Hi Dieter,
I know no offense was meant, and I have taken none. It is perfectly alright for brothers to differ on academic subjects, even though this one is close to both of our hearts.
What I meant about your taking the RC side v. the Reformers pertained to the argument that their TR was invalid due to the existence of variants. I would not extend that to any other area of your thinking.
Interesting thing, the Hebrew vowel points of the Masoretic text. That the vowel points were from of old (i.e., extant in the time of Jesus and before), and not the construction of the Masorete scribes, was a point of doctrine in the post-Reformation church. From another post:
Quote:
There are many who say the Hebrew vowel points were added to the Hebrew after the apostolic age by the Masoretic scribes; in the link below (myths-masoretic-text) Dr. Strouse opposes that view. It was the view – that the Hebrew had the vowel points at the time of Christ and way before – of Turrentin, Owen, Buxtorf, and the post-Reformation scholars. I have the book by John Gill, A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents, in pdf, which I’ll be glad to email you, or anyone interested; Gill also supports this view.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/ency003e.htm |
That offer still stands, by the way.
You say,
I fail to see how the TR has now become identical with the autographs (assuming that John did not write in Latin!)
I suppose I should hear the tone of wry British humor in there!
What if (and I am seeking to reconstruct the history of the text here) during the 50 years (approximately 335 – 385 A.D.) the Arian party held supreme power both in the Greek church
and the Imperial government, the zealous among them expunged parts of those verses they held to conduce to heresy (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, among others)?* We know that Constantine had ordered from Eusebius 50 complete Bibles to replace those destroyed during the persecution of Diocletian, and we know the textual treasure house of Origen’s library in Caesarea was available to Eusebius (a devotee of Origen); Tischendorf, among others, was of the opinion that Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) were of that 50. These verses are altered in Aleph and B, and could well have been useful in the Arian cause.
At any rate, this would explain why some verses missing in the Greek / Byzantine manuscripts of the Eastern Empire would have remained intact in the Latin MSS of the Western portion of the Empire where neither Diocletian’s vendetta against the Scriptures (and Eusebius’ replacements) nor the Arian oppression had much impact. Frederick Nolan’s classic
Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate looks carefully into this matter:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/cl.../inquiry0.html
------------
* [So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes], “in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…” (from,
A History of Heresy, by David Christie-Murray, p. 51)
------------
You say,
To argue that Protestantism combats the papacy on the basis of a 16th century text (I reiterate my contention about textual variants, most of which are insignificant) seems absurd to me, allowing Romanism to attack a novel tradition!
One might agree with your sentence as it pertains to the present (“combats”), but as regards the past it is historical fact. A 16th century text
was used to combat the papacy. As this defense was based upon Scripture – so the post-Reformation divines showed – it was no “novel tradition” at all, but sound doctrine.
I am not sure of the language Adam and Eve spoke; there are those who say Hebrew, and I do not know enough to say otherwise. Nor do I know what language shall be spoken in Heaven – or rather, in the Kingdom of God – although many people groups claim it will be their language. I think that possibly we shall each speak in our native tongues, and yet understand utterly all other tongues. For there is a beauty intrinsic to each.
You said, “I fail to see how 'AV only supporters' can purport to reflect Hebrew or Greek idioms.” Perhaps it has to do with the quality of the language.
I have enjoyed our discussion, Dieter. Thank you again for your irenic manner.
In Him,
Steve