The History of the English Bible - From Elegency to Accuracy

The author's statement "The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations" is certainly interesting, but unsupported. There is a very large, and growning, group of very well qualified textual scholars who believe the Traditional Text is vastly superior to the Critical Text.

I would be interested in reading the author's reasons for his conclusion "The Greek text used by these editors was vastly inferior to that of modern translations."

I was educated in the Critical Text position and it was enforced largely through intellectual intimidation. If a person showed any tendency toward the Traditional Text he was classed as "backward" and "unscholarly," for all of the "best" scholars accepted the CT. Of course, it went without saying that the definition of "best" was one who accepted the CT.



[ April 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

intellectual intimidation exists on both sides--that's why the tendency of KJBOs to heap to themselves papermill and/or honorary degrees (the case of Mrs "God-And" Riplinger and her subsequent embrace by the DA Waite camp illustrates).

another example of KJBOist attempts (sadly by mainly Indep Bapts) at intellectual intimidation are their sudden (and perhaps convenient) regard for "scholars" like Dean Burgon, Letis, Maynard, Hills, and (on another board) even Unitarian authors.

the difference between KJBO intimidation is that they usually try to force a spiritual dimension. every other position is an incarnation of Gen 3's "Yea hath God said?" o, it's others that demote Jesus, deny the Virgin Birth, mutilate God's Word, etc. and when KJBOs are shown the absurdity of their ways when their devices on other Bibles are turned around on the KJB, they immediately exclaim that everybody's attacking God's Word.

yes, we're indeed quite familiar with all this "intimidation."


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I was educated in the Critical Text position and it was enforced largely through intellectual intimidation. If a person showed any tendency toward the Traditional Text he was classed as "backward" and "unscholarly," for all of the "best" scholars accepted the CT. Of course, it went without saying that the definition of "best" was one who accepted the CT.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
How did you make the journey from the critical text position (on which most of our generation cut its teeth) back to the traditional text?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was in a used book store and picked up a copy of a book which contained three Greek texts in parallel format. The first was Stephens 1550, the center had the title "The Original Greek Text After Scholz with the various readings of the textus receptus and the principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine manuscripts, and a complete collation of Scholz's text with Griesbach's edition of M.DCCC.V." (The title was almost as long as the text!). The third column was the text of Westcott and Hort of 1881. I was amazed at how different they were! I had been taught the differences only amounted to about 1/2 a page, but that simply was not true. In fact there are almost 10,000 differences! I then bought a copy of Scrivener's Annotated Greek New Testament which shows all the differences in bold face type. Again I saw how great the difference was and began to wonder what the mss evidence for such differences consisted of. As I began to scrounge around to find photo copies of the actual mss (much easier now as most of them are on CDs) I saw that the vast majority of the mss evidence supported the Stephen's type readings. As I continued to study I found that the readings of the CT were not only in the vast minority, but also were based on obviously corrupt mss. After looking at the collation work done by those who were very knowledgable I came to the conclusion that the Traditional Text type readings were oldest, represented the best quality of mss, and were consistant throughout the mss and textual families, as well as being attested to by the most ancient vernaculars. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that the Textus Receptus or Majority Text you "returned" to?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I favor the Traditional Text Type, of which both the TR and MT are examples. The Greek Text I use in my daily reading and study is Scrivener's text of 1894. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It does seem retrogressive and we need to see the steps you took to "return". Thanks friend.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it is exactly the opposite. The CT is a late text constructed from demonstratably corrupt mss. In fact the "rules" which W&H came up with to support their text were designed to arbitrarily point to their text, and not to discover which readings were closest to the autographa, in my opinion. History teaches us that the Lord's Churches from the 4th century until the 18th century used the Traditional text type almost exclusively, the CT text type being unknown or largely forgotten/ignored. Every one of the Patristics cites Traditional Text Type readings (by the way, the Patristics manage to reconstruct the entire NT in their writings!) 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. I learned a long time ago that just because I was taught something in college or seminary, it was not necessarily correct. Even Doc was wrong now and then!

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"The CT is a late text constructed from demonstratably corrupt mss." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even Dean Burgon showed it to be corrupted after it was discovered. Herman Hoskier wrote a paper entitled Codex b and its allies if I recall correctly...

The manuscript is corrupt and its readings should be questioned when the go against the majority...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Twice you mentioned "The CT is a late text constructed from demonstratably corrupt mss." I was wondering how is that demonstratable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By looking at the actual mss. They are few and covered with mistakes. It is important to note that the Sinaiticus shows plain evidence of corruption. Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published in 1864 "A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character--brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the Ms., many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."

It must also be noted that Vaticanus is no better. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under the article Versions.
Quote: "It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." Also, Aleph and B disagree with each other over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.

There is a lot of such information available on the internet (so you know it must be true!) as well as in print. However, the best way to understand the condition of the mss in question is to look at them yourself.

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I was in a used book store and picked up a copy of a book which contained three Greek texts in parallel format. The first was Stephens 1550...The third column was the text of Westcott and Hort of 1881. I was amazed at how different they were!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

Don't you think it a even a bit unfair to equate W&H with the modern CT (I note that you did not do so overtly, but it could be taken that way as you are giving your reasons for switching from the CT to the TR)? If you don't think this unfair, I have a problem with it.

If, however, that is not your position, I still feel compelled to address the point as many KJVOs do equate the two.

It is much like Freud. He was the first real player in history who sought to analyze the human psyche in a scientific manner; he was the father of modern psychology/psychoanalysis. That is to say he tried to come up with a model of the human mind that helped explain human behavior. A lot of what he came up with was right on the money (i.e., ego defense mechanisms) and stands today, some was/is convenient (the id-ego-superego model) but not entirely accurate, and some was incorrect (his tendency to rely on sexual instinct to explain almost every aspect of human behavior) but a good try.

As far as I know, there are no modern psychological/psychiatric scholars of our day who hold to exactly what Freud believed; indeed, like W&H, he is often ridiculed when his ideas are misrepresented in bizarre context by and to people not completely familiar with the material at issue. Instead, subsequent generations have studied, researched, and revised his methods and come up with some of their own to make a better model (although there is no single prevailing model of the human psyche, the one flaw in my analogy).

Likewise, W&H were pioneers in their field. They had no real predecessors who actually set out to find what the originals said and give sound reasoning for their choices. Previous translators/collators (the KJV translators/Ersmus, Stephanus, and others) were forced to rely on what they had available to them at that time (which was generally quite limited and late by today's standards) and make choices from that. Everything W&H came up with was not necessarily correct, but it was the beginning of a structured approach to the evidence to determine the original reading, a good start, if you will. Scholars since have improved on their methods and "thrown out" what was bad and added to their methods new tools.

To bring it all together, both Freud and W&H were pioneers in their field. They had no model or example to follow for what they set out to do. Their work was not perfect but has since been improved upon. Thanks to them and subsequent generations of scholars, we now have a better understanding of the human psyche and what the autographa said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I then bought a copy of Scrivener's Annotated Greek New Testament which shows all the differences in bold face type. Again I saw how great the difference was and began to wonder what the mss evidence for such differences consisted of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In contrast to W&H, Scrivener sought to match the KJV, not find out what was contained in the autographa. It is assumed by many that the TR and the autographa are the same. They are not. I would much more easily be convinced of Majority text position than this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I began to scrounge around to find photo copies of the actual mss (much easier now as most of them are on CDs) I saw that the vast majority of the mss evidence supported the Stephen's type readings. As I continued to study I found that the readings of the CT were not only in the vast minority, but also were based on obviously corrupt mss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isn't surprising. The CT is not the Majority Text (but you already knew that). There are places where the CT differs with the majority of manuscripts. However, in many of these places the CT represents the majority of ancient (not late) readings. That is to say, according to the manuscript evidence available today, in 600 A.D., if a "majority text" were to have been compiled, it would look much more like our modern CT than the TR or modern Majority Text.

Again, it all goes back to the apparatus. There are reasons when the CT differs from the "vast majority of evidence." The "evidence" has been considered. This is in contrast to the TR (which represents using what one had--about half a dozen late manuscripts) and Majority Text (as the majority are late and Byzantine).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I favor the Traditional Text Type, of which both the TR and MT are examples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which one, in your mind, best represents the autographa? The TR and MT are different in places. I stoop to employ the oft used KJVO cliché, "things that are different are not the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Greek Text I use in my daily reading and study is Scrivener's text of 1894.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why am I not surprised?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The CT is a late text constructed from demonstratably corrupt mss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't follow here. The CT is "late" in that it was only recently published within the last 150 years or so and has several editions. However, many of the manuscripts upon which it is based are far earlier than those upon which the TR is based.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Traditional text type almost exclusively, the CT text type being unknown or largely forgotten/ignored. Every one of the Patristics cites Traditional Text Type readings (by the way, the Patristics manage to reconstruct the entire NT in their writings!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first sentence is pure conjecture. You don't know if it was forgotten or ignored or what. Again, where was the Byzantine type (which is the text type of the TR/MT) in 200 A.D. or 300 A.D.? I don't mean isolated readings--I mean a manuscript that is of the family type. The earliest was Alexandrian or Western. Furthermore, the fathers were not inspired and their writings are even more prone to error than later manuscripts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What!? From what I know, the majority of the "most ancient Greek mss" reflect Alexandrian text type, not the Byzantine "Traditional Text" type. Isolated Byzantine type readings may exist in an occasional ancient (earlier than 400 A.D.) manuscript or fragment, but the text type as a Family is not present until later (I believe around 800 A.D. but I may be a little off).

Finally, I noticed that you seem to have an affinity for the "Traditional Text" and Dr. Griffin queried you on the subject. Which is it--the TR or MT?

Sincerely,

 

does this apply to 1 John 5:7?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Biblethumper1611:
The manuscript is corrupt and its readings should be questioned when the go against the majority...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
Don't you think it a even a bit unfair to equate W&H with the modern CT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Likewise, W&H were pioneers in their field. They had no real predecessors who actually set out to find what the originals said and give sound reasoning for their choices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Griesbach, Lachmann, Sholtz to name three all predated W/H. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So which one, in your mind, best represents the autographa? The TR and MT are different in places. I stoop to employ the oft used KJVO cliché, "things that are different are not the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another straw man. Which CT do you believe best represents the autographa? Stoltz, Greisbach, Lachmann, Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Aland, UBS? Bear in mind the above represent at least 34 editions all of which differ from all the others. It is very disingenuous of you to criticize and label those you characterize as KJVOs for doing exactly the same thing you do! I don't accept any currently printed TR as final, but use Scrivener's because I am used to it and find it to represent the TT very well. To even ask me that question after I clearly stated I advocated the TT and not the TR is somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, I noticed that you seem to have an affinity for the "Traditional Text" and Dr. Griffin queried you on the subject. Which is it--the TR or MT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Asked and answered. I believe the Traditional Text best represents the autographa. I take some exception with all editions of the TR and the MT.

[ April 15, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Chris, I know Ted, and am familiar with his work. However, I have some problems with his "ecclesiastical text" simply because the "ecclesia" he is referencing is NOT the "ecclesia" which I believe to be the true historic church of Jesus Christ. Ted is a new-evangelical Lutheran who is so rabidly anti-Baptist that, at times, he is incoherent!

With that said, allow me to add that, in my opinion, Colin Wright did an excellent job of capturing the essense of Ted's views. I would make only one change: Ted sees the "ecclesia" as the Church of Rome, out of which his Lutheran church sprang, and we all know the RCC used a text (Western) somewhere between the Traditional and the Alexandrian. If Ted could lay aside his biases for just a moment, perhaps he could see that the true churches during the long ages of ecclesiastical history were the dissenting congregations who, historically, used a Traditional Text type as evidenced by the Old Latin, Waldensian bibles, the Albegensis bible, etc.



[ April 15, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dr. Cassidy wrote:
Griesbach, Lachmann, Sholtz to name three all predated W/H.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they did predate W&H, but is there a complete NT Griesbach text or Lachmann text or Sholtz text (I ask sincerely as I am not familiar with their work)? If there is, was it of the same approach that W&H used; that is, would it be considered by the majority of modern scholarship that their work would represent a true attempt at an entirely critical text as did W&H's? Why is it that W&H are credited with the first CT?

I did not say that W&H weren't "predated" by those who believed an apparatus could be constructed or had even contemplated ways to do so. Perhaps some even had a "text" to their name (but maybe not an entirely 'critical' one). What I intended to say was that they were the first (pioneers) to come up with an actual, complete critical text. As you have hinted, there may have been other texts, but would they be considered 'critical' in a modern sense?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another straw man. Which CT do you believe best represents the autographa? Stoltz, Greisbach, Lachmann, Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Aland, UBS? Bear in mind the above represent at least 34 editions all of which differ from all the others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Straw man?! While you may not hold the particular position that I addressed, there are many KJVOs who do. They believe the KJV and therefore its parent text, the TR, are it--no others. I do not advocate the use of only one text or only one translation. It is hardly a straw man, although I may be guilty of including you in a group to which you do not belong.

I think a critical text may always be ammended or corrected if new evidence or discovery demands. I do not hold to a single text as the text as many KJVOs do with the TR. Further, as far as I am aware, the latest editions of the Nestle and USB match exactly. Indeed, it seems that the apparatus has been standardized to a point where they agree. I liken it to 'trying silver in a furnace' several times over. The furnace has been standardized and each time new evidence is discovered it tries the text (and either proves it to be trustworthy or calls into doubt previous choices). Either way, the text becomes closer and closer to the original [pure] text with every trying. While it may not be perfect, it beats the methods used for compiling the TR and is certainly more scientific than just counting manuscripts without regard to their individual weight as does the MT.

I know you may disagree with the methods behind the CT, but I feel that the CT (actually having a defined approach and considering each reading in all of the &gt;5,000 manuscripts/fragments individually and critically) does a far better job of making an effort to ascertain the original than does either the TR or MT. In places, the CT may give a little too much value for age or some other factor, but the TR and MT fail to even consider anything other than a few manuscripts (TR) or just consider numbers without regard to age or other historical factors (MT). Just my opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is very disingenuous of you to criticize and label those you characterize as KJVOs for doing exactly the same thing you do! I don't accept any currently printed TR as final, but use Scrivener's because I am used to it and find it to represent the TT very well. To even ask me that question after I clearly stated I advocated the TT and not the TR is somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion...I believe the Traditional Text best represents the autographa. I take some exception with all editions of the TR and the MT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I misunderstood your position and assumed an incorrect one for you.

So, you view the TT as a theoretical construct that lies somewhere between the TR and MT? In other words, the TT equals the autographa, but we don't have a perfect copy of the TT? (Please, correct me if I am wrong; it is not my intent to misrepresent you.) BTW, if you "take exception" with every edition of the MT or TR, do you take exception with any reading in the KJV?

I ask because, as I said earlier, there are many [KJVOs] who believe that there is only one text (usually the TR) and only one adequate translation of it, the KJV. I apologize for including you in this group if you do not belong to it.

Nonetheless, it still stands that this group exists. And, they often equate the TR with the MT (which they believe is the "Traditional Text"). However, they often fail to mention (out of deception or ignorance) that there are roughly 2,000 differences between the two. They conveniently use the MT to attack the CT/MVs when it agrees with the TR/KJV against CT/MVs OR come up with a special exception for the TR/KJV when the MT and CT agree against the TR/KJV (trying to have their cake and eat it, too). By the same reasoning they apply when comparing MVs to the KJV (i.e., that there is only one true text), only one can be correct.

This particular group must choose one or the other (TR or MT) if they are to be consistent, according to their "things that are different are not the same" reasoning.

Sincerely,

[ April 16, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
So they did predate W&H, but is there a complete NT Griesbach text or Lachmann text or Sholtz text?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I may be guilty of including you in a group to which you do not belong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, if you "take exception" with every edition of the MT or TR, do you take exception with any reading in the KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.

[ April 16, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

I just wanted to point out here that the current "critical text" is not nearly as influenced by the vestiges of Westcott and Hort's overplay of Aleph and B. It is true that Westcott and Hort placed too much emphasis on Aleph and B. Earlier editions of the CT showed some evidence of this; however, the current UBS4 has demonstrated an even-handed approach giving even consideration to all the evidence. Take James 5:4 for example. In this verse we find either apesterhmenos or aphusterhmenos. The meanings of these two terms are almost identical (defraud vs hold back wages). Aphusterhmenos is supported ONLY by Aleph and B. Earlier editions of Nestle-Aland text placed aphusterhmenos in the text only on the basis of Aleph and B. However, by the time of the UBS 3rd edition, apesterhmenos appeared in the text and aphusterhmenos appeared in the footnote. The editors of the 3rd edition gave their decision a C rating. This means that they had strongly disputed the reading and as a committee were divided. By the time the UBS 4th edition arrived, the C rating was replaced by an A rating!! This means that the committee unaminously concluded that the Aleph/B reading was NOT the original, and that the apesterhmenos reading should appear in the text. If you don't believe me, look at the UBS4 text page 782, and you will see the Aleph/B reading in the footnote, not the text. I grow weary of hearing any inuendo that the current critical text has any real connection to Westcott/Hort. They follow the normal scientific rules of textual criticism. These are the same logical processes that any discipline uses to best guage which piece of evidence is correct when evidence is in conflict. Giving an a priori advantage to Westcott/Hort's Aleph and B is just as wrong as giving an a priori advantage to the MT/traditional text. Each piece of evidence is viewed based on its own merits.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As I continued to study I found that the readings of the CT were not only in the vast minority, but also were based on obviously corrupt mss. After looking at the collation work done by those who were very knowledgable I came to the conclusion that the Traditional Text type readings were oldest, represented the best quality of mss, and were consistant throughout the mss and textual families, as well as being attested to by the most ancient vernaculars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thomas,
In your above quote, when you say that the CT was "based on obviously corrupt mss," you have difficulty applying this statement to the UBS4. See James 5:4 above, where your statement quote would condemn the traditional text reading! Or is the UBS4 not the CT in the way in which you mean it? Furthermore, what is obvious is that in many places the traditional text is the corrupt one--especially where conflation is present.

Then when you said that you "came to the conclusion that the Traditional Text type readings were oldest" I have no idea what you are talking about. If you mean by traditional text the readings of the papyrii, Aleph, B, the other early Alexandrian texts, and the early versions which according to Dan Wallace, are also Alexandrian, then you are correct. But I have never heard anyone use the term traditional text to refer to readings supported by the Alexandrian text. Maybe you are on to something--these readings certainly would have been the traditional text if you were a believer in 300 A.D. in Alexandria, Egypt. The way most folks use the term Traditional/Byzantine/Syrian/Majority is with reference to those manuscripts whose text type does not appear in the first four centuries. Sure you might have a stray reading here or there, but not the presence of the entire text type.

Chick

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. I learned a long time ago that just because I was taught something in college or seminary, it was not necessarily correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it is possible for Thomas to be incorrect as well. The UBS4 uses the lectionary evidence throughout. Here is the quote from introductory page 19 in the UBS4 text: "The lectionaries have also been thoroughly reviewed, with a fresh selection of manuscripts and completely new collations. Under the direction of J. Karavidopoulos in the Lectionaries Research Center of the University of Thessaloniki a spot-check was made of a large number of Greek lectionaries of different content and different age, including those used in previous editions of The Greek New Testament, to determine the range of their textual affinities and to ensure a selection representative of the full spectrum. Manuscripts were selected to include not only the normal Byzantine lectionary text, but also a sampling of those differing from it more or less frequently."

Your use of the term "virtually 100%" is overly optimistic for your point, and "ancient" is a relative term. Your "virtually 100%" occurs in lectionaries from the ninth century forward - the same time that the majority text became the majority. Thus it is no surprise that they agree.

In any event, the UBS4 DOES use the lectionaries frequently, and expressed care in researching their importance. So either A) The UBS4 editors lied in their introduction--with the frequent notations in the aparatus being figment of the readers' imagination, B) The UBS4 is not the critical text, or C) Thomas is wrong in his data.

Chick

 

Or D) Chick failed to understand what I posted.

I think D) is the most likely.

[ April 16, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]