04-24-2008, 04:39 PM
|
 | Moderator | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,285
Thanks: 1,232
Thanked 617 Times in 437 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeutter  Quote:
Originally Posted by satz For what little it is worth, I agree with you.
I think variant texts and translations actually make the bible less authoritative. Even if they are inevitable, I think they ought not to be celebrated.  | A paper by Dennis Kenaga, a member of of Grace OPC in Lansing, MI, that deals in part with this question was recently posted at the Grace OPC website. It can be found here. Skeptical Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism | I just came across this article. It favors the Byzantine Text but of course the KJVO's won't like it because the author thinks the NKJV is an acceptable translation as well. Although I haven't had the chance to read it all yet, but overall it seems to articulate the position that I have come to. I found some excellent portions like this: Quote:
If one text is as likely as the other to approximate the original, and the church has already held the Byzantine position for over twelve centuries, then retaining the Byzantine position is an intelligent option today. Challenging the church’s text on speculative grounds, as if the new texts were more accurate, has been an expensive historical sidetrack. It is easier to tear down than to build up.
At first it might seem difficult to dispute with all those current experts. They will not hesitate to tell you how much they know and snow you with jargon. As Colwell says, “the more lore the scholar knows, the easier it is ... to produce a reasonable defense of or to explain almost any variant.”[39] Convincing the experts is impossible, but opposing them is actually easy to do. Just open up to almost any page of their works (TCGNT is a good example) and look at some claim based on alleged scribal habits or text history or text types and say, “That is just speculative. They do not know that. I do not believe there ever was a stable Alexandrian text type. Other experts think differently. They cannot all be right. Alexandrian textual scholars have been proven wrong before.” Try it. You will see how easy it is. The sturdy old Protestants did something like that to the priests 500 years ago.
If Alexandrian proponents claim that their texts are better than the Byzantine ones, ask them what theological difference it makes. If they say none, then tell them the new texts do not matter much. If they tell you what theological difference it makes, remind them that the whole Alexandrian victory in the church depended on claims by its promoters that it was theologically neutral. If they are changing their storyline now, maybe it is time to revisit the orthodoxy of the scribes from the land of the gnostic gospels of Thomas and Judas. But be sure to tell them that you do not have the definitive text answer. If they like their Alexandrian Bible, peace be upon them. If they had a better case, you would seriously consider it. But since they do not, it seems intelligent to stick with the historic text. Ordinary KJV or NJKV readers can say that to the most learned expert and hold their ground.
|
__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA "There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions? |