tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post2253061969110191396..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: The Mumpsimus MentalityJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-48525234630491653902023-04-28T19:55:49.006-04:002023-04-28T19:55:49.006-04:00To answer my own question, here are some mss of Ep...To answer my own question, here are some mss of Ephesians that contain the TR reading διανοίας in 1:18: 1678* 1939 1963 1996 1999 2008 2012 2576* ℓ2010.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-55041136337298680442019-01-12T13:47:04.714-05:002019-01-12T13:47:04.714-05:00Someone called me on "the source text for the...Someone called me on "the source text for the TR" being f35, and it doesn't appear that anyone is making that claim. What subfamily is the most like the TR? I know that parts of the gospels have some Cesarean readings, I think from GA-2. And of course some come from the Vulgate via the Complutensian. But is the an identifiable family from which some of the liturgical flourishes we've read about here originated?Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-10108924608393005312019-01-07T21:16:34.895-05:002019-01-07T21:16:34.895-05:00Hills: "we must defend the Textus Receptus as...Hills: "we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print."<br /><br />Given that <i>better</i> and <i>more accurate</i> forms of the Traditional Text now circulate in print (whether the editions of H-F, R-P, or Pickering), such a statement theoretically should mean that, were Hills alive today, he should move away from the TR position originally held toward acceptance of the more authentical Byzantine editions -- but would he <i>really</i> have done so? Hardly so, it would seem (as I heard directly from Ted Letis many years ago). So instead, he would prefer to place his garments on two beasts of burden (TR and Byz), and attempt to ride both simultaneously.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-83449474715247477122019-01-06T09:18:58.190-05:002019-01-06T09:18:58.190-05:00I checked a handful of these against the f35 compi...I checked a handful of these against the f35 compilation at prunch.org, and in every case f35, "the source text for the TR," has the majority reading. <br />It should be pointed out that the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible suffers from the same shortcoming, being based on a single archetype of first-century text with all its scribal idiosyncrasies (duly defended and spiritualized down through the centuries by the faith community that perpetuated them), and transcribed into print from a single codex which contributed an error or two of its own.<br />Defenders of the Textus Receptus at least have the advantage of having, since the end of the nineteenth century, a Greek text that is a precise back-translation of the KJV NT. Those who want to defend the entire KJV from a confessional standpoint still lack any such text for the Old Testament.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-9632017895380706982019-01-05T01:48:55.432-05:002019-01-05T01:48:55.432-05:00Great work James. I read your articles all the tim...Great work James. I read your articles all the time, but do not comment often enough. I truly appreciate the balanced and honest perspective you bring. <br /><br />I strongly agree with your point regarding the battle between TR and MT. While I certainly disagree with some of the variants contained only in the Alexandrians texts that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. Same goes for the TR. <br /><br />John MacAurthur was wrong to ask his question rhetoricaly for it is the Spirit which continues to preserve and inspire as well as instruct. I feel many who subscribe so dogmatically to the TR, or any other translation, have lost something special when it comes to the mission of God’s Spirit being sent to us in the first place. <br /><br />It’s not just about knowing and obeying, but about believing and loving AKA relationship. No textual criticism will ever replace the need to have God’s Spirit alive within us. <br /><br />Thank you again for all your fine work. GodspeedJames Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03172805657501936113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-69907800581016717362019-01-04T13:56:02.681-05:002019-01-04T13:56:02.681-05:00Excellent post. I hope to see a counter argument f...Excellent post. I hope to see a counter argument from the Textus Receptus advocates at some point. Edward F. Hills' book is far from persuasive. In opposition to Burgon's position, that the preferable text is the Traditional Text found in the majority of manuscripts, Hills wrote, "If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years." I wonder how one defends both the Textus Receptus and the Traditional Text where they differ, and how one argues that the Textus Receptus was providentially preserved from the autographs when it was crafted in the sixteenth century. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964093992436364844noreply@blogger.com