Textus Receptus / MT vs. Critical Text

[Judas Maccabeus]

Jesus seemed perfectly happy to quote the Septuagint in the Bible. If it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Matthew quotes are not from the LXX. They appear to be free translations into Greek.

Matthew is the most “Jewish” of all gospels.

Typically, the methodology of the Nestle-Alland scares me. The “Oldest” texts they put so much stock in could just as easily have been less reliable manuscripts that were set aside.

Fortunately, not much is at stake here. The differences between the two are not critical.

[Josh]

Jesus seemed perfectly happy to quote the Septuagint in the Bible. If it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Matthew quotes are not from the LXX. They appear to be free translations into Greek.

Good catch!

Typically, the methodology of the Nestle-Alland scares me. The “Oldest” texts they put so much stock in could just as easily have been less reliable manuscripts that were set aside.

Fortunately, not much is at stake here. The differences between the two are not critical.

I agree. I don't really think much valuable has been gained from the recent advance of textual criticism; if anything, we've learned that the traditionally used texts (like the LXX) may have been the most reliable.

[Neto]

Jesus seemed perfectly happy to quote the Septuagint in the Bible. If it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Matthew quotes are not from the LXX. They appear to be free translations into Greek.

Matthew is the most “Jewish” of all gospels.

Typically, the methodology of the Nestle-Alland scares me. The “Oldest” texts they put so much stock in could just as easily have been less reliable manuscripts that were set aside.

Fortunately, not much is at stake here. The differences between the two are not critical.

I would maintain that the process is much more nuanced than that. The approach used to construct the Majority Text causes more alarm for me, because for them, the shear number of texts was a deciding factor. That would be like comparing very old copies of an old work to recent reprints, and then saying that the wordings found in the old ones are not correct because there are many more of the newer copies, which have different wordings.

I certainly do agree that the differences are not critical. Most are where a specific phrase that appears in only one passage in the oldest manuscripts also appears in one or more similar contexts in the later manuscripts. Accusations are made that translations that leave these phrases out in some place(s) (following the older texts) are "taking word out of the Bible". If that were true, they wouldn't have missed taking it out in the one place where the older text has the same wording. It is a matter to simple logic that it is more likely that the phrase was ADDED in other similar discourses, rather than that it was left out in all but one particular context, and that in the oldest texts available for comparison. Actually, there is a long list of steps taken in the process of using critical thinking in order to get as close as possible to the original text.

However, as you said, the differences are, on the whole, not critical, and I would go as far as to say that most of them are insignificant. (The main exception, in my thinking, is the additional phrases added in I John chapter 5, forming verses 7b & 8a in those translations that include it.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

Jesus seemed perfectly happy to quote the Septuagint in the Bible. If it was good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Matthew quotes are not from the LXX. They appear to be free translations into Greek.

Matthew is the most “Jewish” of all gospels.

Typically, the methodology of the Nestle-Alland scares me. The “Oldest” texts they put so much stock in could just as easily have been less reliable manuscripts that were set aside.

Fortunately, not much is at stake here. The differences between the two are not critical.

I would maintain that the process is much more nuanced than that. The approach used to construct the Majority Text causes more alarm for me, because for them, the shear number of texts was a deciding factor. That would be like comparing very old copies of an old work to recent reprints, and then saying that the wordings found in the old ones are not correct because there are many more of the newer copies, which have different wordings.

I certainly do agree that the differences are not critical. Most are where a specific phrase that appears in only one passage in the oldest manuscripts also appears in one or more similar contexts in the later manuscripts. Accusations are made that translations that leave these phrases out in some place(s) (following the older texts) are "taking word out of the Bible". If that were true, they wouldn't have missed taking it out in the one place where the older text has the same wording. It is a matter to simple logic that it is more likely that the phrase was ADDED in other similar discourses, rather than that it was left out in all but one particular context, and that in the oldest texts available for comparison. Actually, there is a long list of steps taken in the process of using critical thinking in order to get as close as possible to the original text.

However, as you said, the differences are, on the whole, not critical, and I would go as far as to say that most of them are insignificant. (The main exception, in my thinking, is the additional phrases added in I John chapter 5, forming verses 7b & 8a in those translations that include it.)

The question of the hour is “why do these older manuscripts exist in the first place?” Were they cast aside because they were thought to be less than accurate? Why so few of them? Were the best and most reliable texts used and copied until little was left?

Sheer weight of numbers and apparent acceptance must count for something?

[Neto]

The question of the hour is “why do these older manuscripts exist in the first place?” Were they cast aside because they were thought to be less than accurate? Why so few of them? Were the best and most reliable texts used and copied until little was left?

Sheer weight of numbers and apparent acceptance must count for something?

I would point to the location/origin of the different texts as a key consideration. The age is also important because the older they are, the more likely that the copyists were more familiar with the language itself. (For example, at one point textual scholarship had fallen so drastically that some thought that Koine Greek was some sort of 'heavenly language', given to guard the integrity of the text.)
That is, copies which are closer in time & place of origin should be give more weight. (Obviously, just my opinion. Again, the differences are basically insignificant in terms of normal Bible study, although important for Bible translation, because of the different nuances that must be dealt with in
putting the content into different languages. This is also why it is important to translate from the original languages as much as possible, rather than from a secondary language.)

[Bootstrap]

The question of the hour is “why do these older manuscripts exist in the first place?” Were they cast aside because they were thought to be less than accurate? Why so few of them? Were the best and most reliable texts used and copied until little was left?

Sheer weight of numbers and apparent acceptance must count for something?

The sheer weight of numbers and apparent acceptance in the earliest manuscripts must count for something too, no?

Is there any indication that they were cast aside or considered unreliable? I don't know of any.

There are fewer old manuscripts because of the ravages of time. Where they agree, that's an indication of what earlier manuscripts said. Why would manuscripts from the 5th to 10th century be considered closer to the original than manuscripts from 200 AD or the 3rd century?

[Judas Maccabeus]

The theory I have heard is that the best copies were in Constantinople when it was sacked, and the best, oldest copies were lost. So we really do not have a complete picture. Still, the MT is that which churches of almost all stripes "received." I just worry about the methodology of the Nestle-Aland people . Fun Fact: The dean of the grad. school I attended for a year was involved in the 1984 NIV translation, and the principle NT prof was through and through MT. Good people can disagree on this one.

I just taught the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) in history class today, including the fall of Constantinople . I sometimes wonder, IF autographs existed, where would they have been. My mind goes back to that day in 1543......I just wonder what was lost.

[Bootstrap]

The theory I have heard is that the best copies were in Constantinople when it was sacked, and the best, oldest copies were lost. So we really do not have a complete picture. Still, the MT is that which churches of almost all stripes "received." I just worry about the methodology of the Nestle-Aland people . Fun Fact: The dean of the grad. school I attended for a year was involved in the 1984 NIV translation, and the principle NT prof was through and through MT. Good people can disagree on this one.

Oh yes, good people can definitely disagree on this.

But almost all translations are based on the Masoretic Text, which is from about 1,000 AD. The reason for that is simple: until recently, we didn't have the older Hebrew texts, and we haven't really figured out how to compare all the texts we have to guess at an original. The Dead Sea Scrolls includes texts from several traditions, all old. People are writing critical editions, and that will lead to more footnotes in our translations and probably to translations based on a different text.

My take: I think we should feel free to read and trust either the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text. And the Hebrew Old Testament is just plain harder. It's older and stranger and there are more text traditions to deal with.

I just taught the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) in history class today, including the fall of Constantinople . I sometimes wonder, IF autographs existed, where would they have been. My mind goes back to that day in 1543......I just wonder what was lost.

For the Hebrew Old Testament, there was a very long oral tradition. It's quite possible that the "original autographs" were oral, not written, and that various written forms are all derivative. I personally think that the current Old Testament was compiled after return from the Babylonian Exile, bringing together themes from all of Israel's history, drawing on older sources.

For the New Testament, it's a lot easier. Everything was written in a shorter period of time, in a language that scholars understood better for most of our history, in a small geographic area. But even then, what was "the original autograph" of a letter of Paul? The wax tablets? The copy of the letter he had sent to a given church? The copy he kept so that other copies could be made and sent to other churches? I assume these were quite similar to each other, but there were probably very small differences.

Regardless, either the Byzantine or the Nestle-Aland or SBLGNT or Tyndale House GNT are fine. They will all give you a New Testament that is more or less like the others, especially in translation, where the small differences won't be as noticeable. In any of these, there are questions about which ending of Mark is original, or if all were added, so translations have footnotes. There are questions about where the story of the woman caught in adultery originally appeared, but it's pretty obvious where to put it in translations now.

And unless you are reading in the original Greek and Hebrew, your translator has basically made your choices for you. Very few people read translations of the original manuscripts.

[ohio jones]

Fun Fact: The dean of the grad. school I attended for a year was involved in the 1984 NIV translation

I suppose everyone knows that J. C. Wenger was part of the 15-member Committee on Bible Translation that produced the original NIV.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Fun Fact: The dean of the grad. school I attended for a year was involved in the 1984 NIV translation

I suppose everyone knows that J. C. Wenger was part of the 15-member Committee on Bible Translation that produced the original NIV.

Yes, to protect from “sectarian bias “.

They did their best to get scholars from a variety of Bible believing backgrounds. The translation group was larger than the 15…..

Dean of the school I attended was Kenneth Barker, but he was not at Dallas at the time, but at Capital. It does not list him on the original committee, but in the second group. It was common understanding at Capital the he was working on it early on. His thing was OT, taught OT exegesis. Never had him for a class, but his Annual Conference lectures were legendary. I suspect I picked up many of my views from him.