WCF 1.8 and CT

Does WCF 1.8 require use of the Received Text

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • Hmm...I don't know

    Votes: 8 14.3%

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
a unique, biblically informed starting point which maintains that the church possesses God's word and is not in the awkward position of having to discover God's word. It is undoubtedly true that some mss. and fathers might appeal to a different textual tradition at times, but this does not negate the fact that the "TR" has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages.

I think when you say "TR" above you mean "Byzantine" text type. While I have no doubt that you already know the following, I'll belabor the point anyway, since I think your usage above was not quite correct...

The TR is a printing tradition begun by Erasmus, who assembled an eclectic body of manuscripts (and as somebody pointed out, a bit of personal Latin-to-Greek translation work to fill in the holes). The TR did not exist as a single book until Erasmus undertook this.

The Byzantine text-type, on the other hand, is a somewhat loose label placed upon textual readings that scholars believe should be classified together over against other readings with a different label. :^)

The above is another way of saying that you never find a manuscript of the Bible that has all the Byzantine readings together, or all the Alexandrian readings together, etc. You find admixture. This is why Byzantine-priority advocates like Dr. Robinson create their own critical texts with "Byzantine-only" readings.

Back to the TR... while many of the TR's readings are described by scholars as Byzantine, many others of the TR's readings are distinctly not. There is no reason I'm aware of to believe that the TR's unique, non-Byzantine readings have been the ones always in use by the church, which is why, for example, Dr. Robinson culled these out of his edition.

Just to reiterate, this is in response to your statement that: "the 'TR' has been the accessible text of the Christian church throughout the ages". Both Byzantine priority advocates and CT advocates would dispute that. The TR is its own unique animal (no disrespect intended).

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 07:28:05 EST-----

The second choice, the paragraph you didn't quote, applies to those whom I'd describe as more thoughtful and informed TR advocates -- who must admit in the end a difference of degree with the critical method.

This is the point which needs to be corrected. It is a difference of kind. That which passes for textual criticism today is bent on discovering the text of Scripture, and to date are only confident they have approximated to the NT text. The believing criticism of the TR advocates works from the principle that they possess the text of Scripture, the word of God as originally delivered to the NT church and preserved through all ages.

I think we're going in circles now. When you say we "possess" the text of scripture, are you claiming that we know word for word, letter for letter, the content of the autographs? If so, point me to an Amazon link, because I would spend a very large percentage of my yearly income to acquire such a volume.

If not, then why do you refuse to imagine that somebody else's choice of variants can be just as acceptable as your own?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I think when you say "TR" above you mean "Byzantine" text type.

No, I mean TR, which includes not only the ms. witness but also the testimony of the fathers.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 07:40:11 EST-----

If not, then why do you refuse to imagine that somebody else's choice of variants can be just as acceptable as your own?

When one reads the UBS Greek New Testament between editions 3 and 4, it becomes plain that the choice of variants based on eclectic (sceptical) criticism continues to vary from year to year and makes no headway towards settling the actual text of the inspired NT.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
When one reads the UBS Greek New Testament between editions 3 and 4, it becomes plain that the choice of variants based on eclectic (sceptical) criticism continues to vary from year to year and makes no headway towards settling the actual text of the inspired NT.

Granted, at least to a degree... Presumably the editors would dispute that, since why would they modify it if they didn't like the new reading better...

Let's change the subject. You know, a major problem in the church today is that Protestant churches have all these disagreements about doctrine. Even within Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches you have about as many opinions as you have people.

All this could be solved by appealing to the authority handed down in the church through history -- that of the Catholic councils and of the Holy Father. You see, when you settle on a single voice of authority, then you don't have all this flurry of contradicting ideas.

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

OK, so the above was tongue in cheek, but you see where I am going. I would love to settle on an edition of the Hebrew (which is less of a problem) and Greek (which is more of a problem) scriptures and say, "That's it. That's the text that Paul wrote. No more textual criticism necessary." But which text should we choose?

Why should I accept the opinion of Erasmus on the matter of textual criticism, any more than I should accept the opinion of the Pope on doctrinal questions? Non-intellectually justifiable certainty on a topic is not preferable to intellectually rigorous uncertainty.

For what it's worth, I bet Erasmus would use the Nestle-Aland text if he were alive today. His intention all along was to issue an improved Latin translation -- the Greek was just sort of grabbed together from the best among the sources he had access to at the time. I am highly skeptical that Erasmus would have claimed to possess the text of the autographs.

In my opinion, a discussion of the primacy of the TR really does boil down to the question, "What reason do we have to regard Erasmus' work that highly?"
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
In my opinion, a discussion of the primacy of the TR really does boil down to the question, "What reason do we have to regard Erasmus' work that highly?"

Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
The believing criticism of the TR advocates works from the principle that they possess the text of Scripture, the word of God as originally delivered to the NT church and preserved through all ages.

I note from Steve's reply to the question of tree of life vs. book of life that he quotes someone who quotes someone else who says that 2 out of the 5200 Greek manuscripts that we have today say book and not tree. The laws of averages being what they are, the chance of Erasmus having one of those two texts when he put together the TR is about zero. It would be interesting to have some information about those two Greek manuscripts.

So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
A problem with the CT is that you have to accept that you will never know with absolute presicision every letter of the inspired text in its original state, or indeed in some later perfected state. What you can do though is to trust that God has preserved the text in such a way that his purpose of salvation and self revelation have been preserved. i.e. that they have been kept pure in all ages and are therefore authentical.

The original text of the TR has been modified since Erasmus drew up his text and there is still discussion concerning the exact form the text should take. This is seen as being in accordance with the Confessional statement as it is accepted that the text being kept pure does not require there to be no historical variations. With a TR position you do not get certainty either unless you invent such certainty.

The TR only camp (which is rare on this board) do not like the potential confusion that differing textual basis can bring and it is to achieve such certainty that a TR or AV standard is insisted on. It is however wrong to achieve certainty by insisting on a human standard and to be honest the whole concept is very Roman. There is no merit in certainty if such certainty can be wrong. It is a false and perhaps idolitrous certainty.

It may well be that the CT is often drawn up incorrectly due to its presupositional basis and this is a good argument to have, but to condemn all the CT's positions as being skeptical as they do not accord to the TR position would be misplaced as its presupposes that the TR is perfect, which is a self fulfilling prophecy.

When the Confession was written there was no real consideration of the varied textual basis that we are now aware of. Indeed the confession affirms by implication that in the Alexandrian church they had a text that was kept pure (in that this was also "in all ages"), it is therefore revisionist to demand a TR basis in order to be confessional. What you can demand is that in all ages the Church has had a pure text that can be appealed to, in both Alexandria and Byzantium. The Confession insists on Textual diversity rather than a TR monoploly.

An argument that the TR is to be preferred is a powerful one, but I cannot see how such a position is demanded by the confessions which is the OP of this thread.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.

I am sure that for all of us, the level of knowledge of every aspect of the Holy Scriptures that we desire, is a level we will approach, but never achieve until the day when we sit at the feet of their Author.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Alot of this dialog is deeply philosophically based. Thanks TimV for that link in your post. Now I know where you get some of your info. To the rest of y'all, you also have made the same presuppositions that modern philosophy has. The method becomes the prime search and not Meta-physics.

CT is based alot on Codex's that the reformers knew about and rejected. Vaticanus was greatly flawed, yet it is used, for example. It's the methodology thats at issue. Has the church been 'off' these years to only be corrected by 'moderns'? Since the church fathers heavily quoted the Bible, it's no mystery what the originals said. We don't have to look under a rock to find a new scroll. It's there for all to read. Which is what the reformers and those before them did. That's where CT digresses. Using later copies to update isn't necessary.

This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?

I'm not inclined to argue points requiring the establishing of facts which cannot be proved. What Erasmus might have done is neither here nor there. If he followed the confessional position then he may well have ignored numerous mss. in order to follow a traditionally accepted reading. Anyone acquainted with the science of textual criticism will understand that it is sometimes necessary to follow a minority in order to maintain the principles of sound criticism. The question is simply this -- Are we to settle the biblical text on the basis of the same principle that we would settle the text of any ancient document? Many modern textual critics answer, Yes, whereas those committed to the principle outlined in WCF 1:8 maintain that believing criticism should not ignore ecclesiastical tradition.
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.

Semper Reforandum dont you know, its about testing your traditions. By their very nature traditions are often not trustworthy.

You could have said the same thing about the Reformers rejecting the Vulgate.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Then you have much work yet to do before you can claim to be a competent critic of the TR.

I am sure that for all of us, the level of knowledge of every aspect of the Holy Scriptures that we desire, is a level we will approach, but never achieve until the day when we sit at the feet of their Author.

That is true; but "boiling down" technical discussions of the TR to Erasmian origins can only serve to obscure much information which is attainable in this life.
 

Hippo

Puritan Board Junior
So the obvious question is whether or not Erasmus, if he had 10 Greek copies of Revelation, and all the copies said tree instead of book, would have used the word tree instead of book. And if the overwhelming majority of Byzantine type texts use the word tree, is this not evidence that the Church has possessed the whole Word of God throughout the ages?

I'm not inclined to argue points requiring the establishing of facts which cannot be proved. What Erasmus might have done is neither here nor there. If he followed the confessional position then he may well have ignored numerous mss. in order to follow a traditionally accepted reading. Anyone acquainted with the science of textual criticism will understand that it is sometimes necessary to follow a minority in order to maintain the principles of sound criticism. The question is simply this -- Are we to settle the biblical text on the basis of the same principle that we would settle the text of any ancient document? Many modern textual critics answer, Yes, whereas those committed to the principle outlined in WCF 1:8 maintain that believing criticism should not ignore ecclesiastical tradition.

Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
CT is based alot on Codex's that the reformers knew about and rejected. Vaticanus was greatly flawed, yet it is used. It's the methodology thats at issue. Has the church been 'off' these years to only be corrected by 'moderns'? Since the church fathers heavily quoted the Bible, it's no mystery what the originals said. We don't have to look under a rock to find a new scroll. It's there for all to read. Which is what the reformers and those before them did. That's where CT digresses. Using later copies to update isn't necessary.

So we find that Erasmus knew about a particular text and rejected it. That's somewhat interesting and helpful... but just how helpful is it? Again, what reason do we have to trust Erasmus' judgment?

What was Erasmus' reasoning process in rejecting Vaticanus or whatever we're referring to here? Do we have a record of that?

What was Erasmus' general method in ascertaining the "true text of scripture"? Do we have a record of that?

I think when it comes down to brass tacks, we will find that while textual criticism has existed in some form as long as texts have existed, a rigorous scientific approach is relatively new, and many older scholars were doing good just to collect at least one Greek copy of each New Testament book, let alone make a judgment about which readings were superior, that should still carry weight today.

Modern scholars perform their work with transparency. If you want to where Kurt Aland found each of his readings, his editions supply all of that information. You want to know his method? There are books about it.

We just don't have that luxury with Erasmus. My impression is that some people accept his edition on faith that God wouldn't have allowed him to grab any manuscripts with incorrect readings in them. This faith is misplaced.

This also relates to the OP. Do we have a Church tradition that is trustworthy, or do we need to update our practices to reflect modern times to make it 'relevant'? This reflects what people think of the RT/CT issue. We don't adjust the Bible to the age or people (CT), we adjust people/age to the Bible (RT). This is how the philosophical presuppositions impact the church and it's people.

I think the above contains an erroneous implication, at least the way I understand it and I think most people would understand it. It seems to suggest that compatibility with modern cultures is a priority for preparers of critical Biblical texts. But this is not true -- their goal is to deduce the contents of the original text, no more, no less.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Hayagriva, That's good to know. I work for a Hindi from India. I'll get some first hand knowledge about this. :lol:

Fear not, they have their scripture disputes too!
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Which is why it would be great to have a confessionally based CT text.

Sounds like Hayagriva.

Sorry for not understanding your post but surely a prespositionally sound examination of the available texts (i.e not limited to just the Byzantium texts) would address most of your problems with the CT?

Hayagriva -- you are placing a horse's head (CT) on a human body (confessional position).

Readings "not limited to just the Byzantium texts" supposes lost readings can be found, and thereby betrays the fideistic presupposition of the confession.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
That is true; but "boiling down" technical discussions of the TR to Erasmian origins can only serve to obscure much information which is attainable in this life.

Trying to veer somewhat back toward the original topic here...

I.VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.​

Your argument for TR primacy seems to be that:

--------------------------------------------------
- We know God has kept his word "pure" in all ages.

- There is a certain level of textual corruption that you are still willing to call "pure", viz. the variants between TR editions -- but the variants between the TR and the CT (and presumably also between TR versus many Byzantine texts?) happen to exceed your threshold for the WCF's definition of "pure".

- Scholars of the Reformation period seized upon Erasmus' edition and used it and its successors almost exclusively.

- Therefore, that text is the "pure" text of scripture, and all others are to be judged based on comparison to it.

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

I'm struggling a bit to put your position into words, please correct me if I am setting up a straw man anywhere. One thing that is clear to me is that your position is not derived from analysis of manuscript evidence or patristic usage, but rather on the authority of the text handed down. In the TR primacy position, manuscript readings that contradict the TR must be rejected, and readings that agree with the TR are taken as icing on the cake, confirmation that the TR is correct and has always been used. Thus all manuscripts are relegated to secondary status beneath our printed TR of Erasmus.

Objections to this position abound. It only considers the church that used the TR as its Greek Bible during the Reformation, and lacks convincing evidence from (a) the church elsewhere in the world, and (b) the church at other times in history. By judging all manuscripts based on those specific ones that Erasmus happened to choose (for reasons not known to us today), we unfortunately relegate most of the unique copies of the Bible transmitted for our use today to the "ignored bin". How does that honor the God who gave us all these manuscripts and gave us intelligent minds to perform textual criticism that we may try to remove man's mistakes?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
How does that honor the God who gave us all these manuscripts and gave us intelligent minds to perform textual criticism that we may try to remove man's mistakes?

Again, I don't accept your simplified view of the TR position (you persist in presuming we don't engage in textual criticism of any kind), but if I may answer this question -- it glorifies God because it acknowledges that we do not have all the facts and evidence to be able to make confident judgements which overturn the testimony of the church through the ages. We accept that we are entering into the labours of others, and do not suppose that because they came before us that their conclusions must have somehow been less scientific than the modern textual critic who manages to hide his assumptions and present his theory as a neutral sifting of the facts.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
Again, I don't accept your simplified view of the TR position (you persist in presuming we don't engage in textual criticism of any kind), but if I may answer this question -- it glorifies God because it acknowledges that we do not have all the facts and evidence to be able to make confident judgements which overturn the testimony of the church through the ages. We accept that we are entering into the labours of others, and do not suppose that because they came before us that their conclusions must have somehow been less scientific than the modern textual critic who manages to hide his assumptions and present his theory as a neutral sifting of the facts.

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).

Can you enlighten my impression, which you seemed to imply is mistaken?
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
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.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.

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.
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

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.

Hmmmm. I read the following...

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. :^(
 

Thomas2007

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
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?
 

TsonMariytho

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top