Theology In Translation?

Wilbur Pickering's book is available online here: http://www.revisedstandardversion.net/text/WNP/index.html

Better yet, here is Dr. Pickering's website with his book and various articles: http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/

On this page is a list of links to PDF files of various articles on the Byzantine/Majority discussion in JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society): http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/08/11/kjvodb-interviews-dr-maurice-robinson-pt-3/

 

Thanks for the information. Very helpful.

 

The theory that the oldest manuscript must also be the most reliable is one used in secular textual criticism. I learned it when I was at University many years ago.

So when one is studying the text of, say, the poems of Catullus where there are (if memory serves) only three extant manuscripts, it is reasonable to suppose that the oldest of these is likely to have been copied fewer times than the others and may therefore be more reliable.

However, when we come to the Bible, we find that there are mabe 900 manuscripts witnessing to the Majority Text and ten or 15 to the Critical Text, of which two or three are maybe the oldest ones. I question whether it is right to diregard the 900 in favour of the 15. Moreover, contrary to what is often claimed, the witness of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers to the Byzantine Text is very strong: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Hyppolytus all quote from the MT before ever Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written. Read Burgon. His scholarship is remarkable and I have never seen a refutation of it.

Finally, because a manuscript is ascribed a late date, that does not mean that it may not have been faithfully copied. King George I of England is no longer extant, but that does not mean that Elizabeth II is not his direct descendant.

Steve

 

Westcott and Hort took the canon of "oldest is best" straight from secular textual criticism. And you've mentioned some good points in regards to that.

As you've pointed out, Biblical textual criticism is made much more complicated by the many manuscripts and the many quotes in the church fathers, something Burgon spent much time on as you've noted. (Reading his works, I sometimes wonder if that is all he did!)

Another complication that secular textual criticism doesn't have is all the translations from early centuries that show various text types: the Old Latin, the Peshitta, etc. By taking secular principles as is and applying them uncritically (so to speak) to the mss. of the Bible, W&H missed the boat, methinks.

 

Yeah, I just used it recently on the BB. :smilewinkgrin: Google it in quotes and you'll get 488 results. It simply means the textual criticism of non-Biblical works in various ancient languages such as Homer, Aristotle and the like.

Here's a good discussion: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/NonBiblical.html. In fact, on this page they talk about the textual criticism of Sir Walter Scott, Shakespeare and the like. Not even ancient languages!

 

Martin

The assumption that a so-called "older" manuscript has been copied fewer times than a so-called "more recent" manuscript seems to be faulty, if not biased, logic. At least that is what I have believed since the "new birth".

 

Hello RSR,
Your point is taken, and I think we should all take note of the Cromwell quotation in your signature.

However, if you take the time to read the work by Pickering that John of Japan linked http://www.revisedstandardversion.net/text/WNP/index.html you will find that he interacts with Fee's assertions in Chapter 4 (and possibly elsewhere also. I haven't finished reading it yet).

The matter is much more complicated than either side would like. However, if you consider Luke 4:44-5:1, and Eph 3:14-15 which I quoted on another thread, the C.T. text readings are obviously erroneous, so that I'm not sure how one can hold to the infallibility of the Bible if one supports them. Obviously, lots of fine Christians do so, but I'm not sure how they manage it.

If you take something like 1John 5:7-8, where the textual support is very weak indeed, at least what it says is true. There are three that bear witness in heaven and the Three are One.

As an aside, the case against the verses is not quite such a slam dunk as people imagine http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a102.pdf

Steve

 

With regard to the nastiness or otherwise of the footnotes, I would have to read them first. Perhaps the LB was current when Dr Pickering wrote this.

1% is about right. Whether the 1% is of inferior quality is a matter of opinion though I understand that Codex Sinaiiticus is full of mistakes. It is certainly Pickeering's view that the text was deliberately altered very early on. He defends this view in the article I linked.

Pickering is trying to give an exact word-for-word translation, not one that reads well. Therefore he correctly renders eis as 'into.' The Greek word apollumi does not necessarily mean 'to die' but has the primary meaning of being cast off or becoming worthless. The jury is still out as to whether monogenes means 'only begotten' or 'unique,' 'one-of-a-kind.' What it doesn't mean IMO is 'only' (ESV) or 'one and only' (NIV). See Gal 3:26

Steve

 

Perhaps you would kindly post them again, please? I don't recall any of Comfort's quotes addressing those two texts. Perhaps I overlooked them.

I do not say they are 'waffling.' I only say that the CT rendering of those two texts makes the Bible in error. I don't know how supporters of CT get around that. If you know, please tell me.

Steve

 

I rather think just the opposite, and perhaps I'm the first person in history to write a comment on every difference between the Byzantine Textform and the UBS/NA text in the first four chapters of Matthew. I'd like to write some more comments but have been tied up with work as of late.

 

I feel the most difficult thing to translate theology is the culture. First we must understand every sentence in original version and we must totally need to understand the target language. That's both important for translate. A little mistake may be make the translation unreadable.