How many families of manuscripts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Askjo
There are 3 groups of manuscripts -- TR vs CT:

1. Long readings

2. Full readings

3. Short readings.

Which one of 3 groups did the KJV follow?




Would not full readings be long readings so how are you claiming that long readings are different from full readings?

Are you sure that the KJV always follows one of your claimed three types of readings? The KJV sometimes followed or has "short readings." In several verses, the KJV has shorter readings than those found in the Peshitta Syriac that is on the KJV-only view's good line of Bibles. At one psalm, the KJV has three fewer verses than the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible has. The KJV followed the short reading at Acts 4:25 since it does not have the phrase "through the Holy Spirit" that is found in some manuscripts in all four text types. The KJV folowed the short reading at John 14:2 since it does not have these words "And he said unto his disciples" that are found in Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and 1560 Geneva.
Are you sure that the KJV has no long readings from the Western family added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate to his Greek text?

Have the two lines or three families remained completely separate with no mixing at all and with no influence of one on the other?

While Edward F. Hills placed both the Old Latin and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome in the Western family, several KJV-only authors place the Old Latin Versions on the same line with the KJV and place the Latin Vulgate on their claimed corrupt line.

 

Does the Peshitta Syriac provide valid evidence for your argument?

KJV-only author Mickey Carter also placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112). Carter wrote: "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110). KJV-only author William Bradley wrote: "The Peshitta was the Bible of the early church translated from the original autographs into Syrian" (To All Generations, p. 5). Edward F. Hills placed the Peshitta Syriac on the line of manuscripts and translations leading up to the KJV (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20). Mickey Winter claimed that the KJV is "in harmony" with the Peshitta (KJV on Trial, p. 16). William Grady claimed: "The Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible" (Final Authority, p. 34). Thomas Strouse asserted that “the TR is represented by the 2nd century Syriac Peshitta” (The Lord God, p. 18). Douglas Stauffer also maintained that the Peshitta "closely agrees with the Traditional Text of the King James Bible" (One Book, p. 307).

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Hall pointed out that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)“ (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

Although he did not include them in his translation of the Peshitta into English, George Lamsa noted that "the Peshitta Old Testament contains what is known as the Books of the Apocrypha" (p. viii). S. R. Driver maintained that in the Peshitta "the translation of the Psalms is strongly influenced by the Septuagint" (Notes on the Hebrew Text, p. iii). Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61).

Peter Ruckman contended that the Peshitta "contained the O. T. as it stands in the A.V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 79). Bradley also claimed: "If you translate from the Peshitta into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52). Bradley also contended that the existing Peshitta manuscripts give “us a direct link from the King James Bible to the very handwritten documents of Paul, Peter, James, John and the rest” (p. 6). Evidently when they made the above claims, Ruckman and Bradley had not read the English translations of the Peshitta such as Murdock's New Testament or the Lamsa Bible. Bradley later examined a Murdock's N. T., but he still ignored the differences between it and the KJV (Purified Seven Times, p. 57).

The Peshitta has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. It does not have "God" at Mark 12:32 and the last half of Matthew 27:35. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek was omitted from some manuscripts at John 6:11 and this mistake can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible has Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found here in the KJV. At Luke 8:12, the Lamsa Bible and Murdock's New Testament have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation of the Syriac has "the only begotten God."

Murdock's and Lamsa have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2. Murdock's and Lamsa have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock’s and Lamsa have “elders.“ At John 1:28, Murdock’s and Lamsa have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.“ Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.“ At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s and Lamsa omits “Jeremy.“ Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. These two English translations of the Peshitta add “the river” at Matthew 3:6 and “in Hebrew” at John 20:16. At Mark 11:20, they omitted the phrases “in the name of the Lord.“ Do Bradley and KJV-only advocates accept these renderings in the Peshitta as accurate and as being a direct link to the handwritten documents of the apostles?

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible does not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108). In Edward Miller's Textual Commentary, the Peshitta, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions are listed as not having this clause along with many Greek manuscripts (p. 75). Edward F. Hills listed this clause "raise the dead" in his list of readings where Erasmus followed the Latin Vulgate, and he also noted that this clause "is omitted by the majority of Greek manuscripts" (KJV Defended, p. 200).

In the books of Samuel alone, S. R. Driver listed several additions, omissions, and paraphrases where the Syriac Peshitta differed from the Masoretic Text (Notes on the Hebrew Text, pp. lxxii-lxxvi). The Peshitta as translated in the Lamsa Bible has the following addition at 2 Samuel 18:4: "And the servants of David said to him, we will go forth quickly to fight against him." At 1 Samuel 2:13, the Lamsa Bible added: "and they made for themselves meat-forks with three prongs." Emanuel Tov indicated that the Syriac Peshitta was missing some verses found in the Masoretic text in 1 Chronicles and that it also had “several substantial additions” such as after 1 Chronicles 12:1 (Textual Criticism, p. 152). The Syraic as translated in the Lamsa Bible added the following to the end of 1 Chronicles 12:1: “If David had wished, they would have slain Saul the son of Kish, for they were mighty men of war, but David would not permit them to slay Saul.” At the beginning of 1 Chronicles 29:19, Lamsa added: “And I David answered and said thus: O LORD my God.”

The Syriac as translated in Lamsa at the end of Psalm 145:13 added: "The LORD is faithful in his words and righteous in all his works." The Lamsa Bible has an addition at the end of Psalm 119:48: "and I will be glorified in thy faith." At Genesis 2:2, the Lamsa Bible has "sixth day' while the KJV has "seventh day." Instead of "seventh day," Lamsa has "fourth day" at Judges 14:15.

At 1 Samuel 1:24, Lamsa has "three-year old bullock" instead of "three bullocks." The Lamsa Bible has "three thousand chariots" at 1 Samuel 13:5 instead of "30,000 chariots" as in the KJV. It has “came” at 2 Samuel 14:4 instead of “spake.“ At 2 Samuel 15:7, the Lamsa Bible has the reading "four years" instead of the KJV reading "forty years" and "twenty cubits" at 2 Chronicles 3:4 instead of "one hundred twenty." It has "twenty-two years old" (2 Chron. 22:2) instead of "forty and two years old" and "eighteen years" (2 Chron. 36:9) instead of "eight years." It has "Jehosphaphat king of Judah" (2 Chron. 21:2) and "Ahaz king of Judah" (2 Chron. 28:19). At 1 Kings 5:11, the Lamsa Bible read "twenty thousand measures of pure oil" instead of "twenty measures" as in the KJV. Lamsa has "Zedekiah" at Jeremiah 27:1 in agreement with the Syriac and some Hebrew manuscripts.

 

What are you saying, Askjo? Are you suggesting different people cannnot be led a bit differently by the Holy Spirit? Could the Holy Spirit not lead one person to select one translation that is best suited for them while another person is lead to select another version that is best for them? Or are you suggesting that only one single version is ever right, and that this particular version is the best version for everyone? That of course is the KJVO position, and it has been refuted and shown wrong very many times in these forums.

Since there is no verifiable truth regarding texts or text families, how do you know absolutely and without a doubt that one is correct while others are wrong? Remember, it was agreed that there is no proof that any particular text is correct since we no longer have the original autographs.

It is true that in matters of importance the Holy Spirit will only lead toward the truth for the Holy Spirit cannot possibly lead toward untruth. However, in matters much more trivial like the text familiy that is the basis for any Bible version, do you think the Holy Spirit can lead to only one text family? Is the acceptance of any other text family caused by the leading of a lying spirit? Please explain yourself a little better.

In the thread where you got my comment that we should lisen to the Holy Spirit, it was agreed by both KJVO supporters and non-KJVO supporters that there is no proof as to what manuscripts are correct. In order to do that, we would have to have the original autographs. And since we no longer have the original autographs, how do you determine which manuscripts are correct?

Do different manuscripts or manuscript families differ in important doctrines? Please show us where they do so, Askjo. Do one or more manuscripts teach heretical things like an alternate means of salvation? Do any manuscripts teach that Jesus' shed blood was of no use in sparing us from an eternity of separation from God? Do any manuscripts teach that Jesus was not born of a virgin? Or are all the differences minor in that there are no major doctrines changed?

 

Simple vs complicated

In life there is:
1. Right
2. Wrong
3. Mixture of right and wrong = compromise = wrong

I see 2 lines:
One is right.
One is wrong.

You have to decide how you determine what is right and wh at is wrong adn what your standard is.

It is simple with me – I compare everything to a King James Bible.


What do you folks compare everything to? With many of you, it has become very complicated, inconsistent, and confusing.



:wavey:

 

What greater standard or authority do you use to determine which of the many varying renderings in KJV editions is correct? How do you know whether or not the edition of the KJV that you compare everything to has any printing errors?

Do you actually look at the evidence concerning the line you say is "right?" The Peshitta is placed on your right line. The Gothic version is placed on your right line.

Peter Ruckman listed the Gothic Bible of Ulfilas in his Biblical line of Bibles (Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 171). Bruce Cummons listed Gothic Bible of Ulfilas in his manuscript line of the Received Text (Foundation and Authority of the Word of God, p. 42). George Crabb also placed the Gothic Bible on his good line of Bibles (Final Authority, pp. 12, 38). Floyd Jones maintained that “the Gothic version N. T. was translated from the Traditional Text” (Which Version, p. 108). In his lessons on manuscript evidence, Thomas Holland claimed that "the Gothic version reflects the Traditional Text and the English KJV" (Lesson 5). D. A. Waite noted that "the Gothic Version of the 4th century used the Received Text" (Defending the KJB, p. 46). Edward F. Hills placed the Gothic Version on his group of manuscripts and translations leading up to the KJV (Believing Bible Study, p. 68). Gail Riplinger suggested that “the Gothic Bible matches the King James Bible (KJV) and its underlying Greek Textus Receptus (TR) text” (In Awe, p. 624). Riplinger wrote: “The Gothic Bible contained the kernel of today’s English King James Bible” (p. 744). David Cloud indicated that the Received Text was “commonly passed down” in translations such as the Gothic (Faith, p. 144).

Ulfilas translated all of the New Testament from Greek into Gothic and part of the Old Testament from the Septuagint into Gothic (Bosworth, Gospels, p. iii). Thomas Armitage observed that tradition says that Ulfilas omitted the Books of Kings and Chronicles "lest they should increase the fierce passions of his people for war" (History of the Baptists, p. 210). F. H. A. Scrivener pointed out that the Old Testament of the Gothic version was translated from the Septuagint (Plain Introduction, II, p. 146). Peter Heather noted that this Gothic translation was made "from a standard Greek Bible of the fourth century" (Goths, pp. 91, 313). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia maintained that the fragments of the O. T. Gothic manuscripts that remain “are certainly not from the Hebrew” (V, p. 3048). Why do KJV-only advocates again place a translation whose O. T. was based on the Septuagint on their good line?

Bruce Metzger noted that the Gothic Bible at one time "must have been the vernacular Bible of a large portion of Europe" (Early Versions, p. 377). Kevin James pointed out that the woman in adultery incident (John 7:53-8:11) is omitted in the Gothic Version (Corruption of the Word, p. 116). Scrivener confirmed that John 7:53-8:11 was not found in the Gothic Version (Plain Introduction, II, p. 367). Metzger observed that the Gothic version at Luke 1:3 added after "me" the words "and to the Holy Spirit" (Text of the N. T., p. 202). Terence Brown suggested that "existing manuscripts of the Gothic version indicate some measure of corruption from Latin sources" (Fuller, True or False, p. 34).

The claims and reasoning of the KJV-only view are inconsistent and are applied inconsistently. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611.

 

Go for it - read whatever you want - never said you couldn't read all those hundreds of resoruces.

It's still a free country...for now.

AV - for Authorized Version
Bunyan - for one of my favorite writers John Bunyan - an uneducated tinker who didn't spend 10 minutes with all the "resources" many here spend all your time with, and...look at what he produced.

 

What did he produce compared to Jesus?

 

Why even ask such a question?
What are you trying to say?

I was trying to show what a man could produce by reading just a Bible over and over again prayfully.
Mecry - what a question. :BangHead:

Mr. Bunyan would be the first to admit his works were nothing in light of his Saviour's works.

:wavey:

 

Did your standard of comparison exist before 1611 or 1769 or even later? If you use a present-day edition of the KJV [not a 1611 reprint], it likely has changes introduced into its text after 1873 or 1885.

Do all those editors who introduced any of those changes use any certain KJV as the only standard of comparison or did at least some of them use the original language texts from which the KJV is said to be translated as their standard?

 

1. Of course not - I'm not talkiing aout then - I'm talking about now - You go ahead an live in the past. Back then I would have used the Bishops, Geneva, Tyndale, etc. God perfected his word one final time with the AV.

2. Doesn't keep me awake enought to yawn :sleep:- the one I have now is fine.

3. See #2

Acts 26:24 . .... much learning doth make thee mad.
1 Cor 1:21 ...the world by wisdom knew not God,

 

AV Bunyan:You have to decide how you determine what is right and wh at is wrong adn what your standard is.

VERY easy...Know the BASIC TRUTH.

It is simple with me – I compare everything to a King James Bible.

Then you're simply...GUESSING.


What do you folks compare everything to? With many of you, it has become very complicated, inconsistent, and confusing.

Again, it's TRUTH. The KJVO doctrine is NOT based upon any TRUTH, so it's out.

And without any "autographa", you have no REAL standard with which to make comparisons. Have you ever stopped to think that GOD LET THE ORIGINALS VANISH FOR A REASON?

 

AV Bunyan:1. Of course not - I'm not talkiing aout then - I'm talking about now - You go ahead an live in the past. Back then I would have used the Bishops, Geneva, Tyndale, etc. God perfected his word one final time with the AV.

Then, if it was already perfected, why should God perfect it AGAIN?

And howdya KNOW He was done when the AV was made? Seems you're GUESSING again....

"Wishin', and hopin', and thinkin', and prayin',
Planning and dreamin'..."(The late great Dusty Springfield)

 

Are you in effect saying that God was not as faithful to preserve His Word before 1611 as after 1611? Are you suggesting that the truth about the Scriptures now is not the same as the truth about the Scriptures then? Is your view in effect a form of situation ethics that claims that the situation regarding the Bible then is not the same as the situation regarding the Bible now? If you would have used the Bishops' Bible, you would have used a translation that differed more from the KJV at many verses than does the NKJV or the Modern KJV. The Scriptures that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles did not need to be perfected in 1611. You seem to be implying that God gave additional revelation or a second inspiration in 1611.

 

Though I know this goes back to the OP and is not necessarily what you folk want to talk about :smilewinkgrin: , most scholars agree on four text types, not just three: the Byzantine/Majority, Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean. Ironically, Edward Hills, mentioned several times on this thread, did major work in the Caesarean text type.

There you go. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. :1_grouphug:

 

Nah, let's get back to the OP! Just like many others this thread has been hijacked.

 

Never said that - God had his word preserved prior to 1611 - it was all over the place.

BTW - Why do you capitalize the W in word?

 

I'm not Logos1560 but I also capitalize the "W" in "the Word of God" for the same reason I capitalize the "B" in "the Bible" to set it apart from all other books sometimes referred to as "bibles" such as Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species sometimes referred to as the bible of evolution. The Word of God as opposed to the word of Darwin.

HankD