One of the areas where a lot of unnecessary harshness and flame throwing exists is the Bible base text issues. People who are rightfully against Modern Textual Criticism and the Higher Criticism associated with its origins seem to like to take out their rightful being upset to a wrathful extreme. This is one of the reasons some Churches go to the extent of using only The King James. It is a mistake to allow one become divisive with fellow Christians over the issues associated with not using a Confessional Bibliology Bible. The average person with a Bible in the pew or chair next to you has no idea of the problems, many many problems with many many modern Bibles translation methodology. This is not something to separate from other Christians over. Let alone to build an entire denominational requirement.
For anyone that is unaware I am a Confessional Bibliology proponent and advocate. This is sometimes called a Textus-Receptus or Received Text proponent or confusingly a TR Onlyist. It is also called being a Traditional Text proponent. This differs me from others in the Church I am a part of which uses the English Standard Version as its pew Bible. A non-Traditional Text Bible. The Confessional Bibliology name is probably the most accurate as that is the term coined specifically for use within the Reformed Churches. The ESV is probably the best of the Non-Traditional Bibles and I think that our Church made the right choice in choosing it over other looser Bibles that are available.
Now that I have made it plain to listeners from both sides of this discussion where I stand I will graciously and in loving kindness explain what my position is. As well as why I hold it. Let me start by explaining what the Traditional Text or Confessional Text is. This is the text that has been used and seen translated into others common tongue throughout the History of The Christian Church and especially behind all the great Translations of the Protestant Reformation. It uses as its base text the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koenig Greek studied and translated as the text of The Bible prior to the entrance of Skepticism into the field of textual criticism. In other words it is having Faith that God Preserved His Word and all of His Word to be Pure in All Ages in the Texts the Church and True Believers had access to all that time.
Most people are unaware that Modern Textual Criticism got its start by higher critics such as Wescott and Horte whom accused The Entire historical Faith of using Corrupt manuscripts. Nor that the text base behind MTC is largely influenced by people that think an entire books worth of material should be removed and did not happen. Like, the woman caught in adultery, whole sections of the conversion of the Eunuch in Acts and everything passed Mark 16:9. That the loudest proponents of the Modern school agree with Horte and Wescott that whole sections were corruptions by people trying to make The Bible match Orthodox Christianity.
Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name retroactively given to the succession of printed Greek language texts of the New Testament which constituted the textual base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale (1526), Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1557 - 60), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611), and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe such as the Spanish Reina-Valera translation and the Czech Bible of Kralice. The Textus Receptus has been translated into hundreds of languages. (See Also The Word of God for All Nations) The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden:
Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."
The two words, "textum" and "receptum", were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus’ editions, as his work served as the basis of others that followed. Many supporters of the Textus Receptus will name any manuscript which agrees with the Textus Receptus Greek as a "Textus Receptus" type manuscript. This type of association can also apply to early church quotations and language versions.
A Rich and Full History
Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.
All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Papyrus 66 used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Celtic Church used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Waldensians used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Curetonian Syriac is basically a Textus Receptus type manuscript
Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used Textus Receptus type manuscripts
The vast majority of extant New Testament Greek manuscripts are Textus Receptus type manuscripts (99% of them)
The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.
Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.
85% of papyri used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort type
97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 9 manuscripts used the Westcott-Hort type
99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used the Westcott-Hort type
100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.
The Majority of manuscripts support all of the areas some would like to remove. Or areas where doubt is placed in the newer Bibles. This means the Majority of manuscripts available are better represented by the Textus-Receptus or Received text line after all. Not by the Modern Critical Text used by most newer and modern Bibles. We as a Collective Catholic (Universal) Church Body should seriously consider using the Bibles in our Common Tongue from the TR as its source instead of Modern Critical Bibles as our Standard Options. There is even a Gideon's Edition of the ESV that uses the TR renderings where possible.
This does not mean we should require that any Church or your Church to follow the views I espoused in this article, but, it does give food for thought to people on all sides of the discussion.
