Textual Manuscripts? - Page 2

greenbaggins · #41 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:15 PM

To reply briefly, you haven't addressed my arguments. You have addressed Metzger's erroneous arguments. The fact that I agree with Metzger's conclusion as to the correct reading has nothing to do with how we got there. Metzger's argumentation posits an error in the original. My argumentation does not. To argue that because Metzger argued this way, we should ditch the critical text is not logical. Further, arguments against Metzger are not arguments against me.

Jerusalem Blade · #42 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:21 PM

Lane, I’d like to respond to a couple of things you said, one in response to a statement of mine. First, my statement:

Quote:

By Steve

These 90% [of mss] are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian.

And you replied,

Quote:

By Lane

This is highly inaccurate. Modern textual criticism is *eclectic,* not *Alexandrian* only. It is fair to say that the Alexandrian text-type is more heavily weighted, usually, in modern textual traditions. However, there are many examples in the NA 27th where the Alexandrian text-type is *rejected.*

At another point you said

Quote:

By Lane

It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.

What you say, Lane, has merit to it. Eclectic critics do pick and choose among the various manuscripts, varying from the older WH dominance, and often picking Byzantine readings over the Alexandrian. I can’t argue with that. However (and it’s a BIG however!), in the main those readings that are distinctively Alexandrian (per B, a, and P75, along with a few others) are continued in the “eclectic” texts, so they might say they are not Alexandrian – with an element of truth in that – but as regards the distinctive Alexandrian variants they contain they might as well be.

I respond a bit more at length to these points:

Concerning my referring to what some will term the outdated methodology of FJA Hort, consider:

It has been said by Dr. James White that “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work.” (The King James Only Controversy, by James White [Bethany, 1995], p. 99). Is not this equivalent to saying, “Modern versions are not based upon the W&H Greek text”?

For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book, Examining “The King James Only Controversy" – the link is to the online version’s part 3 – and enter into your browser’s Find feature WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION to be taken to the section on this. An excerpt from that section:

White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.

The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.

The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something. [In the hard-copy book, this section is found on pp. 88-91 –SMR]

[end of Cloud]
------------

[The following, in the same vein, is from a paper of my own.] The two MSS, a and B, are the basis of both Westcott and Hort’s Greek Revision supplanting the TR, and subsequently most all modern Bible versions.

This is to show the vital connection between the W&H text and the modern versions, a connection denied by both Alan Kurschner and Dr. White. In 1928 textual critic and scholar, Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard, wrote:

…more important than anything else was the publication of the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and Hort…This work is the foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands close attention.[1]

In 1964 Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee was still able to affirm,

The textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT criticism.[2]

In 1990 Philip Wesley Comfort, textual critic and scholar, although lauding new manuscript discoveries (from Egypt), still builds upon the Hortian theory, maintains the foundational validity of his and Westcott’s text, and supports his “minority” readings.[3] In The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,[4] Alfred Marshall (editor) states (p. xix) that although the Greek text used in the interlinear is Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (based essentially on W&H’s Greek Revision), the NIV uses “an eclectic” Greek text (i.e., the translators choose from various readings). But in practice the NIV – and modern versions generally – retain the distinctive readings which are found in the W&H text.

1 The Text of the New Testament, by Kirsopp Lake (London: Rivingtons, 1928), page 67.
2 Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, by J.H. Greenlee (MI: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964), page 78.
3 Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort (MI: Baker Books, 1996 ed,), pages 12, 13, and 14.
4 (MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976).

--------------

This all to clear the ground a bit to further discuss the things you spoke of, Lane.

greenbaggins · #43 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:28 PM

What is wrong with the Alexandrian texts? Why is there prejudice against them? The TR was received in the time of the Reformation. The Alexandrian texts are received now. What's the difference in how these came to the church?

I don't deny that WH is foundational. I just want to make sure that arguments that might have applied to WH are not applied to modern eclectic texts, since modern eclectic texts do not ignore any manuscript tradition, unlike the TR tradition, which wants to throw out the Alexandrian manuscripts completely.

Jerusalem Blade · #44 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:42 PM

Come on, Lane, you say “it was no mistake” Matthew wrote Asaph and Amos….and then discuss the “semantic range” of the word “begetting” (which I find no fault with per se), and end with, “It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.” [emphasis mine –SMR] Isn’t that somewhat lame? Why, for the sake of “their prophecies and Psalms,” would he falsify the genealogical record? It doesn’t make sense. It’s too far-fetched. What on earth do their prophecies and psalms have to do with literal royal forebears? “Semantic range” is too feeble a reason to explain such a discrepancy.

I interacted with Metzger’s argument because it had more substance to it, and it showed the specific reason why this vagary was foisted upon the church – it was the decision of the textual critics, based upon their presuppositions.

Sorry to depart. In this part of the world it’s way past my bedtime. Back tomorrow.

I'll continue the discussion then. I have a list of the things you mentioned earlier to discuss, such as you just mentioned in your latest.

Steve

greenbaggins · #45 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 04:51 PM

I believe that you are taking a modern approach to an ancient text. In other words, history has to look a certain way for it to be history. Otherwise, it is "falsifying" the genealogical record. Why would this be a falsifying of the record, given the fact that Matthew already omitted three whole generations? By your argument, all the manuscripts are wrong here, because they do not follow the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles. In fact, how dare Matthew falsify the genealogical record by omitting three whole generations? The fact is that this is ancient history writing, not modern, meaning NOT that it is less accurate, but that it has broader aims. Every historian picks and chooses the facts that he wants to portray (witness the fact that we have four Gospels). Matthew picked and chose the names that he wanted to include in his genealogy, including Asaph and Asa. Besides this, you still have not answered the alternate spelling argument. In any case, these are two ways to explain why the critical text has the readings it does without resorting to Metzger's arguments, which posit an error in the original. There is no reason that any scribe would intentionally change Asa to Asaph, is there? But there is definite reason why a scribe might change Asaph to Asa, since this more closely matches the Kings/Chronicles genealogies (but doesn't necessarily match Matthew's theology). What you have to reckon with here is that the final explanation for a variant's reading must be able to explain why all the other variants arose, or it is not the best reading. I can explain easily the origin of the reading Asa. You cannot explain the origin of the reading Asaph.

armourbearer · #46 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Matthew, my hunch is that you could quote any number of modern liberal textual critics to demonstrate that. I solemnly declare to you that the shoe fits me so badly that I have blisters and bleeding from it.

So, I'm not sure what you are going to do about people like me, who say that we have the original text uncorrupted.

The method itself presupposes a corrupted text; the liberal critics are merely stating a reasonable conclusion based on the experience of their research. What are we to do with reformed people who take it on board? Point out the painfulness of trying to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Unfortunately, since the Reformers did textual criticism in order to come up with the TR, this argument can be turned right around and directed back at the TR folk. The methods are at the very least analogous to what modern critics do. The texts have to be weighed and categorized, compared carefully, with all the differences catalogued. Modern text critics are not the only people who could be accused of trying to discover the text. You are driving a rather large wedge between the Reformed world of the 16-17th centuries and Reformed folk of today.

Again, no one denies that a textual criticism of sorts is necessary. The difference between the reformers and modern critics was the belief of the reformers that the text of the NT is that which has been "received" by the church. There was no divorce between canon and text, higher and lower criticism. MS. evidence merely bore witness to the text. Modern critics make MS. evidence the judge and jury of the case. Here again we find modern reformed exponents of the critical text to be inconsistent, maintaining one criterion for canon and an alotogether inconsistent criterion for text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

On the issue of earliest manuscripts, no one today uses that as the only criteria. That is only one criteria among many that have to be weighed in each and every instance of variance. Other criteria include family relationships of manuscripts, geographical distribution of variant readings, number of manuscripts (which considerations are known as external evidence), and lectio difficilior, scribal probability, harmonization, etc. for the internal evidence (which is rather subjective, and therefore to be weighed much less than the external evidence). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but modern textual critics are not under the illusion that earlier is better without heavy qualification.

These other criteria are merely subjective tools; the genealogical theory of the critic predominates his choice of readings. One needs only to consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see this is the case.

greenbaggins · #47 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

The method itself presupposes a corrupted text; the liberal critics are merely stating a reasonable conclusion based on the experience of their research. What are we to do with reformed people who take it on board? Point out the painfulness of trying to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence.

I don't see the critical method as implying this. I see the critical method as positing that the original text is there among all the manuscripts. Plus, the word "corrupt" is ambiguous. If you mean are there mistakes made by the copiers, then every text is corrupt. If you mean that the texts are unable to be used as the inerrant basis for our faith, then no, the manuscripts are not corrupt.

Quote:

Again, no one denies that a textual criticism of sorts is necessary. The difference between the reformers and modern critics was the belief of the reformers that the text of the NT is that which has been "received" by the church. There was no divorce between canon and text, higher and lower criticism. MS. evidence merely bore witness to the text. Modern critics make MS. evidence the judge and jury of the case. Here again we find modern reformed exponents of the critical text to be inconsistent, maintaining one criterion for canon and an alotogether inconsistent criterion for text.

What prevents us from saying that the newly discovered manuscripts are currently received by the church? Unless, of course, you wish to define the church in such a way that 99% of the church isn't the church. Besides this, TR people make manuscript evidence the basis for judgment as well: the manuscripts that they had were compared and contrasted in order to come up with the TR. That is the same thing that is being done today. Again, I have not yet seen any reason to reject the Alexandrian text from the discussion. I reject no Byzantine text, and yet you reject outright the Alexandrian texts.

Quote:

These other criteria are merely subjective tools; the genealogical theory of the critic predominates his choice of readings. One needs only to consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see this is the case.

There were several criteria that I mentioned that are not subjective in the slightest, such as geographical diversity of readings, which heavily favors the eclectic method.

armourbearer · #48 (**permalink**) 01-03-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I don't see the critical method as implying this. I see the critical method as positing that the original text is there among all the manuscripts. Plus, the word "corrupt" is ambiguous. If you mean are there mistakes made by the copiers, then every text is corrupt. If you mean that the texts are unable to be used as the inerrant basis for our faith, then no, the manuscripts are not corrupt.

It seems you're using "text" as that which is written on a piece of paper instead of that which is the form of the text. I'm using "text" in the latter sense. The point I am making is that modern textual critics hypothesise corruption into the text form, that is, the loss of the original NT text by the second century, and subsequently aver the task of the text critic is one of recovery. And when they do this, they can only confidently lay claim to having recovered a particular text form which they regard to be the earliest, and that this text form dates back to the fourth century, with occasional attestations from the third and second centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

What prevents us from saying that the newly discovered manuscripts are currently received by the church? Unless, of course, you wish to define the church in such a way that 99% of the church isn't the church. Besides this, TR people make manuscript evidence the basis for judgment as well: the manuscripts that they had were compared and contrasted in order to come up with the TR. That is the same thing that is being done today. Again, I have not yet seen any reason to reject the Alexandrian text from the discussion. I reject no Byzantine text, and yet you reject outright the Alexandrian texts.

I do not reject outright the Alexandrian texts. Where these agree with the traditional text they serve as a confirming witness. There are points where variant readings can be exegetical, and serve to show us how original Greek speakers of a later era interpreted the NT text.

Nothing prevents us from saying newly discovered MSS are currently received by the church. That is a sad reality. But the fact is, the readings and especially the omissions in those MSS were once rejected by the reformed church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

There were several criteria that I mentioned that are not subjective in the slightest, such as geographical diversity of readings, which heavily favors the eclectic method.

Geographical diversity is merely an offshoot of the genealogical principle. Given the current theory of priority as to which influenced what, it remains a subjective criteria. If on genealogical principles the critic maintains the Byzantine text form is mostly a conflation of readings, the presence of a variant from that tradition is not really taken seriously.

greenbaggins · #49 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

It seems you're using "text" as that which is written on a piece of paper instead of that which is the form of the text. I'm using "text" in the latter sense. The point I am making is that modern textual critics hypothesise corruption into the text form, that is, the loss of the original NT text by the second century, and subsequently aver the task of the text critic is one of recovery. And when they do this, they can only confidently lay claim to having recovered a particular text form which they regard to be the earliest, and that this text form dates back to the fourth century, with occasional attestations from the third and second centuries.

I'm not quite following your distinction between something written and something which is the "form" of the text, and how that affects my argument. Could you help me out a bit, brother?

Quote:

I do not reject outright the Alexandrian texts. Where these agree with the traditional text they serve as a confirming witness. There are points where variant readings can be exegetical, and serve to show us how original Greek speakers of a later era interpreted the NT text.

Nothing prevents us from saying newly discovered MSS are currently received by the church. That is a sad reality. But the fact is, the readings and especially the omissions in those MSS were once rejected by the reformed church.

On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.

Quote:

Geographical diversity is merely an offshoot of the genealogical principle. Given the current theory of priority as to which influenced what, it remains a subjective criteria. If on genealogical principles the critic maintains the Byzantine text form is mostly a conflation of readings, the presence of a variant from that tradition is not really taken seriously.

I simply cannot go with this. The country of origin is fairly well-known for many if not most manuscripts. So there is definitely an element there that is not subjective in the slightest. The connection with genealogical principle can be granted. However, the genealogical principle by no means exhausts the geographical principle.

KMK · #50 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.

If your theory is correct, and even if it isn't, is there any way we can say with certainty that the Alexandrian texts were 'received' by any church? It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that when they were discovered, the Alexandrian texts were not being used by any church. What eveidence do we have that they were ever truly used by any church at any time?

greenbaggins · #51 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 04:23 PM

Fair question. I would say that the it is difficult to argue one way or the other as to whether they were received. However, the fact that an Alexandrian text-type exists surely proves that the Alexandrian text-type itself was used in Alexandria. There are a lot more than one Alexandrian manuscript. Plus, there are no Byzantine texts from Alexandria! Therefore, the Byzantine text-type was not received in all branches of the church, at least in the fourth century. I'm sure that this was because the Byzantine texts were not distributed. So, I could turn the question around and say this: what reception in the third and fourth centuries did the Byzantine text-form have in the West and in Alexandria? Is there any evidence at all of the Byzantine text being received in all branches of the church at that time?

armourbearer · #52 (**permalink**) 01-04-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I'm not quite following your distinction between something written and something which is the "form" of the text, and how that affects my argument. Could you help me out a bit, brother?

A "text form" is not a text which exists in any particular MS. per se, but a uniformity of readings over numerous MSS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century.

Again, you are confining your comments to particular MSS. rather than to the text form. The Alexandrian readings were well known to the reformers and their successors. The existence of these "variants" formed the basis for the Roman Catholic claim that the fountains are corrupted. Some Alexandrian corruptions are to be found in the Vulgate itself. The reformers insisted that the fountains were not corrupted, that God had preserved His living Word with "singular" providence, and rejected the Alexandrian readings of the Vulgate together with the translations which were founded on it.

greenbaggins · #53 (**permalink**) 01-05-2008, 10:22 AM

With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is not even remotely a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.

KMK · #54 (**permalink**) 01-05-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is not even remotely a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.

In this thread: Do textual variants give us confidence? Mr. Rafalsky posted the following from an article titled "REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" by David Cloud:

Quote:

THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT
TRANSLATORS

Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the
manuscript from the Vatican called Codex B, the manuscript most preferred
by Westcott and Hort and the English Revised translation committee. Yet
this manuscript was rejected as corrupt by the Bible publishers of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Consider the following quotation from Benjamin Wilkinson, author of Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated:

"The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the
Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James,
but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the
Vaticanus has been printed since 1587. The third great edition is that
commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope
Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ...
The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the
LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64).

"We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome,
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

"Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican
Manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that
the Received Text was correct. ...

"We have already given authorities to show that the Sinaitic Manuscript is
a brother of the Vaticanus. Practically all of the problems of any serious
nature which are presented by the Sinaitic, are the problems of the
Vaticanus. Therefore the [editors of the 1500s and the] translators of 1611
had available all the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected
them.

"The following words from Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia,
will support the conclusion that the translators of the King James knew the
readings of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D, where they differed from the
Received Text and denounced them. Bishop Kenrick published an English
translation of the Catholic Bible in 1849. I quote from the preface:

"`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and
Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the
Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as
a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were
generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a
mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).

"In other words, the readings of these much boasted manuscripts, recently
made available, are [largely] those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of
these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. ...

"On the other hand, if more manuscripts have been made accessible since
1611, little use has been made of what we had before and of the majority of
those made available since. The Revisers systematically ignored the whole
world of manuscripts and relied practically on only three or four. As Dean
Burgon says, "But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which
has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic
libraries from which they were obtained."

"We feel, therefore, that a mistaken picture of the case has been presented
with reference to the material at the disposition of the translators of
1611 and concerning their ability to use that material." <Benjamin G.
Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.>

To this testimony I add one more quote:

"In the margin of this edition [his fourth] Stephanus entered variant
readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one
of which is thought to have been Codex D." If this was not actually Codex
D, at the very least it was another one of that small family of manuscripts
which presents a similar reading that contradicts the majority text."
<Hills, p. 204.>

ERASMUS KNEW OF THE VARIANT READINGS PREFERRED BY MODERN TRANSLATORS

The notes which Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament
prove that he was completely informed of the variant readings which have
found their way into the modern translations since 1881.

Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts
translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to
the variant readings in other ways.

"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the
angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in
adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)."
<Hills, pp. 198-199.>

Daniel Ritchie · #55 (**permalink**) 01-05-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote: