Thread: KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority

The horse may be likened to that body of manuscripts called the critical text; it's violent assailant, Mr. Wieland.

Great argument. Greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).

Excellent point. In that situation the copy would probably be considered better than the original because it had the same words but was without the decay.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I was under the impression that the Alexandrian Text is the only type of manuscripts that we have proof of existing up through the fourth century. And that from the fifth to eighth century it is found to be in the majority. It was not until the ninth century that the Byzantine text-type became predominant.

The mythical recension of Hort's devising is said to have taken place in the 4th century when Christianity had conquered the civil establishment and a uniform Bible was to be placed in the churches (50 copies, if I remember correctly). It's Da Vinci code material.

I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......

Could you be more specific?

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......

Originally Posted by larryjf

Could you be more specific?

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).

If you find, then, older copies lying around one can argue that these were never copied - hence the very small number of copies of the Alexandrian Varients. If these texts were copied, then they would have been destroyed, and the newer copies would have survived in exactly the same fashion that we see the Byzantine texts surviving.

OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century. Judging from the fact that we have copies reflecting the Western Text Type and the Alexandrian Text Type from these earlier centuries but no copies of the Byzantine Text Type it is extremely curious that not a single manuscript exists of this text type prior to the 5th Century if it is indeed most representative of the original.

Furthermore, what you are describing was the process for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but you are going way out on a limb to say that this was the process for the copying of the New Testament text. There is no evidence that the original was destroyed when a copy was made of the New Testament Text during the first several centuries of its transmission (I'm not even sure one can establish that from the later stage of the transmission of the text either.).

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

2) Ancient translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, the Old Italic of the Waldensians, and the Syriac all agree with the Byzantine texts. The Old Italic of the Waldensians, for example, has been traced back to circa 130 AD.

This is pure fiction. A 'trip into cloud land' to quote one textual scholar .

The Old Italic is a representative of the Alexandrian Text as Tischendorf pointed out...

"...the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the old Italic version, which the translator, who lived in North Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the old Syriac version which has been recently found is quite as closely related as the Italic."

Regarding the Syriac...While the Peshitta does reflect the Byzantine Text Type, the Old Syriac copies (which pre-date the Peshitta) does not (as Tischendorf also pointed out in the quote above).

Finally, the Latin Vulgate...neither the Old Latin that preceeded the Latin Vulgate nor the Vulgate itself reflect a Byzantine Text Type. The Latin Vulgate most closely identifies with the Western Text Type.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

3) If you consider where the Autographs of the New Testament originated, or, which churches these Autographs would be found in, then you will find that they will be found in what would be known as the Byzantine Empire. From Jerusalem, Matthew, James, and Jude (possibly), through Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, Thessolonica, Rome (Romans), the epistles of Peter (1 Pet. 1:1), and of the rest of the NT will be found in the Byzantine Empire.

I would suggest that those churches that actually handled and copied the Autographs would be able to recognize which are authentic and which are not. That after the Roman persecutions were aleviated by Constantine (313 AD) these churches came together and standardized the New Testament Text. The result is the Byzantine mss. Consequently, once the standard text was determined the multitude of copies would be made.

The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.

Then how under the heavens do we have the Alexandrian manuscripts (and other non Byzantine manuscripts and translations) today if God did not preserve them?

Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Consider, the Apostle Peter warned the Church of heretics who were corrupting the Scriptures even in his very day:

...which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Peter 3:16b.

Out of some eight hundred thousand various readings of the Bible that have been collated, about seven hundred and ninety-five thousand are of just about as much importance to the sense of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the question in English orthography is, whether the word honour should be spelled with a u or without it. The vast majority of the remaining readings come from the Alexandrian Varients. These readings change the doctrinal nature of the passage in question.

Finally we come to the arguement that the Alexandrian manuscripts are the deliberate result of heretics perverting the Scriptures. The doctrines which some claim are under attack in the Alexandrian manuscripts are all so thouroughly present, that these heretical copyists must have been the most inept heretics in the history of the Christian church.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably pick up a translation like the NASB and claim the text reflects the deliberate work of heretics (since translation like the NASB are essentially Alexandrian in nature).


God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.

Originally Posted by prespastor

God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.

The main problem that i find with text critics who take the reasoned eclectic approach is that they all seem to totally discount the Byzantine witness altogether. And although the text-type is not seen to be in existence during the early Church, Byzantine readings do exist. And i don't think that the Byzantine text-type just came out of thin air. I would feel much better about the critical text if it treated the Byzantine text with a little more respect.

Reasoned Eclectics do not completely throw out the Byzantine witnesses. Rather, based upon the evidence, see it as a secondary witness.

The fact that the 27th Edition of the Nestle Aland contains numerous readings that are Byzantine is proof that this approach does not completely throw out this manuscript family.

Originally Posted by larryjf

The main problem that i find with text critics who take the reasoned eclectic approach is that they all seem to totally discount the Byzantine witness altogether. And although the text-type is not seen to be in existence during the early Church, Byzantine readings do exist. And i don't think that the Byzantine text-type just came out of thin air. I would feel much better about the critical text if it treated the Byzantine text with a little more respect.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Post #48 lays out a few. Thanks Robert.

Give me a day or three and I'll be back with a few more.

One major one, of course, is the fact that I can use 'special pleading' in the same fashion to claim providential preservation of the Alexandrian text:

[special pleading]
And proof of God's leading and providential care over the Alexandrian text is that He kept them safe for thousands of years in a dry area where they would not rot or decay so that in an age where we can spend more time on biblical scholarship, they would gradually become more available to us. [/special pleading]

Greetings:

To exemplify prespastor's unreliability concerning the Old Italic Bible. Here are 16 examples of verses in the Old Italic that are not found in the Critical Text 3rd Edition:

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."

John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I can only speak of the 3rd edition since that is the copy I own. Tishendorf was simply trying to link his new found copy with that of accepted versions without criticism. In other words - he had a bias. In these passages, and many others, the Old Latin, Syriac, and Old Italic agree with the Byzantine Textus Receptus against the "Western" and "Critical" Texts.

It was the Alands who argued that the "Western Text type" is not a legitimate text type, and I have seen no refutation of their arguments from the Critical Text group?

Robert Olivetan translated the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians into French. He did so at the College of the Barbar's in the Waldensian valley. This Bible is decidedly Byzantine in its readings. The Olivetan Bible, or the French Geneva translation, was also a source document for the Geneva Bible in English, Now, who will argue that any of these translations are not Byzantine?

We do not deal with the Alexandrian Varients in regards to determining the correct text because these varients were entirely rejected by the Church after the 4th century.

Blessings,

-CH

If the Old Italic from the second century contain those readings, it would be a revolutionary discovery for the science of textual criticism. One would wonder why much use has not been made of this by Traditional Text advocates?

I am curious to know exactly where you are getting your data. Which Old Italic manuscripts contain those readings exactly? I would very much like to research that.

As for the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate conforming to the Byzantine Text Type...I'm sorry my brother, you are just wrong about that.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

To exemplify prespastor's unreliability concerning the Old Italic Bible. Here are 16 examples of verses in the Old Italic that are not found in the Critical Text 3rd Edition:

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."

John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I can only speak of the 3rd edition since that is the copy I own. Tishendorf was simply trying to link his new found copy with that of accepted versions without criticism. In other words - he had a bias. In these passages, and many others, the Old Latin, Syriac, and Old Italic agree with the Byzantine Textus Receptus against the "Western" and "Critical" Texts.

It was the Alands who argued that the "Western Text type" is not a legitimate text type, and I have seen no refutation of their arguments from the Critical Text group?

Robert Olivetan translated the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians into French. He did so at the College of the Barbar's in the Waldensian valley. This Bible is decidedly Byzantine in its readings. The Olivetan Bible, or the French Geneva translation, was also a source document for the Geneva Bible in English, Now, who will argue that any of these translations are not Byzantine?

We do not deal with the Alexandrian Varients in regards to determining the correct text because these varients were entirely rejected by the Church after the 4th century.

Blessings,

-CH

Originally Posted by prespastor

OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century. Judging from the fact that we have copies reflecting the Western Text Type and the Alexandrian Text Type from these earlier centuries but no copies of the Byzantine Text Type it is extremely curious that not a single manuscript exists of this text type prior to the 5th Century if it is indeed most representative of the original.

Furthermore, what you are describing was the process for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but you are going way out on a limb to say that this was the process for the copying of the New Testament text. There is no evidence that the original was destroyed when a copy was made of the New Testament Text during the first several centuries of its transmission (I'm not even sure one can establish that from the later stage of the transmission of the text either.).



This is pure fiction. A 'trip into cloud land' to quote one textual scholar .

The Old Italic is a representative of the Alexandrian Text as Tischendorf pointed out...

"...the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the old Italic version, which the translator, who lived in North Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the old Syriac version which has been recently found is quite as closely related as the Italic."

Regarding the Syriac...While the Peshitta does reflect the Byzantine Text Type, the Old Syriac copies (which pre-date the Peshitta) does not (as Tischendorf also pointed out in the quote above).

Finally, the Latin Vulgate...neither the Old Latin that preceeded the Latin Vulgate nor the Vulgate itself reflect a Byzantine Text Type. The Latin Vulgate most closely identifies with the Western Text Type.



The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.



Then how under the heavens do we have the Alexandrian manuscripts (and other non Byzantine manuscripts and translations) today if God did not preserve them?

Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.



Finally we come to the arguement that the Alexandrian manuscripts are the deliberate result of heretics perverting the Scriptures. The doctrines which some claim are under attack in the Alexandrian manuscripts are all so thouroughly present, that these heretical copyists must have been the most inept heretics in the history of the Christian church.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably pick up a translation like the NASB and claim the text reflects the deliberate work of heretics (since translation like the NASB are essentially Alexandrian in nature).


God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.

Other problems with Prespastor's post:

Speculation: he wrote:

The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.

When did the Autographs cease to exist? Prespastor seems to know exactly when. Does he have proof? or, Was he there when it happened? - Talking about "significent dents"!!! Does he even know the nature of textual transmission? The large majority of Christians in the 1st through 3rd Centuries were Jews - 3000 Jews were converted at Pentecost alone, Acts 2. How could the church not adopt the Jewish method of textual transmission?

Revelation, according to most scholars, was written circa 97 AD - to say that it did not survive 3 years is rather egregious to say the least.

Prespastor is relying on liberal scholars such as Tischendorf to prove his points, but neglects the fact that these liberal scholars agree, in part or in whole, with the heretics of the 1st through 4th centuries: the denial of the deity of Christ, miracles, and the nature of God.

More speculation, he writes:

Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.

Do we have all of the texts used during the 1st through 3rd centuries? No, we do not. If the Church was in the practice of destroying the older mss, and we have no reason to think that they did not, then it would follow that we would not find many texts during these centuries - which is exactly what we do find. We should expect that texts which differ from the newer texts were not copied, but ignored - which is exactly what we find in the Alexandrian varients!

Too many coincidences creates Providence. The very reason why we do not have many Alexandrian mss is because these varients were not copied, The reason why they were not copied is because they were not considered authentic. And, that is the reason why they are the "older" texts - because they were never copied or considered authentic.

Older does not mean better. From the Apostle Peter and all through the history of the Church, we find complaints concerning heretics, "wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction," 2 Pet. 3:16. The Alexandrian varients prove in their variations that they are the corrupted texts compiled by heretics.

Blessings,

-CH

Originally Posted by prespastor

If the Old Italic from the second century contain those readings, it would be a revolutionary discovery for the science of textual criticism. One would wonder why much use has not been made of this by Traditional Text advocates?

I am curious to know exactly where you are getting your data. Which Old Italic manuscripts contain those readings exactly? I would very much like to research that.

As for the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate conforming to the Byzantine Text Type...I'm sorry my brother, you are just wrong about that.

Odd - I provide reasons for my position, but all prespastor can say in response is - you're wrong???

And, we are supposed to accept prespastor's beliefs because he is prespastor? - a little ex cathedra reasoning going on here? possibly?

You mean to say that you do not have copies of the Old Italic, Old Latin, or even the Vulgate to make comparisons? - And you are making such sweeping and "authoritative" statements about them?

A Berean you are not.

Dr. Hort himself states that the dominant text-type after the declaration of Constantine (313 AD) is the Byzantine mss:

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, Wescott, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)

-CH

People who wish to study the subject out may do so. I'm just repeating what is universally accepted in the scholarly community by men who have dedicated their lives to the study of this subject.

I'm still waiting on your source for those Old Italic readings.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Odd - I provide reasons for my position, but all prespastor can say in response is - you're wrong???

And, we are supposed to accept prespastor's beliefs because he is prespastor? - a little ex cathedra reasoning going on here? possibly?

-CH

Originally Posted by prespastor

OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century.

But what about Chester Beatty? Aren't those both Byzantine AND old...prior to the 5th century?

And while we are at it...why don't we carbon date some of these manuscripts??? Or has that been done yet?

Originally Posted by prespastor

People who wish to study the subject out may do so. I'm just repeating what is universally accepted in the scholarly community by men who have dedicated their lives to the study of this subject.

I'm still waiting on your source for those Old Italic readings.

Hey:

I will not let you get away with what you wrote above. What you are repeating is what liberal scholars such as Tischendorf, Metzger, Hort, Griesbach, and others have stated. You have not at all interacted with their critics such as Van Bruggen, Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis and others on this matter.

What source are you looking for? Do you want me to quote from my copy of the Old Italic Bible?

Blessings,

-CH

If Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, or Letis state that the Old Syriac, Old Latin, or Latin Vulgate conform to the Byzantine Text Type please provide quotes from their works where they state that.

As for your Old Italic source...you quoted a series of Byzantine readings before (post #52) stating they were found in the Old Italic. What is your source for these quotes?

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Hey:

I will not let you get away with what you wrote above. What you are repeating is what liberal scholars such as Tischendorf, Metzger, Hort, Griesbach, and others have stated. You have not at all interacted with their critics such as Van Bruggen, Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis and others on this matter.

What source are you looking for? Do you want me to quote from my copy of the Old Italic Bible?

Blessings,

-CH

Originally Posted by larryjf

But what about Chester Beatty? Aren't those both Byzantine AND old...prior to the 5th century?

And while we are at it...why don't we carbon date some of these manuscripts??? Or has that been done yet?

Some are a tad too small to be carbon dated (i.e. John Rylands fragment).

Originally Posted by prespastor

If Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, or Letis state that the Old Syriac, Old Latin, or Latin Vulgate conform to the Byzantine Text Type please provide quotes from their works where they state that.

As for your Old Italic source...you quoted a series of Byzantine readings before (post #52) stating they were found in the Old Italic. What is your source for these quotes?

Hay:

Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:

Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.

KJV reads:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):

touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.

Critical Text omits the verse.

ESV omits the verse.

The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.

-CH

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you are not answering my question.

What is your source for all these Old Italic quotes? Either what manuscripts OR what edition if you are using a printed edition.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Hay:

Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:

Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.

KJV reads:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):

touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.

Critical Text omits the verse.

ESV omits the verse.

The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.

-CH

Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.

Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) passionately want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?

You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!

They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).

It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.

This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.

Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) passionately want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?

You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!

They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).

It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.

This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve

Originally Posted by prespastor

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Which Bible?

The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.

Originally Posted by mangum

Which Bible?

Originally Posted by prespastor

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Originally Posted by mangum

Which Bible?

Originally Posted by prespastor

The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.

Ok. So the people "had all the more confidence in" the Critical Text?

More precisely...in modern translations of the Critical Text like the NASB and ESV. I am not as favorable to the NIV and those like it.

Originally Posted by mangum

Ok. So the people "had all the more confidence in" the Critical Text?

Greetings:

The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.

Blessings,

-CH

I'm having to do a little study on this point. My study is a bit slow because I have a lot going on right now. I'll try and respond soon though.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.

Blessings,

-CH

Robert W.,

It sounds like a treasure easily worth the expense of its acquisition. I gather it is in Latin. Does it have a date? Are you able to discern, does it conform to the AV, especially as regards the "Alexandrian" variants?

Thanks,

Steve

Hey:

The answer is yes to all of your questions - including the Comma. I find it difficult to read because of the Old Italic Type. I have compared it to Diodati's translation and have found them compatable (at least in the verses listed above).

I think that some scholars argue that texts like the Old Italic and the Old Syraic are Alexandrian partly because the Alexandrian mss agree with the Byzantine mss about 80% of the time. I once did a comparison for a paper between Metzger's 3rd edition and the 1550 Stephens:

Comparing the Stephens 1550 with Metzer's third edition at the ending of Revelation would open some eyes. From Rev. 22:6 to the end in verse 21 there are 358 words (counting both text-types). Of these 358 words they differ only 40 times. Many of these differences have no real effect on the text: "kai", "tous", "gar", "toi", "tou" count for about 18 differences. Where the Critical Text append words it is done about 13 times. Where the Critical Text subtracts words it is done about 8 times. In verse 13 the Critical Text transposes two phrases - this is a difference only in the order of the words. Thus, Stephens 1550 and the Critical Text agree 88% of the time. If you take out the small words the agreement is about 94%. Considering the possibility that the Critical Text is wrong in some of its decisions, for example, the last word in the book of Revelation is omitted by the Critical Text, yet, the apparatus notes that it is included in the "oldest manuscript" the Sinaiticus! They give this omission a "C" rating indicating that their omission is not very reliable. The differences between the two are minute to say the least. One large difference between the two is found in verse 18:

Critical Text reads: Marturo ego panti...
Stephens 1550 reads: Summarturoumai gar panti...

Outside of cutting out important words, like "amen" (as the CT does) mentioned above, this really is the only significant difference. The edition of Stephens has in its apparatus: Marturo ego. Consequently, the Textus Receptus is far more accurate than Dr. Metzger would have us think.

In my humble opinion it seems that it is not where texts agree that determines if a mss is Byzantine or not, but where they disagree. In the case of the Old Italic it seems that it disagrees with the CT on those very particulars wherein the CT disagrees with the Byzantine mss.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

If I only could convince my good friend Steve to post in this room, I’d throw a party for all that have posted here. For the past five years, this has been his project. We’re talking dozens of hours a week. Funny but we both met each other at work and over the years have grown to the best of friends. The one thing we laugh at is the fact that Riplinger got both of our feathers ruffled and started our quest to study families of texts. I can claim I read her 500+(?) page book from cover to cover (getting a real kick out of her words (from my memory) “versions other than KJ use the letter ‘s’ more…can’t you just hear the hiss of the Snake/Satan” stuff…I ‘m still falling on the floor laughing) and D.A.Carson’s book against the King James ONLY faulty logic. Both Steve and myself are strongly leaning toward the Byzantine family as opposed to the Alexandrian family. My reasoning is nothing close to the sophistication and research that Steve presents. Any one have a hint how I can psychologically manipulate my best friend to come out of his research closet and share why in the heck he attempted to examine every Bergen variant form (millions?) from an original and rare Bergen research and defense project of this Byzantine tradition?

Hi Nowdy! Welcome to PB.

Yes, tell your friend Steve that ideas tried by peer review and critique are more sure than those untried and kept safely in the closet.

Steve

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Greetings:
The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.

Could you provide evidence "that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century"? And, by whom have they been considered corrupt? Are they credible?

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation.

Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.

http://www.bible-researcher.com (i think it might be .org ... ill have to re-check)

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Hey:
4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.

I see your bias...

As I was reading i saw no proof but only opinion. Could you please supply me with your "scholars"?

Hello Andrew,

We have discussed this quite at length here. In the post I give the link to below are three scholars, with a significant essay by each, who discuss these very things.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...98&postcount=1

Steve

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.

Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks.

I wonder if it would be possible to make an English translation of the Bible completely from scratch - consulting no previous English translations, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and just doing the whole thing over again.