Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
14,282
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: − + − + + + + + + + + − − The Magdalen Papyrus, Papyrus 64, dates to AD 66, making it the oldest New Testament fragment. It has not been classified by text type. The oldest examples of Alexandrian text are Papyrus 46, or Chester Beatty II, and Papyrus 66, or Bodmer II. P46 contains the Pauline epistles while P66 contains the Gospel of John. Both manuscripts date from about AD 200.<ref>Metzger, Bruce, (1994) ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament''. "With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P66 and P75, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century." P75 has since been redated to a later period.</ref> − − The Peshitta of the second century and a Gothic translation that dates to 350 are of the Western type. − − Alexandrinus, a manuscript used in the Critical Text, is Byzantine in the gospels. It dates from about AD 400. It is the oldest known manuscript with Byzantine text.<ref>Holland, ''Crowned With Glory'', 13.</ref>
→The text
In 1550 Robert Stephanus produced a beautifully printed edition that added footnotes containing text from the Bezae and Regius codices. This is considered the classic edition of TR and is referred to as ''Editio Regia'' (royal edition). In 1551, Stephanus added a verse numbering system that is still used in modern Bibles. As for the text itself, Stephanus did little to improve on what Erasmus published. The KJV translators consulted a 1598 reprint of ''Edito Regia'' by Theodore Beza as well as several other editions. The ''Scrivener New Testament'' (1894) reconstructs the underlying Greek text they used.
In 1550 Robert Stephanus produced a beautifully printed edition that added footnotes containing text from the Bezae and Regius codices. This is considered the classic edition of TR and is referred to as ''Editio Regia'' (royal edition). In 1551, Stephanus added a verse numbering system that is still used in modern Bibles. As for the text itself, Stephanus did little to improve on what Erasmus published. The KJV translators consulted a 1598 reprint of ''Edito Regia'' by Theodore Beza as well as several other editions. The ''Scrivener New Testament'' (1894) reconstructs the underlying Greek text they used.
==The text==
==Development of the text==
TR follows a [[Byzantine Text|Byzantine]] reading. Most modern scholars believe the [[Critical Text]], which follows an [[Alexandrian Text|Alexandrian]] reading, to be superior. The Byzantine text is thought to be a recension of various Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, possibly done by Lucian of Antioch around 300. The Western text was known from [[Codex Bezae]]. It was quoted in the writing of the Church Fathers as early as the third century.
TR follows a [[Byzantine Text|Byzantine]] reading. Most modern scholars believe the [[Critical Text]], which follows an [[Alexandrian Text|Alexandrian]] reading, to be superior.
The oldest examples of Alexandrian text are Papyrus 46, or Chester Beatty II, and Papyrus 66, or Bodmer II. P46 contains the Pauline epistles while P66 contains the Gospel of John. Both manuscripts date from about AD 200.<ref>Metzger, Bruce, (1994) ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament''. "With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P66 and P75, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century." P75 has since been redated to a later period.</ref>
The Western text was known from [[Codex Bezae]]. It was quoted in the writing of the church fathers as early as the third century. The Peshitta, a second century translation, and a Gothic translation from 350, are of the Western type.
The Byzantine text is thought to be a recension of various Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, possibly done by Lucian of Antioch around 300. The earliest witness is [[John Chrysostom]], a church father who quoted it extensively in the late fourth century. Alexandrinus, a manuscript used in the Critical Text, is Byzantine in the gospels. It dates from about AD 400.
In 1720, Richard Bentley proposed that TR be replaced with a Greek text based on ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript.<ref>Bentley, Richard, ''Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament'', 1720.</ref> In the early 19th century, Karl Lachmann developed a methodology which allowed a critic to determine which manuscript variants are likely to be closer to the original. He assigned manuscripts to various text types. In 1850, he published a Greek New Testament based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. In 1881, Brooke Westcott and F. J. A. Hort published a critical text based on ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', ''[[Codex Vaticanus]]'', a manuscript in the Vatican Library, and ''Codex Alexandrinus.''
In 1720, Richard Bentley proposed that TR be replaced with a Greek text based on ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript.<ref>Bentley, Richard, ''Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament'', 1720.</ref> In the early 19th century, Karl Lachmann developed a methodology which allowed a critic to determine which manuscript variants are likely to be closer to the original. He assigned manuscripts to various text types. In 1850, he published a Greek New Testament based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. In 1881, Brooke Westcott and F. J. A. Hort published a critical text based on ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', ''[[Codex Vaticanus]]'', a manuscript in the Vatican Library, and ''Codex Alexandrinus.''
==For and against==
According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors.
According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors.
Supporters of TR, notably the [[KJV Only]] movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See [http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable ''Are older manuscripts more reliable?''] at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>
Supporters of TR, notably the [[KJV Only]] movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See [http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable ''Are older manuscripts more reliable?''] at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>
Among modern translations, the [[New King James Version]] uses TR, while the [[New International Version]], the [[New American Standard Bible]], [[New Revised Standard Version]], and the [[English Standard Version]] use the Critical Text.
Among modern translations, the [[New King James Version]] uses TR, while the [[New International Version]], the [[New American Standard Bible]], [[New Revised Standard Version]], and the [[English Standard Version]] use the Critical Text.