John Dlugosz wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
I’m asking this question for my own knowledge as a new revert to the Catholic faith and so I can use the answer, from an apologetic perspective, people from my former faith, that being a Baptist (KJV1611 Only believers). My question is this:
- Why did Catholic scholars use the Alexandrian texts as opposed to the Textus Receptus texts when putting together and translating the cannon of Scripture?
I’m looking for the reasoning behind why the Alexandrian manuscripts were used from a Catholic perspective.
Thank you and kind regards,
John
|
| { Why did Catholic scholars use the Alexandrian texts as opposed to the Textus Receptus texts? } |
Eric replied:
|
John —
You asked:
- Why do Catholic scholars not use the Textus Receptus?
- 1. The Catholic Church predates both the Textus Receptus and modern manuscript traditions.
The Textus Receptus (TR) was created in the 16th century by Erasmus—over 1,100 years after the Church had already canonized Scripture.
Catholic tradition was based on earlier sources: Greek, Hebrew, and especially the Latin Vulgate.
- The Latin Vulgate, compiled by Jerome in the 4th century, is the foundation of the Catholic biblical tradition.
Jerome used early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, many of which no longer survive.
The Vulgate was used by saints, councils, and the liturgy of the Church for over a millennium.
- The Church’s goal is to preserve the original, Apostolic message of Scripture.
Modern Catholic scholarship uses critical editions based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts—which often come from the Alexandrian tradition.
According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, the Textus Receptus "no longer forms the basis for most modern versions of the New Testament, which instead are usually based on the Alexandrian text-type, which is believed to be an earlier text-type since almost all manuscripts prior to the fourth century AD (and many after) reflect its textual tradition.
A few sources of evidence for the text of the New Testament—in addition to Greek manuscripts of the books of the New Testament—are particularly significant. Quotations in writings by the Church fathers were copied separately from manuscripts of New Testament books and can thus provide additional evidence. Early translations of the New Testament into other languages can also provide evidence about the form of the Greek text from which they were translated, though this is less important for the New Testament than for the Old Testament. The most important translations for this purpose are translations into Latin, Coptic, and Syriac."
Klippenstein, Rachel, and J. David Stark, “New Testament,” ed. by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, and others, The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016) |
And again,
| "The prevalence of the Textus Receptus first began to wane when newer critical editions of the New Testament provided a means of evaluating variant readings of the text. Scholars began to question the Textus Receptus and began publishing editions of the Greek New Testament that broke from it: Karl Lachmann was the first (1831), followed by Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (eight editions from 1841–1872) and Samuel Tregelles (1857–1872). These critical editions paved the way for the influential Greek critical edition The New Testament in the Original Greek, produced by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1881." |
"Westcott and Hort generally assumed the Alexandrian text-type to be more original than the Byzantine. Although Westcott and Hort’s theories sometimes went beyond the evidence, their edition left a permanent impression on the landscape of New Testament studies, the effects of which reverberate in the influential United Bible Societies’ critical Greek New Testaments. The editors of this publication tend to favor the Alexandrian witness, though it has nuanced Westcott and Hort’s position. The Greek New Testament is now in its fifth edition (called the UBS5), and the Novum Testamentum Graece is in its 28th edition (called the NA28)—both edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Many modern English translations of the New Testament (NASB, ESV, NIV) tend to follow the conclusions of these textual critics, thus breaking from the influence of the Textus Receptus and the KJV."
Ritzema, Elliot, and S. Michael Kraeger, “Textus Receptus,” ed. by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, and others, The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016) |
This isn't about preferring one region (like Alexandria) over another—it's about using the earliest, least altered witnesses to the New Testament.
- The Church officially uses the Nova Vulgata today.
The Nova Vulgata (1979) is a revised Latin Bible based on the original languages and the best modern scholarship.
It reflects early Greek texts but stays faithful to the Church’s historical tradition.
- The TR has real historical value—but it is limited.
Erasmus had only a handful of late Greek manuscripts, some incomplete.
Some TR readings (e.g., 1 John 5:7’s “three are one”) are not found in any ancient Greek manuscripts and were absent from the Church’s Scriptures for over 1,000 years.
- The Catholic Church trusts the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in preserving Scripture.
The Church doesn't depend on a single manuscript, family, or edition.
Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium together guard the fullness of God’s Word.
Eric
|
|
|
