Translate

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

CT vs. MT vs. TT

When it comes to printed Greek texts of the New Testament, they fall into three groups:

  • Critical Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts using a complex and varied set of rules (eclecticism) to determine the “original” or “earliest” reading. By far the most commonly used is the NU - the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies text, which are the same text with different “apparatus.” The majority of modern translations of the Bible are based on the Critical Text.
  • Majority Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts to find which readings are in the majority in available manuscripts. The primary Majority Texts are those by Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont, and Wilbur Pickering. There are no major or common Bible translations based on the Majority Text.
  • Traditional Text - this term refers to a line of texts more commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus, descending originally from the work of Desiderius Erasmus, and including printed texts by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. The Traditional Text in most common use today is the Scrivener Text printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The traditional text is also called the Confessional Text. The text is “traditional” in being commonly and widely used since the 1500s by so-called “Protestant” churches, and in distinction of the Roman Church and its Latin text. Reformation-era translations were based on the Traditional Text, and it is the preferred underlying New Testament text for translations made by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

I do not intend to go into great detail. Hopefully the above statements are simple and fair representations of each type, category, or group of  texts. I do not doubt that my own preference affects how I try to define them. The above is primarily an introduction to the two points below.

The Majority Text and Traditional Text are closer textually. The Traditional Text has minority readings in a few places, but contains mostly majority readings, making it very close to any reconstructed text based on majority readings. The Critical Text has many more minority readings than either of these two, as well as many patchwork readings that are not found in any manuscript.

The Majority Text and Critical Text are closer philosophically. They are both achieved by ongoing reconstruction and then because of their method are never finally settled. New discoveries can change their form and content. Though there are some variant Traditional Texts (TRs), those who use the Traditional Text are settled and the only changes likely are in the form of minor editing (which could be correction of typographical errors or simple formatting).

2 comments:

M. M. R. said...

RLV, Is there any reason why you (personally) think it's necessary (or beneficial) to term the TR (whether the entire corpus or an individual edition) as the "Traditional Text?" CT vs. MT vs. TR certainly gets the point across clearly—and without the needless confusion regarding the "Traditional Text" of Burgon (who essentially coined the term of his own theoretical text as well as popularized the term within the NT text critical conversation). Technically speaking, the "Traditional Text" is *not* the TR (or KJV), and the position of Burgon is (demonstrably) *not* equal to TR (or KJV) defence. I mean...how many names/labels does one really need? viz. the Textus Receptus (TR), Received Text, TR defender, (TRO), Confessional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Confessional Bibliology, KJV defender, (KJVO), etc.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Matthew, I do not use the term apparently as you are used to seeing it from/by Burgon. I was just using it to mean the Greek text that churches and Christians generally and traditionally used up until the Critical Text began to displace it. I am unsure of how textual critics might use it, but I am writing for church folks, who I think (hope) understand what I mean. I am not personally overly concerned about the different terminology, but I would not normally use Ecclesiastical Text or Confessional Text unless in context of someone else using the terminology. I have found that there is some problem that someone will find regardless of which terminology is used.

Hope that helps.