"Tell that to Origen! lol lol"

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    The subject of this post is what I read while reading a book on the movement we call King James Onlyism (KJO). The book was written by someone for their dissertation for a doctorate at a certain school (forgot the school it was for).

    While reading the book while at the library at Bob Jones University I saw where some "soldier" :rolleyes: on a mission started correcting (rather, attempting to) the dissertation by crossing out the author's statements, adding his own in the margin, etc.

    The dissertations aim is to give an honest showing of the KJVO movement and then critique it. I have forgotten the name of the dissertation, but it's something along the lines of _The King James Only Movement: From 1950 to Present_ or something along those lines.

    In numerous places things were written in the book . One such thing was the subject of this post, "Tell that to Origen" when the author asserted that no doctrine was affected by a textual variant.

    Now, to the nitty-gritty of this post, what evidence can you who provide to corroborate your assertion that the text of "Westcott and Hort," B & Aleph, etc. was "doctored" or corrupted?

    The only honest attempt I have ever seen such a theory was Dr. Pickering in his book on the Majority Text (MT). He noted that one of the early Christians in the church (Gaius) had complained that ruthless heretics had tampered the text. However, when one takes Gaius' complaints in context, he wasn't talking about the whole body or corpus of the text.

    So please, those of you who continuously assert that certain texts have been "corrupted" or ruined, please explain how and by who. :D
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think that the dissertation that you are referring to may be this one.

    It was entitled THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY IN AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALISM SINCE 1950 and was
    written by James A. Price.


    By the way, there is one book that claims that some variations in the text were made by "orthodox" scribes who altered the manuscripts to make them more orthodox and less susceptible to arguments made by heretics. This book is entitled: THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: THE EFFECT OF EARLY CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by B. D. Ehrman
    (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
     
  3. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

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

    He noted that one of the early Christians in the church (Gaius) had complained that ruthless heretics had tampered the text. However, when one takes Gaius' complaints in context, he wasn't talking about the whole body or corpus of the text.

    And if the early Church knew who the heretics were, and what alterations they made to the text (and they must have for such a charge to have a basis), then they wouldn't have propagated those texts. Probably they would destroy them.
     
  4. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos: Yes, I think one term for some of those is "expansion of piety" or something along those lines.

    Ransom: Good point [​IMG]

    [ March 15, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Spoudazo ]
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is there a change made by Origen in the KJV?

    Ralph Earle wrote that "Origen (third century) tells us that he could not find any Bethany near the Jordan River, although he admits that Bethania is the reading of 'nearly all the manuscripts.' So he deliberately changed Bethania to Bethabara, and the latter became the dominant reading in the late manuscripts" (WORD MEANINGS, p. 83).

    Concerning John 1:28, A. T. Roberson wrote: "not 'in Bethabara' as Origen suggested instead of 'in Bethany' of all the known Greek manuscripts under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem" (WORD PICTURES, Vol. V, p. 22).
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just as poor catholic humanist Erasmus was accused of deleting scripture when he would not put the spurious Johanine Comma (I Jn 5) in his text because there was no support for it, most every translation has faced the same accusation.

    Some omit verses because there is little or no Greek support. Duh. Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34.

    But what happens when phrases or entire verses are omitted that ARE in most Greek texts? Why would this happen?

    1. Repetition/importation of Phrases. A phrase legitimately in one verse is added in (and copies of copies of copies all include it, of course).

    Some of these are from surrounding verses (Mk 9:44,46,48). Others are imported from parallel accounts in other Gospels (Mt 17:21 borrowed from Mk 9:29).

    Obviously, these are not DELETIONS. The material is still there in the original passages. Nobody is trying to hide anything or demean the Word.

    2. Harmonization of Passages. Taking words from one passage to make it "agree" with another is a common practice of adding to the Word. Mt 1:25 in many Greek documents talks of Mary bringing forth her son. In the AV it is her "firstborn" son - borrowed from Luke 2:7

    3. Expansion of Piety. Hundreds of added "Jesus" or "Lord" or "Christ" are inserted in Greek texts, replacing generic pronouns or adding to the defense of the deity of Christ.

    In the 8th & 9th Century, when most of the Byzantine texts we have were copied, the person and work of our Lord was under attack. It is only logical that well-meaning scribes expanded the wording to show an even stronger position in support of deity.

    Conclusion: The error of ADDING to the Word of God is very easy to see. Modern Versions are attacking for deleting the blood, the deity, etc ad nauseum; what is overlooked is the bulk of differences in texts/translations are the result of adding to the Word, not taking from it.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Peter Ruckman acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (KING JAMES ONLYISM, p. 10).

    Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (REFORMED ROOTS OF THE ENGLISH N.T., p. 39).

    Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his ANNOTATIONS cited "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (ERASMUS' ANNOTATIONS, p. 67).

    Do KJV-only advocates agree with Erasmus's opinion of Origen?
     
  8. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! Not that is another original point that I've never heard. Well done brother! [​IMG]
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "the hero of Erasmus was Origen"
    "
    Ofcourse he was, Origenes is among other things the father of textual criticism (a skill Erasmus needed), a notorious criticaster of the church at times (just like erasmus) and the person who made the first babystep on the road towards a scientific study of the Bible, (something the humanist Erasmus appreciated).

    On top of that Erasmus also learned a lot about tolerance, free will and having a personal connection to Christ as an individual from Origenes.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his PARACLESIS TO THE N. T., Erasmus wrote: "If you refer to commentaries, choose out the best, such as Origen (who is far above all others)" (Hexter, TRADITIONS, II, p. 301).

    John Gleason noted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (JOHN COLET, pp. 262-263).

    The reference work GREAT THINKERS OF THE WESTERN WORLD noted: "In his admiration for Origen, Erasmus was influenced by the Greek Father's Neo-platonism, and his program of interior piety was further indepted to the Neo-platonism that he encountered among such humanists as Pico dela Mirandola and John Vitrier" (p. 130).

    Does the KJV-only view apply the same standards to Erasmus that it applies to other text editors?
     

Share This Page

Loading...