Critical Text vs. Received Text?

[VanzTyn]

I am at a place where I am trying to decide whether the traditional text or critical text is more reliable. I know there are legions of King James Only guys, some less reputable than others. However, I have begun to notice there are "Critical Text Only" guys as well. So, understanding the differences in a realistic and scholarly way, which text family is more reliable?

 

[GregoryTheNonTheologian]

You might also consider "Majority Text", but I am not aware of any popular English translation. Very close to the Majority Text is the 1904 Patriarchal Text of the Orthodox Church, which has been translated into English by a group of nuns in the U.S. The version is called the Orthodox New Testament it is in two volumes: An Evangelistarion, containing the full text of the Gospels; and a Praxapostolos, containing the remainder of the New Testament. It is a very literal translation, but I like it because it is loaded with patristic references (hence the two volumes) and it also points out how the King James version differs (in some cases pointing out heretical translations that the KJV translators probably did unwittingly).

The original sources of the Patriarchal Text are, alas, lost to the generations. It is a text based on manuscripts that have been copied and recopied in eastern monasteries over the past two millennia.

 

[jbearnolimits]

It would be best to examine the differences in the verses and message given by each. For an deep study into the history of each and a little bit of comparison I recommend seeing this link: http://onthelineministries.com/can-we-trust-the-bible/ It is Unit 1:4 and you will want to go through Unit 1:4d. Many people mistake me as saying the KJV is the ONLY bible with the word of God. But in fact this is a quote from me that you will read in the last page:

"So I am not trying to tell you that bibles using the LXX and Alexandrian-type texts are totally evil and I am not telling you to only read the KJV. BUT what I AM telling you is that where the KJV and the others are different you should always accept the KJV as the authority. Keep the baby, but throw out the bath water."

You will see why I say this if you go through the whole thing.

 

[GregoryTheNonTheologian]

BUT what I AM telling you is that where the KJV and the others are different you should always accept the KJV as the authority

Since you said "always" ...

What is your opinion of this translation?

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (John 5:24-28, KJV)

 

[jbearnolimits]

Since you said "always" ...

What is your opinion of this translation?

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (John 5:24-28, KJV)

Sorry, what exactly are you asking an opinion on? If you would like me to repeat what it says I can. But I doubt that was what you were asking for.

 

[GregoryTheNonTheologian]

Sorry, what exactly are you asking an opinion on? If you would like me to repeat what it says I can. But I doubt that was what you were asking for.

No, I'm sorry - it was a short comment.

The KJV says:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this ...

But the correct translation is:

For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself, and hath given Him authority to execute judgement also. That He is the Son of man, marvel not at this ...

As you see, it is only a matter of punctuation, but the first reading was used in the 3rd century as a proof text of a particular heresy of the time (taught by Paul of Samosata) that claimed that Jesus was born as a mere man and "infused" (we might say "possessed") with His divine nature sometime after His birth, rather than having been born with both a human and divine nature.

It is a very obscure error, but one that John Chrysostom called attention to in the early 5th century in one of his homilies on the Gospel of John. The only Bible translation I am aware of that has the correct rendering is the Orthodox New Testament (in 2 volumes); and, of course, the Greek commentaries that repeat the verses.

Again, a very small error perhaps, but you did say "always" (hence the smile).

 

[jbearnolimits]

No, I'm sorry - it was a short comment.

The KJV says:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this ...

But the correct translation is:

For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself, and hath given Him authority to execute judgement also. That He is the Son of man, marvel not at this ...

As you see, it is only a matter of punctuation, but the first reading was used in the 3rd century as a proof text of a particular heresy of the time (taught by Paul of Samosata) that claimed that Jesus was born as a mere man and "infused" (we might say "possessed") with His divine nature sometime after His birth, rather than having been born with both a human and divine nature.

It is a very obscure error, but one that John Chrysostom called attention to in the early 5th century in one of his homilies on the Gospel of John. The only Bible translation I am aware of that has the correct rendering is the Orthodox New Testament (in 2 volumes); and, of course, the Greek commentaries that repeat the verses.

Again, a very small error perhaps, but you did say "always" (hence the smile).

Punctuation does change things at times. However the originals did not have punctuation marks like this. So ALL translations require the insertion of them and the only way to discover where they should go is by understanding the text. So saying the "correct" translation is such and such based on punctuation is a matter of understanding and not strict translation.

Now, there are 2 things that I would like to point out. First is that in the KJV you have it showing that God gave Him the right to execute judgment BECAUSE He is the Son of man. The other version you quote leaves this out. So it doesn't tell you the full story. And it changes the meaning also of what we should not marvel at. It says not to marvel at Jesus being the Son of man. But in the KJV it is telling us not to marvel at the idea that Jesus has authority to judge.

The second thing I would like to point out is that a semicolon is VERY MUCH like a comma. The only difference being that a semicolon gives each part of the sentence equal importance.

Here is a quote from https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html

"When a semicolon is used to join two or more ideas (parts) in a sentence, those ideas are then given equal position or rank."

Thus we see the need for a semicolon in these places since it gives Jesus equal position and rank with the Father. A comma would be more like the flow of water from one location to another. It starts with the Father then moves to Jesus and then moves from that to Him having authority.

But a semicolon doesn't have a flow of power from one to the next. They are all equal. Meaning the authority of Jesus was ALWAYS His, because He is God. You would have to have an understanding of the trinity to know that this required a semicolon and not a comma.

 

[GregoryTheNonTheologian]

First is that in the KJV you have it showing that God gave Him the right to execute judgment BECAUSE He is the Son of man. The other version you quote leaves this out

Yes, that is the heretical reading I am talking about that is in the KJV. The "other version" translates ὅτι as "that" rather than "because" due to the context.

The unpunctuated Greek is:

καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ κρίσιν ποιεῖν ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο ...

The proper punctuation is:

καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ κρίσιν ποιεῖν. [period]
ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο ...

Which would read:
And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also. That [ὅτι] He is the Son of man, marvel not at this ...

The meaning is that God has given Christ the authority to execute judgment and that we should not marvel at this because he is [also] the Son of man.


On the other hand, Paul of Samosata's reading (whose heresy was condemned at the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325) was:

καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, [comma] ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. [period]
μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο ...

The meaning here is that God had to give Christ the authority of execute judgment precisely because He was Son of man and not Son of God.


As we know, the KJV translators used as their Greek text a compilation prepared by the Dutch Roman Catholic Erasamus in the 16th century - the so-called Textus Receptus (We know that Erasmus was not entirely faithful to the text used by the Eastern Church - even though the Textus Receptus is referred to as a "Byzantine" text - and we know also that he translated many passages that he was missing in Greek from the Roman Catholic Vulgate Latin text, but that seems not to be the issue here). I don't know why the KJV translators chose the options they did with 5:27-28. They consulted the commentaries of Theophylact of Ohrid, who had the proper rendering of these verses in his commentary on the Gospel of John, and I assume that they also kept the homilies of John Chrysostom at hand (who also renders these verses correctly), but for whatever reason they kept with the heretical reading that even the Critical Text editors seem to have adopted.

 

[jbearnolimits]

Yes, that is the heretical reading I am talking about that is in the KJV. The "other version" translates ὅτι as "that" rather than "because" due to the context.

I suppose it would be all in how you look at it. To me the KJV is telling us that because Jesus is the Son of man God desires judgment to be in His hands. Which would fall in line with the thinking in Hebrews which tells us that it behooved Him to be made like us to be able to have mercy on us. But this does not in any way say He is not God as well.

I am not sure how anyone could take this to mean Jesus was not the Son of God unless they didn't understand the trinity. Either way it is not a bad reflection on the KJV. Because this passage does not teach that. As I already said, the semicolon shows Him to be EQUAL, whereas the comma does not. Paul of Samosata had the right words but a wrong understanding of them.

Also to quote you:

"Which would read:
And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also. That [ὅτι] He is the Son of man, marvel not at this ...

The meaning is that God has given Christ the authority to execute judgment and that we should not marvel at this because he is [also] the Son of man."

Perhaps it is because Jesus is BOTH God and man as taught in the KJV?

 

[pshun2404]

I am at a place where I am trying to decide whether the traditional text or critical text is more reliable. I know there are legions of King James Only guys, some less reputable than others. However, I have begun to notice there are "Critical Text Only" guys as well. So, understanding the differences in a realistic and scholarly way, which text family is more reliable?

So to which of the many disagreeing versions from either of the two hodge-podge eclectic CTs are you referring? IMHO there was a reason why the universal opinion of the Bishops and Scholars, from all churches, from the 4th to the 5th centuries, settled for what we now call the Byzantine Majority Text....

 

[GregoryTheNonTheologian]

So to which of the many disagreeing versions from either of the two hodge-podge eclectic CTs are you referring? IMHO there was a reason why the universal opinion of the Bishops and Scholars, from all churches, from the 4th to the 5th centuries, settled for what we now call the Byzantine Majority Text....

I am Eastern Orthodox so you would think I would be rooting for a "Byzantine Majority Text", but I don't think such a coherent text ever existed. In fact, there was such disparity between the different Byzantine texts being used in the different locations in the Ottoman Empire (i.e. the former Byzantine territories) that the Patriarch of Constantinople called for a harmonization of the texts into a standard "Patriarchal Text" that was issued in 1904, compiled on Mount Athos from around 20 different Byzantine texts. Almost 80 years later, Hodges & Farstad published their independently compiled "Majority Text" which ended up coming closer to the Patriarchal Text than either the Textus Receptus or any Critical Text, though perhaps not by design.

 

[Cody Kerns]

But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. (23)

God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth. (24)

John 4:23-24.

Praise be to God!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I am at a place where I am trying to decide whether the traditional text or critical text is more reliable. I know there are legions of King James Only guys, some less reputable than others. However, I have begun to notice there are "Critical Text Only" guys as well. So, understanding the differences in a realistic and scholarly way, which text family is more reliable?

Neither, I think. Both seem to be to be 'of men', so both are subject to the same need to be tested before accepting, tested by Scripture Revealed by God, in Spirit and in Truth.

 

[Cody Kerns]

But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. (23)

God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth. (24)

John 4:23-24.

Praise be to God!

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. (39)

But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. (40)

I do not receive honor from men. (41)

But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. (42)

I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. (43)

How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? (44)

John 5: 39-45.

 

[The Liturgist]

You might also consider "Majority Text", but I am not aware of any popular English translation. Very close to the Majority Text is the 1904 Patriarchal Text of the Orthodox Church, which has been translated into English by a group of nuns in the U.S. The version is called the Orthodox New Testament it is in two volumes: An Evangelistarion, containing the full text of the Gospels; and a Praxapostolos, containing the remainder of the New Testament. It is a very literal translation, but I like it because it is loaded with patristic references (hence the two volumes) and it also points out how the King James version differs (in some cases pointing out heretical translations that the KJV translators probably did unwittingly).

The original sources of the Patriarchal Text are, alas, lost to the generations. It is a text based on manuscripts that have been copied and recopied in eastern monasteries over the past two millennia.

I think the most accurate and dogmatically correct text type is the Byzantine, and the three best textual editions now available are the Patriarchal text, the original text of the Latin Vulgate (as opposed to “new editions” Rome recently published which differ from St. Jerome), and the Syriac Peshitta. The latter two offer historical snapshots of the Byzantine text from the fourth century and allow us to verify that it has not changed over the centuries (for that matter, we could include a Bohairic Coptic New Testament, which is slightly newer, dating from around 900 AD, when the Copts switched from the Sahidic Dialect of Lower Egypt to the Bohairic Dialect of Upper Egypt in their liturgical services due to a migration southward, up the Nile, in response to the Islamic conquest of Egypt - this version could allow us to rule out any transient intermediate change).

 

[The Liturgist]

Since you said "always" ...

What is your opinion of this translation?

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (John 5:24-28, KJV)

Elegantly translated. Btw, that’s verses John 5:26-28

The Murdock translation of the Peshitta renders it like this:

For, as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also, to have life in himself: and hath moreover given him authority to execute judgment. But that he is the Son of man, wonder not at this; for the hour cometh when all that are in their graves will hear his voice;

And the Challoner Douai-Rheims returns this text:

For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son also to have life in himself: And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.

Notice the semantic equivalence between these three texts. The KJV translators by the way were not merely translating the Textus Receptus (which was a kind of hand-me-down copy of the Patriarchal Text), they cross checked against the Vulgate, in Latin, and even the Peshitta. How King James was able to have his bailiffs find someone who could read Syriac and bring him to Lambeth Palace to work on the Authorized Version I can only imagine; one would need to be a king to make that happen in Western Europe in 1600 (whereas now, the sovereign could ring up Oxford and ask to speak with Professor Sebastian Brock or one of his students).

Just for fun, here is how the NIV renders it (the old NIV that people liked, not the “woke” new edition with gender-neutral pronouns):

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice

Forgive me @GregoryTheNonTheologian - I am not quite getting your point here, because all four of these editions, including the NIV, which was (in)famously translated from the Minority Text, come out the same on verses 26-28. In fact, even the use of Jacobean or early modern ecclesiastical English in specimens 1-3 does not really impact legibility.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, the KJV is only really the KJV if it includes the deuterocanonical books. There is nothing that irritates me more than picking up a KJV and not finding Wisdom or Tobit.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I might try.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I am at a place where I am trying to decide whether the traditional text or critical text is more reliable. I know there are legions of King James Only guys, some less reputable than others. However, I have begun to notice there are "Critical Text Only" guys as well. So, understanding the differences in a realistic and scholarly way, which text family is more reliable?

Actually a Non-Issue, blown out of proportion by this, or that "theological opinion". Any Bible translation When Guided by the Holy Spirit will result in the same spiritual conclusion, and in the final analysis the best translation will always be the one you actually bother to READ.

 

[straykat]

I think both have a few odd disparities, and the middle ground might be best (usually reflected in many translations actually. Very few of the "critical text" based translations follow them to a T, but sometimes use Majority readings themselves). What's more important is translation philosophy and the sincerity/faith of the translators, imo. Some are better than others, but if they're not outright iconoclasts, you'll do fine with most.

On a sidenote, I used to be more KJV leaning (but not KJV Only), but have warmed up to others, and realized that God is working through them. I should have known this from the start actually. Although I eventually became a fan of the KJV, I first came to Christ by reading the Gospel of Matthew in the RSV. It's not the greatest translation, but the Spirit of God worked through it. That was over 20 years ago, and while I've moved on from particular translation, I'd be the world's biggest fool to say it was bad. I'd have to trash my own conversion to Christ if I did that (not happening). And of course, I'm not alone. So many have come to Christ through these translations. This couldn't have happened without God. No one comes to him unless he draws them to himself. So who has the right to think they can play gatekeeper to the Holy Spirit? I'll answer that for you: No one.