Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jbh28, Jul 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    How am I " arguing against myself"? Never did I say that the KJV translators had the original autographs. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)
    I agree, it puts the probability high. No evidence here is really "absolute proof" of the original reading.
    And why was that? It wasn't because they were rejected. S wasn't discovered till the 1800's. V was kept by the Catholics and wans't allowed to be used. (disagreed with the Vulgate which was the standard)
    again, you are confusing the TR with manuscripts used by Erasmus.


    You have to be kidding. How is this even relevant to what I said? Did I say that the V & S didn't disagree?


    What about my statement was false?


    I said
    What about that was false?
     
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems you have it covered well. The problem with the TR people is that they often confuse the TR with the Byzantine text which wasn't a complete copy. Also it had been "smoothed" for liturgical use during the Byzantine Empire. So since its language was modified to smooth its harshness or difficult reading we find that the text to begin with is corrupted.
     
  3. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, the TR is like the CT in the sense that it is a compilation of manuscripts. some people get it confused as you said the the Byzantine manuscripts. Also, some people get the TR and the MT confused, which of course are not the same. There are places in the TR that are not the majority reading.
     
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are "they"? Perhaps in your circles the Sinaiticus was not rejected, but it was and has been rejected by many prominent scholars. Here is a portion of a site that tells of some of the problems with the Sinaiticus.

    Perhaps in your circles these are not problems.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Expected "support" - look at the author (Burgon) who was NOT an "only" but believed in the primacy of the AV's Greek text (not any longer extant)

    And we ALL know that if a document contains "Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus" like the Sinaiaticus it must be all bad.

    Slightly mocking your words. ;)
     
  6. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, Dr. Bob supports the Sinaiticus. What a surprise, I am truly shocked.
     
  7. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Erasmus was whom I was referring to.



    They didn't use pencils back then. Maybe it would be better to say that a place was left for it. Maybe the Scribe new of it's existence, but didn't have access to it.

    And how many revisions has the TR gone through?

    So does the KJV(well the 1611 KJV did, not the 1769 that you have with you today)

    Well, seeing as two of them are true even the the kjv, I guess they are not a problem in your circles either. BTW, modern versions don't copy the Codex Sinaiticus, nor use it for their translation. It was just one ancient manuscript that is used in determining the original writing. You do notice that ALL major translations have Mark 16 in them. Yes, it is noted that a textual variant exists there, but at least they are honest and let you know that such a variant exists. (btw, even the av1611 did this very thing in places.)
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,193
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    And your source for this information is . . . ?
    That is pure speculation. There is not one shred of historic evidence to support a Lucian Recension.
    Again, unsupported speculation. In fact the evidence suggests exactly the opposite. :)
     
  9. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read winman's posts...
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,193
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    The Byzantine textform is the most attested to textform extant.
     
  11. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure what you are talking about in regards to the discussion.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    All I think Dr C was mentioning as that if you weigh all the 5500+ texts, there are more in the "family" of the Eastern Orthodox form than all the others. True dat.

    Of course, to have any other is absurd. For 1500 years (and some 2000) copies of copies of copies of copies - no two alike; all with differences - were used in the Greek-speaking churches of the Eastern Orthodox!! If they didn't have more copies surviving, it would be unbelievable.

    The Western European Church shifted from Greek to Latin and then to national languages. Apart from a few Greek copies in libraries (Vaticanus) or desert monasteries (sinaiaticus) there would be few in the Wetern family of documents. But lots of Latin!!

    Thank God, we don't judge by weight or copies of copies of copies of copies, each with errors. More "weight" (pun intended) is given to the manuscripts closest to the original, not ones written a thousand years later.
     
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the early papyri, which are generally considered the most wild and corrupt (although the earliest), should be given the most weight? In NT textual criticism weight still goes to the manuscripts that have the most correct readings corroborated by internal evidence, diversity, provenance, authorial style, versions, fathers, and yes, age, etc. Novices in the field generally demonstrate a tunnel vision that gives sole weight to paper manuscripts created far from the locations of the strongest and earliest churches. Considering distance from the original in space, character, and other features is just as important (if not more so) than simply considering distance from the original in time alone.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try Bruce Metzger. Also Norman Geisler. I could go on but these are my primary sources. Also Moise Silva.
     
  15. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a very interesting article that shows that believing a text is more accurate because it is older is a flawed assumption. The author of this article is not KJVO.


    From Maurice Robinson's

    New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority

    Rest of article here:

    http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,193
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    You seem to have missed the point. Metzger, et alii, admit they have no substantive evidence to support the theory of a Lucian Recension and that they are simply quoting Westcott and Hort who, when confronted for evidence to support their assertion admitted it was pure speculation engaged in to explain the rapid decline of the Alexandrian textform and rapid ascendancy of the Byzantine textform in the 4th century AD.

    Later manuscript discoveries found over 150 distinctive Byzantine readings which predated the so-called Lucian Recension that proved the theory to be untenable. Facts tend to be uncomfortable things, don't they? :)
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,193
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Jonathan, Dr. Bob has a very simplistic (and often naive) view of textual transmission.

    Westcott & Hort's theory that the Byzantine Textform is late and derivative does not agree with the best recently available evidence.

    No Byzantine reading should be dismissed simply because it is Byzantine. The latest evidence suggests there is a possibility that the Byzantine reading is early, and that it preserves the original text.

    To honestly evaluate readings without pre-judging the Byzantine textform to be the result of a late recension, and without a knee-jerk tendency to favor the agreement of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as virtually infallible, a better understanding of the history of textual transmission can be had. In many cases, this approach yields results which oppose the readings adopted in the modern Critical Text and support the originality of readings in the Majority/Byzantine Text.
     
  18. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I have no problem with someone that disagrees with me of the issue at this point. There are good arguments(and good people) for both sides of the issue. There are good arguments for the majority reading and there are good arguments for the older reading.
     
    #18 jbh28, Jul 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2010
  19. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. So as I have been saying for months, eventually you will be forced to decide by faith in God's promise. He promised to preserve his pure and perfect word, so one of the versions has to be it.

    Now you just need to make a choice.
     
  20. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's where you diverge from what God has said. Nowhere does it say "in one specific form" or any such thing. You are adding a man-made requirement.

    I have no problem with my faith in God's promise to preserve His word, and that faith does not have a problem with various translations. My faith lies in God Himself and not in what men have put to paper. His word endures in the original languages, translations in a myriad of other languages, and in quite a few English translations. He is not limited to one repository for His word in any language.

    Maybe if you stopped trying to put God in a box you would see that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...