Explaining the received text
Posted: 26 May 2014, 22:41The Received Text is not merely in Greek (by which it would mean a
collective of "sound" Greek editions known as the Textus Receptus,
all of which vary slightly), but the Received Text also exists in any
Protestant Bible translation which has selected readings out of
multiple sources, forming part of this collective "Textus Receptus".
The problem is that there is no definitive final text, unless we find
that one form of it is not only an independent variety (a critical
edition of the TR in English), but is also, by Divine Providence, the
final form of the Received Text, being the King James Bible.
Clearly, it would be wrong to say that any fragment or manuscript or
translation which is of the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus or in
any good old Protestant Translation is not Scripture. They are
validly called "Scripture" and "The Word of God". The point is that
there has been a (1.) gathering process, a (2.) purification and
culmination, and a (3.) finalisation giving a finite representative.
Thus, authority now, as opposed to historically, is by using the King
James Bible as the "measure". Whereas historically, a general
consensus was used to denote what was authentic.
This is based on the same principle that was used to form the Canon,
for example. Once there was no Canon, yet a common consent tended
toward one particular Canon, that is, the authority of the Canon
itself came about afterward. Thus, we use our Canon now as a measure
against any historical or new phenomena, even though our Canon did
not exist in an articulated form throughout history.
Therefore, in the same way we may accept what are actually God's
words now, and use the finalised gathered form of them as the
standard, which has been actually historically attested to anyway.
Even before the Textus Receptus Editions existed (say, from 1516 or
so), there is substantially the same witness in the general and wide
consensus of Greek manuscript evidence anyway. In other words, using
the "Textus Receptus" as a measure for all the Greek manuscripts of
the Traditional Text is entirely valid, since one essentially leads,
culminates or turns into the other.
Thus, in no way should the King James Bible be merely viewed as an
isolated phenomena, limited to English, and rising only between 1604-
1611, when in fact it is the last "revision" of the believing
scholarly gathering, judging and weighing of the great portion of
witnesses and sources, giving the end result, the perfect text (and
translation) of the Word of God.
While any Greek copy may not match up perfectly with the King James
Bible, such copies may still be called "Scripture", but the greater
authority is in the finalised gathered form. Please note that the
King James Bible does not contain something beyond either scattered
historical evidence, nor does it have something more or further, as
far as inerrancy and infallibility are concerned, than the original
autographs. It is sense-for-sense the same. This claim cannot be made
to this degree for any other good Bible Version. (As for perverted
versions as come out by the truckload now, they cannot rightly be
regarded as the Word of God, though they may to some percentage
contain Scripture.)
collective of "sound" Greek editions known as the Textus Receptus,
all of which vary slightly), but the Received Text also exists in any
Protestant Bible translation which has selected readings out of
multiple sources, forming part of this collective "Textus Receptus".
The problem is that there is no definitive final text, unless we find
that one form of it is not only an independent variety (a critical
edition of the TR in English), but is also, by Divine Providence, the
final form of the Received Text, being the King James Bible.
Clearly, it would be wrong to say that any fragment or manuscript or
translation which is of the Traditional Text, Textus Receptus or in
any good old Protestant Translation is not Scripture. They are
validly called "Scripture" and "The Word of God". The point is that
there has been a (1.) gathering process, a (2.) purification and
culmination, and a (3.) finalisation giving a finite representative.
Thus, authority now, as opposed to historically, is by using the King
James Bible as the "measure". Whereas historically, a general
consensus was used to denote what was authentic.
This is based on the same principle that was used to form the Canon,
for example. Once there was no Canon, yet a common consent tended
toward one particular Canon, that is, the authority of the Canon
itself came about afterward. Thus, we use our Canon now as a measure
against any historical or new phenomena, even though our Canon did
not exist in an articulated form throughout history.
Therefore, in the same way we may accept what are actually God's
words now, and use the finalised gathered form of them as the
standard, which has been actually historically attested to anyway.
Even before the Textus Receptus Editions existed (say, from 1516 or
so), there is substantially the same witness in the general and wide
consensus of Greek manuscript evidence anyway. In other words, using
the "Textus Receptus" as a measure for all the Greek manuscripts of
the Traditional Text is entirely valid, since one essentially leads,
culminates or turns into the other.
Thus, in no way should the King James Bible be merely viewed as an
isolated phenomena, limited to English, and rising only between 1604-
1611, when in fact it is the last "revision" of the believing
scholarly gathering, judging and weighing of the great portion of
witnesses and sources, giving the end result, the perfect text (and
translation) of the Word of God.
While any Greek copy may not match up perfectly with the King James
Bible, such copies may still be called "Scripture", but the greater
authority is in the finalised gathered form. Please note that the
King James Bible does not contain something beyond either scattered
historical evidence, nor does it have something more or further, as
far as inerrancy and infallibility are concerned, than the original
autographs. It is sense-for-sense the same. This claim cannot be made
to this degree for any other good Bible Version. (As for perverted
versions as come out by the truckload now, they cannot rightly be
regarded as the Word of God, though they may to some percentage
contain Scripture.)