proof of disproportionate copying. The Textus Receptus is Latin for Received Text. Good read for the history and context of the KJV. It certainly agrees with the Byzantine Majority Text quite well, and the differences are not typically very large (though certainly some are). Had some armed foe said these things he would have fought him to the last breath; but this man did not deny, and had no word of scorn. Psalm 40 6. We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers. The Aland rules get their name from Kurt and Barbara Aland, who were instrumental in the publication of the Greek Critical Text that nearly all modern New Testament are based on: The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek), The first edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece was published by Eberhard Nestle in 1898, but an updated version was introduced in 1901. However, their original work is still with us. The Textus Receptus constituted the translation-base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. Also, if you want to look up Greek or Hebrew words words, I highly recommend the interlinear bible on biblehub.com. Some say Septuagint, and others say the Masoretic Text. In 1881, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek, which is the grandfather of the Greek Critical Text that most modern Bibles translate from. These words in temper and metzger greek new testament vs textus receptus. The Scriptures were not corrupted before Christs time, for then Christ would not have sent the Jews to them. I just bought a World English Bible.This is where the World English Bible (also known as the WEB Bible) comes to the rescue. . No, no, no, no! Take a later example from Tyndale (who had the benefit of the printing press). All flesh is grass, I used to read the NASB a lot, but I found the ESV much better, The AMP adds to the Bible, and I really hate that, I used to read the NKJV a lot too, but it shares the flaws of the KJV. I havent seen the promise of perfect preservation of Scripture in Scripture, or I would believe it. Thank for the kind words, and Im so glad you enjoyed the article. So just to make sure Im understanding you correctly it sounds like youre saying its reasonable to ignore whether a word is singular or plural when exegeting the scriptures? Another great thing about the WEB: The makers of this Bible wanted to fill a void, to create a modern translation with no copyright, a Bible that can be freely shared, or the whole Bible printed out and given to a friend without a royalty. The transliterated Greek reads: dia touto opheilei h gun exousian echein epi ts kephals dia tous angelous. This very thing, or something very close to it, was subsequently proposed by textual critics in the 1900s. I assume the author of this article knows that the Hebrew word in question is also translated correctly every one of them. Not brining this out may have been an error in thorough study, or intentional bias. So in the text types of Homer, you have: Among scholars, theres little doubt that the medium text type of Homer is the original, while the short is the result of scholarly revision. I want to save you the embarrassment of standing before God having led others astray. Further, this argument for Scribes choosing better manuscripts has parallels from the Textual Criticism of non-Biblical works too. Notice verse 15b, which says For the long hair was and is given to her instead of a covering. Thayers specifically mentions this verse as a place that should be translated instead of. Thats makes the Confessional Position interesting, but ultimately not rooted and grounded in scripture. So they used all those old Alexandrian manuscripts that the author of that article hated. According to Textus Receptus Bibles (.com), there are no less than 27 different versions of the Textus Receptus! In the Textual Criticism of Homers works, we see excellent parallels with the New Testament, even so far as reproducing similar text types. He taught English on CBC TV 'Let's Speak English'. Its simplicity itself, but under-girding that simplicity is profound sophistication. That one sentence defines a whole doctrine the Confessional Position for millions of Christians. At this time I consider myself a textus receptus guy and find his position interesting. This page was last modified on 5 March 2016, at 14:05. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Bezas Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishops Bible and other earlier English translations. Same idea. I currently bounce back and forth between the nkjv and the nasb 95. This is a well-known, well-documented scribal error, even having its own name. So instead of creating a new popular reading, theyre more likely to create several unique readings and even these are in a small minority. However, the New Covenant superseded the Old, and at that point, the Old passed away or was rendered void Just like Jesus said. Have you heard that with the new and unfortunate NASB2020 revision, Masters Seminary has undertaken the Legacy Standard Bible project? There is a doctrinal position that is held by many theologians which can be summarized with this statement: We can no more touch the preserved Word of God than we can the incarnate Christ. From your following statement, it seems clear that this is the position you take. Jesus is the Living Word, the Word Personified, the Word made flesh. , No LXX The Fictitious Use of the So Called Septuagint, Dr Phil Stringer - The Truth About the LXX Septuagint, Trinitarian Bible Society The Septuagint: God's Blessing on Translation, Sinaiticus.Net - Exposing Codex Sinaiticus, 191 Variations in Scriveners 1881 Greek New Testament from Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus, List of Bible verses not included in the ESV, Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of shalt be in the Authorized Version, http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Septuagint. KJV Onlyism, in my view, is culturally triumphalist and myopic in that it holds up a particular 17th century English translation of what were originally Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as the standard. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. The manuscripts finder Tischendorf who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life said the following: On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Often, one scribe would read while several other scribes copied. I have strong views on some scripture that I share with very few. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Remember the verse before Jesus talked about how He wasnt going to destroy the (Mosaic) Law. This is based on the assumption that scribes will chose to copy good manuscripts over bad ones, and thus better readings will be in the majority over time. (Greek words often have similar endings because of the nature of the Greek language.) Hort, Westcott and Hort, or Hort but cite as Westcott and Hort? Well, remember how the Western text type was famous for paraphrasing and the quote for it? So yeah, it probably does have some influence from Hort, and yes the OT base isnt exactly the same; it literally cant be the same since hte only people who know have been dead for hundreds of years. I was reading on a KJV only website that the NKJV does actually refer to the Hort text, just not as much as other modern versions. In fact, when you see a Bible footnote that says the earliest and best manuscripts, they are almost universally talking about these two manuscripts, and only these two manuscripts. Now I will arise, says the LORD; I will set him in the safety for which he longs.. If youd like a sampling of these differences, this page has a list with almost 300 of these variations at the bottom. I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. Lets begin with Erasmus. Here is an excellent definition of Textual Criticism from Dan Wallace, who is one of the most respected Textual Critics in the world today. 3. He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might display the immeasurable riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. Literally this means: because of this ought the woman authority to have over the head because of the angels. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. This is my second reading of your article. There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Reasoned Eclecticism/Critical Text advocates. These types of Textual Variants make up ~24% of all Textual Variants. In fact, the primary author/editor of the modern Critical Text (Kurt Aland) said this: B is by far the most significant of the uncials Kurt Aland, Source: The Text of the New Testament By Aland, (Note: Uncials is the plural of uncial, which refers to an all capital font. The two words textum and receptum were changed from the Latin accusative case (direct object) to the Latin nominative case (subject) to render it Textus Receptus. And More Importantly, Why? Its possible, but definitely not certain. JavaScript is disabled. And its flower falls away, Prefer readings in manuscripts that habitually contain better readings, which is more certain if its also an older manuscript and if it doesnt contain combinations of other variations, All distinctively Syrian (Byzantine) readings, Kurt Aland considers Greek manuscripts which are purely or predominately Byzantine to be , The overwhelming majority of readings, almost all variants, and practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament, in the Gospels, its a Byzantine text largely, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian, Prefer readings in manuscripts that habitually contain better readings. My current go-to Bible is the MEV (Modern English Version). In the Vulgate, we find over half of the Alexandrian readings. 11 He will feed His flock like a shepherd; One of them appears to be of poor quality, one of mediocre quality and the remaining three appear to be of decent quality and a few small variants aside appear to be in near perfect agreement. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. I want to encourage you to do a more thorough study on preservation in general as I feel that is the only basis for a continuing dialog. These two documents are rather flawed, especially Sinaiticus. He will gather the lambs with His arm, However, theyre worth noting. Does the difference affect doctrine or anything major? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Vulgate, & Textus Receptus. For example, they it omit the Johanine comma and include the Pericope Adulterae. Many claim it was found in the trash while other claim it was carefully preserved by monks. These revealed portions of manuscripts several centuries older than any previously known. They will typically only use the King James Bible (KJV) or New King James Bible (NKJV) as an English translation, but some will only accept the KJV. The Alexandrian text type will need little introduction because nearly all modern Bibles are based on the Alexandrian text type. I find the whole thing to be disconcerting, frankly. To dispel the confusion, Im going to quote from the primary source: the finders own account of how he found it. This is the basic view held by the Confessional Position. Not perfect by any stretch,but very good. Church ", just as the V ulgate became textus receptus for the Catholic Church and the Masoretic T ext became textus receptus for the Pr otestants. So no, the entire Codex Sinaiticus wasnt going to be burned. Thank you again. Professor Wevers was the internationally recognized scholar in the field of Septuagint Studies. The WEBs over her own head betrays a feminist bent by the translators, and looking at some of the their footnotes in other places confirms this bias. Repentance is a gift of God that is the sorrow of heart for past sins leading to a change of heart concerning the direction you intend to follow in the future (Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20; Romans 2:4; II Corinthians 7:10; II Timothy 2:25; II Peter 3:9). To be clear, this list isnt exhaustive. However, this can be easily disproved using common sense and touch of data. (Note: the He in the quote below is Dean Burgon). The grass withers, Im not. They both believed that scribes were more likely to add content than remove content. Something that the TR can not boast nor the modern critical texts. Many Christians who could not withstand the persecution handed over their Scriptures to the authorities to be publicly burned. . These two codices Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus () are the foundation for nearly all modern New Testaments. Well assume two scribes copy correctly and one incorrectly. (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.) That means the only support for the Doctrine of (perfect) Preservation is the tradition of men. The [fourth-century] text of Chrysostom and other Syrian [= Byzantine] fathers [is], must have had in the greater number of extant variations, The overwhelming majority of readings, almost all variants, and practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament, The criticism of the Homeric epics proceeds on much the same line, The shorter form in Homer is considered to reflect Alexandrian critical know-how and. Its worth noting that Codex Sinaiticus is far longer than 130 pages. Weve examined one of these Textual Variants here on Berean Patriot before, namely: The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? I suspect this would get you pretty close to the Textus Receptus. Erasmus used an expression in the course of his Apologia addressed to Stunica which was misunderstood by the eighteenth-century Pietist Bengel (one of the two leading lights of Pietism at that time, the other being Zinzendorf), and the misunderstanding encouraged Bengel to give less credit than deserved to Erasmus work on the Book of Revelation. Seems to me like the evolutionists who take a few bones they find and build a whole monkey-man out of them, claiming they disproved creation. Now that you understand the three text types/families, well move onto discussing the most popular of the three theories. He was fluent in German and Dutch, could communicate orally in Arabic and French and could understand and write Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Essentially, whenever one reading has more manuscripts supporting it than the other variants readings, its more likely to be the original reading. Served as chair of the Presbyterian Church of Canada's Administrative Council. They also said of where those two manuscripts agreed: No readings of B can safely be rejected absolutely,, Yes, they believed these two manuscripts were that important, and this understanding follows naturally if you believe their #1 rule that earlier is better. The words do matter; please see my article on Bible translation for powerful evidence of that. The crooked places shall be made straight I like my NASB95, but wouldnt touch the NASB2020 with 39 1/2 foot pole (allusion intended) Im looking forward to the Legacy Standard Bible, especially because of the Tetragramaton being translated Yahweh (though I think theres a better pronunciation of YHWH, Ill take it!) I believe it should be very highly in my humble opinion. On which manuscript(s) should we base our translations? The idea that Scribes chose to copy better manuscripts makes perfect sense. Thats a bad idea. One of the major underpinnings for the Majority Text theory is that scribes will generally choose to copy better manuscripts over worse manuscripts. Thus, I treat it as my personal opinion. This is a rather dangerous way to come about your convictions and personal opinions. To think God will preserve scripture while feeling He has made no promise to do it equals wishful thinking. http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/nkjv/alexandrian_corrupt_source.htm, The information in this article is to be greatly commended and respected, but far more, the humility from which it is written. I know there are no exact figures, but there are some historical evidences that give us a good idea. Every other modern translation Im aware of including the NASB uses the Masoretic text also. (Note: Ive copy/pasted the only relevant difference, but you can: Click here to expand the full list of the Aland rules of Textual Criticism. I am exposing what a textual critic, like you, really believes. Before we look at each theory though, we need to understand what are called text types. Further, they didnt include any Western or Byzantine readings on purpose. Under ordinary circumstances, they will never be able to outnumber the scribes who tried to be faithful. We can be assured that we have not had to depend on the latest discoveries of the oldest manuscripts, or on the efforts of fallible man to uncover Gods words.