Precisely because advocates of the majority text can dissociate themselves from the TR in these places, their argumentation is more sophisticated-and more plausible-than that of TR advocates. 2īut the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts. Thus, when our printed editions were made, the odds favored their early editors coming across manuscripts exhibiting this majority text. It is this: the textual tradition found in Greek manuscripts is for the most part so uniform that to select out of the mass of witnesses almost any manuscript at random is to select a manuscript likely to be very much like most other manuscripts. The reason for this resemblance, despite the uncritical way in which the TR was compiled, is easy to explain. That the Textus Receptus (TR) resembles the majority text is no accident, since in compiling the TR Erasmus simply used about a half dozen late manuscripts that were available to him. In reality, those scholars are advocating “the majority text”-the form of the Greek text found in the majority of extant manuscripts. In recent years a small but growing number of New Testament scholars have been promoting what appears to be a return to the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that stands behind the New Testament of the King James Version.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |