The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Jerusalem Blade · #3 (**permalink**) 05-24-2007, 07:39 AM

I think your heart's in the right place on this, Dieter, though I would like to ask you a few questions.

When you say, "The 'Received Text' (the constructed document as such does not exist and the AV itself sometimes departs from it) most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this)" I am not sure how you define your terms.

When you say "the Received Text" which TR are you referring to? Stephens of 1550? The Elzevirs'? Beza's? Or Scrivener's of 1894? These all are referred to -- loosely -- as the Textus Receptus. The TR 1894, Scrivener's compilation of the Greek underlying the KJV, does exist, and the KJV does not depart from that.

When you say "The 'Received Text'...most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this)", I am not sure how you have arrived at this conclusion. That is, how do you know this?

When you say, "existing discrepancies ... should not be exaggerated: they are extremely minimal and it is possible to reconstruct the NT text with almost perfect accuracy". I would ask, How minimal the discrepancies, and how perfect the accuracy? And, is Metzger's work conducive to this reconstruction "with almost perfect accuracy"? Perhaps I should seek precision by asking, What percentage "perfect accuracy" are you talking of?

Thanks!

To answer your question, Larry, I would say, No, they should not take issue with such a one, given, as you said, he continued irenic in his demeanor and was not divisive.

Steve