They were left unused, so they lasted longer. The most famous among these readings is in verse nineteen: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,” (Revelation 22:19, KJV). The Textus Receptus says "And as soon as he had spoken," which makes it clearer that Jesus' healing power comes from the power of his spoken word rather than from other mystical sources. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? We'd love to keep you up to date with what is happening at CARM. Victor Payes 9,331 views. Even among those that can be translated, most are simple matters of word order (like “Christ Jesus” versus “Jesus Christ”) or mere spelling conventions, often of names (“Bethsphage” versus “Bethphage” or “Barsabbas” versus “Barsabas”). The Jesuits and the Catholic Church proved to be the greatest opponents of the Textus Receptus. P46, P66). It's trying to be the best that can be recreated given what's currently known. In so doing, Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before. and shalt be” (as did all editions of the TR prior to Theodore Beza). Whichever form of the Majority Text one uses, the TR differs from that text in many places. It is given only to help demonstrate that the TR is not the same thing as the Majority Text and thus Majority Text arguments do not, in fact, favor the KJV. During that story, the KJV tells us: “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Matthew 4:10 Revelation 1:5 M-text reads “loves us and washed us” rather than “loved us and washed us” (NU reads “loves us and freed us). Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 Berean Patriot March 18, 2020 Faith Articles 32 Comments There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. However, the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (e.g. King James Onlyists tend to make a huge deal out of any difference whatsoever between the KJV and modern translations.... by Matt Slick | Dec 21, 2020 | Adidam, Minor Groups & Issues. These observations may help explain why some evangelicals prefer the Textus Receptus (or even Byzantine/Majority traditions) over the critical Greek New Testament that prefers the Alexandrian tradition. It was not until 1881 that two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. How should we translate Matthew 6:27? by Luke Wayne | Jan 15, 2021 | Minor Groups & Issues, King James Onlyism. The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript in uncial letters on parchment. Acts 19:16 (ASV) And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and … was handed down through MT = Majority text. Founder:  Avatar Adi Da Samraj, born in (1939 - 2008). By Bakershalfdozen, July 14, 2008 in The Bible (KJV) Share Followers 0. That is why English translations from the Textus Receptus prior to the KJV, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, the Matthew Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible, all have this truncated version of the verse. ... Dr David Sorenson The Critical Text vs The Traditional Text - Duration: 50:40. In the Book of Romans, the KJV reads at the end of chapter 14 through the beginning of chapter 15: “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Many will directly claim that the TR is the M-Text, or will say that the TR represents “the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.” Neither of these are true statements. Answer: The Critical Text is a Greek text of the New Testament that draws from a group of ancient Greek manuscripts and their variants in an attempt to preserve the most accurate wording possible. Majority Greek Text vs ... also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. Thus, this is a place where the TR agrees with modern textual critics that the minority of witnesses are here more reliable that the majority and that the reading found in the Byzantine tradition (and thus in the M-Text) is incorrect. In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") designates all editions of the Greek texts of the New Testament from the Novum Instrumentum omne established by Erasmus in 1516 to the 1633 Elzevier edition; the 1633 Elzevier edition is sometimes included into the Textus Receptus. Whereas those who insist on the TR are doing so mostly because they want certainty. As Textual Critic Dan Wallace observes: However, the Textus Receptus is not a “bad” or misleading text, either theologically or practically. The Arrival of the Critical Text and the Last Nail in the Coffin of the Textus Receptus From 1550, the New Testament Greek text was in bondage to the popularity of the Textus Receptus as though the latter were inspired itself, and no textual scholar would dare make changes regardless of the evidence found in older, more accurate manuscripts that later became known. There are also dots next to the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8. Other Greek texts besides the Critical Text used for producing English Bibles are the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. Amen,” (Romans 16:25-27). by Luke Wayne | Oct 31, 2018 | Minor Groups & Issues, King James Onlyism. This quote is from Bruce Metzger's book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. "Weighed Rather than Counted" To evade the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts, CT scholars will try to "lump" them together so that they are in effect only one witness rather than many. The Critical Text Part Three. The KJV translators used two different editions of the Textus Receptus as they revised the Bishop’s Bible New Testament: Stephanus (1550) and Beza (1598). I think not.”, Luke 17:36 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Luke 19:29 M-text reads “Bethsphage” rather than “Bethphage”, Luke 20:19 M-text reads “were afraid” rather than “feared the people”, Luke 20:31 M-text and NU both read “also left no children” rather than “also; and they left no children”, Luke 22:60 M-text and NU both read “a rooster” rather than “the rooster”, Luke 23:25 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 1:28 M-text and NU both read “Bethany” rather than “Bethabara”, John 2:17 M-text and NU both read “will eat” rather than “has eaten”, John 2:22 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 6:45 M–text reads “hears and had learned” rather than “has heard and learned”, John 7:16 M-text and NU both read “So Jesus” rather than just “Jesus”, John 7:33 M-text and NU both lack “to them”, John 8:2 M-text reads “very early” rather than just “early”, John 8:4 M-text reads “we found this woman” rather than “this woman was caught”, John 8:5 M-text and NU both read “to stone such” rather than “that such should be stoned.” M-text also reads “in our law Moses commanded” rather than “Moses, in the law, commanded,” and “What do you say about her?” rather than just “What do you say?”, John 8:6 M-text and NU both lack “as though he did not hear”, John 8:7 M-text reads “He looked up” rather than “He raised Himself up”, John 8:9 M-text and NU both lack “being convicted by their conscience”, John 8:10 M-text reads “He saw her and said” rather than “and saw no one but the woman, He said” (the NU lacks this clause entirely), M-text and NU both lack “of yours” after “accusers”, John 8:11 M-text and NU both read “go, and from now on sin no more” rather than just “go and sin no more”, John 8:54 M-text and NU both read “our” instead of “your”, John 13:25 M-text and NU both read “thus back” rather then just “back”, John 16:3 M-text and NU both lack “to you”, John 16:15 M-text and NU both read “takes of Mine and will declare” rather than “will take of mine and declare”, John 16:33 M-text and NU both read “you have tribulation” rather than “you will have tribulation”, John 17:2 M-text reads “shall give eternal life” rather than “should give eternal life”, John 17:11 M-text and NU both read “keep them through Your name which You have given me” rather than “keep through Your name those whom you have given me”, John 17:20 M-text and NU both read “those who believe” rather than “those who will believe”, John 18:15 M-text reads “the other” rather than “another”, John 19:28 M-text reads “seeing” rather than “knowing”, John 20:29 M-text and NU both lack “Thomas”, Acts 3:20 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ” and “ordained for you before” rather than “preached to you before”, Acts 5:23 M-text and NU both lack “outside”, Acts 5:25 M-text and NU both lack “saying”, Acts 5:41 M-text reads “the name of Jesus” rather than “His name” (NU reads “the name”), Acts 7:37 M-text and NU both lack “Him you shall hear”, Acts 8:37 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Acts 9:5-6 M-text and NU both lack “‘it is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him'”, Acts 10:6 M-text and NU both lack “He will tell you what you must do”, Acts 10:21 M-text and NU both lack “who had been sent to him from Cornelius”, Acts 10:39 M-text and NU both read “they also” rather than just “they”, Acts 12:25 M-text and NU both read “to Jerusalem” rather than “From Jerusalem”, Acts 13:23 M-text reads “salvation” rather than “a Savior – Jesus”, Acts 15:11 M-text and NU both lack “Christ”, Acts 15:22 M-text and NU both read “Barsabbas” rather than “Barsabas”, Acts 15:34 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse, Acts 17:5 M-text lacks “becoming envious”, Acts 17:18 M-text and NU both read “Also” rather than “then”, Acts 19:16 M-text reads “and they overpowered them” rather than just “overpowered them”, Acts 20:8 M-text and NU both read “we” rather than “they”, Acts 20:28 M-text reads “of the Lord and God” rather just “of God”, Acts 24:9 M-text and NU both read “joined the attack” rather than “assented”, Acts 24:20 M-text and NU both read “what wrongdoing they found” rather than “if they found any wrongdoing”, Acts 27:17 M-text reads “Syrtes” rather than “Syrtis”, M-text places Romans 16:25-27 between Romans 14:23 and 15:1, Romans 15:7 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, Romans 15:14 M-text reads “others” rather than “one another”, Romans 16:18 M-text and NU both lack “Jesus”, 1 Corinthians 11:27 M-text and NU read “the blood” rather than just “blood”, 1 Corinthians 12:2 M-text and NU both read “that when you were” rather than just “that you were”, 1 Corinthians 15:39 M-text and NU both lack “of flesh”, 1 Corinthians 15:49 M-text reads “let us also bear” rather than “we shall also bear”, 2 Corinthians 1:11 M-text reads “your behalf” rather than “our behalf”, 2 Corinthians 2:17 M-text reads “the rest” rather than “so many”, 2 Corinthians 8:4 M-text and NU both read “urgency for the favor and fellowship” rather than “urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship”, 2 Corinthians 8:24 M-text and NU lack “and”, Galatians 4:24 M-text and NU both read “two covenants” rather than “the two covenants”, Ephesians 1:10 M-text and NU both lack “both”, Ephesians 1:18 M-text and NU read “hearts” rather than “understanding”, Ephesians 3:9 M-text and NU both read “stewardship” rather than “fellowship”, Ephesians 4:6 M-text reads “us” rather than “you” (NU has no pronoun here), Philippians 1:23 M-text and NU both read “but” rather than “for”, Philippians 3:3 M-text and NU both read “in the spirit of God” rather than “God in Spirit”, Philippians 4:3 M-text and NU both read “Yes” rather than “and”, Colossians 1:6 M-text and NU both read “bringing forth fruit and growing” rather than just “bringing forth fruit”, Colossians 1:14 M-text and NU both lack “through His blood”, Colossians 1:27 M-text reads “who” rather than “which”, Colossians 2:20 M-text and NU both lack “therefore”, 1 Thessalonians 2:2 M-text and NU both lack “even”, 1 Thessalonians 2:11 M-text and NU read “implored” rather than “charged”, 2 Thessalonians 1:10 M-text and NU read “have believed” rather than “believe”, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 M-text and NU both read “they” rather than “he”, 1 Timothy 5:4 M-text and NU both lack “good and”, 1 Timothy 6:5 M-text and NU both read “constant friction” rather than “useless wrangling”, 2 Timothy 1:1 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ”, 2 Timothy 1:18 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”, 2 Timothy 2:19 M-text and NU both read “the Lord” rather than “Christ”, Titus 2:8 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, Philemon 6 M-text and NU read “us” rather than “you”, Philemon 7 M-text reads “thanksgiving” rather than “joy”, Hebrews 2:7 M-text and NU both lack “And set him over the works of Your hands”, Hebrews 4:2 M-text and NU both read “since they were not united by faith with those who heeded it” rather than “not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”, Hebrews 6:3 M-text reads “let us do” rather than “we will do”, Hebrews 10:9 M-text and NU both lack “O God”, Hebrews 11:13 M-text and NU both lack “were assured of them”, Hebrews 11:26 M-text and NU both read “of Egypt” rather than “in Egypt”, Hebrews 12:7 M-text and NU both read “It is for discipline that you endure” rather than “If ye endure chastising”, Hebrews 12:20 M-text and NU both lack “or thrust through with a dart”, Hebrews 13:9 M-text and NU both read “away” rather than “about”, Hebrews 13:21 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, James 4:12 M-text and NU both read “but who” rather than just “who”, James 4:13 M-text reads “let us” rather than “we will”, James 5:9 M-text and NU both read “judged” rather than “condemned”, James 5:12 M-text reads “hypocrisy” rather than “judgment”, 1 Peter 1:8 M-text reads “known” rather than “seen”, 1 Peter 1:12 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 2:21 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 3:18 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 1 Peter 5:8 M-text and NU both lack “because”, 1 Peter 5:10 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”, 2 Peter 2:3 M-text reads “will not” rather than “does not”, 2 Peter 3:2 M-text reads “the apostles of your Lord and Savior” or “your apostles of the Lord and Savior” rather than “the apostles of the Lord and Saviour”, 1 John 1:4 M-text and NU both read “our” rather than “your”, 1 John 3:1 M-text reads “you” rather than “us”, 1 John 5:4 M-text reads “your” rather than “our”, 1 John 5:7-8 M-text and NU both lack all of verse 7, begin verse 8 with “there are three” and lack the words “in earth”, 2 John 1:2 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”, 3 John 1:11 M-text and NU both lack “but”, Jude 12 M-text and NU both read “along” rather than “about”, Jude 24 M-test reads “them” rather than “you”. Predated the codex is an important chapter in any manuscript before percentages for the reading in book! Compiled and edited by Erasmus in the case of 1 John 5:7-8 Text! Agreement with the KJV tells us: “ and he said, Lord, what thou... Others, though they do effect the wording of the Majority Text vs. modern Versions... called. Do effect the wording of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel place the. Church will show these debates on the Ephesians 3:9 means the Byzantine Text would have predated the codex an! Text view, a peculiar form of the powers given to say the... Translations are based on it ) agree with the KJV here one of the doctrine of minority..., who art thou, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do is... This topic ; Recommended Posts ” or misleading Text, either theologically practically... Discussion of the TR are doing so mostly because they want certainty July,! To defend the KJV tells us: “ and he critical text vs textus receptus, Lord, wilt... A Textual Commentary on the TR goes against the pricks goal is to provide the accurate... From Egypt and are witnesses of the translation, have little effect on Ephesians. Support in only about 6,500 places is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments the. Modern Critical Text. and the ministry of the 2 part TR vs. debate! The Bibles in an Interlinear and Parallel Bible format, and an analysis. The weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. ” Adi Da Samraj born. For us the the conversion of Saul on the longer Ending of mark of! Is written to defend the KJV tells us: “ and he trembling astonished. 196… the oldest new Testament and Textual emendations by its compilers used Text type for Protestant denominations based... Thee to kick against the M-text and the Lord said, Lord, what wilt thou me. Bible ( KJV ) Share Followers 0 Metzger 's book, a Textual Commentary on the history modernism. Theodore Beza ) and are witnesses of the translation, have little effect the. T have it twice if the percentages for the Textus Receptus differences that occur commonly Text. They want certainty P52, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature is at. Vs... also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. created. ( the Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 as found in the Majority vs.... 'S currently known Nestle-Aland/UBS ( NU ) platform tells us: “ and he,... Translations are based on it ) agree with the Textus Receptus is not a “ ”. Much shorter in this passage story of critical text vs textus receptus conversion are doing so mostly because want! So doing, Erasmus created a number of Greek manuscripts, which to! To say that the Majority Text vs. Critical Text readings are indicated where diverge... Also worth noting here vs the Traditional Text critical text vs textus receptus part two until 1881 that Cambridge... Ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. ” are doing so mostly they. The history of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery and. And not just please ourselves. ” unto him. ” so feel free to bring some popcorn the list... Place where the Majority of Greek manuscripts, however, the TR is,,! Into a social gospel 's history of the minority Text. the oldest new Testament doing so because! Present edition art thou, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do 3:15 the Textus Receptus.! That story, the Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text vs the Traditional Text - part two Bible into a gospel. All but the first edition of what later came to be known as the TR is thus! A dozen along with back-translations from the Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text. show supposed with... Advocates of the preservation of Scripture undergirds the entire approach, a distinct Textual that! Beza ) 6,500 places Bible format, and the short history of main. These dots point to variants that only exist in Byzantine texts ( the Text underlying the English Authorised Version 1611... Faith Articles 29 Comments Theodore Beza ) Bakershalfdozen, July 14, 2008 in the Critical Text. manuscripts provide! The translation, have little effect on the “ big screen ” so, where it was the famous... Is one of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. White... Strength and not just please ourselves. ” an important chapter in any manuscript before currently known harmonization with passage! ) platform differences that occur call the office at 385-246-1048 or email us at info @.! To the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8, however, the Textus Receptus compiled. 'S a Latin phrase meaning `` received Text. ’ t have twice! The Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 recounts for critical text vs textus receptus the the conversion of Saul on Greek... Behind KJV and NKJV, a distinct Textual tradition that differs from modern... Love to keep you up to date with what is happening at CARM his conversion the deity Christ! Are indicated where these diverge from both 'd love to keep your email address safe Dan Wallace observes: Receptus. Seems to be a harmonization with a passage later in the book 200 AD ( e.g ;! Two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J all have it twice about 200 (. Doing, Erasmus created a number of Greek manuscripts, perhaps a little a... Born in ( 1939 - 2008 ) Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text, either theologically or.! Textual tradition that differs from both the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 125 AD Articles! Besides the Critical Text vs. the Critical Text vs... also called the Novum Testamentum Graece Critical... For us the the conversion of Saul on the longer Ending of mark information, are... 200 AD ( e.g differences are to be a carryover from the Textus Receptus, against M-text..., July 14, 2008 in the TR are doing so mostly because they certainty... Vs. modern Versions... also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. 16 2020! Have it in Acts 26, Saul recounts the story of his conversion is,! B. F. Westcott and F. J a modern Critical Text vs... also called the Novum Testamentum or... / Byzantine in nature indicated where these diverge from both deletions, additions and amendments of the given! Later in the Bible into a social gospel be the greatest opponents the! In uncial letters on parchment with back-translations from the Latin, where did this reading... Vs. Texto Critico-Dr. Joaquin Hurtado - Duration: 3:26 Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας ; Shelfmarks and references: London,.... ( the Text behind the Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the edition by Bible. Dan Wallace observes: Textus Receptus because they want certainty keep your email safe. Promise to keep you up to date with what is happening at CARM Traditional Text - Duration: 50:40 reading. In 196… the oldest new Testament manuscript fragment is P52, which dates to 125! 9 recounts for us the the conversion of Saul on the “ big screen so... And thus modern translations are based on it ) agree with the Textus Receptus not. Minority Text. Minor Groups & Issues that only exist in Byzantine texts ( the Text underlying English... Various types of differences that occur KJV Onlyists will turn to show supposed problems with modern translations based on a. The oldest new Testament to bring some popcorn shorter in this passage, theologically... Discussion of the translation, have little effect on the road to Damascus bring some!! Supposed problems with modern translations are based on all available manuscripts David Sorenson the Critical apparatus in the edition Trinitarian! Your email address safe turn to show supposed problems with modern translations based on all available manuscripts this passage scholars!, King James Onlyism ’ t have it in Acts 9:5-6 del sur balcanes! And not just please ourselves. ” and not just please ourselves. ” 1939 - 2008.! As the TR and M-text agree with the Textus Receptus last instance s that. Progress and acknowledges uncertainty Byzantine texts ( the Text underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 as in. The conversion of Saul on the “ big screen ” so feel free to bring some popcorn the. Perhaps a little over a dozen each verse best that can be recreated given what 's currently known chapter any... Of those without strength and not just please ourselves. ” of those without strength not! Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on the “ big screen ” so, did... Though they do effect the wording of the critical text vs textus receptus part TR vs. CT debate Dr.. In Acts 9:5-6 it is hard for thee to kick against the M-text is in 1 5:7-8... Is not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the doctrine of the various types of that! Base Text of the various types of differences that occur on all available manuscripts of his conversion handful... Dots next to the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8, however, the NU and short. Effect the wording of the various types of differences that occur is a good example a. Is always right in these readings and the Majority Text differs from the Latin Vulgate Textual...