The inspiration controversy - part 2

Askjo said "I believe this quotation means that the KJV is the best English translation of the "inspired words." Therefore, we have the inspired Word of God in the KJV."

The KJV was not translated from the "inspired words" (i.e. the originals that the quote refers to), but it was a revision of the Bishops' Bible, compared with a 16th century Greek compilation composed of copies of copies of copies of the original "inspired words". And even here, it didn't translate everything in the best way possible, it occasionally deviated from that text.

 

The KJV, as was every other valid version, translated from a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...almost ad infinitum...along with earlier English translations. There's no indication God started or stopped presenting His word in English with the KJV.

 

All versions were from copies of copies of copies. The originals have been gone for centuries, yet fragments and even whole books remain "preserved".

AVL1984

 

Yes Askjo. The copies of the written inspired words of God were still the inspired words of God in written form, copied throughout the centuries of the churches. This also includes the translations of those copies into other languages, to which are also considered the inspired words of God, only in that prospective language. Yes, continued inspiration. Yes, therefore the KJB is the inspired word of God.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Askjo said "The history of the TR began with the apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches."

Well, if you could prove that, you could turn more than century of recent scholarship on the issue on its ear. If you could prove it, I believe someone would have done so by now.

michelle said "Yes, continued inspiration. Yes, therefore the KJB is the inspired word of God."

Except for when it had to be corrected, right?

 

At least two early translations point to the use of the Received Text as early as A.D. 150's

The Itala Version - According to Fredrick H. Scrivener, "The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157." A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 2d ed., 1874, 2:43

The Peshitta - According to Dr.s Westcott and Hort, "a translation of the New Testament into Syrian [the Peshitta Version] was made in A.D. 150." Introduction to the New Testament pg. 143. Even Hort acknowledged that this translation paralleled the Received Text.

 

Pastor_Bob, the "old Latin" and the Peshitta, although usually in agreement with the Received Text, both have numerous places where they agree with "Alexandrian" readings instead. For example, neither the Peshitta nor the old Latin have have 1 John 5:7. The Peshitta has "only begotten God" in John 1:18. Like Alexandrian mss, the Peshitta has the shorter reading in Matt 27:35, and the longer reading in Jude 1:25. Mark 1:2 in the Peshitta and all extant old Latin mss have "Isaiah the prophet". Both the old Latin and Peshitta follow the longer reading in Acts 4:25.

Even in the Old Testament, the Peshitta sometimes follows the LXX in opposition to the Masoretic, e.g. Psalm 145:13.

Many KJVO folk claim the Peshitta and Old Latin as their own, as "proof" of the Received Text's primacy, but it simply isn't that cut and dried.

 

The kjV is no more "inspired" than the newspapaer I read in the morning. It is just what the translators called it...a VERSION. The MV's are every bit as "preserved" or we would not have the underlying texts for them today either. You refer to the kjB. It is the kjVERSION...endorsed by an Anglican King...PROTESTANT. If it was so inspired, why all the changes, michelle? You have yet to address that question. Which version of the kjVERSION is perfect and inspired??? I'm waiting for your answer. Also, where was the Word of God before the "inspired" VERSION of the kjVERSION?

AVL1984

 

MVs were from copies of copies of Alexandria MSS. The KJV was from copies of copies of TR MSS. The history of the TR began with the apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches. </font>[/QUOTE]You are totally incorrect, Askjo. The history of the TR didn't begin in the apostolic period. Where is your proof?

AVL1984

 

The use of the term "Received Text" here is highly inaccurate. The following terms would ALL be MUCH MORE accurate:

• Byzantine Text
• Antiochian Text
• Oriental Text (Semler)
• Asiatic Text (Bengel)
• Constantinopolitan Text (Griesbach)
• Syrian Text (Westcott and Hort)
• Traditional Text (Burgon)
• K Text standing for "Koine" or "Common" Text (von Soden and Merk)
• A Text (Lagrange)
• Alpha Text (Kenyon)
• (or as I prefer to call it) the "Lucian Recension," (after its supposed editor)

 

Thank you, Craig, that is a big help.

AVL1984

 

Derived inspiration or inspiration by derivation, is the correct terminology. The KJV is derived inspiration to the degree that it is faithful to the original language text. For instance (and this is only an example, not a provocation to a flame), I do not consider the word "easter" in Acts 12:4 as an inspired word. The inspired word is "pascha", or "passover" in English.

Another is Acts 19:37
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

The word "churches" is actually "temples" in the koine Greek. "temples" is the inspired word not "churches".

HankD

 

Pastor Bob supposedly quoted the following sources, claiming that “At least two early translations point to the use of the Received Text as early as A.D. 150's”:

(1) ‘The Itala Version - According to Fredrick H. Scrivener, "The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157." A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 2d ed., 1874, 2:43’

(2) ‘The Peshitta - According to Dr.s Westcott and Hort, "a translation of the New Testament into Syrian [the Peshitta Version] was made in A.D. 150." Introduction to the New Testament pg. 143. Even Hort acknowledged that this translation paralleled the Received Text’

Since I happen to have both these sources, let me state right here that *neither* of these sources contain the quotes cited. Therefore, whatever Pastor Bob’s secondary or tertiary sources might be, they are **dead wrong**.

================

(1) First of all, Scrivener, 2:43 *cannot* be the 2nd edition of 1874, since that edition is only a single volume! The purported reference has to be to the 4th edition of 1894, his only edition that appeared in 2 volumes.

However, neither in his 2nd edition discussion of the Old Latin or Itala (2nd ed. pp 299-303), nor in the 4th edition discussion of the same (4th ed., pp. 2:41-45 is there **ANY** mention of either AD 157, translation from the “received text”, or any mention of the Waldensians!

Therefore, I must ask: what bruised-reed secondary erroneous source are you relying upon for your information? I will entertain at least one ultimate-source guess: the Seventh-Day Adventist writer Benjamin Wilkinson, in his book _Our Authorized Bible Vindicated_ (what a surprise -- not!).

Yet even in Wilkinson’s original edition (1930, p. 35), and D. O. Fuller’s “edited” version of Wilkinson in _Which Bible?_ (p.208) Wilkinson only *mentioned* Scrivener 2:43 in a footnote, and *never* actually quoted Scrivener (but then, why should he, since Scrivener in *no* way supported his contentions?).

Wilkinson’s *actual* text reads as follows:

"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D. ... The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D."

While this might look familiar, it still is not identical with the misquoted form you cited. But note in particular that Wilkinson did *not* say “translated from the Received Text”, but only “from the Greek”. As noted, Wilkinson’s statement is *not at all* supported by his reference to Scrivener 2:43.

(2) Westcott and Hort’s Introduction p.143 does not even discuss the Peshitta. but discusses “Relics of pre-Syrian texts in cursives” (by “pre-Syrian” they are not talking about the Syriac version, but Greek Byzantine type of MSS).

The Syriac Peshitta version is discussed by W-H on p. 84, and there they most certainly do *not* claim it was “ a translation of the New Testament into Syrian ... made in A.D. 150,” but instead say “External evidence as to its date and history is entirely wanting: but there is no reason to doubt that it is at least as old as the Latin version” -- by which they mean 4th century AD, since in context they are not speaking about the Old Latin version.

But let me guess again as to the intermediate secondary source: Wilkinson? Certainly, although as distorted by the tertiary source as was the Scrivener matter. Wilkinson (1930, p. 25) references W-H p. 143 (what a surprise --not!), and Wilkinson’s main text says:

“It is generally admitted, that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 A.D. This version is known as the Peshitto ... This Bible even to-day generally follows the Received Text.”

Of course, the W-H footnote reference points to a page that says *nothing* of the kind, and is just another part and parcel of the utterly false information that Wilkinson spews forth and is picked up by all and sundry KJVOs. The bruised reed is looking more and more bruised....

Wherever the tertiary citations came from, they ultimately derive from Wilkinson (no surprise), and are *totally unsupported* by the supposed referenced footnotes.

Shoddy and inaccurate information derived from questionable secondary or tertiary sources is worse than useless when trying to establish a point, and one would be the wiser not to lean on such bruised-reed sources. But unfortunately this tends to be the tendency among KJVO advocates....

 

You get partial credit, Askjo.

The history of ALL manuscripts (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Mickey Mouse, whatever) began in the apostolic period, as this was when the originals of the NT were penned. Once the originals were written, they were copied to be distributed to the various churches (along with a vast number of uninspired writings and false writings). These copies circulated, being recopied as needed.

As to where these copies ended up is how we get our various "families" of manuscripts. But I still don't get how anyone can claim that any one family is superior than any other. Anyone care to give a LOGICAL arguement?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

How did you come by that, Michelle? The writers were given the inspiration, but the copiers just copied. Words are just words in that it was the writers who were inspired, and they wrote what God gave them to write. Nothing about the things they wrote were inspired; it was the words given to them that held the inspiration.

Did you get that? God inspired the authors, giving them what He wanted them to write. This is what was inspired. After it was written down, it became a copy of what God inspired. The words on parchment became just that...but they were the written representation of what God had inspired through them.

In other words, it has always been copies, even when the authors wrote it down the first time. God didn't inspire pages, He inspired people.

It was copies that were translated, not the authors. Hence, no inspiration.

(Funny. It may just be my take on this, but does the quote above seem almost supremist? I mean, "also includes", "also considered", "only in that prospective language". I know that this is a standard KJVO statment, but it almost seems like 'giving permission' to have the word of God.)

See above. There was no inspiration beyond the authors.

And the very idea of 'continued inspiration' is borderline heretical.

Again, see above.

Really, a neat little house of cards, built upon one presupposition after another. "Alittle leaven..."

In Christ,
Trotter

 

First of all, the quotation attributed to Scrivener doesn't exist. I have a copy of the work referenced here, and not only is the quotation not found on page 43, it's not found *anywhere* in the entire chapter.

Secondly, the Peshitta dates to the 5th C. and not the mid-2nd C. We know this for three reasons:

(1) The oldest extant copies of the Syriac Peshitta are 5th and 6th C. The oldest extant copies of the Old Syriac (the Sinaitic and Curetonian) are 4th C. So the oldest Syriac copies are *not* of the Peshitta.

(2) The Peshitta contain readings from the Old Syriac. This suggests that the Peshitta was a later revision of the previously existing Old Syriac text.

(2) An analysis of the Scripture citations in the works of Syriac fathers who lived before the 5th C. (e.g., Ephraem) shows that they did *not* use the Peshitta, but rather the Old Syriac or the Diatessaron.

I turned to page 143 of my copy of Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2, Introduction and Appendix and found no such quotation. Furthermore, in the section of the book where W&H *do* discuss the Peshitta (p. 84), they clearly state that the evidence "renders the comparatively late and 'revised' character of the Syriac Vulgate [i.e., the Peshitta] a matter of certainty. The authoritative revision seems to have taken place in either the latter part of the third or in the fourth century."

You need to get rid of whatever secondary sources you are getting these quotations from, because they are *wildly* inaccurate.

 

The "Received Text" used by the KJV translators was actually a collection of a few texts. They practiced proper and accurate textual criticism to determine what the readings should be given the texts they had, also apparently giving weight to older English versions, and the Latin Vulgate in some instances. They footnoted textual variants in the interest of intellectual honesty, they put together a very good and accurate representation of the available texts in the English language, and where the KJV agrees with the autographs, it is well and truly inspired.

The way I read the history books, the TR was compiled and published after the 1611

It is as if some would like to say that in 1611, the KJV translators practiced responsible textual criticism, but now we should not continue to validate the English Word with the available manuscripts using the same time honored process.

 

Amen! What an abomination!

For an authoritative discussion of the Syriac Versions of the New Testament, including the Peshitta, see pages 3-65 in the following, authoritative work:

Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.