Ok, couldn’t help the title. I’ve just gotten off the indianajones.com website and it was talking about the new movie coming out next year!!!! Way cool. But it may come as a surprise to you that Indiana Jones has nothing to do with the textus receptus.
Some of you may be thinking, “What is the textus receptus?”, “What is the Comma Johanneum?”, “Why should I care about either of them?” or even possibly “I wonder what balsa wood tastes like.” (Chicken)
The textus receptus is Latin or Elvish or something that means “Received Text”. It is the Greek manuscript that the KJV is translated from if I remember right. In the early 1500’s Erasmus heard that there was on-going work to produce what would be the first printed Greek New Testament. He decided that he wanted to be the first one to publish, so he gathered as many greek manuscripts as he could, about 6 I think. It is also interesting to point out that of those manuscripts he had, he still did not have a complete copy of scripture, and was missing several portions including the book of Revelation. So, he took the Latin Vulgate and “back translated” the Latin into Greek, thereby producing an error filled manuscript ready for publication. There was some outrage that he was not going to include what’s called the Comma Johanneum, the verses in I John 5:7-8 that have a direct refernce to the Trinity. The problem was that Erasmus could not find any GNT that had it, so he said that unless someone could produce a Greek manuscript with it he would not put it in. Would you believe that someone did produce one within days? A prof of mine said it was an obvious fake, but Erasmus decided to stick to his word. The KJV has the Comma Johanneum included, which reads:
I John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The italics are mine to show what was added. Erasmus published, and it enjoyed modest success. There were eventually several more editions printed which corrected the most, but not all, of the mistakes that Erasmus made. And so it’s come, down through the ages, to be translated into the wonderful and most holy KJV version that people know and worship today. (sarcasm intended) I don’t put much trust in the TR or the Majority Text/Byzantine text types. They are good for some things and they have their uses. I prefer to go with the older Alexandrian text-types. The way I figure it, the older and closer your manuscript is to the original, the better it will be. Now, it’s true that just because something is older doesn’t always mean it’s more reliable. But there is the better chance that it is more reliable. If you want to see what happens when you start making a copy of a copy of a copy, watch the hilarious movie “Multiplicity” starring Michael Keaton. It’s just like that. In fact, I think that movie is a metaphor for the TR vs. Alexandrian text-type debates.
I think it’s interesting how the KJV only group put so much reverence on a manuscript that comes from text-types that had so many clerical errors and scribal additions. I think that those who hold the KJV in holy regard need to take another look at it. There are other versions that use different texts that are closer to the original. I have read articles and I actually have heard someone tell me basically that the KJV is the inspired translation from God. I think it’s arrogant of us to think that God has given us The Final Word of Truth, and it just happend to be in English. And here I always thought that God spoke Hebrew 
. I’m sorry, but we are NOT God’s special chosen people; that would be Israel.
But, I say all that to say this: the Bible is amazing. What is so awesome, is that no matter what copy of the original, inspired, Word of God you use, you will find The Truth in it’s pages. Inspite of all the copies of the GNT we have, and all the different textual variants that there are, you can still trust it! (Yes, even the KJV, but you have to be careful.) My point is, use a translation that you can understand. They all basically come from the same source. Find a good Bible edition that has some foot notes. Most of them will tell you when there are variations that are of any significance, and some of them will even tell you what to think, so it will save you from expending any extra brain effort in your devotions. What good is it to read the KJV if you have no idea what it’s saying? I think God doesn’t care so much about what translation you use. I think He intended the Bible to be translated in common languages so people can understand it. That’s why I (my opinion) the OT was written in Hebrew w/portions in Aramaic because that was what the people were speaking to whom the books were written. The New Testament was written in Greek, because the people who recieved it were speaking Koine Greek, a very common language at that time. I mean, imagine this scene with me:
Prophet: Hear, O Israel, I come with a message from God! His message will show you the only way of Salvation!
People: Yeah!
Prophet: However, I can’t read it, it’s in an obscure Smurfbekistanian dialect. And actually, I didn’t write it down either because they don’t have a written language. And they don’t talk so much as they whistle, click, and make motions with shiny little buttons. Does anyone know the language? Hello?
You get my point. Which could bring me to all the controversy over secret and hidden messages in the Bible (amazing how many of those secret messages translate out in the original English, which is what I’m sure they spoke back in Ancient Israel). God does not need to hide things in obscurity so that only the supremely educated can know it. God intended His Word to be clear and open to all to understand. Admittedly, there are doctrines that are hard to grasp, but they are not hidden in some text that you can only uncover if you translate it from Hebrew to Greek to English to Latin to Elvish to Binary and back to the Original English.
Praise God for simplicity!
Thank you so much for taking the time to get some thoughts out for me. You don’t know how much it means to me. I’ve been feverishly studying this stuff lately. This is something I’ve casually studied for a while. But I’m just now starting to get into the weeds.
I’ve only discovered one absolute truth so far:
Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrian text-type vs. Balsa Wood – THEY ARE ALL LYING.
All of these “experts” have agendas and it really surprises how much they are willing to compromise integrity in order to get it. (It probably shouldn’t.)
The next question: Peshitta?
Ray, you should go to my brother-in-laws blog site. He wrote a blog about the Codex Vaticanus and other textual criticism stuff last month. Here’s a link: http://blog-joel.blogspot.com/2007/06/codex-vaticanus.html Joel gets himself into these theological questions every once in awhile, so you might enjoy that.
I’m not sure if all the groups are lying about things. But it wouldn’t suprise me if they were. It’s sad, yet somehow expected, that man would try to put his own agenda on something very sacred like translating the Bible. In Greek and Hebrew class, we always come across passages and things that have debate to it because of scribal error, or deliberate scribal additions or comments. I think in whatever edition you use, you need to remember that it does contain the Word of God, and that even the most signficant variants don’t effect any major doctrinal belief. I like to think that even though God is not giving us any inspired texts at the moment, He is still keeping an eye on how His Word is being treated and translated. Keeping that in mind has always helped me when people try to attack the Bible from that stand point.
I’m not very familiar with Peshitta, so I might need to do some research on that.
Oh, and one more thing about Bible translations, I think you should go for a more literal translation, then a paraphrased version, although I won’t be dogmatic about it. I just think it’s better to stay as close as possible to what we think the original text said. I hear that the English Standard Version (I think) is a pretty good modern translation that still sticks close to the original.
I’ve got all of these “arguments” floating inside my head. Origen is evil, so the Alexandrian-type text is corrupt. Egypt is damned in the Old Testament, so God would never use Egypt in the process of giving us the Bible. Any Bible translation with the word NEW in the title is evil. If a Bible is copyrighted it is the root of all evil. The list goes on and on.
But I must say this, my church supports the KJV, but is NOT KJV-only. There is a big difference between arguing that the KJV is the best (even dogmatically), and saying that the KJV is THE Bible and if you carry anything else you are going to hell.
Hey, pretty good summary of the whole TR thing there! Basically, I think that the TR is the worst commonly used printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Not that it’s heretical or anything, but as you pointed out, Erasmus wasn’t very careful with it . . . he only had a handful or two of relatively late MSS (manuscripts) and didn’t really do any textual criticism even on those MSS. And, of course, his book of Revelation has readings in it that are found in NO Greek MSS. The only reason it’s called the Textus Receptus (Received Text) is that one of the early editions (I think the on by Stephanus) used that phrase in its introduction . . . so basically it’s named for a publisher’s advertising blurb.
I don’t understand the rabid attachment that some people have to the TR. Even if someone prefers Byzantine/Majority text to Alexandrian for some reason, the TR is not the best example of the Byzantine/Majority texttype. I don’t think there’s any way to logically hold the TR as superior once you know its history (though I suppose some would try to argue that Erasmus was re-inspired or some such nonsense that confuses inspiration and preservation).
As far as I know, there’s no major English translation based on the Majority Text (I think that the HCSB was going to be, but the guy who was pushing for it backed out of the project so they went with the UBS4/NA27 critical edition used by all other major translations instead of the Majority/Byzantine . . . though I may be mistaken about that).
A few points in favor/defense of the Alexandrian text over Majority/Byzantine that I didn’t mention in my first post on textual criticism:
1. The KINDS of variants usually present in the Majority/Byzantine text are more consistent with a later text than those usually present in the Alexandrian – conflations, harmonization, more polished/less potentially offensive wording, etc.
2. In answer to the claim that greater number of MSS guarantees better quality given a “normal transmission history: There was not a “normal transmission history” – Greek ceased to be spoken in the Western Empire (of which Alexandria was a part) in favor of Latin fairly early, but continued to be spoken in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire hundreds of years longer.
3. On Origen (who was supposedly heretical and supposedly connected with the Alexandrian texttype): In his later years Origen was actually more closely associated with the area connected to the Majority/Byzantine texttype than with Alexandria!
Sadly, it’s been over a year since I took my textual criticism class so that’s all I can remember for now (you’re probably saying, “thank goodness”).
As far as the KJV only/superiority thing . . . I’m with Art. The purpose of a translation is to make the Word of God understandable, and the archaic language of the KJV no longer adequately communicates to the average American (unless you grew up with it or are a big fan of Shakespeare). Despite being based on the somewhat flawed TR, it was a good translation for it’s time, but the English language has changed too much for it to be the best option for most people anymore. After all, how many Americans are going to be able to tell you that “he sod pottage” means “he cooked stew”? (to give an especially archaic example). And, of course, modern translations also have the advantage of being based on slightly better Greek texts.
Okay . . . I’ll shut up now . . . this is just a topic that I find extremely interesting so I couldn’t help myself
“…you need to remember that it does contain the Word of God…”
Back in the day, I was taught that the belief that the Bible “contains” the Word of God was Barthian neo-orthodoxy and to be avoided. It was necessary to say that the Bible _is_ the Word of God.
I think that the plethora of translations and the emphasis on “dynamic equivalence” in translation has led us to the conclusion that it is the concepts that matter and not the words, much less the jots and tittles. And of course on one level it is. Does it matter if the translation says “red” or “crimson?” There may be shades of meaning, but basically the concept is the same, and that’s what matters. The translation has communicated accurately. But my training and the pastor in me says that it’s important for people to know and believe that the translation they carry and study _with all its weaknesses and flaws_, IS the Word of God. This, of course, is part of the motivation behind the KJV only movement, and one of their practical, if not doctrinal, strengths.
Art, I’m not criticizing you or calling you a heretic.
I’ve used the same phrase myself. But I wonder how close to Barthianism it comes, and if there’s a better way to express what we’re trying to say.
And more importantly, I wonder if we can justify Biblically the practice/belief that our translations ARE the Word of God and can be trusted and used as such. (Use of the Septuagint in Hebrews, anyone?)
Comments? Insight?
Hm, that’s interesting about the Barthian neo-orthodoxy. I am a heretic and I shall flog myself.
It’s funny, because I am pretty sure that one of the professors here at Faith used that exact phrase. I wonder if our theological vocabulary is changing….that what used to mean one thing now means something else, kind of like the ol’ KJV archaic language vs. modern english. To be honest, sometimes I get tired of trying to remember how to put things exactly right. You should have seen the time a professor jumped on my when I refered to the Apostle Paul as being an “inspired writer” instead of the “inspired writings” of Paul.
Anyway, I am fairly positive that’s what he said. I was thinking about that conversation I had with my professor about translations. Anyway, for those of you who fear for my wretched and heretical soul, I think I know what I meant. When I said, “whatever edition you use, you need to remember that it does contain the Word of God”, by “edition” I more meant the brand/version and that inside the covers of that book is The Word of God. So whatever version you use contains the Word of God, because it IS the Word of God. Did I make myself clearer? Because now I’m confused lol.
How about it’s a copy of the Word of God?
And if it’s a copy, is it really as trustworthy as the original? Uh, oh, I think I’m heading into happy happy heretic land again.
Quick Joel, post an answer so you can tell us all what to think!!!!
Another new translation called the World English Bible is near completion and it is going to use the Majority Text. You can get a copy of the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, but they have not put out an entire Bible as of yet. It has two attractive features which make it interesting to me. One: it translates the tetragrammaton as “Yahweh” instead of LORD or GOD. This is way overdue. Two: It will not be copyrighted, so it will legal to post on the internet, and no permission is needed to reproduce it for distribution.
TheOldGuy, I own a Septuagint and varies significantly from other translations I own. If it was good enough for the writer of Hebrews, why not us?