The Ordinary Christian and the Text of the Greek New Testament

Image: The Received Greek Text of the New Testament (British and Foreign Bible Society)

One of my problems with the modern critical text of the Greek New Testament is that it places access to the original Greek of the New Testament beyond the ability of ordinary Christians. This is due mainly to the modern critical text's dependence upon (hand written) manuscripts, which the average Christian has little-or-no access to. And, even if we did, the sheer number of manuscripts and fragments of the Greek New Testament (5,000+) is too vast for ordinary Christians to process. 

As a Christian with a working knowledge of New Testament Greek, I can easily access many of the (27) printed editions of the Renaissance/Reformation era Greek New Testaments, either in print or online, and I can make my own comparisons and determinations regarding variant textual readings. I do not need priest-scholars in Münster providing me with their esoteric occult (=hidden) knowledge of the Greek text (think especially CBGM here) because I can access the Greek text for myself. And this access to the text of the Greek New Testament by ordinary Christians was, I think, one of the reasons for reforming the church during the 16th century. 

What we need today is a renewed priesthood of ordinary believers who can determine—for themselves—what the text is according to the various printed editions of the 16th and 17th (and later) centuries. 

We don't need modern textual criticism in order to do this. We can do this ourselves. We simply need a working knowledge of New Testament Greek.

What we don't need are priest-scholars in Münster handing down to us their critical text, which they expect us to receive uncritically.    

++++

Learn New Testament Greek...

John H. Dobson, Learn New Testament Greek https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Testament-Greek-John-Dobson/dp/0801017262

Online editions...

1514 Complutensian Polyglot https://www.wdl.org/en/item/10636/

1516 Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-C-00002-00009

1519 Erasmus http://www.bibles-online.net/1519/ 

1521 Erasmus http://www.bibles-online.net/1521/

1550 Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd - Editio Regia https://biblehub.com/tr/matthew/1.htm

1598 Beza http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Beza

1624 Elzevir http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Elzevir

1894 Scrivener https://biblehub.com/tr94/matthew/1.htm

1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople https://www.goarch.org/chapel/greek-new-testament

Print editions... 

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: According to the Received Greek text (Elzevir 1624) together with the English Authorised Version (arranged in paragraphs) http://net.ondemandbooks.com/google/A2EwAQAAMAAJ  

The Greek and English Testament (Stephanus 1550) together with the English Authorised Version arranged in parallel columns (verse by verse) Edited for the Syndics of the University Press Cambridge, by James Scholefield http://net.ondemandbooks.com/google/WM9DAQAAMAAJ 

George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Stephanus 1550 and KJV) https://www.amazon.com/George-Ricker-Interlinear-Greek-English-Testament/dp/B00RWQAQWM

Scrivener TBS printed edition (primarily Beza 1598) https://www.amazon.com/Koine-Greek-Testament-Trinitarian-Bible/dp/1862280975


 

The Received Greek Text

Image: The Received Greek text & the Authorised Version

“Stephen’s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevir’s [1624] have been taken as the standard or Received text, the former chiefly in England, the later on the continent…”

F. H. A. Scrivener, “A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students” (p. 442)

“The text which has been considered the Received Text by theologians of different places and different years has not always been the same. One general distinction to be mentioned is that between England and the Continent, inasmuch as the text of Estienne of the Regia edition of 1550 has for the most part prevailed in England, whereas on the Continent the text of Elzevir, 1624, has held the chief place.”

Eberhard Nestle, The Journal of Theological Studies, (p. 564)

This being an historical fact, I think it's prudent that we defend these two (very similar) editions of the Received Greek text as THE Received Greek text. To do otherwise is, I think, to ignore the providence of God working through his church from 1514-1624. The text, by 1624, had settled, and these texts were defended as the Received Greek text from that time forward.

To suggest that we use Scrivener's edition, or use the various and sundry printed editions of the Renaissance/Reformation era Greek text since 1514 for a (possible) future edition with critical apparatus — neither of which has ever been received — is, I think, wrongheaded.

According to the providence of God working through his church, the Received text became what it became in time and on earth: "Stephen’s edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevir’s [1624]."