Greek Texts

No! I highly doubt Erasmus used all the 'known manuscripts', by any means, or even all he may have known about. (Yes! The TR is a "critical text.') However, being as Erasmus and his contemporaries had not gotten around to inventing the airplane, the internet, or fax machines, he would have used what he had good access to, hence the limited number of mss. used in the compilation of his text. I know about Aleph, A , B, p66, et.al.. That is not the same as having them on paper, in front of me. But it would take a ten lifetimes for one individual to actually run down all the extant manuscripts, compare them and put out a copy of the best available text. And that is only the NT. Add on the OT; consider that it is approximately 3 times as long as the NT, and you have easily doubled that into twenty lifetimes. Remember, you are going to compare each and every word from hand-written texts, in each and every case.

No! The received text was a claim made by a publisher. I am not sure if it was an exact replication of any of Erasmus' "compiled text" or not , perhaps being a later edition. But it was certainly based predominately on Erasmus' work, even if not an exact copy.

No! Any TR is not a MSS copy, per se, so you have given a false question, unwittingly, I would say. A large majority of the TR is identical to the so-called "Critical Text" of today, but it was also a "Critical Text" in its own right, in that day. And no "Critical Text" can realisitically find or cite every single variant, and certainly usually does not cite the obvious copying mistakes, and/or a single variant reading that has no other support, anywhere, I do not think.

Yes! I would think that any 'compiled text' of today is far superior for translation the the TR, be it of the so-called 'majority' variety, or the UBS 'critical' version.

Well ya' got three "No!"s and two "Yes!"es, in my attempts to give an answer to each of your questions. Just remember that I am not a "scholar" and make no claim to being such. I am just a farmer.

Ed

 

When that which has been preserved is attacked by that which was always corrupt, you will inadvertantly end up with a corrupt version.

The problems encountered with the acceptance of the recently found MSS is the possibility of denying that the Lord was ever able to preserve His word until men found more current MSS.

The reason we stick with the Critical Texts is they were handed down through the Baptist Church all the way down from the record of when baptism was initiated as an ordinance of the Church at the Baptism of Jesus. To deny this is either ignorance to the facts or to be a Protestant.

The Received Text is just that, that which was received and handed down from the N.T. churches to prevent corruption. I believe we could say, "God is in it!" when applied to this reasoning.

That cannot be said today on the behalf of most of the MSS allowed in Bible translations since the 1800's. We would have to say, "Westcott and Hort were in it."

Your Brother in Christ,
"Stinky-mouth"

 

Yes; any compiled, collated, or reconstituted text could be called a "critical" text.

No; Erasmus only gathered some manuscripts readily available to him. It seems he favored a few, and ignored others completely.

Yes; virtually all the TR text could be found in the NA27 (with a few exceptions). The documents used to compile the TRs would also likely be considered in other efforts to build Greek critical texts.

No; all known manuscripts are NOT taken into consideration individually. Many have not been studied thoroughly. It is not completely necessary that all individual documents be included since many are so very similar that a few better ones (having less obvious errors) can essentially represent the whole bunch (families of MSS). Editors make their own decisions: the 'majority text' editors include many texts (slightly over a hundred, but still not thousands) of all types; other editors may only consider certain MS types and exclude others.

Yes; but not strictly because we have more quantity. We have additional new 'sacred' and 'secular' witnesses (MS evidence, archeological finds) that corroborates or invalidates previous assumptions; we also have expanded scholarship and advanced technology that can be applied. These refinements should yield a better quality product (but not guaranteed).

 

franklinmonroe is saying about the same thing I said, but in far better words than I could say them.

So the yesses and nos may not be the exact same as mine, depending on how he read the question.

That's one big difference between his being a scholar and me being a farmer.

Ed

 

I appreciate a compliment, but I must confess that I am no scholar (I have no specific credentials anyway). My post independantly confirms Ed's reponses.

My grandfather was a farmer, and was the man I ever loved the most. God bless all the farmers, and God bless EdSutton.

 

Truth about the text

Originally Posted by franklinmonroe

No, this is not true. There is a reason the term "critical" text is used.
The texus Receptus was called the recived text not the critical text. The critical text is a corrupt text. The recieved text is that because it was recieved as God's word.

The critical text is just that ,Critical.

"During the 19th and 20th centuries, however, another form of Greek New Testament has come into the forefront and is used for most modern New Testament translations. This Critical Text, as it is called, differs widely from the Traditional Text in that it omits many words, verses and passages which are found in the Received Text and translations based upon it. "

For more info on the tex issue go to
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.asp

Again, be careful of switching definitions. Erasmus did not compile one "critical "text. Had acess to all the manuscripts, including the corrupt, codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are Catholic manuscripts which all moderen pervisions come from and the corrupt (N/A 27t edition).

No, if you compare the greek of N/A 27t edition it is different in many places. It is baised upon the two corrupt manuscripts of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that has omitted God's word in many places.

Kurt Aland rejected verbal inspiration and a settled, authoritative cannon of Scripture.:laugh:
" This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text), which the orthodoxy of both protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the textus receptus with all of its errors... ( Aland The Problems of New Testament Canon, 1962, pp.6, 7) "the present state of afairs, of Christianity splintered into different churches and thelogical schools, is the wond in the body...and so on. Ibed PP 30-33

 

Franklin and Ed have stated it quite succinctly, but I would like to add a little more. Erasmus made use of the manuscripts that had been provided to him, and not nearly all the known ones, nor even the ones he knew of. None of them were very old, and one of them was only 20 years old at the time. He added some things that he didn't think belonged in there through the use of a little coercion.

 

First off, a belated welcome to the BB from central KY to the land "down under". You might wanna' check any "chip(s) on your shoulder(s)" at the door, for I can pretty well guarantee that you will manage to find someone, or more, on the BB who is "ready, willing, and able" to take a swing or two at 'em. Just a bit of friendly advice, early on.

So here we go. While there is nothing wrong, per se, with the appelation of "Critical Text" (as a proper name, as well as a descriptive term) to the UBS, N/A 27t of Aland/Black/Metzger, et. al., it is simply in error to say that "any compiled, collated, or reconstituted text" is not, in fact, a "critical text, and I have previously pointed out, that any of the so-designated TRs is a "critical text", as well.

The most applicable definitions of "critical" that applies, here, is as follows -

As the text compiled by Erasmus was taken from more that one (actually several) source(s), it involved 'compilation'. Hence it is indeed a "critical text". And, it is not correctly known as the Textus Receptus, BTW, for that appelation is first given to an edition of the Greek NT by Elzevir and published in 1633, nearly one hundred years after the death of Erasmus. Hence the common tag of TR to the works of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, among others is a misnomer, no matter whether they are basically in the Byzantine text tradition, or another. Oh yeah, remember you are the one who wrote

That is exactly what I have attempted to do, thus far. Now to correct something from the link you posted and apparently 'copied' from it. First and foremost, no one individual has "access to all the manuscripts" even in this day, And unfortunately, Erasmus' contemporaries, and/or Al Gore had not yet got around to 'inventing the internet' to make access of even more manuscripts available to him.

He worked with what he had, and that in a hurry, as well for his first edition, which was really almost akin to a "rough draft" you or I might make of something. He later corrected several mistakes he had made in the first, and in line with better evidence, from later findings.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that Erasmus ever had any access to Codex Aleph, aka Sinaiticus. First and foremost, the codex was completely unknown to the west, as far as is known, until von Tischendorf "rescued" it where it had been (and probably rightly so, IMO) consigned to the trash bin, for kindling for the fires, and this about 1850, now over 300 years after Erasmus' death. Kinda' hard for Erasmus to have bridged that gap, don't you think, your link notwithstanding? ["Can you say 'agenda?' "A- gen'- da!" (My apologies to the memory of the late Mr. Fred Rogers!)]

And it is also unlikely that he had personal access to Codex B, aka Vaticanus, although he was no doubt fully aware of it, and it's implications. A mutual friend had sent him some of it which he had copied, including some 365 or so variants (all of which he rejected, BTW), according to one account. And as he (Erasmus) was under pressure to denounce Luther as a heretic, as well as renounce his own view of justification by faith (neither of which he ever did, BTW), and was himself condemned as "an impious heretic", one could safely say Erasmus and the Pope were not exactly the top two figures in any "Mutual Admiration Society".

The best that one can deduce from your short quote about Kurt Aland, is that he rejected that the TR was accurate to a "T". This does not say that Aland rejected "verbal inspiration" of the autographs, and in fact, I do not know whether he did or not. He merely rejects, in the quote, that the TR is entirely true to the original text, and here, I agree, FWIW.

I am strongly "majority text" preferred. But what does that have to do with my post, here? Absolutely nothing. I am also very interested in being historically and grammatically accurate. What does that have to do with my post here? Absolutely everything. Language Cop will not let one get away with bad definitions, and the 'church historian' part of me will not allow one to rewrite history, even when I generally agree with the basic premise. And that is why I answered your post. Get it right! History does not need embellishing to get a desired effect. And certainly not here.

Ed

 

Welcome, Ehud. My first comment is that many readers might appreciate more attention given to your spelling and capitalization (unless by "texus" you meant a state south of Oklahoma).

 

Erasmus Reply

What Chip?:laugh:

Then you said

I am not sure what you mean by this. I guess this would be access.

"...The authoritiesn of the Vatican Library put continual obstacles in the way of all who wished to study it in detail. A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it, as proof of it's {supposed} superiority to the received Greek text. [ Editor: Erasmus subsequently rejected these readings]... " (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, New York: Harper & Brothers, 4ed., 1939, pp.138-139).

Erasmus did not need access. He new the readings were Bad readings. He would not have even bothered.

Is this a chip on your shoulders? I did "copy" from it, that is why it is in quotes.
Is there something wrong with the scholarship of the Trinitarian Bible Society?
I do not believe they are of the wacko Fundamentalist stripe.:wavey:

"With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition [corresponding to the Received Text], and the other with the Vatican manuscript [corresponding to the critical Greek text underlying the modern versions]. AND HE HAS SPECIFIED THE POSITIVE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE RECEIVED THE ONE AND REJECTED THE OTHER. The former was in possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence, he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern Church had not corrupted their received text, as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians, from whom the Western Church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves, that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. IN THE AGE IN WHICH THE VULGATE WAS FORMED, THE CHURCH, HE WAS AWARE, WAS INFESTED WITH ORIGENISTS AND ARIANS; AN AFFINITY BETWEEN ANY MANUSCRIPT AND THAT VERSION, CONSEQUENTLY CONVEYED SOME SUSPICION THAT ITS TEXT WAS CORRUPTED. So little dependence was he inclined to place upon the authority of Origen, who is the pillar and ground of the Corrected edition [the Greek text produced by modern textual criticism]. "Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament" (London, 1815)

Just a little History. Don't beat me up to bad:laugh:


Just some thoughts! Cheers

 

Not at all. In fact, the "found manuscripts" means that God has preserved his word all along. It simply wasn't extant. This argument of yours is self-destructing.

I surprised to hear you say this. Not even the texts underlying the critical texts go back to the Baptism of Jesus. To say that they do is ignorance to the facts. The earliest manuscripts are 2nd century, some 100 years past the baptism of Jesus.

Actualy, you can't say "God is in it" with this reasoning because it is contrary to what God told us. There are two options in this debate: You can believe God or you can be KJVO. You cannot do both. There is no evidence that the historical church always used the received text. We simply do not know exactly which texts they used, nor why they used them. It is likely that they used their texts by default ... that is, they had nothing else to use.

The truth is that there is no way they could have because the received text did not exist until Erasmus, and during Erasmus' lifetime it was changed four times, and multiple times after that.

I long for the day when people will put aside these man made beliefs that have led to attacks on God's word from people like Salamander and Ehud, and will return to the simplicity of God's revealed truth. Unfortunately, there are some who consider themselves too smart for the Word of God. They must add to it to satisfy their own minds itching for certain kinds of teaching.

 

And you have the fact of history on your side. Only someone who is ignorant of history would deny this fact or who has another agenda.

I too have heard the clarion call. Thanks for the reminder:thumbs:

 

Ed, did you grow up in the appelation mountains?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

On a more serious note, I really appreciate your posts. They're very informative; packed with mucho information.

 

Ed, even from your much knowledge of the matter, you would agree that what later came to be known as the TR was scarcely different from the Stephanus text, which was about the same the Erasmus text. Chronologically your point in taken.

As a footnote, the label may be different on the container, but the substance can hardly be mistaken.

 

The text has been decided.

I

"Attacks on God's word" I am for the preservation of Scripture. Now if you want to fight for manuscripts and bibles that come from manuscripts found in the possession of the Catholic church, go ahead.:laugh:

"... the Bible version which you use...has already been decided for you by the workings of God's special providence. If you ignore this providence and choose to adopt one of these modern versions, you will be takeing the first step in the logic of unbelief. For the arguments which you must use to justify your choice are the same arguments which unbelievers use to justify theirs, the same method. if you adopt one of these versions, you must adopt the naturalistic New Testament textual criticism upon which it rest.." (Edward F.Hills, believing Bible study, 1967, pp226,27)

"Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) was a respected Presbyterian scholar. He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism. In 1956, he published The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. Key chapters include “A Short History of Unbelief,” “A Christian View of the Biblical Text,” “The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism,” “Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text,” and “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version.”

"Hills devastated the Westcott-Text theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Hills saw the issue of authority in the field of Bible texts and versions". COPIED

Hills was not even a fundamental KJVO. I wonder what Bible he found to be the true preserved book from God.:thumbs:

O WOULD GOD RAISE UP REAL MEN ONCE AGAIN, NOT WINING BIBLE CRITICS: BangHead:
Cheers, Ehud.

 

Isn't amazing that we can find scholars with a truckload of degrees, who can argue either side of this long standing debate with devastating logic?:thumbs:

 

You might want to keep this in mind, which is found, BTW, in the second thread in the list, on this forum.

A friendly reminder to a new member.

And I agree with another poster on the spelling and capitalization. I know I make many mistakes in typing, and even after correcting, often miss many. But I try and make the effort, since I cannot use my spell-check with my format, on the BB. One who has a spell-check has no reason to see very many such 'misteaks' !


Ed

 

In my response to ehud, I posted the following erroneous statement.

" Now to correct something from the link you posted and apparently 'copied' from it."

The link did not say exactly what I thought it said. That was from another source. So I apologize to ehud, in that vein, and as to my above sentence. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

Ed