Question over an essay

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DesiderioDomini, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    web page

    As many of you will recognize this essay, I am curious. It appears that Dr. Cassidy is claiming that "oldest is best" for these KJV readings which are supported by the oldest known translations. Have I understood this statement correctly? If so, how can this be reconciled with the Byzantine superiority stance?
     
  2. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    The author of what you quoted is not consistent. For on the one hand he apparently sometimes denies the authenticity of the Byzantine Consensus and accepts other various readings that he claims are closest to the autographs and therefore best reflect their readings, while on the other hand he many times denies the authenticity of these "earlier" witnesses in favor of the Byzantine Consensus.

    The author you quoted is fully aware of the rule that earliest is better, that is, not the earliest MS containing a reading but the earliest reading on any MS. Since the main corruptions to the NT text occurred during the 2nd century, any MS from that time or after may contain them, and therefore, when talking about a particular unit of variation in the NT text, a reading of a 2nd century MS containing a 2nd century corruption is later than that of a 10th century MS containing the 1st century original reading. This is elementary.

    Once again, a reading of a 2nd century MS containing a 2nd century corruption is later than that of a 10th century MS containing the 1st century original reading.

    My question for the author you quoted above is why, what was the impetus for deciding the few places at which to reject the Byzantine Consensus? What drew him to those few places?
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed!

    That was all I needed to read to judge the worth of the "argument."
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Can you give me a specific example that bothers you? I don't hold to a position that demands each and every Byzantine reading is the only correct reading, nor do I hold to a position that demands that only a Byzantine reading can be a correct reading (as Burgon did regarding Matthew 10:8).
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    If no such reading ever existed what to you suggest the origin of such reading in the ancient vernaculars to have been particularly when there is a consistancy in several of those ancient vernaculars?
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must ask on top of that....since the comma (which I understand you support as genuine) is missing from nearly all early translations, what made you come to the conclusion to accept it, and reject all this evidence? Why is it missing from the greek, coptic, syrian, old latin, and others?
     
  7. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm just wondering what your standard is for rejecting the Byzantine Consensus on occasion. Is it a case by case scenario where you believe the internal and external evidence of readings is overwhelmingly contrary to the Byzantine Consensus, or is it simply Scrivener's 1894 edition of the TR?
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I am not sure that what I do is "rejecting the Byzantine Consensus." I believe textual criticism is more than mere nose counting. I believe number is very important and should be given much more weight than NA/USB allows, but I also believe the other criteria of age, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context must also be taken into consideration. For instance, as I mentioned in my earlier response, Burgon believed "raise the dead" should be removed from the TR as there is no Byzantine support for the reading. I have no problem with including it, but also have no problem with excluding it. The manuscript support for it is limited to 4 uncials B, C, D, and N with only N being Byzantine but containing many Western interpolations in the Gospels, "raise the dead" being one of them.

    As to the comma, I don't have a problem with it because it does not introduce a theological error into the text. It is massively under-represented in the Greek textucopia but it does seem to have both historicity and internal considerations of context on its side.

    (Just as a side note I believe it is somewhat disingenuous for anti-KJVOs to use the gender discordance argument against the KJVOs regarding their understanding of Psalm 12:7 while, at the same time, dismissing the gender discordance found in 1 John 5:7-8.)

    So, I guess my answer would be to take each variant on an individual basis and determine the probability of its being canonical on the basis of number, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context.

    I am not sure that answers your original objection for I am still somewhat in doubt as to what that objection was. [​IMG]
     
  9. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honest question: What do you think the possiblity is that someone say this problem and added the comma in to reconcile it? Is there any legitpossibility at all that there isnt a real contradiction, as I have heard Daniel Wallace contend before (I cant find that article for the life of me, perhaps you know it)?

    Can you inform us?
     
  10. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    If no such reading ever existed what to you suggest the origin of such reading in the ancient vernaculars to have been particularly when there is a consistancy in several of those ancient vernaculars?

    I give no credence whatsoever to "proof by evidence we don't have today but might have existed at some point so we'll just pretend it did."
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    You seem to have misunderstood. The vernaculars were translated from something very early in church history. Some textual critics say the Old Latin may date to as early as 150 AD. There are only a couple of theories as to their origin. The first is that they were translated from Hebrew and/or Greek exemplars (this is the theory held by most textual critics). The second theory is the "conspiracy" theory. This "theory" says that anything that disagrees with the KJV was made up, on the spot, out of whole cloth.

    By rejecting the position that the early vernaculars were translated from something that appears to no longer be extant can we assume you believe, as do the KJVOs, that those early vernaculars were made up out of whole cloth?
     
  12. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isnt it more plausible that those readings were mistakes made into the new language, rather than one that fell out of the original language?
     
  13. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    If no such reading ever existed what to you suggest the origin of such reading in the ancient vernaculars to have been particularly when there is a consistancy in several of those ancient vernaculars? </font>[/QUOTE]And your one to judge ones grammar! :(
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Don't you mean "you're?"
     
  15. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Does this mean your judgment is suspended or equally divided? In your opinion, what is the degree of probability that the reading "raise the dead" is authentic?

    Same question. In your opinion, what is the degree of probability that the Comma is original?

    Thanks. I understand your position more clearly now. Since I'm already fully aware of your arguments for the Comma, I would enjoy discussing a number of other passages with you.

    First, however, I'd like your own probability rating, if you will, regarding the following passages' authenticity. (Of course I'm assuming you're familiar with and have already studied the passages).

    Is the authenticity of each passage:

    1. Highly improbable
    2. Improbable
    3. Even
    4. Probable
    5. Highly probable

    Or you may use a percentage if you prefer.

    1. Luke 17:36
    2. Acts 8:37
    3. Acts 15:34
    4. Acts 28:29

    Thanks, and I look forward to your response.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy said:

    You seem to have misunderstood. The vernaculars were translated from something very early in church history.

    Um . . . yes, but we don't know exactly what that something was, do we? So how do we know that the vernaculars are an accurate translation of that something?

    Try as you might, you can't escape the fact that your argument hinges on pretend evidence.
     
  17. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the life of me I cant understand why the readings from these other translation HAD to come from something, but the readings from the Alexandrian manuscripts HAVE to be corruptions.

    Can someone show me how this isnt just guessing?
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,168
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Exactly my point. We cannot confirm nor dismiss a reading found in the early vernaculars, but historically textual critics have placed great store in those vernaculars as an indication of early support for readings that would otherwise only occur in much later manuscripts.
    It seems you may have misunderstood my argument. [​IMG]
     
  19. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God dosen't roll dice" Albert Einstein
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy said:

    We cannot confirm nor dismiss a reading found in the early vernaculars

    I cannot confirm or dismiss the possibility that you plagiarize your arguments from little drunken elves whispering in your ear. Since I don't know either way, but since pretend elves do explain your reliance on pretend evidence, how about I just pretend they exist?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...