The History of the English Bible - From Elegency to Accuracy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Or D) Chick failed to understand what I posted.

I think D) is the most likely.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh...how complex you must be that neither Chick nor any of us but yourself can understand you. C'mon Dr. Cassidy, you made a blanket statement,

"Virtually 100% of the most ancient Greek mss, the Lectionaries, reflect the Traditional Text readings, which may explain why they have been largely ignored by the CT advocates."

Chick and others have challenged it with evidence and all you can say is, "you can't comprehend what I meant?" Seemed pretty straight forward to me. And, all it takes is to prove that "virtually 1%" disagree with this Traditional Text you support to prove you in error.

At any rate, I read your classification of KJVOs in the Definitions thread. I now know where you stand and will not address you as part of a group that isn't yours.

Some other questions:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You quoted Scrivener (concerning Sinaiticus) earlier:
"The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character--brought in by at least ten different revisers..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this general line of reasoning is different from Erasmus' importation of 1 John 5:7 how? It was at least as obviously "brought in" without authority as anything you might allege against the CT. If you are going to use his reasoning and apply it to selected sources of the CT (to attack it), put the same reasoning to the TR (which has equally questionable readings in from its sources). No double standards here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You also said:
Yes, both Scholz and Griesbach/Lachman produced complete NT texts. In fact, W/H did not produce their text, but copied that of G/L with minor changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for some information that served as a good starting point for research. In my limited reading, however, I found that, although they were predecessors, the W&H text did not resemble Griesbach and Lachman as much as it did those of Alfred, Tregelles, and Tischendorf. Regardless, it was the prominence of their text and their relative fame as scholars of the day that vaulted their text to such eminence.

I know you acknowledge that the W&H text and modern CT are not the same. But, like Chick, it seems to me that you hold the modern CT guilty of the weaknesses of the W&H text (you didn't say so in so many words, but you did go so far as to point out specific weaknesses of the W&H text in part of an argument against the CT). I don't deny that they held Sinaiticus and B in too high a regard simply because of their age; however, the modern CT does not do this and Chick gave examples of certain corrections made in the apparatus that confirm this.

In light of this (and the tendency on both sides of the argument to equate W&H with the modern CT), please let me know what you think is right/wrong/same with the W&H text and modern CT. Nothing too long, just a brief, general answer if possible.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
Oh...how complex you must be that neither Chick nor any of us but yourself can understand you. C'mon Dr. Cassidy, you made a blanket statement,

"Virtually 100% of the most ancient Greek mss, the Lectionaries, reflect the Traditional Text readings, which may explain why they have been largely ignored by the CT advocates."

Chick and others have challenged it with evidence and all you can say is, "you can't comprehend what I meant?" Seemed pretty straight forward to me. And, all it takes is to prove that "virtually 1%" disagree with this Traditional Text you support to prove you in error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspect that precision of language must no longer be required in Medical School. After you graduate, remind me not to trust my health to your professional care!

If you will go back and read what I said, then read what Chick wrote, then check the critical apparatus of UBS/4 you will note that the majority of the lectionaries are ignored by the apparatus. Need I remind you that there are over 2,000 lectionaries presently extant and the approximately 150 which are cited represent only about 7.5% of the lectionary evidence. 93.5% are not referenced, and that seems to me to qualify as being "largely ignored."

 

Tom,

Actually, if you go back and look at UBS4, you will find about 70 lectionaries cited, not 150. But 70 is more than enough to represent the various types of lectionary evidence that contributes to the GNT. My point is that the UBS4 is a Greek Text of the Canonical NT books. With ample actual mss of NT books available, the lectionaries stand secondary in importance. If you go back and read the statement in UBS4 about lectionaries, it would be clear that they took great pains to collect the most significant pieces of evidence both "to include not only the normal Byzantine lectionary text, but also a sampling of those differing from it more or less frequently." How many 1991 green Plymouth Acclaims do you need at a car show to effectively demonstrate point that such a car exists? What is the sense in filling the UBS4 apparatus with hundreds of specifically listed lectionary mss when they can be accurately represented by the best examples? The UBS editors say that for the fourth edition, "The lectionaries have also been thoroughly reviewed..." Are you saying that the editors are lying here--that they didn't thoroughly review them?

Chick

BTW- how is your broken leg healing?

 

&lt;sigh&gt; The point, Chick, again, is that UBS (I was giving them the benefit of the doubt when I said 150, which represents UBS/2 which lists 149 lectionaries, so I suspect the UBS/4 editors took those into consideration even though they droped the number of lectionaries cited in the 4th edition by half) list only a tiny fraction of the lectionary evidence. It is obvious that the lectionaries provide a HUGE and ANCIENT testimony to both the ubiquity and antiquity of the Traditional Text type readings. Why list only 7.5 (or 3.75)% of the mss evidence if they are making a claim to an accurate critical apparatus? To say that the few which are listed are "representitive" of the rest is misleading. Each and every one of them is a ms and speaks for itself. I note that the critical apparatus lists Aleph, B, C, D, etc., seperately when they all represent the Alexandrian text type, so why not just list one of them, if your methodology is followed that would seem the consistant thing to do, would it not?

Once again, the evidence from the lectionaries is virtually ignored. It is seriously underweighed, as is the evidence from the miniscules, especially if they follow the Traditional Text type readings. Why list all the Alexandrian texts separately and lump all the Traditional Text evidence together as Byzantine? Because the Alexandrian mss number under 50 and the Byzantine number over 2500? Why ignore 93.5 (or 96.25)% of the lectionary evidence in the cites? Once again, my claim is that the evidence from the lectionaries as well as from the miniscules is badly underweighed by the CT editors. That, it seems to me, is evident from the critical apparatus itself.

 

Tom,

I can sigh too, but ultimately, truth is truth and it flows from evidence. The evidence is clear that the UBS4 editors were concerned about the lectionary evidence as I have demonstrated with the quotes above. When you say "that the lectionaries provide a HUGE and ANCIENT testimony to both the ubiquity and antiquity of the Traditional Text type readings" I assume that by 'ancient' you must mean 10th century and beyond, because most lectionaries are after this time. This is the same time that the Byzantine mss came to prominance. It is true that a few lectionaries go back maybe as far as the fifth century, but they certainly DO NOT give credibility to the notion that the Byzantines, as a text type, existed prior to the fourth century.

Furthermore, I suspect that the UBS text individually lists Aleph, B, (D is Western, you mistakingly called it Alexandrian) and other Alexandrian mss because they so frequently disagree with each other. What makes them a distinct text type is that they commonly agree on shorter readings whearas the Byzantines typically show the longer readings. You have charged the CT with largely ignoring the lectionaries even though they say they don't and in fact have them well represented in the apparatus. On the other side, a fact often ignored by the MT/Traditional text advocates is that the early, pre-5th century versions follow closely the Alexandrian text type. These ARE ancient witness that the first few centuries of the church used a text with the shorter readings--Alexandrian text types. What about the church fathers? Some fathers from the first three centuries had isolated Byzantine readings, but the first to use the Byzantine text type was the heretic Asterius, a fourth century writer.

So Tom, when you consider the ancient evidence, the traditional text lacks Greek mss, early versions, and patristic support. The standard argument that the early Byz mss. must have worn out is not just an argument from silence, but also difficult to imagine that not even one mss would have survived.

Chick

 

I am sorry, Chick, but it has become obvious you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Not only do you try to reassign D to the Western text type when it is now generally agreed, even among the proponents of the Critical Text, to have been the result of the over-active imagination of Hermann von Soden, and did not, in fact, ever exist. You also state "the traditional text lacks Greek mss, early versions, and patristic support" which just is not true. You then say "the early, pre-5th century versions follow closely the Alexandrian text type" which is exactly the opposite of the evidence from the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Old Coptic. You then try to say that Byzantine readings in the ancient evidence do not count because they don't contine an entire text type! Give me a break! M. M. Parvis, in his article "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism," ("The Journal of Religion," XXXII, 1952, Page 173) states. "We have reconstructed text-types and families and sub-families and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven. We have assumed that manuscripts reproduced themselves according to the Mendelian law. But when we have found that a particular manuscript would not fit into any of our nicely constructed schemes, we have thrown up our hands and said that it contained a 'mixed text'." It seems further discussion of this topic with you is a waste of time. Have a good day.

[ April 18, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Historical evidence for the use of the Traditional Text:

The Old Syriac Peshitta, dating to about 150 AD was based on the Traditional Text.

Papyrus #75, which dates to about 205 AD, one of the oldest Papyrus mss, follows the Traditional Text.

The Italic churches of Northern Italy used the Old Latin, dating to about 157 AD, which follows the Traditional Text.

The Gallic churches of Southern France used the Gallic Version which dates to 177 AD and follows the Traditional Text.

The Celtic churches in what is now Great Britain used a bible based on the Traditional Text.

The Waldensian churches from 120 AD onward used a bible based on the Traditional Text.

Only 15% of the Papyrus mss follow the Critical text readings, 85% follow the Traditional Text.

Only 3% of the Uncial mss follow the Critical text readings, 97% follow the Traditional Text.

Only 1 % of the Cursive mss (minuscules) follows the Critical Text, 99% follow the Traditional Text.

100% of the lectionary mss follow the Traditional Text.

Of the 86,000 quotes from the patristics (Church Fathers) which have been collated, the majority of quotations from patristics who died prior to 400 AD quoted the Traditional Text by a ratio of 3 to 2.

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

Simple. Your Encyclopedia is wrong. How could the Waldenses be named for Peter Waldo who was born in 1170 AD when their most famous writing "The Noble Lesson" was written in 1100, 70 years before Waldo was born. They were called "Waldenses," not after Waldo, but after the German word of "woods" or "forest" because they hid out in the high wooded valleys to avoid persecution. Their faith can be traced clear back to the late 1st century AD.