Traditional vs Critical text debate materials

[Pastor Jonathan]

I have noticed there are a lot of modules on here that come from a Critical Text position.

 

Very few, if any, from the Received Text or the Textus Receptus side.

 

Could we get the following:

 

Revision Revised

 

Which Bible

 

Plain Introduction

 

I am sure there are others.

 

But I saw Osborn's Hermaneutical Spiral, KJV Only Controversy, and several others.

 

I think that the works of both sides should be represented so as to give readers the chance to actually weigh the evidences.

 

If there are some books from a pro TR side, please point them out to me as I may have missed it. Thanks. 

[ukfraser]

Have you see this one in accordance? I am not sure if it fits in with what you are thinking about. 

 

https://accordancebible.com/product/how-to-choose-a-translation-for-all-its-worth/

Edited October 19, 2022 by ukfraser

[Pastor Jonathan]

4 hours ago, ukfraser said:

Have you see this one in accordance? I am not sure if it fits in with what you are thinking about. 

 

https://accordancebible.com/product/how-to-choose-a-translation-for-all-its-worth/

Thank you @ukfraser,

 

I did see that but not sure that would match my thinking.

 

First, both authors are very strong pro Critical text using the Nestle Aland and the Wescott Hort (one came from the other). So they would be also skewed to their preferences.

 

Second, this doesn't delve deeply into why there are two, generally, Greek text, but simply what text does what. This would help an individual see things like Dynamic vs Formal equivalency, the mindset behind both, etc.

 

The angle I am going for is to present the evidences for and support of the different texts themselves.

 

I have been amazed at how little there is from a TR point of view and how the common assumption is the Critical Texts are best, end of debate when that is not the end. Just the beginning.

 

For a case in point: To date Dean Burgeon's Revision Revised has not been answered or refuted. And it was written in the 1880's. It seems it is glanced over or ignored (this is the issue I found in Osborn's hermenutical Spiral, around page 65).

 

I know this is not a place for debate so I am not trying (sorry if it seems like I am), but I am simply showing that if we wish to be faithful in our studies, Accordance is a great tool. I just want to see both sides presented very strongly.

 

Not just one side making the arguments as they go along. 

[A. Smith]

With all due respect, it’s probably because there isn’t much reputable support of the TR. In biblical scholarship, support for the TR is about like support for a flat earth. I’m not going to say it’s wrong (though I don’t endorse either), but there has yet to be much actual scholarship to support the idea (and books published do not equal scholarship, as I’m sure you’d agree). This is not something I want to debate here; it’s just the current state of the question. So, my guess is not that Accordance is harboring a grudge against the TR, but rather that quality resources in support of it simply don’t exist in great quantity, and nor does the demand. 
 

The majority text is a different story. And I’m sure you know these two are not the same. 

Nonetheless, support for the critical text is not exclusive within accordance resources. Aside from Robinson’s Majority Text (and, of course, there is at least one edition of the TR in accordance): 

 

You can find a debate about text-base here, with a contribution from Maurice Robinson https://accordancebible.com/product/perspectives-on-the-ending-of-mark-4-views/

 

You can also find a fairly balanced perspective in textual criticism here (yes, Wallace supports the critical/eclectic text, but he’s not a propagandist; he’s a scholar who has reached his conclusions via research with the actual manuscripts) https://accordancebible.com/product/revisiting-the-corruption-of-the-new-testament-manuscript-patristic-and-apocryphal-evidence/

 

A really simple introduction to the various issues of TC, including text-base, is found here (and I’ll say the same about Gurry and Hixon as I’ve said about Wallace).  https://accordancebible.com/product/myths-and-mistakes-in-new-testament-textual-criticism/

 

Not quite what you’re asking for, but probably about as close as you’re likely to get for a while. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by A. Smith

[Pastor Jonathan]

12 minutes ago, A. Smith said:

With all due respect, it’s probably because there isn’t much reputable support of the TR. In biblical scholarship, support for the TR is about like support for a flat earth. I’m not going to say it’s wrong (though I don’t endorse either), but there has yet to be much actual scholarship to support the idea (and books published do not equal scholarship, as I’m sure you’d agree). This is not something I want to debate here; it’s just the current state of the question. So, my guess is not that Accordance is harboring a grudge against the TR, but rather that quality resources in support of it simply don’t exist in great quantity, and nor does the demand. 
 

The majority text is a different story. And I’m sure you know these two are not the same. 

Nonetheless, support for the critical text is not exclusive within accordance resources. Aside from Robinson’s Majority Text (and, of course, there is at least one edition of the TR in accordance): 

 

You can find a debate about text-base here, with a contribution from Maurice Robinson https://accordancebible.com/product/perspectives-on-the-ending-of-mark-4-views/

 

You can also find a fairly balanced perspective in textual criticism here (yes, Wallace supports the critical/eclectic text, but he’s not a propagandist; he’s a scholar who has reached his conclusions via research with the actual manuscripts) https://accordancebible.com/product/revisiting-the-corruption-of-the-new-testament-manuscript-patristic-and-apocryphal-evidence/

 

A really simple introduction to the various issues of TC, including text-base, is found here (and I’ll say the same about Gurry and Hixon as I’ve said about Wallace).  https://accordancebible.com/product/myths-and-mistakes-in-new-testament-textual-criticism/

 

Not quite what you’re asking for, but probably about as close as you’re likely to get for a while. 

@A. Smith,

 

Thank you. Yes, I am trying not to debate. So no offense taken, and non is intended in what I will respond with.

 

First, there are STRONG reputable defense. But again, it is ignored or not widely available which is sad. The work I cited has yet to be refuted, but made stronger by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.

 

Second, those scholars who hold to their text may do so with a great intention, but a faulty foundation produces a faulty product regardless how it is built.

 

Third, the Majority text is different, I was not attempting to neglect it. But even the Majority Text, some 95% (if memory serves me right) support the TR readings. Not the CT. So while different, the support is there. In small doses, I have read the ESV and did some slight comparisons.

 

Fourth, just because a majority of “scholars” agree, doesn't make it right. In fact, the majority of the early church Fathers used Scripture (before 1611) and the readings and quotes are just about 98-99% what is reiterated in the KJV.

 

Before the assumption is made, I am NOT a KJVOnlyist. I am a Textus Receptus Only. Hence I use the KJV, NKJV, a little of the MEV, and others. 

 

I have heard of Wallace and will check that out. 

 

A good sight to also look at, as a way of comparison is: Textus Receptus Bibles

 

And again, Dean Burgeons works are excellent for a deeper study.

 

Again, I am not trying to debate but with these notes, I am looking for Accordance to carry good, well rounded resources so as to not present a one sided approach. That is not healthy.

 

Thanks. 

 

 

[Guest]

It's a shame that in our notes for Robinson's and Pierpont's Byzantine Textform that we sell do not include the appendix in the hardcopy, "The Case for Byzantine Priority." Granted, it's not TR-centric, but it's a good defense of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

[Pastor Jonathan]

1 hour ago, R. Mansfield said:

It's a shame that in our notes for Robinson's and Pierpont's Byzantine Textform that we do not include the appendix in the hardcopy, "The Case for Byzantine Priority." Granted, it's not TR-centric, but it's a good defense of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

Thanks for the info. I will also check that out as well. 

[A. Smith]

2 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

@A. Smith,

 

Thank you. Yes, I am trying not to debate. So no offense taken, and non is intended in what I will respond with.

 

First, there are STRONG reputable defense. But again, it is ignored or not widely available which is sad. The work I cited has yet to be refuted, but made stronger by the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.

 

Second, those scholars who hold to their text may do so with a great intention, but a faulty foundation produces a faulty product regardless how it is built.

 

Third, the Majority text is different, I was not attempting to neglect it. But even the Majority Text, some 95% (if memory serves me right) support the TR readings. Not the CT. So while different, the support is there. In small doses, I have read the ESV and did some slight comparisons.

 

Fourth, just because a majority of “scholars” agree, doesn't make it right. In fact, the majority of the early church Fathers used Scripture (before 1611) and the readings and quotes are just about 98-99% what is reiterated in the KJV.

 

Before the assumption is made, I am NOT a KJVOnlyist. I am a Textus Receptus Only. Hence I use the KJV, NKJV, a little of the MEV, and others. 

 

I have heard of Wallace and will check that out. 

 

A good sight to also look at, as a way of comparison is: Textus Receptus Bibles

 

And again, Dean Burgeons works are excellent for a deeper study.

 

Again, I am not trying to debate but with these notes, I am looking for Accordance to carry good, well rounded resources so as to not present a one sided approach. That is not healthy.

 

Thanks. 

 

 

Sorry for confusion. My reply wasn’t clear on this point. Yes, I was not trying to imply you were equating MagT and TR. Rather, I was citing accordance’s MagT resources as an example of the text-base diversity within accordance. 

[Pastor Jonathan]

22 minutes ago, A. Smith said:

Sorry for confusion. My reply wasn’t clear on this point. Yes, I was not trying to imply you were equating MagT and TR. Rather, I was citing accordance’s MagT resources as an example of the text-base diversity within accordance. 

No worries. That makes sense. Sorry. I was doing several things at once when I read your comment. 

 

I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions and will check it out this week. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Pastor Jonathan

[Pastor Jonathan]

I cannot edit my OP with other resources, so I hope it is ok if I add another list. 

 

I found this today in doing other research and thought that some of these works would be great for a TR position. 

 

I think we should have as many resources as we can, and this would help add to that. 

 

While more from a KJVonlyist position, I still think their work is really solid from the TR case they bring to bear. 

 

These would be great books to get on Accordance as well

[docdave]

3 hours ago, Pastor Jonathan said:

 

In fact, the majority of the early church Fathers used Scripture (before 1611) and the readings and quotes are just about 98-99% what is reiterated in the KJV.

 

 

I thought that we don't have any Byzantine manuscript fragments from the first 3 centuries of Christianity and that what we have from church fathers used Alexandrian and other text types (see for example: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/king-james-onlyism/dean-burgon-and-his-phantom-manuscripts/).

 

Anyway, I don't want to debate. I am very glad Accordance offers the Greek texts of Robinson, TR, Family 35, etc. I am also glad they offer KJV, NKJV and many translations based on the critical text. I would not be interested in purchasing titles focused exclusively on this type of debate. Things by Scrivener and Burgon should be out of copyright, so maybe those interested could make some of their works available as user tools in Accordance Exchange.

[Philip Mohr]

Technically, every received text that we have has been critically edited by someone. (I say "critically" in the sense that someone had to make "judgments" about what words did and did not belong in the text in front of them; I do not mean "critically" in the sense that someone desired to undermine the sense of Scripture.) If you are really interested in texts received by the church, I recommend earlier manuscripts: https://accordancebible.com/product/greek-mss-images-from-csntm/.

 

Why should interest in the texts that have been "received" by the church begin in the sixteenth century? Even the so-called Textus Receptus is an edited text created in the early modern period—that is, it is first "received" in the sixteenth century after a text-critical collation of several manuscripts (mostly be Stephanus/Estienne); the text never existed prior to his editorial work.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Philip Mohr

[Kristin]

On 10/19/2022 at 7:53 AM, Pastor Jonathan said:

Fourth, just because a majority of “scholars” agree, doesn't make it right.

Amen! I am not a supporter of the KJV or TR, but I could not agree more with this statement!

 

 

20 hours ago, docdave said:

Things by Scrivener and Burgon should be out of copyright, so maybe those interested could make some of their works available as user tools in Accordance Exchange.

I was thinking the same thing about the Accordance Exchange.

[Pastor Jonathan]

Thank you all for the comments. While I absolutely love and really wish to carry on the discussion, I fear I will turn this into a debate because this is something I am passionate about. I believe the best and safest answer I can give is my sincere thank you for the comments.

 

 I will see what can be done with the exchange. I would again ask if Accordance could pick up the copyrighted material (or the other books that are not if possible) and put that online from some of the other works on the links I provided above. 

 

Not sure how the exchange functions, but if (is there time as a pastor? Lol) and when I will see what I can do. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Pastor Jonathan

[Pastor Jonathan]

Not sure if I need to make a new post, so I will start here.

 

Here is another work I would love to see on Accordance. While not reformed, I think their arguments are universal.

 

Why I Preach from the T.R.

 

Thanks.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I just ordered a copy of the Revision Revised from Burgon from the KJV Store so I can read it.

 

I’ve also read Burgon’s The Traditional Text of the Gospels and the PCC student’s dissertation Touch Not the Unclean Thing. I’ve also read all of the PDF articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society website.

 

There’s a few more of Burgon’s works on Scribd I’m going to read.

 

The issue with Accordance selling such resources is there probably isn’t a strong market for them, as even most Bible scholars I know likely wouldn’t have a main interest in reading them (which is unfortunate). I’m one who is interested in reading them since I attended a high school who used the KJV, and bare minimum I at least enjoy reading the “traditional text" side of the debate. 

 

However, many of the works you’ve mentioned and I’ve mentioned are likely in public domain. The ones that are would make great User Tools on the Accordance Exchange. The TBS articles aren’t, but since TBS gives them out for free, an Accordance user who would want to go through the process of producing a User Tool of them could contact TBS and attempt to secure permission from them to develop the User Tool, then develop it, and give it back to TBS.

 

The PCC student’s dissertation is copyrighted so that one may not be able to be done unless an Accordance user and the student can work out some form of arrangement to offer a User Tool of it (maybe offer the download to it directly from the student with the purchase of the print edition).

 

The appendix Rick mentions about the Byzantine manuscripts would make a nice upgrade to the Accordance version if Accordance can somehow offer it.

[Pastor Jonathan]

17 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

I just ordered a copy of the Revision Revised from Burgon from the KJV Store so I can read it.

 

I’ve also read Burgon’s The Traditional Text of the Gospels and the PCC student’s dissertation Touch Not the Unclean Thing. I’ve also read all of the PDF articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society website.

 

There’s a few more of Burgon’s works on Scribd I’m going to read.

 

The issue with Accordance selling such resources is there probably isn’t a strong market for them, as even most Bible scholars I know likely wouldn’t have a main interest in reading them (which is unfortunate). I’m one who is interested in reading them since I attended a high school who used the KJV, and bare minimum I at least enjoy reading the “traditional text" side of the debate. 

 

However, many of the works you’ve mentioned and I’ve mentioned are likely in public domain. The ones that are would make great User Tools on the Accordance Exchange. The TBS articles aren’t, but since TBS gives them out for free, an Accordance user who would want to go through the process of producing a User Tool of them could contact TBS and attempt to secure permission from them to develop the User Tool, then develop it, and give it back to TBS.

 

The PCC student’s dissertation is copyrighted so that one may not be able to be done unless an Accordance user and the student can work out some form of arrangement to offer a User Tool of it (maybe offer the download to it directly from the student with the purchase of the print edition).

 

The appendix Rick mentions about the Byzantine manuscripts would make a nice upgrade to the Accordance version if Accordance can somehow offer it.

Yes. Therein is part of the "issue". I will have to look at the documents you mentioned here. Thank you. Also sent you a DM. Thanks. 

[Donald Adams]

You may be interested in An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate : or, Received text of the New Testament by Fredrick Nolan, 1815.

 

https://archive.org/details/a601052600nolauoft/page/n23/mode/2up

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Internet Archive probably has some great stuff to read on the subject. I turn to it for hard to find books. Plus it works in the Accordance Web Browser.

[Pastor Jonathan]

9 hours ago, Donald Adams said:

You may be interested in An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate : or, Received text of the New Testament by Fredrick Nolan, 1815.

 

https://archive.org/details/a601052600nolauoft/page/n23/mode/2up

Thank you. I will research it. I may start using the exchange for some of these things as well because it will be available for all.  

[Guest]

Side note:

 

Let me just say that all of you are to be commended for the spirit in which comments have been made on this thread. I've seen elsewhere how contentious this topic can be. From the start I had been watching the discussion, thinking that if it turned, I could close it; thankfully, I've not had to do that.

 

I continue to be encouraged at the maturity and collegiality of our users on this forum.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Indeed, I’m proud of the spirit and maturity of Accordance users. I find it refreshing that we can have an honest conversation about it and do so through civil discourse. It gives me hope!

 

Personally when it comes to the subject matter, I’ve read much of the material discussed, and I’m willing to keep an open mind about all of what I’ve read. I’ve studied in schools who have taken each side of the position (my high school was a KJV/TR school, but my Bible college and seminary generally advocated for modern translations/Greek NT editions, except one professor who was an NKJV/MT proponent). So I’ve been exposed to both sides of the debate, and I’m willing to listen to both sides and make my own evaluations.

 

As a result of this discussion and recent reading, I have been reaching more for my KJV and TR in my Bible studies lately since it’s been a while since I’ve used the KJV in-depth, and it’s actually been refreshing to re-incorporate the KJV into my Bible study. I grew up with it, but I haven’t heavily used it for a while, so I’ve been enjoying “rediscovering” the KJV. I’ve also used the opportunity to read other literal translations (I’ve been reading through Koren Publishers Jerusalem’s translation of the Tenakh, the Jewish “authorized version”, and I’ve enjoyed reading through it).

 

The other side benefit of this discussion is I’ve scaled back on a lot of my print Bibles and study Bibles and shifted more of the content into Accordance. I’ve decided to keep a couple of really good leather Bibles for reading, but leverage Accordance for all of my Bible translation comparison and biblical language studies. It’s been liberating to donate the Bibles and biblical language texts to students and ministry leaders who can benefit from them, and it’s freed me up to spend that time with Accordance instead.

 

I’d also enjoy seeing any Accordance User Tools of the public domain content or free content in which a user has been able to get permission to produce the material (such as the TBS content, it’s possible TBS may allow an Accordance user to produce a User Tool on the content, one can only ask). While I don’t see the market as strong enough for Accordance to invest in the expense to produce such modules in Accordance (Accordance needs to focus the bulk of their investment on modules with a high selling rate. It’s unfortunate these materials really don’t fall into that category), that’s the beauty of User Tools. Accordance users can always step up and provide User Tools that integrate well with Accordance on public domain content that wouldn’t be feasible for Accordance to invest in developing.