Subject: Critical Text vs. Received Text |
Bible Note: 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. |