Question between 2 sides.

In all my reading of early church fathers I have never seen the issue of “textual criticism”.

There may have been similar rules but as far as I can tell it was not so generally, perhaps Archangel can help.</font>[/QUOTE]Textual criticism was practiced by fathers like Origen and Jerome. Some of the rules they used might look familiar to us today -- for example, the best reading is the one found in the most ancient copies, or one which best fits the writer's style and the context. Occasionally, though, theological reasons took precedence over more objective criteria. For example, Origen rejected the reading "Jesus Barabbas" in Mt. 27:16-17 because the thought that the name of Jesus could never be connected with a villain (Mat. Comm. ser. 121).

Incidentally, the writings of Erasmus reveal the rules he used for preparing *his* Greek text ("the" TR), and these rules are similarly familiar.

(1) Erasmus on using the oldest and best MSS -- "Origen read thus at any rate. And I found it written this way in the Pauline manuscript, the oldest and most correct text...." (Rom. 5 note 16).

(2) Erasmus on the value of corrupt MSS in determining the true reading -- "Granted that the Greek books are just as corrupt as the Latin ones, yet by collating manuscripts that are equally corrupt one can often discover the true reading, for it frequently happens that what has been corrupted by chance in one is found intact in another." ("Capita contra morosos" 69)

"Now granted that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are as corrupt as ours, does it follow that we are deprived of any hope of ever emending what is found to be corrupted in our manuscripts? Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts - though not faulty in the same way - the true and genuine reading is found?" (LB IX 88C-D)

(3) Erasmus on "the harder reading is to be preferred" -- "And whenever the ancients note a variant reading, the reading that appears absurd at first glance always tends to be the more suspect one, in my opinion; for it stands to reason that a reader who lacked either education or concentration was offended by the absurdity of the expression and changed what was written here." (1 Cor. 15 note 44)

"it is not at all unlikely that some half-learned copyist changed "mneias" to "chreias," especially since the former yields an odd meaning." (Rom. 12 note 23)

(4) Erasmus on scribal additions and harmonizations -- "I suspect that 'Jesus' was added...because the passage is customarily recited this way by the church." (Mt. 1 note 5) "...it appears to have been added on account of hallowed custom." (Mt. 6 note 32); he notes that scribes often copy "not what they find in the manuscripts but what is fixed in their memory." (LB IX 128B)

(5) Erasmus on the primary value of Greek MSS over other ancient versions -- "In discussing sacred texts, the authority of the Greeks has always been predominant." (LB X 1315D)

In light of his own words, one can see that Erasmus' general text critical approach did not differ significantly from that of any modern text critic.

 

You have yet to show us that you respect God's Word much less ours. You need to stop superimposing your opinions on scripture and study scripture as it is rather than how you wish it were.

 

OTOH, Askjo, you can apply your method of interpretation to Matthew 2. The living Word of God was sent to Egypt to preserve him against the wicked abuses of a corrupt king. Using your type of logic, this makes Egypt the ideal source for the preservation of the written Word of God against the corruptions of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Maybe just as God brought His Son out of Egypt at the right time, He has brought the pure line of mss out of Egypt at the right time.

Of course none of this is what I seriously believe... but is just as valid as anything you have presented in this whole thread... which is just about zero.

 

Why did they disagree each other like Jews of Israel and Jews of Eygpt? </font>[/QUOTE] Is that supposed to be an answer? An evasion? It doesn't make any sense Askjo. My question stands. Who do you think you are to divide Christians in a way that God never has?

Is that true? </font>[/QUOTE] Yes. Just as there were heretics and deceivers in Antioch. Then as now, there was no area where Satan did not attack the purity of the church and its doctrines.

I am sure you remembered Menachem Begin, the President of Israel and Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt. Israel and Eygpt were at war a long years ago. They ceased their war and signed the Peace Treaty. After 2 years later, what happened to Anwar? He was killed by someone because of the Peace Treaty. The question is WHY? </font>[/QUOTE] Do you really think it had anything to do with the Alexandrian family of Greek Bible mss? For your sake, I really, really hope not.

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that people were Christians in Jerusalem, Damascus, Rome, Galatia, Philippi, etc. Your attempt to connect the word "Christian" with a chosen line of mss is baseless.

OTOH, the one mention we have of a believer from Alexandria (Apollos) indicates that he was mighty in the scriptures. How could that be possible if the scriptures in Alexandria were corrupt? Answer: It couldn't be.

 

Askjo said:

Look at Acts 11:26. What does this verse say?

"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" (NIV).

It does not say the disciples were called Christians by Paul, Barnabas, Harvey the Wonder Hamster, or any other particular individual.

Ah! The Word of God refutes you.

Nope. But reality refutes you.

 

the Antiochian side?
the Alexandrian side?

This false dichotomy appears to come
from this site:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/saved.asp

Can anybody spell COMIC BOOK THEOLOGY

 

Can anybody spell CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

 

Can anybody spell CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. </font>[/QUOTE]why do KJBOs flatter themselves so. we have the Alexandrian side, the Antiochan side, n .... the FUNNY side!

i fell for that comic book stuff as a teen n even did some clever preaching at my classmates' MVs in middle school. it was zeal, but not according to knowledge. (i'd been SABOTAGED by Chick.)

well, the Lord saved me out of that falsehood, n i'm now more thankful for the way He preserved His Word (despite the false Yea Hath God Said coming fr KJBOism).

 

Thanks for the info Archangel.

I see that only Origen is cited of the early church writers.

Anyway Erasmus indeed appears to use similar criteria as W&H but that of course within a specific text type.

HankD

 

Can anybody spell CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. </font>[/QUOTE]A certain tract publisher in southern California cannot.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said

Can anybody spell CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Not you, apparently. You missed an apostrophe.

 

I've been a connoisseur of fine
conspiracy theories for in excess
of Forty Years. The Devil inspired
ruination of THE HOLY BIBLE,
the Antiochian/Alexandrian split
really takes the cake.
Strange though that i've heard it for 25
years and the Nestorian story i just
heard 5-years ago.

Lord we lift up those who waste
their God-given time taking sides
in the non-existant Antiochian/Alexandrian split.
Can't we just be out witnissin'?

 

antioch

here's a great (and pretty short) study on the difference between antioch and alexandria.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_08.asp

 

big difference between a dispensationalist and a hyper-dispensationalist.

 

Yeah... a hyper-dispensationalist would try to say that MV's are a product of the Laodecian church while the KJV was the product of the Philadelphian age.

 

Great????

Even if one accepted such a ridiculous abuse of scripture, he falsifies his own argument with his first scripture citation. He says it is negative because Abraham sinned. However, God's purpose in sending Abraham to Egypt was preservation- a very, very, very positive thing.

Employing this "logic" one could argue that "Romans" shouldn't be in the Bible since Romans crucified Christ.

What the Egyptians did or did not do 1000 years before the NT was written has nothing to do with Bible versions.

BTW, the KJV doesn't come from Antioch nor does the evidence it relies on for passages such as I John 5:7-8 and Revelation 22. The KJV comes from England. Its underlying text, which never existed before its creation by a RCC scholar, came from Basil.

 

Yeah... a hyper-dispensationalist would try to say that MV's are a product of the Laodecian church while the KJV was the product of the Philadelphian age. </font>[/QUOTE]scott do you even know any dispensationalists? the different church ages from Rev have nothing to do with dispensations. it's all one church age, it just happens to be that during the church age the predominate "attitude" of Christians is different. the philadelphian church age produced unbelievable results. the laodicean church age is a disgrace to Christ. look around you at the state of Christianity today and you will see this, dispensations or not.

 

The underlying manuscripts of the AV1611 DID come from Antioch;in fact,the whole premice of Egypt as a place of Biblical preservation flies in the face of Biblical truth.Read Acts 13:49,it makes it clear that the word of the Lord was PUBLISHED throughout all the region;the region is Antioch,Syria,as per Acts 13:1.

Yes,the AV1611 comes from England all right.However,Old Latin Bibles(they came from Antiochan manuscripts),which pre-dates the "oldest and best manuscripts",does in fact support those readings.

It's underlying text does derive from Antiochan manuscripts,and as you probaly already know,that Erasmus' text and Bibles derived thereof are banned by the RCC.All of this is very elementary.