Thread: WCF 1.8 and CT

Andrew,

Without presuming to speak for Mr. Winzer, yet to give him a break -- it is not that the TR advocates are less "neutral" in the textual criticism (neither side should have the audacity to claim a detached neutrality void of presupposition), or even less dedicated in the critical task: rather, it is that they are asking a fundamentally different set of questions in accordance with the stated presupposition of preservation, rather than corruption.

Over and out -- again.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Can you give me an example of at least one reading derived from manuscript criticism that TR primacy advocates admit should override the TR? Or do you believe that neutral textual criticism of all available manuscripts is able to prove the TR's primacy? Or... ?

As far as I can tell, the science of textual criticism within TR primacy circles is fairly limited to recognizing the differences between TR editions, going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV, and cherry-picking manuscript references that support the TR (which are adjudged correct, as opposed to those that contradict the TR, which are adjudged incorrect).

First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.

Secondly, this issue requires such a large induction of particulars that it is useless raising one or two readings which may or may not favour one textual theory over another. Such is the complexity of the different lines of evidence that one or two readings might count against a textual theory and yet the theory still stand on the basis of cumulative evidence.

Thirdly, Scrivener's work is deservedly entitled to be regarded as a piece of sound scholarship; your belittling of that scholarship either shows ignorance of his work or just plain ignorance.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.

Secondly, this issue requires such a large induction of particulars that it is useless raising one or two readings which may or may not favour one textual theory over another. Such is the complexity of the different lines of evidence that one or two readings might count against a textual theory and yet the theory still stand on the basis of cumulative evidence.

Thirdly, Scrivener's work is deservedly entitled to be regarded as a piece of sound scholarship; your belittling of that scholarship either shows ignorance of his work or just plain ignorance.

The above was un-called-for. I did not belittle the level of scholarship in Scrivener's work. In fact, I have a very high regard for Scrivener. However, you are starting to reveal more about your position, and I believe it is showing some holes.

Scrivener created a new edition of the Greek NT that approximated the KJV English translation. This was a very interesting work and also very important for those who know and love the KJV.

However....... we are talking about the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and how God has preserved them through the ages. If you elevate the KJV to the level of God's endorsement of exemplifying his "pure" maintenance of his word, on what basis do you do so? In other words, the NIV is a translation with wide acceptance today. If you eventually argue for the ultimate correctness of the Scrivener "TR" because you like the KJV, why can't I do something similar with the NIV?

It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

The above was un-called-for. I did not belittle the level of scholarship in Scrivener's work. In fact, I have a very high regard for Scrivener. However, you are starting to reveal more about your position, and I believe it is showing some holes.

You commented, "going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV." It called for a defence of the scholarly nature of Scrivener's work.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.

Yes, but you were the one who brought up the AV in relation to Scrivener's work; you need to keep better control of where you steer the discussion and ensure you do not bring up issues which you yourself know are not germane to the question being discussed.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You commented, "going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV." It called for a defence of the scholarly nature of Scrivener's work.

OK, I can see how you misunderstood that. However, a tangent is absolutely something that scholars frequently "go on". Is the tangential work important? Often! Like I said, those who know and love the KJV are very interested to know where it came from.

But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can? That's a different criterion, and it has nothing to do with his level of scholarship, for which again, I have the highest regard.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

It is very telling that the conversation has shifted from Greek NT manuscripts and printed editions, over to an English translation. This kind of thing should not really happen in a discussion on textual criticism.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Yes, but you were the one who brought up the AV in relation to Scrivener's work; you need to keep better control of where you steer the discussion and ensure you do not bring up issues which you yourself know are not germane to the question being discussed.

Hmmmm. I read the following...

Originally Posted by armourbearer

First, why should I be obliged to bring forth examples of variation where you yourself have recognised variants in the TR tradition, and Scrivener's work itself testifies of the need to clarify which form of the TR was employed by the translators of the AV? Supposing I came to the conclusion that Scrivener's TR provides the original reading, does that make it impossible to conclude that I have arrived at that decision by an exact discrimination of all the evidence which can be sifted? If so, then obviously there is prejudice from your side of the debate which refuses to examine the evidence in the remote possibility that the TR might be correct.

... and concluded that you held the position that a move from the TR of Erasmus to the TR of Scrivener was a move closer to the autographs. My apologies if I assumed that in error. As I read your post again, I may have been too hasty and click-type-happy. :^(

Originally Posted by TimV

Morning Thomas

The whole basis of the critical text argument is that the apographa is not reliable and trustworthy, hence, they invert the Protestant approach and champion the view of Richard Simon.

Could you comment on book of life as opposed to tree of life, and explain why book of life is of Protestant rather then Roman Catholic origin? And whether the KJV or the ESV is a better translation of God's Word in Rev 22:19?

[/quote]

Hi Tim,

Other's have responded to this, I don't want to hijack this thread and take it into a direction not intended. Elder Rafalsky provided links to other forums in Puritan Board where much of this has already been discussed at length.

I will say this, though. In my studies, I found that a great portion of the disparagement toward Erasmus and his work on the text seems to be intentionally jaded to obscure the facts. I walked away with a deja vue feeling very similar to when I became Reformed and went and read Calvin et al. for myself and discovered that everything I was told in the Arminian camp wasn't a correct representation of the facts.

A good example is this reference to Revelation. Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel. We are also given the impression that his work in Basel was something he did all by himself and was shoddy work. That isn't true, some great Reformers worked along side of him, namely Oecalampadius (sp?). We are told by the critical camp is that Erasmus did the whole of this work in a period of about a year in Basel, the impression left is that he started and finished his collation of manuscripts there, and that simply isn't true. He prepared the work for printing in Basel - not the whole of his research which extends back through his entire career once he decided to devote his life to the study of Scripture. Hence, the charge that he only had access to a small and late portion of manuscripts, with the intention of making his work appear deficient and unreliable is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

They also, in telling half truths, mislead us about the actual data available. An agenda was established to discredit the Received Text and many disparagements were drafted which after being repeated for a hundred and fifty or so years have become ipso facto historical facts, when they aren't.

I've thought deeply about it and studied it intensively for years.

And are you still certain that the Septuagint is a giant hoax and that Christ never quoted from it?[/QUOTE]

Did you ever take the time to read Wasserstein's "Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today?"

My position on that is pretty clear in the thread we discussed it in. One of those is here and another here. People can read for themselves the actual discourse and determine for themselves whether your fanciful representation of it reflects the position I hold or not.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can?

For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.

(Sorry this is off topic) Are you familiar with the fourth edition of his work compiled by Edward Miller? If so, is it worth it, or is its only value in cataloging modern work, thus making more recent works more worthwhile?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

But is that work important for establishing the text of the autographs as closely as we can?

For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.

While Scrivener was a TR advocate, he did not entertain illogical ideas about the primacy of the readings of the KJV English translation over against the Greek TR of Erasmus. The most valuable contribution of his KJV based Greek text for "autograph-aimed" textual criticism was in the footnotes.

Scrivener was well known as a defender of the TR; but he allegedly shifted toward the end of his life to a more moderate position. Here's a snippet from A History of Textual Criticism by Marvin Richardson Vincent:

With Dean Burgon he stood for the position that
all available authorities, and not the most ancient
only, should be considered in the settlement of the
text, and earnestly combated the tendency to rely too
exclusively on the testimony of [Aleph] and B. He was,
however, more moderate than Burgon, who pronounced Opinion of
[Aleph] and B to be the most corrupt of manuscripts. Codez °-
Scrivener says : " We accord to Codex B at least as
much weight as to any single document in existence ; "
and again, " We have no wish to dissemble the great
value of the Codex Vaticanus, which, in common with
our opponents, we regard as the most weighty single
authority that we possess." He also differed with
Burgon on 1 Tim. 3 : 16. In the last edition of the
Introduction his discussion of principles is summed
up in four practical rules : (1) That the true readings Critical
of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived
from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts,
Versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a
patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence
supplied by them all. (2) That where there is
a real agreement between all documents containing the
Gospels up to the sixth century, and in the other parts
of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony
of later manuscripts and Versions, though not to be
rejected unheard, must be regarded with great suspicion,
and unless upheld by strong internal evidence,
can hardly be adopted. (3) That where the more
ancient documents are at variance with each other,
the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of
approved merit, are of real importance as being the
surviving representatives of other codices, very probably
as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now
extant. (4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we
must assign the highest value, not to those readings
which are attested by the greatest number of wit-
nesses, but to those which come to us from several
remote and independent sources, and which bear the
least likeness to each other in respect to genius and
general character.

Andrew,

So what greek text do you want for the WCF?

[quote=TsonMariytho;505962]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion.

Hello Andrew,

Welcome to Puritan Board, I'd like to make a few comments into some parts of your posts.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

The specific difference being discussed on this thread between the critical method versus the work of TR-favoring scholars is not entirely qualitative, but quantitative.

No, the basic presuppositions of modern textual criticism are humanistic and assume a naturalistic and evolving world and history. For example, it was once held that the days of Moses had no writing and was limited to oral tradition. Yet, when it was proven that it was an era of literacy, the presupposition remained because of the basic premise. The self attesting nature of Scripture of being an inspired record of God-breathed words is a radical contradiction to the "scientific" naturalistic presupposition.

In the most extreme position of the modern camp the God of the Bible has been rejected in favor of some kind of process whereby men and religions have developed. The failure of the otherwise godly men in the Reformed tradition that have adopted the modern critical view has been implicitly beginning with the same world and life view of what would otherwise be their opponents, and then trying to reason their way to a radically different view. It is suicidal.

They will then try to represent their activities as being "Reformed textual criticism," and postulate that the rationale for departing from the orthodox textual tradition is because of new textual discoveries &c. Hence, they are implying that the only issue separating the "reformed" moderns from the orthodox conservatives is one of ignorance, non-scholarship, or downright simpleton nature of the latter. What they grant with their left hand is taken away by their right.

The modern critical presupposition assumes the ultimacy of an impartial reason in all men whereby all things can be correctly assessed and adjudicated, without respect to the history and circumstances which Providence brought to pass. It is presumed that Providence is required to maintain the question of Authority for every generation to answer for themselves and hammer out on their own anvil.

On the contrary, the actual difference concerns an entirely different orientation to the issue.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so.

No, they are not in a catch-22 situation. The question is one of Authority. Ignoring the question and assuming one has a right to be on the playing field because one can run with the ball, doesn't mean it is so. The school has broken into the Church and since it is an institution of learning it arrogantly asserts that it will define the cognitive foundation of theology for the Church.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

And if they argue that the variants are minimal, and that small variations don't really count in the grand scheme of things... then I would submit that the CT differs in only minimally in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't cause anybody undue heartburn with regard to God's preservation of his Word.

No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.

The removal of the landmark of the Protestant Faith from the Protestant Churches and Nations should be as impressed upon your mind as heinous an injury as your neighbor moving the landmark of your real property.

If that happened would you argue that a property line is a property line and it really doesn't matter where it is at?

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Turning the question on its head a bit, can we ask whether the Westminster Divines believed they had a transcription of the autographs letter for letter? Since they were learned men who knew something about Biblical manuscripts, we can easily reject this nonsensical idea. Therefore, their meaning in WCF 1.8 surely allows for variants in the text.

Kurt Aland said this:

“We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself." (The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland)

"...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.)

Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."

The history of philosophy has taught us that if we begin with autonomous reason and its doubt, all we finally end up with is doubt. Then you have vague and self-destructive affirmations of faith, no matter how definitively enunciated, ultimately resting in an "unknown" Revelation from God.

The philosophical presupposition of unknown Revelation from God is what must be rejected. (Acts 17:23)

Cordially,

Thomas

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Andrew,

So what greek text do you want for the WCF?

Just like TR advocates, I am comfortable with minor variations. However, unlike TR advocates, I believe that the difference between the TR and the mainstream CT's consist only of minor variations.

As such, I'm personally happy for people to use the TR, a Byzantine Majority text, or the various CT's -- and would feel that each person has a copy of the "pure" Word of God, for some acceptable value of "pure". :^) I may feel the CT is a little better, but it's not that much better. Both are very, very good and sufficient to teach us everything we need to know about Jesus and living in his kingdom. The couple odd passages most textual critics believe don't belong there (angels stirring waters and so forth) don't affect major areas of doctrine.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 09:01:13 EST-----

Thanks for the welcome, Thomas.

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."

I don't think they believed that they had the text of the autographs letter for letter, word for word. This is a fine distinction we're talking about, but I will contend (until I find out otherwise) that they were aware that even TR printings differed a bit, and that it was possible that the TR needed correction here and there. They were not born yesterday.

Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel

Thomas, in all that studying you've done on that very specific topic, surely you have names for these Greek manuscripts? Surely you assume those manuscripts he had access to in Italy and England read book instead of tree?

Could you help unobscure them for me? All I want is to be able to look at one of them, or have someone trustworthy you can quote that has looked on them, and to tell me without 15 paragraphs, and in plain language that the wording is book and not tree!

Because if what the guy Steve quoted who quoted another guy is right, then only 2 manuscripts of either major school out of 5000 (or however many of those that contain the last part of Rev which I assume are much fewer) then the chance that Erasmus had on of those is zero.

If he had any full manuscripts of Rev. then they would have said tree and not book, right? Where's the half truth in that? If you can't point to a text in Switzerland, Italy or England that existed at the time which had book instead of tree, then you are reduced to proofs like the Vulgate had it, therefore the overwhelming majority of Greek texts from all traditions are all wrong.

And it comes down to Erasmus being directly inspired. And if he were alive today, I think he would repeat himself, as he was quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 135:

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 10:40:42 EST-----

No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.

That's a pretty bold statement, Thomas. Yesterday one of our pastors preached from a non TR text without any warnings. I say for the third time on this thread do you really understand what you are accusing people of?

A thousand years before Erasmus, Augustine said

"Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected."

On Christian Doctrine (book 2, chap. 14)
We're not Catholics, and Erasmus wasn't the Pope.

Since I started this thread, I feel kind of responsible for the direction it takes, so I'm going to chime in once more. Tim, you are painting an inaccurate caricature of the position I asked about in my opening post. No one thinks Erasmus was inspired. No one is against textual criticism. No one disparages consulting diverse manuscripts when there is variance in the received tradition. The saying of Augustine in spot on. Erasmus is not the end-all, be-all of the Received Text: he was a collator, not a creator.

The misrepresentations and misunderstandings have impeded productive conversation. I don't think this type of debate is useful or beneficial. There is a time for proving someone to be wrong, and a time simply for inquiry about that with which we disagree so as to better understand what the other is saying -- and I think you are still missing what I and some others have been saying. I'm sorry I have not been more clear. I understand the critical text position -- I was an advocate thereof for many years, and am not unsympathetic to many of its desires. Keep in mind, the main problem is method, not results: most sober people will confess that the actual resultant differences between the two are nigh unto inconsequential; neither distorts God's word to the point of corruption, and neither opens the doors for heresy, unless we are looking for it already.

Also, keep in mind that no one has accused anyone of anything; with the exception that people are, indeed, disagreeing. This is acceptable. In this sense, I suppose we accuse one another of something with every disagreement we have: we accuse each other of teaching God's word improperly. This is no different than any other disagreement, and is tempered with the realization that we are fallible and can still accept one another in grace and love despite our differences.

(Important part of post begins now)
This being said, I still hold to my "I don't know" of my actual, opening question. In terms of method, I am absolutely persuaded that WCF 1.8 is against the purpose, goals and methods of the Critical Text mission. That, for me, is no longer an open issue. However, assuming that one is not a proponent of the Critical Text mission, I am undecided as to certain practical ramifications of this, i.e., whether then strict adherence to the confession requires that (in absence of controversy) the normal preaching of the word in the vernacular is to be translated from the received text (again, only as it is represented as the word of God ). This becomes a strange issue for me as, in most cases, you would have no idea based upon the English translation whether it stems from a version of the received text or of the critical text. I am not convinced fully that the confession requires, in day to day preaching, the use of a TR based translation over the ESV (though, again, I think it clear that in cases of appeal and controversy, the TR is that to which, confessionally, we are to appeal). I will say, at this point, that it at least seems to be more consistent with the confession to use a received-text translation in the day-to-day preaching (with, of course, the allowance that to open and explain passages, variants from outside the TR are free to be used).

How does that sound?

Since I started this thread, I feel kind of responsible for the direction it takes, so I'm going to chime in once more. Tim, you are painting an inaccurate caricature of the position I asked about in my opening post. No one thinks Erasmus was inspired. No one is against textual criticism. No one disparages consulting diverse manuscripts when there is variance in the received tradition. The saying of Augustine in spot on. Erasmus is not the end-all, be-all of the Received Text: he was a collator, not a creator.

I've been trying to bring all this theory down to practice. You and Thomas and others have said that you have studied the matter for a long period of time. Could one of you please, please tell me if Erasmus had access to a Greek text of Revelation that had book instead of tree in chapter 22?

And as a separate question, could you, Paul, please tell me that if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine texts use the word tree instead of book, and that there is no possible way Erasmus could have read a Greek manuscript of Rev with the word book, would you even consider the possibility that Erasmus could have done better on that one word?

Textual Criticism is a plot, to drive people back to Rome...She has all the answers, of course, because she comes from the time of the Apostles, and knows all the traditions passed on by them, and obviously has the true word of God in her possession...

Originally Posted by TimV

I've been trying to bring all this theory down to practice. You and Thomas and others have said that you have studied the matter for a long period of time. Could one of you please, please tell me if Erasmus had access to a Greek text of Revelation that had book instead of tree in chapter 22

I've always understood that No, he did not.

Originally Posted by TimV

And as a separate question, could you, Paul, please tell me that if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine texts use the word tree instead of book, and that there is no possible way Erasmus could have read a Greek manuscript of Rev with the word book, would you even consider the possibility that Erasmus could have done better on that one word?

Of course he could have done better in some of his conclusions. This is not disputed.

Duane,

From the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia):

(9) It is, therefore, all the more to be regretted that Nestle's text cannot be recommended to the general Catholic reader. Not to mention other shortcomings, it places John, v, 4, and vii, 53-viii, 11, among the foot-notes, and represents Mark 16:9-20, together with an alternative ending of the Second Gospel, as a "Western non-interpolation", suggesting that it is an ancient Eastern interpolation of the sacred text. The rules of the new Index enumerate with precision those classes of Catholics who may read texts like that of Nestle; others must content themselves with one or another of the following editions: P.A. Gratz reedited the Complutensian text (Tübingen, 1821; Füs); L. Van Ess published a combination of the Complutensian and the Erasmian text (Tübingen, 1827; Füs); Jaumann adheres closely to the edition of Tittmann (Munich, 1832; Lindauer); we have already mentioned Tischendorf's text prepared for Catholic readers under the influence of I.M. Jager (Paris, 1847, 1851, 1859); Reithmayr produced a combination of this latter edition and that of Lachmann (Munich, 1847; Ratisbon, 1851); V. Loch derived his text, as far as possible, from the Codex Vaticanus (Ratisbon, 1862); Tauchnitz published, with the approbation of the proper ecclesiastical authority of Dresden, Theile's text almost without change, together with the text of the Latin Vulgate; Brandseheid edited the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate of the New Testament in such a way as to bring the former as much as possible into agreement with the latter (Freiburg, 1901, etc.); finally, M. Hetzenauer published his "Novum Testamentum Græce" (Innsbruck, 1904, Wagner), reproducing in separate form the Greek text of his Greek-Latin edition (1896-98). He is more independent of the Vulgate text than Brandscheid, and he adds the more important variants in the margin, or in footnotes, or again in an appendix critica. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Editions of the Bible

The authors of the Encyclopedia are using reverse psychology.

Of course he could have done better in some of his conclusions. This is not disputed.

Thanks Paul. Now, on that ONE WORD in that ONE VERSE, what objection do you have to my belief that the MT and the CT both more accurately relate the Word of God than the TR?

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Keep in mind, the main problem is method, not results: most sober people will confess that the actual resultant differences between the two are nigh unto inconsequential; neither distorts God's word to the point of corruption, and neither opens the doors for heresy, unless we are looking for it already.

Also, keep in mind that no one has accused anyone of anything; with the exception that people are, indeed, disagreeing. This is acceptable.

I appreciate your irenic spirit, Paul.

I have not entered college yet so excuse my lack of expertise on the subject. But I think there are other ways of saying the same thing. "My dog is black" and "My four-legged-pet-that-is-a-common-household-pet-and-not-a-cat is the color you get when you mix all the others together" means exactly the same thing, though it is obviously much too complicated to say the latter. If the minister believes the text he is using to refer to exactly what the Westminster Confession says it means, and he teaches it in such a way to his congregation, he is not at odds at all by using the other version. It strikes me the same as refusing to use the word "damn" but using "condemn" instead, while at the same time damning those who do not likewise use "condemn."

All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.

Thus saith the Tim!

-------

Hello Andrew,

Welcome aboard. You bring some fresh life to the CT camp!

You said, "...more thoughtful and informed TR advocates...must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method." Here are some specs on that:

There are two schools of TR defenders; one says yes, the 1894 TR compiled by Scrivener is absolutely identical with the original autographs due to providential preservation of the text-form by the Lord. The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.

The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent. Compare that with the variance between the Greek of the TR and the Greek of the Westcott and Hort text: 9,970 Greek words are changed. That is 7.095%. This would be equal to having the entire book of Romans (9,447 words) plus 2 and 3 John (and then some) thoroughly changed (usually the changes are omissions)! The uncertainty is 1,108.59 times greater in the Critical Text. (The word count for the TR is from D.A. Waite’s, Defending The King James Bible, p. xii)]

Such a difference, although technically a matter of degree, is actually a difference in kind.

From Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ books, we can see that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)

* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view – ably defended by Will Kinney, among others – that the King James Bible is without error. And Kinney is no slouch, or fanatic, but an able scholar.

I recently came across an important contribution to this issue of the Textus Receptus (particularly the 1894 of Scrivener) by Will Kinney, in an online article he wrote called, ”Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?” We do not know the exact manuscripts the translators of the AV 1611 used – the Greek, other language versions, other English versions – and we do not have notes as to the reasons they made what choices they did, I believe because of one of the great London fires, which destroyed such records. What we have is the English version the Lord providentially brought into existence, from the Greek and other mss He provided the Reformation editors and the KJV translators. The Scrivener 1894 TR is but a back-translated Greek text from the English of the AV. We really don’t have a Greek text that is perfect and which we can call “exact”, although by the method of John Owen (noted above) he arrived at “an absolute providential preservation while granting variants”.

Is this not – what Owen referred to – the Greek spoken of in the WCF 1:8? What he had were the TR editions current among the Reformation editors.

What we have, amazingly, is the English rendition from these mss of the Word of God preserved and prepared for His church. I will hold to it. A missing ingredient in these discussions is the factor of God's providential preservation of His word, especially as seen in the King James Bible.

I weary somewhat of defending this point of view, seeing as I have already devoted much time and energy to presenting it, and I am just going over old material and the same old arguments. Not that it is not important to respond to your sincere views, but that I must prioritize my time, seeing as I have a congregation to look after, a wife, sermon prep, and other labors.

Here are a couple of previous presentations:

What is the authentic New Testament text?

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

--------

TimV,

You said, "Now, on that ONE WORD in that ONE VERSE, what objection do you have to my belief that the MT and the CT both more accurately relate the Word of God than the TR?"

I have no objection to your belief; you may believe what you like. I do, however, object to the facticity of your belief.

And these are my objections:

Erasmus did have access to a Greek text of Revelation "that had book instead of tree in chapter 22". That ms was Codex 141 (The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is w 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens).

Because Codex I is missing the last six verses of Rev 22 today gives one no warrant to assume and assert it was missing that last leaf they were on then.

Thomas Holland says of this,

Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages.

[from ADVANCED MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE CLASS]

Dr. Daryl R. Coats says,

There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page; 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.

H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:

Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is not copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]

In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], although containing their text (Coats’s emphasis). There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”...

To sum: In bringing Codex 141 to light, Coats has shown this MS has the text Erasmus used. Regarding 141 Coats refers to Hoskier, and I have the latter’s book here in my library, Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse Vol. 1, and in it I find he has devoted four pages to an examination of Codex 141. In these pages he scrutinizes the MS and determines it was not executed in the 16th century from the printed text of Erasmus, but likely in the 15th (p. 474), and shows “presumptive evidence” the last six verses (of both Erasmus and MS 141) were not copied from the Latin Vulgate (p. 477).

So in terms of evidence, Tim, we are at a stalemate. I cannot produce a copy for you with that one word you desire to see as the page of codex I is missing it (although codex 141 contains it), nor can you deny that it was there, aside from merely assuming so.

But I have more than evidence. I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.

For you folks interested in the doctrine of God's preservation of His word, I just got a new book (haven't read it yet), Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (Paperback) by Kent Brandenburg (Editor): Amazon.com: Thou Shalt Keep Them : A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture: Kent Brandenburg, Gary Webb: Books

All reasonable people who have looked into the matter know that Christ quoted both from the Hebrew and Septuagint. That settles the matter.

Thus saith the Tim!

The last time we went down that path we dealt with the same issue, specifically that all evidence is of equal weight. So you can quote two people, Bruce and Edersheim who mistakenly say that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic were the same language (which like the Septuagint being a fraud, is also necessary for the AVer historical position), and I can quote a thousand specialists who say differently, including someone on the board of the Holocaust History Project who specialises in answering racist charges against the Talmud who after reading the thread we were on wrote here
Mishnaic Hebrew

On another thread dealing with whether or not Aramaic and Hebrew were dialects of each other, support for this theory was given by a citation from F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised) In distinguishing between the two parties,, says of the Jews,


Quote:
..the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)

As one of my favorite hobbies is languages, that quote bothered me, as it goes against what I though I'd learned about the subject of which languages were spoken in Palestine during the time of Christ. So I asked a friend, Dr. Andrew Mathis of Villanova University, and he said


Quote:
While I know Wikipedia is not the best possible source, note that Hebrew (a Canaanite language) and Aramaic are in different subdivisions. The other Canaanite languages are all dead languages, but I've seen enough of them (particularly in recent commentaries I've read) to see that they're related but unlike Hebrew in most ways.

That being said, there are numerous loan words from Hebrew into Judeo-Aramaic and back again.

But we also know that Jesus spoke Aramaic in the Galilee, whereas Hebrew was probably more spoken in Judea. Neither language was being spoken as much as Greek, however. In fact, I seem to recall that Hebrew was pretty much strictly a liturgical language after the Babylonian Captivity... I don't see much indicating that Aramaic and Hebrew are the same in any dialectic way. I think the guy you're debating is seeing the parenthetical phrase "(or Mishnaic Hebrew)" as an indication that it's a synonym for Palestinian Aramaic. It isn't.

Upon looking into the subject further, I think Bruce must be confusing Mishnaic Hebrew with Amoric Hebrew. "Amoric" and "Amaraic" look much the same, but have different meanings. Amoric is a form of Hebrew taught by amora i.e. a class of teachers.

Palestine at the time was quadralingual, with Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew spoken by different demographics. None of these languages are dialects of each other. Hebrew and Aramaic have about the same relation as Latin and Greek.

Hebrew was mainly a liturgical language, and varied some over the centuries just like English. The language of the Jew was in no area Hebrew, but varied by where the Jews lived, just like today, with the average Iranian Jew having spoken Parsi for the last few thousand years, American Jews speaking English, Russian Jews speaking Yiddish or Russian, etc...but all of them having access to books written in Hebrew and scholars among them who speak Hebrew

.

And now we go down the same path. You pull up someone who claims Erasmus had a Greek text of Rev 22:19 and offer it as evidence equivalent to those dozens who said he did not. And it comes down to

So in terms of evidence, Tim, we are at a stalemate. I cannot produce a copy for you with that one word you desire to see as the page of codex I is missing it (although codex 141 contains it), nor can you deny that it was there, aside from merely assuming so.

But I have more than evidence. I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.

In other words a statement of faith that allows you to interpret historical events backwards. "Erasmus must have had one because he must have had God's entire Word". So when it comes to objectice evidence, who's doin' the "saith"?

So Paul, if you're still with us, could you please tell me if in that ONE WORD the CT and MT you fault me for believing God's Word is more likely accurately recorded than in the AV.

Hello TimV,

I appreciate your graciousness in your last post.

You said,

...you can quote two people, Bruce and Edersheim who mistakenly say that Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic were the same language

I don't know why you're kicking that dead horse. I thought we put it to rest. The disparity of our views (as well Edersheim and the others I quoted) arises simply from the different usages of the word "dialect". Given this, I admitted that you were right according to the definition you used.

It can mean dialect, a variation of the same language, or dialect, another language entirely, though having a common derivation. Edersheim used the latter, while you thought he used the former.

Definitions:

“There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference.” Apple computer dictionary

“One of a group of closely related languages. Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” World Book Dict.

------"

This "someone who claims Erasmus had a Greek text of Rev 22:19" is Herman C. Hoskier, one of the foremost authorities on the Greek manuscripts available containing the Book of Revelation. Those "dozens who said he did not" are merely surmising, which Hoskier did not do. Codex 141 exists, and accord to this expert who examined it, existed before Erasmus published his NT.

When I said,

I have the faith that God preserved His word through these Reformation texts and that what He sovereignly decreed was realized in our King James Bible. He did preserve His Word for His people.

You say of my view, it is "a statement of faith that allows you to interpret historical events backwards."

I would rather put it, I operate on the presupposition that God promised to preserve His word, and would keep that promise:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt 24:35)

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4)

Seeing as it is written that His people must live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth, he would by His divine power give us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3).

Having studied and considered the matter, I hold that the place He finalized His providential preservation was in the English Bible that came out of the Reformation and its Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

There is some truth to what you say. I do interpret historical events in retrospect. Is this not the way we often discern the fulfillment of prophesy?

Steve

The horse is by no means dead. Your original reason for bringing up the subject had to do with Christ quoting the Septuagint. You made the fanciful claim that Christ wouldn't have quoted the Septuagint because He wouldn't have spoken to His people in a foreign language, and you quoted Edersheim

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.

And that SHOULD be the dead horse, as one of your own posted in this very thread, complaining about me bringing it up

Hardly. You constantly mis-represent the KJV position by citing Gail Riplinger and the other weirdo's views. That isn't even close to the real reason we use the KJV. The Septuagint is real. Deal with it. And quite mis-representing and slandering us KJV people. Please. - Grymir

If you are going to continue to use the word dialect to mean anything you want to, then informed dialogue isn't possible. You wrote

Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,

...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.
In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,

...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)
--------

Re Mishnaic Hebrew:

“... From 1200 bc to c. ad 200, Hebrew was a spoken language in Palestine, first as biblical Hebrew, then as Mishnaic Hebrew, a later dialect that does not derive directly from the biblical dialect and one that gained literary status as the Pharisees began to employ it in their teaching in the 2nd century...” Britannica Online Encyclopedia

“The Mishnaic Hebrew language or Rabbinic Hebrew language is the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew as preserved by the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and definitively recorded by Jewish sages in writing the Mishnah and other contemporary documents.” Nation Master Encyclopedia
“The term Mishnaic Hebrew refers to the Hebrew dialects found in the Talmud, excepting quotations from the Hebrew Bible. The dialects can be further sub-divided into Mishnaic Hebrew (also called Tannaitic Hebrew, Early Rabbinic Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew I), which was a spoken language, and Amoraic Hebrew (also called Late Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew II), which was a literary language.” Wiki

-------

J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,

...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)
Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),

...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)
John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,

...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (Exposition, vol 8, p. 144)

Which is a compilation of contradictions and mistakes mishmashed together to try to prove that Christ wouldn't have spoken to His people in a foreign language.

Let's take another (and I hope it will soon become a dead horse, but cherished beliefs die hard) look at Aramaic vs. Amoraic.

Points for discussion.

1.My claim is that Aramaic is a separate language from Amoraic. I make objection to you, Steve throwing them together as support for your AV only position. Notice Cloag, in blue calls Aramaic "Mishnaic Hebrew". Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic. Either the words mean the same thing, or there is a major contradiction in the very proof you put together.

Now, while I'm waiting for Paul to tell me if he has objections to me believing tree more accurately expresses the Word of God than book in Rev 22, could someone who clicked his thanks on your last post please do a little bit of research and FIND OUT WHAT ARAMAIC and AMORAIC mean? 'Cause of Aramaic is as foreign to Hebrew as Arabic and Amoraic is the then modern form of Hebrew uses by the Amora, or class of teachers, then we have a problem with the quality of your evidence.

I will be very interested to see what comes up. Please, one point at a time! Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.

The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.

(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)

Observation -- the above and the quote from John Owen are not talking about Scrivener's KJV-tuned TR. According to Scrivener's own count, he had 190 differences versus Beza's text (from the intro to his edition).

Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?

Somehow, I don't suspect that you would. As discussion on this thread has repeatedly revealed, it's not about the TR -- it's about the KJV. If English speaking TR advocates truly accepted that the pre-Scrivener TR was the perfect and complete word of God, then the KJV would have been revised to conform to the TR a long time ago, instead of the other way around.

If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:

1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]

The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text. :^) But that is not our concern right now...

Are you gentlemen willing for that sentence to be struck from your Bibles? Would you like to take a magic marker and strike it out right now? If so, then why hasn't that removal been performed in the various KJV revisions that have taken place over the years? If not, then where was that sentence when Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzivirs were typesetting their editions?

My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation.

Tim, sorry for my tardiness: call me a heretic, but yes, I like "tree." Don't most present TR editions say tree anyway?

My concept of preservation may not be as strict as some; and I am certainly all for comparing our received text with the early codices, versions, lectionaries, etc. I absolutely reject, however, throwing out the TR as impure and so attempting to reconstruct the autographs based upon human reason. We have the apographs; God has preserved them. But there are variants.

Andrew,

I'm not a KJV advocate. This has nothing to do with my views.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Andrew,

I'm not a KJV advocate. This has nothing to do with my views.

OK. Sorry for lumping all TR advocates together. But I believe you would be the exception within your wider camp if you do not prefer Scrivener's TR edition to Beza's. (Out of curiosity, which do you prefer?)

Tim, sorry for my tardiness: call me a heretic, but yes, I like "tree." Don't most present TR editions say tree anyway?

Hi Paul. No, they use "book". I just checked my copy of Stephanus (assuming you don't count a modern TR version that was back translated from the KJV to be an authentic TR) to check out what Tson said here

If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:

1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]
The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text.

And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the Vulgate

23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet

And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.

OK. Sorry for lumping all TR advocates together. But I believe you would be the exception within your wider camp if you do not prefer Scrivener's TR edition to Beza's. (Out of curiosity, which do you prefer?)

First, just a side note, to prefer Scrivener's Text does not mean that, with respect to translations, you have an a priori commitment to the AV. What it does mean, is that you think the the translators of the AV are a good witness to the state of the Greek text as it was received in 1611.

However, to answer your question: neither. Let's just say I use a wide assortment of texts.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:22:12 EST-----

Last statement before I pull out again (since I have been lately rethinking my confessional understanding of this, I don't want to say or advocate anything of which I am not fully convinced, so I just won't say anything further at all):

What I have been advocating is perhaps different than others here, and I'm sure they don't want to be lumped together with me. I presently hold a very moderate position, one that allows difference with the Received Text. As I have stated many times before, that to which I am opposed is the rejection of the received text, claiming that it has been corrupted, and rationally attempting to reconstruct the autographs from early sources. I am against this. I am not against using these sources, however, to compare with the Received Text and, perhaps, to modify it. I have held that the TR is preserved that it can be called the authoritative word of God, free from corruption, and we ought to trust God's preservation; I don't, however, think that this requires it to be above evidential emendation. Thus, I have been perfectly fine saying "Yes, I think tree has advantage over book." However, I shall now withdraw, not wanting to say and be committed to anything to which I might later take objection. This seems safer than arguing in murky territory in which I am not sure where the boundaries fall.

Grace and peace,

Originally Posted by Prufrock

First, just a side note, to prefer Scrivener's Text does not mean that, with respect to translations, you have an a priori commitment to the AV. What it does mean, is that you think the the translators of the AV are a good witness to the state of the Greek text as it was received in 1611.

The KJV was not a translation 100% "from scratch"; it was a new revision with many significant improvements of a previous English "translation tradition". And as Scrivener notes in the intro to his edition, in the areas where the KJV departs from Beza's edition to follow Tyndale etc., we simply don't know the translators' reasoning, or whether they were following any Greek witnesses at all on those diversions. He further notes that some of the text doesn't match any of the obvious Greek edition suspects very closely, but looks a lot like the Vulgate.

So if you accept Scrivener's evaluation, you must place your trust not only in the Greek manuscript savviness of the KJV translators, but also that of Tyndale etc. -- without knowing their sources for sure (Scrivener didn't, and I don't think we do today, either).

Originally Posted by Prufrock

However, to answer your question: neither. Let's just say I use a wide assortment of texts.

Fair enough.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:32:51 EST-----

Originally Posted by TimV

And he is correct. The KJV added to the TR in 1Jn 2:23. I just checked the Vulgate

23 Omnis qui negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui confitetur Filium, et Patrem habet

And it seems another one of those 80 examples where the authors of the KJV preferred the Vulgate to the TR.

I was about to suggest that they probably got the above from Tyndale rather than (directly) from the Vulgate... but I just checked Tyndale, and it omits the KJV phrase.

So you may very well be right that they got it from the Vulgate.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:40:56 EST-----

Ah ha! The Bishop's Bible includes the phrase, and apparently sets it in different type to denote it as questionable (as does the KJV). I didn't see a facsimile, but here's the digital transcription:

23 Whosoeuer denyeth the sonne, the same hath not the father [But he that knowledgeth the sonne, hath the father also.]

Well, my browser just crashed and I lost my detailed reply to both Tim and Andrew (an hour and a half of work), so I'll give but a few short answers here.

Tim, you said, "My claim is that Aramaic is a separate language from Amoraic." I thoroughly agree with this.

You also say, "Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic." Not true. It distinguishes between Mishnaic / Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoric. The latter was extant from 200-500 CE, the former 70-200 CE. I believe FF Bruce was identifying Mishnaic with Aramaic (an interesting article on this). I see no contradiction, though I'm sorry my bringing it in caused confusion.

Tim, when you say, "Christ quoted the Septuagint", what are you saying? I want to understand. That He quoted from the Greek OT (Septuagint) and translated it into Aramaic or Hebrew? Or that He quoted it and spoke it directly into Greek?

Are you simply not accepting there are different definitions for "dialect"?

-------

Andrew,

Ok, "editions" is fine -- though when I have printed a book, and before final publication, I call it a manuscript. But editions may be more precise here.

Regarding the phrase in 1 John 2:23, "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also", and your suggestion that AV advocates mark it out with a magic marker; why should I do that? As it is in italics (or in other TR versions, brackets) the translators meant us to know it was not in the text, but supplied. I need not cross something out that was never in!

Which "historical TR" would you suggest we use to approach the autographs? That would be a retrograde move. We do not have the knowledge of what they used where (as I noted above), though we have the final result in their English translation. We understand from the English somewhat the choices they made, and the 1894 Scrivener helps in that.

When evolutionists and atheists bring their scientific reasons and supposed evidences for their model of origins, it is because of my presuppositions that I do not heed them. And these presuppositions are, God has spoken and revealed the truth about creation, and His Word is true, without error. Likewise He has spoken about the inspiration and preservation of His Book, our Bible. Why should I not believe Him when He has said He would ensure that which we need to live: "every word" that proceeds out of His mouth? Can the great Sovereign not do that? Must I succumb to the cr-p-shoot of choices given me by the text critics? This is what they say,

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).

Why in the church am I hassled and ridiculed for believing the Lord did what He promised? The trickle-down effect from the text critics is slowly affecting the grass-root believers, and we shall see the terrible results of our no longer having a sure Word of God acknowledged among us. Is not the widespread apostatizing apparent? The antichrist spirit is coming in like a flood, and where is the Standard to be raised against him?

Ours is a supernatural faith, from beginning to end. I need not trust in men's scientific methodology to ascertain the "pure text" of the Bible among the manuscripts. It is an industry, with big money in it, out of the precincts of God's domain, the church. Even in the church, academia with its rationalism has infiltrated the holy place where Scripture resides, and has brought its secular presuppositions to bear upon it, changing and "improving" what the Lord deposited among us to guard and preserve at the time of our Reformation.

Let His Word be true, and men be liars.

You also say, "Yet the Wiki article you cite, in blue after the red, uses Amoraic instead of Aramaic." Not true.

Yes, it does.

It distinguishes between Mishnaic / Tannaitic Hebrew and Amoric. The latter was extant from 200-500 CE, the former 70-200 CE. I believe FF Bruce was identifying Mishnaic with Aramaic (an interesting article on this). I see no contradiction, though I'm sorry my bringing it in caused confusion.

The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing, and that includes the link you just posted. If you will read the link you just posted, you will find the author says

Hebrew morphed into several dialects. One became common, Mishnaic Hebrew, which became the language of the people. Then came a series of devistating wars. Mishnaic Hebrew became extinct as a spoken language. Aramaic, a totally different language with lots of loan words from Mishnaic Hebrew and some Greek took it's place. So at the time of Christ there were three separate languages in Judea and Palestine, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

Tim, when you say, "Christ quoted the Septuagint", what are you saying? I want to understand.

One thing at a time, or we'll never get anywhere!! Until either I can see that your source F.F. Bruce was right, or until you can see that your source F.F. Bruce was totally, massively wrong when he wrote

In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews,

...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew.

Are you simply not accepting there are different definitions for "dialect"?

Let's get this F.F. Bruce deal cleared up first. Aramaic was either Mishnaic Hebrew as he (and of course if you troll the internet all day and read reams of IFB literature you'll find others that say the same) says, or if Mishnic Hebrew isn't in any way, shape or form Aramiac like the overwhelming number of people who study the subject say. The only way Bruce could be correct according to virtually all of current orthodox and secular thought is if Bruce meant that the Jews spoke EITHER Mishnaic Hebrew which was also called Amoraic Hebrew OR Aramaic.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by armourbearer

For this you might be interested in his plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament.

(Sorry this is off topic) Are you familiar with the fourth edition of his work compiled by Edward Miller? If so, is it worth it, or is its only value in cataloging modern work, thus making more recent works more worthwhile?

I've only had access to a 2nd edition, which I was able to print out from online. I find Scrivener's work to be valuable because it shows a commitment to a detailed comparative criticism prior to the advent of reconstructive theories which only follow one or two mss.

Valuable work indeed. I have the third edition, but I've heard that the fourth (edited by Miller) is vastly expanded; but alas, I've never been able to find a copy.

Greetings Andrew:

Welcome aboard. It is good to see you come over from the CRTA forums which have been shut down. I hope your stay here is profitable.

First, I think it important to note that the TR is simply a compilation of the Byzantine Text type. Providential Preservation is found in the Byzantine MSS, and is not the sole domain of a compilation based on the Byzantine Family of texts. Thus, there will be minor differences between the compilations of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and, yes, even Scrivener. I believe that this is what Owen was driving at when he wrote:

Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared

Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:

In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves.

The fundamental precept that is driving Owen at this point is that the very copies that Erasmus and others used for compiling the New Testament contained the autographs. That the compilation which Erasmus used was not perfect was obvious - even to Erasmus - who made 5 other editions over the course of the next 15 years or so. That Stephens, Beza, and Scrivener sought to build and improve upon the work of Erasmus within the Byzantine MSs are examples of healthy text-critical efforts within the "TR" tradition. Owen then speaks about translations:

Translations contain the word of God, they are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaing of those originals

Now, by "translations" here, are you willing to admit that Owen is speaking about the King James Version, which was a translation in existence during this time? Owen then criticizes what you may label as the KJO movement:

To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals, - so to set them by it as to set them up with it on even terms, - much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself, John Owen, Works, vol. 16, pg. 357.

In reading your posts it seems that you want to lump all those who would defend the Greek Text (TR) with those who would defend the translation found in the King James Version. I noted that, when pressed, you will admit a difference, but then you come right back to this line of thinking when you ask and answer your own question:

Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?

Somehow, I don't suspect that you would.

I would not use it either in preaching, or, as a primary text, but not for the reasons you suppose. The Bible is the sole treasure of the Church. To put its translation into the hands of a "publishing organization" a "corporation" or in a para-Church organization (such as a Bible society - whose charter was to print and distribute the Bible, and not make a translation), is to take the Bible out of the hands of the Church, and make it a marketing tool to enrich the pockets of men like Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NIV). For this same reason the RSV (being authorized by a denomination that is no longer a church) is not authoritative as well. The ESV (published not by the Church, but by Crossway Books) also falls into the category of being non-authorized. The NASB, as it is a product of the Lockman Foundation, does not fit the criteria as well.

Theodore Letis ably defends these ideas in his book, The Ecclestical Text.

In reviewing the rest of your argumentation it appears that you seem to equate Scrivener's Greek NT with the translation of the KJV. Consequently, you then try to equate those who would defend the "TR" with those who would defend the KJV:

My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation

But you rightly pointed out that Owen, Turretin, and others were not defending Scrivener's Greek Text? And, I believe I made it clear above, that Owen was not seeking to defend a translation, but the Byzantine MSS which contained the apographia of the autographs.

As I mentioned to you on the other forum - you have been reading too much James White. I believe that Pastor Winzer has also pointed out to you that you need to read more concerning the TR before you can become an able critic of it.

Blessings,

Rob

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

The other school, championed by John Owen, Turretin, E.F. Hills, Ted Letis, etc, own minute variants within the TR manuscripts. Hills, for instance, said he’d found 3. So while not “absolute”, it is virtually identical.

The 3 phrases Hills says are errors (Believing Bible Study, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. That is .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent.

(My emph, "manuscripts" above seems to be a typo, and should read "printed editions" or similar.)

Observation -- the above and the quote from John Owen are not talking about Scrivener's KJV-tuned TR. According to Scrivener's own count, he had 190 differences versus Beza's text (from the intro to his edition).

Here's a question for the gentlemen who are TR advocates in this discussion: If a publishing organization, let's say TBS, issued an English translation of the scriptures that was equal in quality and style to the KJV, yet adhered strictly to the pre-Scrivener TR, would you use it?

Somehow, I don't suspect that you would. As discussion on this thread has repeatedly revealed, it's not about the TR -- it's about the KJV. If English speaking TR advocates truly accepted that the pre-Scrivener TR was the perfect and complete word of God, then the KJV would have been revised to conform to the TR a long time ago, instead of the other way around.

If the pre-Scrivener TR is the perfect and complete Word of God, then the following verse portion doesn't belong in your Bibles:

1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. [Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.]

The bracketed sentence above doesn't occur to my knowledge in the TR prior to Scrivener's work. Oddly enough, the inclusion of the sentence is not questioned in translations based on the critical text. :^) But that is not our concern right now...

Are you gentlemen willing for that sentence to be struck from your Bibles? Would you like to take a magic marker and strike it out right now? If so, then why hasn't that removal been performed in the various KJV revisions that have taken place over the years? If not, then where was that sentence when Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzivirs were typesetting their editions?

My conclusion -- the TR advocates I've met do not truly regard the historical TR as our nearest approach to the autographs. Rather, they advocate the TR secondarily to advocating the text of the KJV translation.

Tim, you say, "The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing". Interesting. What is it I'm arguing? These rabbit trails into this quote and that quote and differing definitions of various terms are the source of the confusion.

Initially my argument was that Christ didn't quote from the LXX. Then, later, after you focused on Edersheim's use of the word "dialect" (where he meant Aramaic as a distinct and separate language partially derived from Hebrew -- even as it can be said French is a "dialect" of Latin: a distinct language descended from it), where you assumed he meant it was a dialect in a different sense: with minor variations yet still essentially the same language. And we went around on that. You were right that Aramaic was not a dialect in the sense you meant. But Edersheim was right in his differing usage of the word.

And now we have another rabbit trail, Mishnaic, Aramaic, and Amoric. This horse I'm shooting in the head, as it's been fatally overridden, and in its death-throes. What I've written heretofore stands, and what you've written stands. Let the reader ascertain for him or herself the status of our respective arguments. If you want to kick the horse, go ahead. It won't get up, though you might want to keep riding it.

If you don't want to answer my question about what you meant re Christ quoting the LXX, fine. That was the initial topic I was arguing. I did not -- and do not -- appreciate the rabbit trails. Please note, that I do not want to debate the LXX thing again (that having been done substantially), I just wanted clarification of your view.

I do appreciate and like reading your posts; you've been around the block a few times, and bring a rich and varied experience to bear on many topics. We just differ on some things. If we are both brothers in the Spirit of the Savior, and fellow-heirs to the Everlasting Kingdom, then we are kin, and may even be neighbors with mansions near one another in glory.

-------

Friends,

I'm not going to be able to keep posting AV defense material here at PB, not regularly, anyway, as I have already covered so many bases, and it's pointless to keep repeating myself over and over, and not good time management. Plus I have a wife, a church, and a life -- not to mention will be preaching through Revelation (Lord willing) in a month or two, and preparing for that will occupy much of my spare time.

What I will do is compile an index of sorts for many of my posts on various topics here in the "Translations and Manuscripts" forum, and then post that, for the benefit of those who want to avail themselves of my approach to defending the AV.

It is important to be sure in one's own mind and heart that God has provided us with His Word, inspired and preserved intact. When we approach our Savior with His promises in hand, we need to be able to call on Him with confidence that what we have is truly His word, without equivocation.

True, all (evangelical) versions of Scripture are adequately preserved (and there has been this adequate preservation throughout the church age, in varying locations), and sufficient for the saving of souls and the maintaining of churches; my approach goes beyond adequate preservation to preservation in the minutiae. Apparently this is not too popular nowadays, but for some of us it is vital.

Also important to me is that we conduct ourselves as younger brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus, showing the gracious, gentle and kind spirit that is ours from being united in heart with Him, even in our vigorous debates with one another over momentous issues. I have tried to model that spirit, especially in the Bible version discussions, where folks have been known to go into melt-down, and manifest the other spirit. Remember, we are members of the royal family of Heaven, the house of living stones in which He lives and walks.

For King and Kingdom!

Steve