Does Anybody Know?

In 1851, the well-known British textual critics Westcott and Hort began collating Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) into one unified Greek text. It became known as the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. What they produced was not a revision of the Received Text; rather, what they created was an entirely new Greek text which had never before existed.

From their new Greek text, the English Revised Version was published in 1888. That began the string of literally hundreds of modern English translations, almost all of which have been based upon the direct descendent of W/H Greek text - the modern critical text.

 

It depends what exactly you mean by a "non TR text". Technically, since the "TR" was a product of the 16th century, older English Bibles are not from the TR. There are a few sections/books of scripture translated into old English as early as about 900 A.D., but the first NT "Bible" in English would be Wycliffe's, translated from the Vulgate in 1382.

If, you mean a NT translated from a formal Greek text other than one of the TRs, I believe Pastor Bob's mention of the Revised Version is correct.

 

I am not sure, but I think the Rheims NT differs in some instances from the TR. I recall having heard it came out just prior to the KJV. John Wesley's NT (18th century) definitely has readings which are not distinctly TR, so myself would classify it non-TR. But I would not say it is distinctly Alexandrian either. And Darby I think came with his version also prior to the RV, and his version is not TR based. There may be other pre-RV versions as well which aren't distinctly TR based.

Harald

 

Why the new Greek text? Do W/H hate the TR?

 

You are correct, and I stand corrected Harald. The Rheims-Douay Version came out in 1582 and was not based upon the Received Text. Wycliffe's English translation in 1382 was based upon the Latin Vulgate and was therefore a translation of a translation.

 

No, they did not hate it. But they did believe it was produced without Erasmus considering (or even knowing about) a wealth of other manuscripts, and thus contained what they believed were corruptions (usually additions) due to insufficient information. W/H brought more manuscripts and information to the table, and used these things to produce what they believed was a Greek NT that more accurately represented what was originally written.

 

I disagree,Erasmus was the most well-traveled Scholar of his time;It is almost certain that he had access to just as many Manuscripts as W&H.Additions? no;omissions?? yes,Gen 3,Numbers 22:12-13,and Luke 4:10.

 

You are free to disagree with W/H's conclusions. I only described their reasons and actions.

It is well known that for the first edition of the TR, Erasmus managed to collect only 5 manuscripts, (which didn't even span the entire NT, he had to translate a few small passages *into* Greek from the Latin), and didn't manage incorporating many more for later editions.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

garpier asked:

When was the first English translation from a non TR text made?

Around the ninth century. All English translations (e.g. AElfric, Wycliffe) were translated from the Vulgate until Desiderius Erasmus compiled the Greek text that formed the basis for the Textus Receptus in the early sixteenth century. Before then, it was a historical impossibility for any English translator prior to William Tyndale to translate from the TR.

 

I do,but I ment no harm.

Granted,but he did in fact have access to many other Manuscripts in compiling his later editions.

I was refering to this "and thus contained what they believed were corruptions (usually additions) " I was pointing out that omission is the primary sin in relation to corrupting God's word.

[ June 09, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

JYD said:

I disagree,Erasmus was the most well-traveled Scholar of his time; It is almost certain that he had access to just as many Manuscripts as W&H.

One, being well travelled did not make him omniscient.

Two, he did not travel while collating his Greek text, and so he did not seek out many more manuscripts than the few he had access to.

 

No, they did not hate it. If they did not hate the TR, why is W/H texr not TR? I researched upon the W/H's theory and found the truth about their hostility to the TR. They called the TR, "vile." Why is the TR vile? Will you explain the reason that the TR is called, "vile"?

W/H brought more manuscripts and information to the table, and used these things to produce what they believed was a Greek NT that more accurately represented what was originally written. Accurate MSS than the KJV?

 

Because their research led them to believe there were several phrases in the TR that were not part of original scripture. Just because something is not something else, doesn't mean it's producers "hate" that something else.

It's hard to say why Hort said that. The rest of the quote seems to indicate that he was referring to it's base on relatively few, late manuscripts instead of a wider base that included much earlier ones. Thus, he may have been thinking it was corrupt, and that corruptions of the word of God are "vile". Also, keep in mind that the quote is from 1851 (when he was quite young) and 30 years before the W/H was produced. A lot can happen to a person's views in a 30 year span.

Accurate MSS than the KJV?
</font>[/QUOTE]Apparently they thought so. They believed the total sum of available manuscript evidence supported the view that additions had crept into scripture over the centuries. I generally agree with them.

 

The original scriptural text was represented in what Westcott and Hort (W/H) called the "neutral text." There is no historical evidence that such a "neutral" text ever existed. For W/H, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus best represent this so-called neutral text and therefore were the preferred sources for textual criticism.

The Received Text manuscripts, to them, were merely "copies" of a later "official church text" and so have no critical value. They assert that the "neutral" text is closest to the originals. It is ironic that today, all textual critics reject the phrase "neutral text."

According to their theory, Aleph and B are closest to the neutral text and so closer to the originals. They conclude that the modern Greek text should primarily follow these two texts.

The simple fact is that many early Fundamentalists bought into the idea that Aleph and B were the best manuscripts. There were those that strongly disagreed such as John Burgeon and Edward Miller who were warning of the fallacy of this view.

The problem was that they were in England and were considered as right-wing eccentrics. Very few in America had the credentials to dispute W/H's theory so no one did. W/H's new Greek text was acclaimed as the work of modern scholarship.

The problem with the new Greek text is that it is mired in the quicksand of uncertainty. In the Twentieth century alone the UBS organization has produced four editions of its critical-text based Greek NT. There were more than 500 changes made in the text between its second and third editions. The sad part is the same committe of five editors produced both editions.

With the thousands of admitted variants of the critical text and the uncertainty of which is right, many who hold to this text are reduced to only claiming that the critical text does not make any major doctrinal changes from the Received Text.

Not only does Aleph and B not agree with the Received Text, they do not even agree with each other in many, many places. The very foundation of the modern Greek text is shaky at best.

 

You don't think addition to scripture, (ie. any change from what was originally written, whether that change is addition, deletion, or alteration) are also corruptions? Scripture speaks often and negatively of attributing words to God that aren't his (ie. adding to his word).

 

Is not this exact same "problem" found with the various editions of the TR?

I think you are coloring the issue a little. On the whole, there is relatively very little under dispute. There are 17 verses "omitted" in the critical text, which at first sounds a little alarming. But when you examine the reasons, and consider that is 17 out of about 31,100 (less that 1/10 of 1%!), it brings the debate into a little clearer focus.

The difficulty is that there are "many, many places" where even "traditional, TR-type" manuscripts disagree with each other, and even where different editions of the TR disagree with each other. That is why the whole process of textual criticism is so important: *no* two manuscripts agree 100% with each other, even if you throw out all of the manuscripts W/H added to the textual criticism pile. The TR itself was generally rushed to completion with virtually *no* effort to examine textual differences. In my opinion, we have two choices: 1. let qualified Christian scholars examine *all* the evidence and make determinations of where corruption may lie, or 2. pick a single manuscript (or version) at random for whatever personal reason you can think of, and believe God preserved that single one and nothing else. Number 2 does not seem reasonable to me, and thus textual criticism is necessary. And if textual criticism is necessary but you aren't willing to examine all the evidence, it's as valuable as a jury that will only listen to half of the testimonies.

 

While Bruce Metzger is not someone we'd agree with doctrinally, he is considered to be the foremost textual scholar and textual historian in print today, even by the most conservative Bible believers. His works can be found at CBD. I have some to recommend, but I'm out of the office for the month. Do a search there, and weigh the facts for yourself without buying the spin put on them.

 

He is head of the continuing translation committee of the National Council of Churches. That in itself should be a red flag that makes everything else he is involved in suspect.

Metzger was also chairman for the Reader's Digest condensed Bible that removed 40% of the Word of God, ignoring the warning of Revelation 22:18-19. The preface to this "version" noted that Metzger was actively involved with every stage of it including his approval of the finished product*.

Metzger questions authorship, traditional dates, and supernatural inspiration of various books of the Bible. For example, he questions whether the Gospel of John was written by John. He questions whether the pastoral epistles were written by Paul. He denies that Peter wrote II Peter.

In his book Introduction to the Old Testament, he refers to the times of David and Solomon as "myth" and "legend." He denies a universal flood. He refers to the book of Job as "ancient folklore." He calls the book of Jonah a "legend."

Tom is correct in stating that he is considered, even by many Fundamentalists, to be the preeminent authority today on the modern critical text of the New Testament. I just can't for the life of me see why.


*The Reader's Digest Bible: Condensed from the Revised Standard Version, Old and New Testaments 1982 ix-xi

 

Not one scintilla of what Bob just posted questions his ability nor accuracy relative to textual criticsim nor his expertise in the history of textual matters.

While I disagree vehemently with the NCC or WCC, this logical fallacy Bob has just proported is the fallacy of "poisoning the well."

I just did a bibliographic search of Bruce Manning Metzger and found NO work by this title. Please provide the ISBN, please. See the first quote above, however.

If you do even cursory work in textual criticsim, you find that Metzger's work is unsurpassed as to historicity and accuracy.