Greek Battle: Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ต.ค. 2020
- In this video, I reasonably (and without name calling!) consider the strengths and weakness of both the Critical Text and Textus Receptus positions.
TBS Textus Receptus (TR) - amzn.to/37NKqST
Tyndale House Greek (CT) - amzn.to/3dVwDL0
NA28 Greek (CT) - amzn.to/37w625Z
"If you can't state the other persons' position to their own satisfaction, then you don't understand their position..." Another very well made point that. Thank you for the scholarly self-debate.
9:49
Interesting summary.
16:06
Good analysis.
17:46
Byzantine text.
20:23
Latin Vulgate.
24:53
Critical Text.
33:17
Byzantine vs Alexandrian
*33:53 --> Alexandrian Text Preservation.
*35:02 --> The older the better.
*35:29 --> Use of the Alexandrian Text.
38:46
Take-away.
39:44
Erasmus and Beza vs Latin Vulgate.
40:43
*Missing verses and the footnotes.
41:19
*Warning from the book of Revelation.
41:40
*Missing verses, part 2.
42:47
Christians compared to Erasmus and Beza.
43:38
Byzantine text rescued.
45:32
Conclusion.
*46:11 --> Take-away.
Extremely well considered and presented. I wish everyone made the case like this
You deserve a lot of credit for arguing for both sides. It is an uncommon approach and very admirable. In school you have to argue the side you do not agree with which is helpful. Kudos on that.
I appreciate you Dr. Everhard. Thank you for this helpful video. May God continue to bless you and your ministry.
Thanks, brother! As one who is new to this subject of source texts, I found your approach and coverage both graceful as well as informative. Well done sir.
Just watched the video again, wanted to say thanks for making a difficult subject easier to understand. I especially appreciate your views on the disputed new testament passages, it certainly as straightforward as many try to make it.
This was by far my favorite post of yours. You were knowledgeable and balanced and presented excellent arguments for both sides. I believe I am like you-I love the TR but the CT is more accurate IMO. I am no scholar-instead a simple woman who loves religions, and loves the Bible tremendously. Thank you for weighing in on this issue. Your content has appealed to me more and more as of late. Blessings.
Really well done, as a strident of Greek I wasn’t sure which is which, you are so balanced and fair in how you handle it and saved me hours of extra reading!!
Older doesn’t always mean better. 🙏
Yes that’s exactly what it means, closer to the original of the apostles.
Careful scholarship would take into account WHY they make the textual decisions they do. The King James translators did just that BUT they did NOT have the texts of the Alexandrian/Western families to compare in 1600 AD. Ironically Erasmus may have known of the existence of the Codex Vaticanus (and actually appealed for its reading for 1 John 5:7 that was in question) but Erasmus possibly feared enemies in Rome and didn't go there to examine it on its own. Purely speculation on my part but the Textus Receptus may have been very different, influenced by Vaticanus, if Erasmus did.
user.....also not many seem to know that many copies were purposely destroyed under roman hands....
@@peterschreiner9245many even before the KJV translators rejected the Alexandrian texts. True believers knew what was genuine.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Many are not aware that many early copies were either burnt or taken away from believers. Please read the history of the RCC , Besides , the modern copies we have today come from MSS that were put aside for hundreds of years until two catholic scholars who did not believe in some of the fundamental beliefs in christianity in 1881 did a Greek translation where we now get most modern versions from.
The whole chapter of the woman caught in adultery. Fasting and praying to fight demons. How could they be added accidentally? These stories have proven true in that they still hold up today. So much easier to believe the verses were lost in certain lines of old text and preserved in others. And thank God we have been able to preserve these wonderful verses for today.
Do you cast out demons by fasting and praying?
The story of the woman caught in adultery is also found later in John, earlier in John, and in some manuscripts of Luke.
It's also in the notes in some early mss.
Having a scribe copy the text from the notes is very possible.
As for the prayer and fasting, Jesus just got angry because the disciples didn't understand that they needed to have faith.
And even says if they simply had faith they could move mountains.
And then for some reason adds "you should have been praying and fasting" completely altering the answer he just gave.
(Remember there was a false church doctrine that you needed works with faith. So it's easy to see a reason why someone back then would add it to the text because they didn't understand it.)
In both cases if you skip those sections while reading in full context, it's very obvious that they're not meant to be there.
Because they may not have been added "accidentally" but on purpose. The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) has similar elements to the Apocryphal book Susanna, in which Susanna is falsely accused of adultery and the prophet Daniel knows the truth and resolves the matter. Also this sounds similar to the attempted trapping of Jesus by asking if taxes should be paid to Caesar. A zealous copiest could have slipped it is (and may have been an oral tale told as well). Do you know atheists have attacked John 7:53-8:-11 because Jesus said "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" and Jesus ALSO failed to cast a stone, thus was He without sin?
@@craigime Jesus said the apostles did. Is it normative for today? No. Try harder to avoid the continuationist arguments.
@@ozrithclay6921 It's obvious that you're an antinomian who thinks that sanctification is unnecessary.
Love the longer format!
Excellent presentation. I appreciated your approach.
Outstanding, Bro! How you can speak that long straight into the camera with little or no reference to notes is amazing. Very gifted. Excellent presentation. May God continue to bless His Church through your work.
How do you know he hasn't notes facing him?
Thank you for this incredibly educational and engaging video! I learned so much!
I would love if you would do a video or series of videos on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. I'm sure there are good books on the subject, but I love how you teach. Thanks!
Great presentation balanced dealt with the key points in a clear and concise way
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Well done, excellent job brother! This was hugely helpful for me and very timely. Thanks be to God. ❤️
Thanks for a very calm and open minded presentation on a subject that has the potential to get people very worked up. I am just beginning to go down the rabbit hole of what manuscripts are the most reliable. It's imperative to listen to strong arguments from both sides of the table. We may yet discover some important manuscripts that will provide a more definitive answer to this question.
Stellar presentation on the topic. Thank you so much.
Excellent balanced presentation!
Thanks Pastor Matt. This is very informative!
This is one of the most balanced approaches to the Bible version debate I have seen. Thank you for a well thought out and informative explanation!
I agree he does a stellar job.
Indeed. I really enjoyed it too.
I appreciate your posture in this discussion.
Thank you for the explanation. This topic was very fascinating to learn about.
Extremely well said. Thank you.
Pastor Matt. My name is Venkatesh. I am a pastor from India. I have been wrestling with this issue for sometime. Your video has helped me a lot in my research. As others have said, you were very gracious and balanced. Thank you for your ministry.
Do some research on Lucian of Antioch. The early fathers of the Roman Catholic church apposed him. Also the Waldensian of the early middle ages. They had the true word of God (from Lucian) and the Catholic Church tried to exterminate these true believing Church. The Waldensian's were the precursor to Luther and the reformation.
Pastor Venkatesh, you would know of the Apostle Thomas and the Church that he founded in India. Martyred in Mylapore near Madras in AD 72.
Thanks for all your insight! Subscribed!
After watching this video I have concluded I am a tr person, though I use both the AV and nkjv , I am deposed to use these translations exclusively. I try to use every translation available to work out an understanding of the text I’m reading and studying. Thank you, I appreciate your fairness and faithfulness to your channel.
If it ain't KJV
It ain't for me!
Critical text is exactly that...Critical of God's Word
Calvinism is HERESY! Talk to the Lord & ask Him to show you which BIBLE to use
Egypt (Alexandria) all bad
Antioch all good
Vine of Sodom= Alexandria
True vine of Christ=Antioch
@@adriansabo198the tr is also critical
@@adriansabo198 I agreed up until you denied the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Predestination is taught throughout the Scriptures.
thanks Matt, have been loving your videos for years. This is indeed a heated debate, was great to see a balanced debate. Though if you started name calling yourself, that would have been pretty special.
Very well done!👍
Fantastic presentation
Great video. Thank you!
Thank you so much for this video. It is indeed very helpful to understand what the issues are between the two sides.
As a lay person and as a non-scholar, I have to say Praise God! for His grace to allow us to have access to His Word in such high number of copies and manuscripts. It is His grace and providence to preserve for His Church His truth. He allows us to have both: the more ancient and closer to the time of the birth of the Church, and He allows us to have access to the large number of reliable and trustworthy data the Reformers used to launch the most salient and massive revival of the Church. What a blessing!
I would not have known the magnitude of the blessing had I only listened to debates and rebuttals and name-calling and unfriendly and ungracious back-and-forth about this matter.
I love the Word of God and share in the common attitude of having a high view of the Scriptures, and I plan to continue to enjoy communion with our Savior by reading and praying His Word whether it be in the gorgeous language of the KJV or in the more clear and accessible language of the ESV/NASB (my go-to translations). I read the KJV, ESV, the NASB, the NKJV and also read the NIV. What a miracle that I get to read God's Word. We have the best of both worlds in the TR and CT. Praise God for His goodness!
:)
Fair assessment, brother.
Are you going to do the same for Masoretic vs Septuagint?
Masoretic text is hebrew OT, Septuagint is a greek translation of the OT, apples and oranges.
@@Matthew-307not really
Very helpful -- Thank You!!
Fabulous overview
A nice objective presentation with a good look at both camps. It's fascinating and complex but the great thing it's easy to compare translations and look up definitions of the Greek words to try to come to a reasonable conclusion, while remaining open to continued learning for further revelation.
Please see: th-cam.com/video/NVKfPPiJB10/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/NVKfPPiJB10/w-d-xo.html
Very well said. Thank you!
Great job!
Thank you for this video :) Blessings
Excelente pastor
I appreciate this video. To this point, it is the best brief summary of the issue that I have come across. Not only do I like the way you explained the differing views and the way you shared the benefits of both opinions, but you refused to join the awful rhetoric that is seen in many of the debates on this subject. I agree that such inflammatory terminology is uncalled for between brothers. It is to the point in many cases where they don't see someone taking the other view as a brother. I think such incidents are ridiculous and unwise.
I liked your conclusion favoring the Critical Text but agreeing with some of the major places where the Textus Receptus is different. A previous commentor mentioned your balance in handling this subject. Balance is always a goal of mine as well and I try to look at all of the facts available in any area. You packed a ton of information in less than an hour. Thank you.
Great video dear Brother
Just a point about the "missing/added verses," depending on your camp, the NASB (77&95 and possibly the earlier ones as well) actually includes them in the normal text but in brackets, unlike a lot of the CT translations that omit except in footnote.
one of the reasons I switched from the ESV.
I think it’s best to understand both sides and in study use at least one text that is representative of each school of thought. I tend to always include the NKJV along side a modern translation when studying.
Excellent
Kudos for the irenic tone of your discussion. We need more like this! Here's one question I'd like to throw out: Is manuscript age, by itself, a good indicator of whether a manuscript is representative of what the early church tended to use in terms of manuscript content? I ask this because it is easily possible, given the lifespan of some of the early manuscripts, to have a very late (7th, 8th, 9th century) manuscript faithfully and accurately copied from a manuscript that was very close to the autograph, while also having a very early manuscript that is a poor copy of a copy of a copy.
great, balanced vid.
thx
Thank u Pastor Matt for a very balanced and respectful approach to this important topic, the only thing you get wrong is that the NASB95 is the best translation available (😉 joking!) Thank you so much and may the Lord bless you!
Right on brother!
@@MatthewEverhard Talking of the NASB, I would be interested in your review of the Legacy Standard Bible when it comes out. It does look very good lsbible.org/
I know this is a year old but I'll chime in. As far as I understand it, wasn't the NASB 77 the best version? As far as I know, the 95 update kinda watered it down for a better reading experience.
Well this was so interesting, that I listened to it twice. You did an dcvfllfng job of explaining everything. I have been reading both the NKJV, and the ESV. They are very xinae...cousins, really.
Right? I’m stuck with NKjV and ESV as well. Holy Spirit led me to NKjV, and then my studying led me to ESV. I prefer reading and meditating on the NKJV, but I’m just too curious about all the amazing scholarly discoveries in the ESV that testify to other incredible historic names and events...
@@toferyo7473 , exactly, Chris. I'll just say "ditto."
dcvfllfng?
a superlative presentation of the debate, so many who reject the TR have a condescending know-it all attitude e.g. Dan Wallace, who is undoubtedly an expert, but a supercilious one at that.
How is Dan Wallace condescending?
I think it is very difficult for one person to present the 2 sides of this discussion. But you did quite well. Sounds like we agree almost completely on conclusion.
I did find it reasonably obvious what you were going to conclude after your less than convincing TR defence.
I would say if you had a little more conviction in your TR defence & used a few more of their arguments, this would have resulted in you achieving the impossible. I would also add. Discussing your personal view first, then the alternate view would really be an excellent strategy. Everyone puts the opposing view, then comes over the top with what they think is the correct view. But all in all, good job.
Thank you for the calm, sanity and logic. Underlying Bible texts have become a pea under the mattress for me and I can’t focus on the Word now. I’m constantly thinking and comparing. I am a Roman Catholic myself and I prefer TR for the reason you stated. It has a blessed history, it has been preserved and intertwined with our nations history and it agrees with the Latin Vulgate in most instances. However I use NKJV because I do respect Modern Critical Text and find the footnotes helpful. It seems like a good combination.Also I like the more modern English but still beautiful. God bless and thanks again.
Is it common for Catholics to use translations that haven't been explicitly sanctioned by the Catholic Church?
@@sorenpxDo not forget the roman institution isnt walking in feet of iron today but feet mixed with iron and clay. This is why so many believers have and are being deceived.
Many have never read about the history of the roman institution.
I encourage people to read the story of Alberto Rivera from Chick publications.
I am a TR guy. Many would say I am KJV only. I very much liked your discussion on the issue. I know many strong believers on both sides. Thank you.
Thank you a lot, I prefer both text, I like Text Receptus and Critical Text
They compliment each other ⚔️
Thanks for the balanced insight, Pastor Matt. I have not heard a solid argument for the TR until now. I didn’t realize it was generally consistent with the majority text. One could reason that scribal practices were to leave flawed copies in the past and continue to duplicate the manuscripts that lacked errors. 🤔
Is an older copy really more dependable if it is the outlier? Could a newer manuscript be a faithful copy of a more accurate manuscript which predates such an outlier? Interesting stuff!
Majority text. World English Bible (WEB) based on the Majority.
My translation of choice WEB Bible
@@denleemel WEB has Acts 8:37 missing with most modern versions putting it in brackets.
The only such verse in the NT where one is proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Son of God while being baptized.
Both sides make great arguments. I have copies of both and compare the two. Whenever some one gets heated about one or the other, I ask which Christian teaching or doctrine changes with that piece of text removed or added? The answer is that no matter which text you use, the core doctrines of salvation stay the same. So I don't really have a dog in the manuscripts race.
To my understanding the CT reflects the manuscripts produced in Egypt, whereas the TR and the majority text reflects the manuscripts endorsed in the rest of the empire.
I like the NASB and HCSB. I haven't been disappointed in any of the HCSB readings when I have looked it up.
Except for the many omissions
You are correct because the scribes tending to omit rather than add.
Are you familiar with Cappadocian text type? Didn't add your topic in the video: the Ceasarean & western text type. Thanks for the sharing info
Matt,
Thanks for a very cogently reasoned presentation. I think you succeeded in attempting to be fair to both side of the argument.
Full disclosure: I was trained in seminary with the CT, but have been investigating the TR lately. Many of the arguments you proposed in favor of the TR are arguments that I’ve heard or formulated on my own.
One thing I didn’t hear you address in the pro-TR/con-CT side of the ledger is the following: The CT will claim “older = better,” but isn’t that in itself a bias? I think there is something to say for the fact that the people involved in producing the TR for the most part had a high view of Scripture. I’m not sure the same can be said for W&H or the men behind formulating the principles of textual criticism. Being a reformed Presbyterian, perhaps you can appreciate the “presuppositional” approach to this issue. Why would we trust what we put into our Bibles to the thinking of unbelieving men? Put another way, why would we subject the question of “what should be in the Bible” to men who had a low view of Scripture? These are similar issues that the church in her history had to deal with in issues of canonicity. Do we (the church) RECEIVE the Bible, or do we DETERMINE what’s in the Bible?
Another thing I didn’t hear you address (also surrounding the issue of old=better) is that perhaps there is a reason these manuscripts are old. In my own research (FWIW), the mss of the TR were around 11-12 century mss (fact check me on this). Now you did mention that these few mss were representative of the Byzantine majority of older mss. An argument can be made (I think) that why these mss that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza used were of a more recent vintage is because the Byzantine tradition was recognized as being “purer.” More use = more wear & tear = more copies = more recent vintage mss. The Alexandrian text type may have been recognized by the church as an inferior text type (perhaps for its “omissions” or for its association with Alexandria where Arius and Origen and other “heretics” were from), and hence wasn’t utilized much. Would explain why Vaticanus was “discovered” in the Vatican library in the 15/16 century and Sinaiticus in a desert monastery in the 19th century. Older = less used = less wear & tear.
These are some of the things I’m wrestling with in regards to this issue. Would appreciate your feedback on this.
And to add your your thought, in my opinion, is that climate really had an incredible role here. MSS originating in places outside of dry climates like Egypt would not long endure the humidity.
There are a lot of good resources and opinions on the very issues you are inquiring about on the internet as well as some scholarly cites that address those issues. It is finding a balance and checking the facts. I have been studying these very issues you have addressed herein. I try and look at both sides of the coin. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJB. I am also very interested in the English translation with regard to the rules of grammar and the context of scripture as related to the rules of grammar. English is an evolving language and you can still find a way to understand archaic English if you are diligent in studying. There were formerly authors like Louis L' Amour and Zane Grey that wrote western novels in "Old English".
that was funny, thanks.
Dear Brother, what do we make then of the inerrancy of the Word? Secondly. Is it not possible that the original manuscripts upon which the TR "copies" are based. are even older than that of the CT, taking into account their origin? (and therefore even more reliable?) Thank you for an excellent program. My footnote: Although English is my second language, I have the KJV, NKV as well as ESV, which is my "Note Taking" Bible. In addition, also two translations in my home language, Afrikaans, of which I prefer the older version based on the TR.
To my untutored ear this is an excellent exposition. Having been brought up to regard the TR as sacrosanct I felt slightly 'guilty' when using translations based on the CT. M Everhard clarifies the subject for me and provides a good intro to more in depth study. I can read the ESV with a clear conscience.
You can read the liberal edition of the ESV, aka Reader's Digest expurgated version.
No link to UBS 5?
Thank you Pastor Matt. Extremely helpful in helping me wrestle with the KJV only and related debates.
We should wrestle the enemy and the frauds not brethren who love a good translation like the KJV
Thank you Matthew for the truth, I am using the NASB for study and letting the voice of the Holy Spirit speak to me.
Well, Matthew, at the same time 2 out of your top 3 translations are based on the TR. It might have been interesting to go through the actual differences.
@72 years old I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I still love it, but the CT translations are God's inerrant word as well, and I love some of those too.
Thank you for your well thought out, and balanced exposition.
Older is not necessarily better: While older manuscripts can provide valuable evidence for reconstructing the text of an ancient document, the age of a manuscript alone does not determine its reliability or accuracy.
Very well done! Thank you for a balanced presentation! I woeful What is your op
I would be interested to know your position on the genuineness of the Pericope Adulterae of John Chapter Eight.
Really enjoyed! One quibble 43:56 this does not happen every time in the Nestle Aland. James Snapp and Maurice Robinson have documented cases where significant variation from the Byzantine majority exist and these have not been noted and the apparatus of the NA28.
Thank you brother!
I was trying to remember the name of James Snapp watching this vid as I'd watched a couple of his in the past 6 months or so. Interesting vids and insight.
@@Tom-qo4mz yeah I really enjoy his stuff
Matthew, please do some research on Lucian of Antioch. Born 240 AD to 312 AD. He started the school at Edessa and apposed the school of allegory at Alexandria in Egypt. Lucian is a bit like the "unknown" Nicola Tesla of our modern day in the area of AC electricity theory and invention. Lucian was providentially used of God to bring forth the true word of God. It is also known that He was the original editor/compiler of the Manuscripts that Emeritus used to produce the Textus Receptus.
Lucian has been accused by Hort in the late 1800's of what has been called "The theory of Lucian Recension". This has subsequently been disproved, nor has any historical or archeological evidence been uncovered. But modern scholars are slow to acknowledge this.
As far as Emeritus is concerned It is known that he traveled extensively to view and study a wide range of "other" Manuscripts. A criticism leveled at him is that he only used and selected a small number of MMS. But as I have said he was well traveled and had access to a lot of other MMS. He appears to have selected the corrected ones to produce a consensus of manuscripts for his Textus Receptus. The so called Received text.
The other point I would make is if "older is better" then look at the Eastern Syriac Church and the manuscripts written in Aramaic. Some of these are "as old" with the Greek oldest; Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Aramaic manuscripts and the resultant New testament "Pershitta" "agrees 99% with the TR.
The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have just too many mistakes. They even in places disagree with each other.
Those two (Cod. Vat & Sinai) disagree with each other in _many_ places.
"And at the last came two false witnesses, but neither so did their witness agree together."
Mat26/Mrk14
Thanks Pastor Matt, I do use NKJV and NIV. But if I pick between the two, I would go with the NIV life application bible.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. I feel like I can absorb more from the smoother riding.
writing*
Thank you brother. Let me first say that as someone who falls on the TR side of the debate I commend you for a very good balanced summary of both positions. I wish to address some things that you did not mention on the CT side that I believe are important. It seems to me that the strongest pillar of the CT position is "oldest is best". The problem of this position is that it discounts the historical facts that the Bible was not just some random ancient writing but the word of God that was opposed from many sides, from cults to governments (Rome burned them, Gnostics and other cults altered the word). We know from Paul and the church fathers that from the very beginning the word was under attack by it's haters. It would seem logical therefore that if an ancient manuscript was altered with a heresy in some way it would be rejected by the majority of the believing church as soon as it was discovered and circulated. It would not be copied but it would be destroyed. Thus the proper reading and closest to the original was most likely to survive In the greatest majority of manuscripts which is why the alternate readings are only found in the smallest number such as Vatican's or Sinaiticus since it would have been destroyed not copied. That leads to the question, how did those manuscripts survive? Well, one was preserved in the archives of the Vatican and the other supposedly was discovered in an Orthodox monastery by a Protestant believer who just happened to be funded by a Catholic monarch (his patron) and received the blessings of the Pope himself (and was the first non Catholic scholar given access to the hidden Catholic Manuscript). Of course we now get into the realm of conspiracies, which assumes that there is a group of people working against the preservation of God's word. We don't have to look far to find historical facts, not conspiracies, to prove this point. The Catholic Church, who was so opposed to the translation of the Bible into English that they burned William Tyndale at the stake for daring to translate it and dug up the bones of Wycliffe so they could burn them and sprinkle them into a river because they hated him so much, that same church is now the one who preserved some ancient manuscripts that do not agree with the majority text? The church even established a special division to counter the reformation called the Jesuits, who are still around today. These same Jesuits are on record as saying that they hate the Word of God, called it an Asp and a snake. In fact they accused Protestants of having a "paper pope". Who were they referring to? Why, the Bible of course. Lastly, you failed to cover the history of how Sinaiticus came into being, how it was supposedly discovered, who became famous for doing it, how there was a man who came forward stating he was the creator of Sinaiticus in the 1800's as a gift for the Czar and the whole story. While it takes careful study of the facts to decide if Simonaides was a fraud or not, people at least deserve to know that there is some evidence out there that Sinaiticus is a fraud. And it is one of the two manuscripts referred to as "the oldest and best." Having said all that, there are times when the KJV has problems in translation and I am happy to have other sources to look to for a resolution to a verse or problematic word. Lastly, I think it is important to point out that in the CT camps there are scholars and translators that are not believers and do not treat the material they are working on as God Breathed. IT is up to the reader to decide how their views of scripture affect their work and the interpretation of their "findings", if at all.
QUESTION: What language/s of the "oldest" manuscripts is the CT based on?
And when you say "the church," do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?
I think the CT is likely most accurate overall, however I actually like the NKJV personally. I think NKJV is kind of a best of both worlds because it was based on the TR but consulted the CT if I am understanding correctly.
My problem isn't TR or CT it's how it's translated. Some of the choices are technically correct but it is confusing in their wording.
What lexicons do you use? like the best? I have Brigs for Hebrew/ Aramaic and Thayer's I want to understand the usefulness of a lexicon but i havent caught on to using it ...Can you help?
@@byronmace5365 I once read that lexicons have been changed in Bible colleges to pervert the truth , the true versions.
Have you looked at the recently released Literal Standard Version? I believe it's an update of the YLT.
Which greek text does the LSV use?
The video: unbiased scholarly debate about the Bible and Christians today
The thumbnail: ULTIMATE STREET FIGHT TO THE DEATH
Well he is smart. He got us to click and then he gave us really high quality content. It is like when Moms sneak veggies into recipes so you don't notice them.
The multiplicity of manuscript traditions is a fascinating fact and a fantastic apologetic defense against the idea that the Church (typically through the Nicene Council) edited the Bible into what we have now. The fact that we had Scripture manuscripts hidden away in many parts of the world that fundamentally agree with one another debunks that wide spread editing conspiracy idea right out of the door.
Personally, I certainly prefer the Majority Text. I like KJV and NKJV about equally, but, I also use the ESV and even own the RSV with Apocrypha. In my late 20s, over 30 years ago, I came perilously close to becoming a KJV -only advocate, but I had to admit that the NKJV was better suited for the teens I was teaching, even if I liked having You and thou in the translation, personally.
The argument I would use if I were rigidly Majority Text is that the Critical Text combines two ancient manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and the Alexandrian Manuscript, which are different from each other. Thus, one gets a manuscript that never existed until the 19th Century. But, I am not rigid. The ESV does flow well. My family is currently attending a church which uses the ESV in its services. I still use my KJV and NKJV in my private devotions and study.
Your video was as always excellent and well balanced.
Sorry, I meant Codes Sinaiticus, not Alexandrian Manuscript.
Codex
"God has given us this data for a reason, so lets use it for what it's worth." well said.
10:35 I disagree: the modern translations (CT) are not as explicit in their rendering of the doctrine of the diety of Christ as the King James (TR). The CT from what I have read does muddy the waters on that whereas the TR is explicit
Respectfully the problem I have with your argument is that I thought the Bible was supposed to determine the doctrine....not which doctrine do I like so which translation follows that. The real question is..."What did the original inspired writers of the New Testament actually write down?" Then that should give the real doctrine. How would a scribal miscopy be sacred?
🔥
Love ya Matthew
What about verses removed from some translations? I am a king james bible reader NIV has so many verses removed and important words changed?
He addressed this question of yours in the video....
woah this guy plays ultra street fighter 2, Imma subscribe
😂😂😂😂
Hi! I really enjoyed your video. Great thoughts! I do have a question. I have been watching other youtube videos about this and one of them showed some of the supposed “missing verses” and how these verses were quoted from the early church fathers before the critical text was ever made. I have attached the link. It starts at minute mark 11:00. Im very curious what your thoughts are about these. Thanks!
Where's the link?
th-cam.com/video/33SoPt-UPnk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xR_XIDrSogf8o5Zr
Regarding these Alexandrian older papyri, could they be the false writings that the Bible mentions people were already making? Corrupt versions of scripture? How do the critical text proponents discern for these forgeries?
God used the TR as a light to bring about the Reformation. He has since given more light via papyri and more parchments. Let us prayerfully make use of it all to bring more light. Who knows what God will do next?
Well-presented analysis of the "battle!" (I too am concerned about the ad hominem arguments coming from so much of the KJVO/TRO camp.) Thank you!
The concern I have with the Critical Text is many times their argument is essentially that of denying divine preservation. I think that you, Dr. Everhard, were very close to committing that heresy at around 43:05 in this video, with all respect to you because I know that you fervently believe in divine preservation as evidenced elsewhere in this very video.
I think the concern I have is the claim that the CT position denies divine preservation is sort of question begging. At least in the way it's been presented to me. The older manuscripts were widely used, and the vast majority have been lost to history after being widely used. This includes the non-Greek manuscripts. So it would be difficult to tell the believers who based their faith on these various texts that they didn't have the Word of God. That's even the position of the translators of the KJV themselves
I really have to crack up over some of the comments. I’m just a regular guy who loves Jesus and reads the Word.
By and large all versions I’ve read clearly demonstrated God’s unending love for us. One says “Happy is…”, another say “Blessed is…” neither one is heretical.
I was placed on this earth to love and serve God. I’ve resigned as Judge, jury, and executioner. Someone else can carry that mantle should they feel the need.
Y’all have fun. Time for me to work my bees and pray while doing so.
I am a little confused on the point of majority. TR has majority as a strength, but is based on fewer manuscripts than CT? Doesn’t CT have majority going for it if it is based on a wider array of manuscripts?
Good question. The majority of manuscripts have a general consensus. Because of this, the manuscripts used in the TR were Byzantine, and so even if they were few, they are in vast agreement with the majority of our manuscripts. The CT doesn’t really use Byzantine manuscripts, it most often uses earlier ones which do not always reflect the Byzantine reading.
Please do not trust in man but make your own research....people are being deceived greatly.
I agree with the approach to this subject that Maurice A. Robinson presents in his "Case for Byzantine Priority".
I see it as, what philosophy does one use towards the 'data'- the resources extant?
He states a compelling case with importance given to historical transmission, which modern eclectic critical theory lacks in providing.
And, the fact that there are over 3,000 differences in the gospels alone between Alexandrian Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus undermines their support as "older is better'. (All it takes is one scribe to corrupt a text.)
Matthew, great video. Can you clarify something I am struggling to understand. You said that the Majority texts have the larger number of texts, but then you said that the critical texts have the larger number of data. By data do you mean because they are older and because of the scientific advances?. Thanks for the help, Adam
Adam, by "data" I am talking about the vast number of manuscripts that have been discovered including the oldest known papyri manuscripts that were discovered many years after the Textus Receptus of Erasmus. There is more data than ever now to work through, some 5,800 manuscripts that are extant. They simply did not have an awareness of or access to all of that data in the 1500's and 1600's. But by "majority" we agree that if a reading was established democratically by how many manuscripts agree with a particular reading, then yes, the Byzantine text type is by far the majority. The TR largely agrees with that Byzantine or majority text tradition.
@@MatthewEverhard Excellent. Thank you. I find this topic fascinating.
The Textus Receptus was the first critical text of the Greek NT, i.e. eclectic text. Erasmus used primarily Minuscule 2 and Minuscule 1... 12th century AD manuscripts. Some reliance on others sources too.