Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6758 | ||
I have recently seen a tract that explains that the Received Text, or Majority Text/Textus Receptus, is superior to the Critical Text, or an 'eclectic' Greek text. Is there any truth to the claim that one set of Greek texts, the Byzantine (Majority/TR) or the Alexandrian (Critical), is better than another and therefore, more reliable? | ||||||
2 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6762 | ||
Great question Nolan! The crucial difference between the three texts (Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and the Critical Text) concerns the weight given to different manuscript traditions. Each of them is technically an 'eclectic' text, since we do not posess any of the original autographs. Each of them had to make critical decisions. The basic approach of each is as follows. Textus Receptus: The TR was the first attempt at putting together an 'offical' Greek text. The only problem with it is that there were very few manuscripts available at the time, and they were all comparatively late manuscripts (which allows for possible mistakes). The Majority Text: Is almost identical to the TR, but not quite. It uses the theory that critical decisions must be made on the basis of the number of texts, rather than the quality of the texts (hence the name Majority Text.) It differs from the TR primarily only where the majority of texts differ from the TR. The Critical Text: Usually refers to the Nestle-Aland Text. It primarily gives weight to ealier and higher quality texts, rather than later and more numerous texts. Byzantine does not refer to either the Majority Text or the TR. It refers to a number of texts produced in a certain area at a certain time. The same is true of Alexandrian. The only relevance to these two terms is that the Critical texts usually give more weight to Alexandrian manuscripts, while the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus rely more heavily on others. Other types include: the Western and the Caesarean Texts. In my opinion, the Critical text is better and more reliable! However, let me note that none of them are 'bad' texts. The vast majority of textual decisions have to do with spelling and word order. Though the different texts may disagree on minor points, they all teach the same doctrine. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6818 | ||
Thanks Tim! I see that we are in agreement here also.. I believe that it would be 'easier' to embellish titles, add or copy words or phrases in places where they shouldn't be, or to 'incorporate' an earlier scribe's notes into the actual text by carrying out revisions based on certain specific texts only. It is generally agreed that those texts that agree and contain the least amount of 'embellishment' would be the ones that are indeed the closest to the original autographs, which is the very aim of textual criticism in the first place (getting as close as possible to the autographs).. This would explain most of those subtle differences in the Received or Majority Text and the Critical Text. In this way, we can understand that the TR was indeed a 'critical text' in itself.. But I am a firm believer also that we are getting 'closer' to the original autographs by looking even 'deeper' into history and getting closer to the autographs. I believe that the Critical text is more reliable then the Majority or Received Text or TR, and that was another reason why I chose the NASB over the NKJV for my primary Bible, even though the NKJV is a fine translation and has variants in the side margins. But like you said, they all teach the same doctrine and the disagreements or variants in them are minor and insignificant points in which no major doctrines are based upon. | ||||||