Does the Eclectic Text "Allow" Errors and Contradictions?

From Thayer (I had to take the Greek words out because it tried to read the brackets as HTML Code. I dont' have time to translate it. All the verses are left.):

From Friberg: (2) in a broader sense, the whole of Palestine as occupied by the Jewish nation Jewish country (AC 26.20), Jewish territory (MT 19.1)

From LOUw-Nida: (2) in a broader sense, the whole of Palestine as occupied by the Jewish nation Jewish country (AC 26.20), Jewish territory (MT 19.1)

Consider Acts 10:37 written by this same man where it says: "you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed." Luke says that "All Judea" included Galilee, which seems the very point you are doubting in Luke 4:44.

In other words, there is evidence that Luke used "Judea" to refer to the area that contained Galilee. This removes any contradiction.

Becuase Samaria was not land inhabited by the Jews. In fact, the Jews would go out of their way to avoid Samaria (cf John 4:4). "Judea" is the land of the Jews. Lands inhabited by other people such as Samaritans are considered "Judea."

 

Good points Chick. I hadn't looked at the rating. The 3rd edition also has a B rating. It is good to keep this in mind. I personally don't see this as an earth shattering variant either way.

 

Pastor Bob,

I believe that Kman brings up a valid point. Do you use the same microscope when looking at errors in the KJV (I John 5:8) as you do in examining a supposed mistake in the MV's? And what about the obvious error in the KJV in I Samuel 6:19 where the KJV gives the erroneous number of 50,000 instead of 70?

Are you going to answer these questions or ignore them?

 

Furthermore, the majority text advocate must succumb to the methods of textual criticism when count of byzantine mss are split down the middle.

 

Good conversations, gentlemen! I hope that Pastor Bob 63 didn't 'go away' again; this has been very enlightening.

A good point has also been made about the use of textual criticism amongst those who hold to the 'majority text', that is, that in the case of evaluating the extant manuscripts, why not just 'count noses' and throw out 1 John 5:7-8?? If I read Pastor Bob's earlier statements, this verse and many others in the NT would have to be thrown out!

I only see those who hold to the TR/MT position only want to justify their position(s) in order to 'prove' that their beloved TR, and consequently the KJV, has a superior text. Too often they pick and choose their arguments where obviously they don't have one, especially where the 'majority of manuscripts' don't support several readings in the NT. The end (proving the textual superiority of the TR & KJV) does not justify the means (using flawed and illogical textual methods).

[ April 24, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Hi Pastor Bob, I also desire a tone of brotherly love in discussions like these. I must say that if the thread is about the errors and contradictions in the eclectic text, then the thread will be brief and without merit. I do not know how you can prove that there are errors and contradictions in the eclectic text. The whole point of the UBS4 is to SHOW AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. As such, it is a tool for translators. As I alluded to before, the editors had no papal view of themselves. They admit when the committee of scholars was divided on a variant. Even when an issue receives an A rating (no committee disagreement), they publish the other options in the apparatus. And again, their perspective on the apparatus is inclusiveness, not exclusiveness...this is the key...don't miss it. They don't put one reading in the body of the text on the upper portion of the page and another reading in the apparatus because they love the one and hate the other...rather because they, to the best of their ability, believe the one to be the more likely the original than the other. In other words they include all of the possibilities on the page of the book. It is therefore impossible for there to be an 'error.' Is it possible for a reading in the apparatus to be the true reading? Absolutely! The editors would agree wholeheartedly. But does this mean they have introduced an error into the text of Scripture? Hardly? They expect the user to use their grey matter and research the question for themselves. Furthermore, they cannot have a contradiction, because again, they provide all the options.

The only scenerio where your thread would have merit would be if there was a situation where the editors had a passage with vastly different readings spread throughout the mss evidence, and they chose only one of the readings, and refused to put the rest in the apparatus or even acknowledge the others existed. Then you could say that they may have committed an error, because they may have picked right or picked wrong in which case the true reading would be nowhere on the page.

To the best of my knowledge, they haven't done this anywhere.

I have a full degree of confidence that we have every single Greek word and letter that was in the original showing up in the UBS4. I don't believe that can be said for any other Greek edition.

Best wishes,

Chick

 

Pastor Bob,

As much as I respect you, this time I must disagree with your logic. I simply ask if you use the same criterion for deciding what is a proper translation in all places of the greek text.

I understand your reluctance in answering my question. If I held to your position, I would not answer it either.

 

Hi Terry,

Pastor Bob might very well agree that 1 John 5:8 doesn't belong...it depends on whether he is a majority text advocate or a TR only advocate. I don't think he has said either way.

Thanks,

Chick

 

Chick Daniels,

Pastor Bob is one of the saner KJV only (or preferred, I don't know which) supporters on this board. Even with that being the case, it is typical for KJV onlyist to voice strong opinion until they are presented with one of the many questions that expose KJV onlyism to be false. Then they either disappear or find some other way to avoid the questions. I have respect for Pastor Bob and I appreciate his thoughtful responses. I do not direct this question at him only; it is directed to all KJVonlyist. I would love for one of the more radical KJVist to step up and answer these questions.

Let me remind you that I did not pose the question about I John 5:8, I simply repeated it.

 

Prehaps it is that most Bible believers on here are tired of fruitless arguments;why keep telling you and others your error when no one is listening? Questions that have been directed to "your side" go unanswered;are you any better?

Now why would you want to "bait" the Bible believer into another argument that is going no where? Again,if you insist on sitting in judgement towards the KJV,and if it is "that bad",then why don't YOU give us an inerrant Bible??

 

Hi Pastor Bob,

I know of no example where the UBS4 editors have made a decision on which reading to place into the text and which to place in the apparatus based simply on the harder reading. That evidence is part of a whole body of evidence used. Furthermore you still have not grasped what I discussed back on page 2 regarding the tone and spirit in which the editors did their work. They do not "deem as original" when they place one reading in the upper portion of the page, and the other reading in the apparatus. They are simply showing which one in their humble opinion is more likely, but leave it up to the reader to decide.

Best regards,

Chick

 

Of course it can be trusted, because they provide all the options and allow the user to decide. Again, there is no papal mentality about the placement of readings in the body of text versus the apparatus.

 

To illustrate my above point...let me quote from page vi of the introduction to the UBS4. The editors (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) of the fourth edition focused on improvements in the apparatus over the third edition. They were concerned that the readers might mistakenly think that the lack of changes in the body of the text meant that the text was now 'established.' So they say, "The text of the edition has remained unchanged. This should not be misunderstood to mean that the editors now consider the text as established. Work on the text of the Holy Scriptures continutes to be a task of concern for each of the editors who will offer the results of their research in future editions of the Greek New Testament....The Committee is always genuinely grateful to readers for their proposals and suggestions."

Chick

 

This is from my e-sword NAS-Concordance:

ekleipō; from G1537 and G3007; to leave out, leave off, by impl. to cease: - come to an end (1), fail (1), fails (1), obscured (1).

Also..from Robertsons Word Pictures he says:

I think this is another example of a word that has multiple meanings.

-kman

 

MV-neverist said,

"Prehaps(sic)it is that most Bible believers on here are tired of fruitless arguments;why keep telling you and others your error when no one is listening? Questions that have been directed to "your side" go unanswered;are you any better?"

I have said the very same things concerning the KJVonlyist. We, the MVist, accept the KJV as one of several reliable translations. We are willing to accept your bible; you are not willing to accept anything else. The problem is that being KJVonly is foreign to fundamental beliefs. It is a new, and un-scriptural, doctrine. We cannot accept it anymore that we could accept idol worship. Come to think of it the former is very close to the latter.

"Now why would you want to "bait" the Bible believer into another argument that is going no where? Again,if you insist on sitting in judgement(sic) towards the KJV,and if it is "that bad",then why don't YOU give us an inerrant Bible??"

Take your pick of several reliable versions, including the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and even the KJV.