Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
This is a continuation from the thread, “Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?”, which got rather long, and so we are getting a fresh start.
----------------
Matt G. (in a post below) suggested I introduce by way of a brief synopsis the contents of this thread at the beginning of it, and I think that is a good idea.
1. Initially we look at Wilbur Pickering’s view in his classic Majority Text defense, The Identity of the New Testament Text, at charts he uses to illustrate his points, and his data concerning what is called the Critical Text vis-à-vis the MT.
2. I make it clear that Pickering is not a King James or Textus Receptus (1894 Trinitarian Bible Society edition, which Scrivener constructed from the various Greek MSS to show the Greek text that underlies the KJV) advocate.
3. I quote from Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible , to give light on the matter of “family trees” in the textual transmission.
4. I express my displeasure at what I perceive is the desire of some to get me to interact with James White on these issues before I am ready, as I have stated I want to get more of his material so as to study and interact with that first (such as concerning 1 John 5:7, and his book on the KJO Controversy). I then apologize for assuming motives in this, which was wrong of me.
5. I talk of presuppositional views compared with an evidential approach to determining the text, of a theological approach compared with a supposedly “neutral scientific” one.
6. I bring in Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s views from their Introduction in THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK?ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM. I supply links to this and others works where they are available, urging people to download them, as both links and books disappear (as some links have indeed gone since I posted them).
7. I interact with James A. Price’s online article, “The King James Only View of Edward F. Hills”, countering in-depth and detail his critique of E.F. Hills’ views.
8. Some thoughts and Scripture are brought to bear on the matter of providential preservation of God’s word, with an in-depth look at the translation of Psalm 12:6, 7, which is poorly handled in many versions.
9. An in-depth look at Erasmus, his character, beliefs, and part in the transmission of the NT text.
10. While continuing with Price, I begin to bring in the work of Dr. Theodore Letis and the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Especially pertinent is the issue, which both Price and Daniel Wallace (mentioned below) bring up, of presuppositions vs. evidences. We see Letis treat in-depth “our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…”
11. After being told by my discussion partner in these matters, that text critic Dr. Daniel Wallace refuted one of the essayists I quoted from in Letis’ book, I give a link to Wallace’s essay and critique that.
12. After that I begin to look at Ted Letis’ works in detail and depth, first his aforementioned book, and then his later The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, discussing various of his essays.
I have just finished this latter work of Letis (Sept. 26, 2006), and have a few remaining comments on it, and then shall refocus on the view of the JKV/TR this thread is primarily about. I have recently received James White’s newer book on the Bible, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity, which I shall review, as well as his earlier book, The King James Only Controversy. It will no doubt take me a little time to read these carefully, so the thread may (as far as I know) be inactive a while. After which I hope to sum up what I consider a cogent defense of the KJV/TR, the Lord granting me to live that long and keep my wits about me.
----------------
Chris Mangum had asked, “Can anyone provide a timeline showing when the manuscripts were found/developed? This would help the many who are new to this debate.”
As I have discovered how to insert an image into a post, I will present a sort of “family tree” of Text types, so as to give an idea of how the various MSS lend support to them, as well as their approximate respective dates. I got this from E.F. Hills’, Believing Bible Study, 1977 edition (available at Bible For Today, I believe), and I saw it also in Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible (NJ, Dean Burgon Society 1999). This online version is excellent, missing only the illustrations and diagrams. For those interested in an overview of the textual materials, it is worth downloading the entire contents and keeping them in a file!
[for some reason the links for the book just above and the one just below are not showing, but clicking on the titles will take you to the online versions; likewise in the following post for “chap. 5” – this is the case further down also; titles, sections and chapters are often linked, but not visible]
In the following posts, I will excerpt some remarks from Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II (TIOTNTT), and then attach a graph of his, “Stream of transmission”, first from the 1980 revised edition, and in the following post some updated comments and a slightly modified graph from the newest edition, Jan. 1, 2003. They compliment — add to — each other. The first of these graphs vividly portrays the quantitative aspect of the various manuscripts, dramatically illuminating the unseen realities you may be unaware by just looking at the family tree “Text types” diagram attached below. The second of Pickering’s charts adds some nuances missing in the first, with some updated stats in the written comments accompanying it.
[Edited on 10-16-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]
----------------
Matt G. (in a post below) suggested I introduce by way of a brief synopsis the contents of this thread at the beginning of it, and I think that is a good idea.
1. Initially we look at Wilbur Pickering’s view in his classic Majority Text defense, The Identity of the New Testament Text, at charts he uses to illustrate his points, and his data concerning what is called the Critical Text vis-à-vis the MT.
2. I make it clear that Pickering is not a King James or Textus Receptus (1894 Trinitarian Bible Society edition, which Scrivener constructed from the various Greek MSS to show the Greek text that underlies the KJV) advocate.
3. I quote from Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible , to give light on the matter of “family trees” in the textual transmission.
4. I express my displeasure at what I perceive is the desire of some to get me to interact with James White on these issues before I am ready, as I have stated I want to get more of his material so as to study and interact with that first (such as concerning 1 John 5:7, and his book on the KJO Controversy). I then apologize for assuming motives in this, which was wrong of me.
5. I talk of presuppositional views compared with an evidential approach to determining the text, of a theological approach compared with a supposedly “neutral scientific” one.
6. I bring in Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s views from their Introduction in THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK?ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM. I supply links to this and others works where they are available, urging people to download them, as both links and books disappear (as some links have indeed gone since I posted them).
7. I interact with James A. Price’s online article, “The King James Only View of Edward F. Hills”, countering in-depth and detail his critique of E.F. Hills’ views.
8. Some thoughts and Scripture are brought to bear on the matter of providential preservation of God’s word, with an in-depth look at the translation of Psalm 12:6, 7, which is poorly handled in many versions.
9. An in-depth look at Erasmus, his character, beliefs, and part in the transmission of the NT text.
10. While continuing with Price, I begin to bring in the work of Dr. Theodore Letis and the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Especially pertinent is the issue, which both Price and Daniel Wallace (mentioned below) bring up, of presuppositions vs. evidences. We see Letis treat in-depth “our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…”
11. After being told by my discussion partner in these matters, that text critic Dr. Daniel Wallace refuted one of the essayists I quoted from in Letis’ book, I give a link to Wallace’s essay and critique that.
12. After that I begin to look at Ted Letis’ works in detail and depth, first his aforementioned book, and then his later The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, discussing various of his essays.
I have just finished this latter work of Letis (Sept. 26, 2006), and have a few remaining comments on it, and then shall refocus on the view of the JKV/TR this thread is primarily about. I have recently received James White’s newer book on the Bible, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity, which I shall review, as well as his earlier book, The King James Only Controversy. It will no doubt take me a little time to read these carefully, so the thread may (as far as I know) be inactive a while. After which I hope to sum up what I consider a cogent defense of the KJV/TR, the Lord granting me to live that long and keep my wits about me.
----------------
Chris Mangum had asked, “Can anyone provide a timeline showing when the manuscripts were found/developed? This would help the many who are new to this debate.”
As I have discovered how to insert an image into a post, I will present a sort of “family tree” of Text types, so as to give an idea of how the various MSS lend support to them, as well as their approximate respective dates. I got this from E.F. Hills’, Believing Bible Study, 1977 edition (available at Bible For Today, I believe), and I saw it also in Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible (NJ, Dean Burgon Society 1999). This online version is excellent, missing only the illustrations and diagrams. For those interested in an overview of the textual materials, it is worth downloading the entire contents and keeping them in a file!
[for some reason the links for the book just above and the one just below are not showing, but clicking on the titles will take you to the online versions; likewise in the following post for “chap. 5” – this is the case further down also; titles, sections and chapters are often linked, but not visible]
In the following posts, I will excerpt some remarks from Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II (TIOTNTT), and then attach a graph of his, “Stream of transmission”, first from the 1980 revised edition, and in the following post some updated comments and a slightly modified graph from the newest edition, Jan. 1, 2003. They compliment — add to — each other. The first of these graphs vividly portrays the quantitative aspect of the various manuscripts, dramatically illuminating the unseen realities you may be unaware by just looking at the family tree “Text types” diagram attached below. The second of Pickering’s charts adds some nuances missing in the first, with some updated stats in the written comments accompanying it.
[Edited on 10-16-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]
Last edited: