My position explained

How do you reconcile this interpretation of the verse with Jn. 8:6 ("But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground") and Jn. 8:8 ("And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground"), where the words Jesus wrote on that occasion have indeed "passed away" so completely that we have no idea what they were? Isn't it more likely that Mt. 24:35 refers only to the words of that particular discourse -- words which we still have today?

With all due respect, these statements are sheer speculation based on no hard evidence. The earliest actual Old Latin copies we have date to the 4th and 5th centuries, and our earliest Old Latin patristic sources are 3rd century, so it's impossible to determine from them the state of the Old Latin text in the 2nd century. And it's noteworthy that none of these extant Old Latin sources have a text identical to the TR.

All the evidence we have suggests that the Peshitta was not made until the late 4th or early 5th century. And like the Old Latin, the Peshitta also has a text which is not identical to that of the TR. In fact, of the thousands of extant Greek, versional, and patristic sources available to us today, none of them have a text which agrees exactly with the "Received Text" of the 16th century.

 

I see that a lot has happened since I was here only 24 hours ago!!

I again re-iterate that despite the sentimentality and question-begging arguments that either KJV-onlyists or TR/Majority text proponents hold to. They have not been able to answer my simplest of questions: Did God *say* that He would preserve His Word *perfectly*? Secondly, and most importantly, how do you 'know' that God preserved it in *only* the KJV/TR/Majority Text? Don't tell me that you have some unknown 'faith' in preservation that I don't have (or worse, some revelation from God-- we are not charimatics who believe such rubbish)!

Historically, hermeneutically, and gramatically, I think that this 'doctrine' has been successfully put away by other posters here who share the same belief that I do. In order to gain leverage upon those, like myself, who don't hold to any form of preservation "into" any given text or translation, KJV-onlyists and TR/Majority Text-"onlyists" have to reduce their argument to one that says that the KJV/TR/Majority-onlyist has a doctrine substantiated from the Bible itself and I don't, therefore I am against God. Secondly, many who are from this position argue that only true Bible believing churches hold to using the KJV/TR/Majority text; making an argument by associating guilt to those eeeeevil apostate textual critics because of some misplaced perceived idea that associates liberalism with modern textual criticism (Did I not say from another post that KJV-onlyists use the same style of arguments that political liberals make?).

Again, this is not a personal attack from myself upon those who hold to contrary positions, but just because you 'believe' by faith that God has done exactly like you say He did does not make your 'preservation' doctrine the right one. God is not an author of errors, and did not preserve any manuscript (or scrap thereof) perfectly like the originals would have read; if He did, which manuscript can you say for certain that He did? This is why the 'preservation' doctrine, as held to by some KJV/TR/Majority-onlyists, does not hold any water: no two manuscripts read exactly alike. How do you know, for any degree of certainty, that your KJV/TR/Majority text (let alone the MV's or critical eclectic Greek texts like the UBS or the Nestle-Aland) reads *exactly* like the originals. Do we go with unsubstatiated blind faith? We don't have the original manuscripts today, and therefore must rely on reconstructing the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to the best of our knowledge, whether by the modern eclectic (not W/H) or by the modern Majority text methods.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that I think downwardly about those who hold to the TR/Majority text positions. I disagree with them wholeheartedly! But don't tell me that I hold to some dispicably perverted text that was man-handled by eeevil and twisted maniacs who hate the Bible; no reasonable person would say such a stupid thing about the motivations of any scribe from just looking at the manuscript evidence. My arguments here are not about the methods pro/con with the disciplines involved in reconstituting the Greek text, but the underhanded attempts by those to foist upon the Historic Christian faith a doctrine that presupposes that God preserved His word into *only* one type of manuscripts or text-type-- or for that matter, any one version.

 

Yes, but this was the overwhelming view until 1881. However, it is easy to assign human error in copying and typesetting to the devil (and perhaps it is so in some cases). All are plagued with this problem even the radical KJVO who don't know which edition (except one that I found who said it was the 1769 Oxford) of the KJ Versions is the PURE word-for-word-from-the-hand/mouth-of-God King James Bible. They are all different and things that are different are not the same. Even one little blemish defiles the whole and makes the whole unclean "without spot or blemish".
The aforementioned KJVO feels that it is the 1769 Oxford. This is his right of soul liberty.

Personally, I have adopted ths view: that textual "blunders" or translational weaknesses (poor choice of words, words which have become archaic or not known) are due to human failing or the dynamics of language unless a doctrinal spin can be proven beyond the proverbial "shadow of a doubt" (NWT).

It is also true that out of the myriad differences (even among theselves) of the Alexandrian texts a mosaic quilt of heresy can indeed be sewn together.

I believe Archangel and others have shown that the Traditional Text was at least contemporary with the "best" of the Egyptian texts.
Yet the fact remains that the vast majority (hence "majority" text") is just that.
It is evident that the Orthodox Church has always promoted this text (in fact would have no other) until Wescott and Hort.

Personally, I feel that it is much better (imo) to be discussing/debating the underlying text rather than chase the KJVO rabbit from one hole to another.

HankD

 

Not really. The earliest extant representatives of the "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts date to the early 3rd century A.D.; however, there's no evidence of the so-called "Traditional Text" (by which I assume you mean the Greek text found in the majority of Byzantine MSS) before the mid 4th century A.D.

 

"No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D. 400 and in public documents written prior to that date. . . . The testimony therefore of the [76] Early Fathers is emphatically according to the issue of numbers in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a general proportion to 3 to 1." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, pp. 94, 101-102]


"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 116]

 

As pointed out above, Scrivner admits of the knowledge of an Itlaic Version (Old Latin) translated from the "Received Text" as early as A.D. 157.</font>[/QUOTE]On what basis? The earliest surviving Old Latin copy is Codex Bobiensis (or k) from the 4th century, while the earliest surviving evidence of any kind for the Old Latin text comes from scriptural quotations of 3rd century Latin fathers like Tertullian (c. 220 A.D.) and Cyprian (c. 258 A.D.); and none of these sources have a text like the "Received Text." So given that we have absolutely no evidence of the actual state of the Old Latin text in 157 A.D., on what basis does Scrivener make his claim?

No, it wasn't. The earliest extant copy of the Peshitta is Paris syr. MS. 296,1o, a portion of Luke's Gospel written c. 463 A.D. The two extant Old Syriac MSS, the Sinaitic (4th C.) and Curetonian (5th C.) have an older, pre-Peshitta text. There's no evidence of a Peshitta text in any Syriac father before the 5th century, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the existence of the Peshitta text in 150 A.D. Furthermore, there are significant differences between the Peshitta and the "Received Text" of the 16th century. Some examples:

Mark 1:2
"in the prophets" (TR)
"in Isaiah" (Peshitta)

John 1:18
"only begotten Son" (TR)
"only begotten God" (Peshitta)

You are mistaken. There's no hard evidence at all for the existence of what you call the "Received Text" before the 4th century. Prior to the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) there are no Greek or versional copies with such a text, and no father before that time used it. All that would be necessary to disprove this statement would be to offer one clear example of a pre-4th century Greek MS, versional MS, or church father who used such a text.

 

Burgon's use of uncritical editions of the Fathers in uncritical ways makes his impressive looking list of alleged "support" for early "Received Text" readings highly suspect. In evaluating any patristic quotation from the scriptures (especially from the Gospels), certain questions must be asked:

(1) Questions about the quotation itself: does the ancient Father quote the passage in its entirety or just partially? In the case of the Gospels, does he quote it unabiguously and clearly identify the writer? Or is it possible he is referring to a parallel passage from another Gospel? Does he quote it from an actual manuscript in front of him or does he quote it from memory? Is it an exact quotation or is it a loose quotation? Does it show any evidence of harmonization? (People today still refer to the story of the "rich young ruler," even though no Gospel mentions such a person!) How does the Father typically quote scriptures throughout his works? Precisely and rigorously, with no variation? Or freely and loosely, with the same passage being quoted in different ways? (Irenaeus cites Mk. 1:2 two different ways -- "in the prophets" [Against Heresies 3.10.5] and "in Isaiah the prophet" [Against Heresies 3.11.8]).

(2) Questions about the ancient Father's actual work itself: was it written in Greek or Latin? (Latin quotations from the scriptures may be less reliable because they are one language removed from the Greek original.) How many extant copies of the work where the scriptural quotation is found? How old are they? Do they all agree, or are there variants among the various copies of the works? (Later copyists may have added or removed something.) Is there any evidence that later scribes who copied the Father's work changed or altered it in any way? (Later copyists may have changed the original and "corrected" it to read more like the predominant text.) Has a critical edition of the Father's work been prepared where the best text of the original work has been established, and all variants listed in a critical apparatus?

Burgon's patristic citations routinely fail to take these issues into consideration. He regularly claims that a Father is citing a disputed verse when the Father is actually citing a non-disputed verse from a parallel passage elsewhere. For example, he cites Justin (Apology 1.15) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.5.2) in support of the variant εις μετανοιαν ("to repentance") at Mt. 9:13 and Mk. 2:17 (p. 104), yet neither of these Fathers explicitly names the Gospel he is quoting from, and the passage is found in Lk. 5:32, a non-disputed parallel. This careless use of patristic citations was pointed out to Burgon's disciple Edward Miller in a review article in the Guardian. Miller was forced to re-examine his teacher's citations, and to withdraw a number of them. His retraction is found in vol. 2 of The Traditional Text of the Gospels pp. 150-151.

 

I'm ducking!!!

Ok, Dr. Bob, what say you about all of this?? I'd say this has been the most civil and extensive conversation between both sides for quite some time, don't you say?

 

Also, I had forgotten to mention that Pastor Bob 63's first post on this thread was about the separation of his beliefs from KJV-onlyists. I think he is to be highly commended for his efforts to define his position against the abuses upon biblical doctrines of KJV-onlyism. I have yet to see any KJV-onlyist (his being the same definition as mine except on 'providential preservation) refute Pastor Bob's earlier post and prove that the KJV-only position is the 'right' one.
KJV-onlyism = cult.

 

Dear LRL71,

I don't where you are getting at least one of the quotes you attributed to me. I did not make it/them.

You probably have me mistaken for someone else, I am not KJVO. I have never supported the KJVO doctrine.

I am TRO Scrivener 1894/5.
I am not radical, I find room in my view to amend the text where believing scolarship indicates.

I am deciding now whether to bring forth the details of the evidence Archangel has challenged.

It has been about 30 years since I have entered this deeply into this controversy.
There is an atmosphere developing here I am not comfortable with and I am part of it. I may give one or two pieces of evidence and take leave for a while (to cool off).

My advice to all who are interested, study this matter for yourself. evaluate both sides, pray and then exercise your faith. I have found that no matter how convincing the evidence, there is always someone somewhere who has a contrary point of view along with evidence to support it.
This can be healthy up to a certain point but I have seen it over done to the damaging of the believer's faith through unkind words and the exchange of expressions of contempt and ridicule.
Personally I want to avoid that. Most everyone here probably wants that as well.
Usually I say my piece once and try to quit.
I got carried away.
My Christian apology to those whom I may have wounded. I am sorry.

HankD

 

Ok, should we just count noses and go with the 'majority' of manuscripts out there?
I would think that by understanding human nature alone that the conflated readings, over time, would creep into the text. Aland, in his book on NT textual criticism, demonstrates this common phenomenon. Notations in older manuscripts would become part of the newly created manuscript, let alone the common human errors of homoioteleuton and such....
So much for 'providential preservation', eh???

[ March 06, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Dear Archangel,

First I don't know the specific criteria that Burgon used for the early fathers.
I'll have to research that (though I probably won't).

OK, Here is my own study from about 30 years ago concerning some selected Itala mss.
Since my old Itala is nil, I used other sources for translation (I don't remember who) these are notes in my Aland UBS. Research was at Andover-Newton.
The supporting documents? Maybe found with the Holy Grail? They were separated from my UBS years ago.
Variants decidedly one or the other : First number Byz, second Alex.
Decidedly Byzantine readings even if out numbered mixed with Alexandrian in a western text indicate the two (Byz-Alex) were contemporary.

Vercellensis (a) 100/214 IV
Veronensis (b) 124/184 V
Palatinus (e) 45/139 V
Brixianus (f) 286/54 VI
Claromontanus (h) 46/26 V
Sangallensis (n) 6/6 V

There are many others these are the oldest which seem of utmost importance to many.

Very unscientific as presented but if I find my supporting documents, I'll post again (maybe).
I've suddenly realized what a monumental amount of work I will have to re-do to treat this subject with fairness and intellectual honesty. Besides the kitchen is getting hot, so I need a breather
If I find the Scrivener evidence or the Burgon criteria, that I will post.

BTW, the Alexandrinus Uncial has almost the entire Gospel of Matthew in Byzantine text.
But I'm sure you know that.


HankD

 

Actually Dr Bob, The ironic thing is that John Burgon was NOT KJVO.

HankD

 

Dr Bob - cheeky question I know, and I don't in any way wish to spoil the civilised nature of this fascinating thread, but if Ulfilas' translation was accurate, then how come most of the Goths wound up Arians

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

We agree about the necessity of a parent document but I think your logic is seriously flawed here. Think about this: The so called problem with the Alexandrian texts is that they are "corrupt," i.e., bad copies of a parent document. We do not have that parent document so we don't really know that; this is said because it differs from other documents, not becuase we have any originals to compare it to. So here, your "older manuscript" this was copied from could have been corrupt and without that older manuscript you cannot disprove that. Additionally, there is the clear evidence that in at least some of the majority text type documents, there is scribal error, meaning that corruption was introduced that was not present in the old manuscript.

In other words, your assertion is based on the end you want to come out at, not on the evidence at hand.

But why is this only logical?? Assuming for hte moment that the majority of extant manuscripts are all identical and all accurately represent their forerunner. What if there was just one error introduced in the first copy made after the autograph? Then it is corrupt.

The mistake I believe you are making is comparing numbers. The real issue is readings. A thousand copies of an error does not make it any less an error. The comparison is not between 5225 and 5500 (or whatever the exact number was). The comparison is between the readings.

The practice of destroying manuscripts is convenient for your side because you can decline to produce evidence. I, for my part, find that unconvincing. I don't like the logical jumps, fideistic jumps, that we are required to make for this position.

 

Brethren, here is one of the "evidences" I promised (I had to italicize because the original publication did so). Below is an extract from the public domain found at:

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype

My suggestion is that you read the entire URL content (make a pot of coffee first, decaf probably won't work).
It appears to be a "fair and balanced" account.
Anyway, you will no longer be baffled by what is being debated here if you can make it through the read.

HankD

[ March 06, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]