# TTer gone CTer



## Robert Truelove (Nov 6, 2006)

The subject of textual criticism has been a passion of mine over the years. I have found one of the greatest difficulties in having an interest in this subject is that, by and large, I find I am almost the only person I know off the Internet that can enjoyably yap on and on about this subject. 

For the longest time I was an avid proponent of the Traditional Text (as found in the Majority Text). Earlier this year I was studying to take my church through a series of lectures on this subject. At the end of the series the session was going to formerly adopt the KJV as our official translation.

However, as I went through the study this time around (I have spent a lot of time in this study in the past), I wound up flip flopping on my position. I came to see the Critical Text as actually being superior to the Traditional Text.

I was wondering if there were any other Critical Text converts out there. What were some of the things you saw that led to your change of persuasion from the Traditional Text to the Critical Text? I'd be interested if you saw some of the same things I saw.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 6, 2006)

Well, went the exact opposite route...but that's not what you are asking, so I'll just go back to lurking now.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 6, 2006)

Prespastor, 

I've also had an interest in this subject for several years. Having been on the fence for some time, I would be interested in knowing what it was that led to your change of mind on this issue.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 7, 2006)

It's a pity the reformers didn't have this "superior test" to work with while they were pumping out those spurious translations. just my 
As for me, I'll stick with the TR.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 7, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> Prespastor,
> 
> I've also had an interest in this subject for several years. Having been on the fence for some time, I would be interested in knowing what it was that led to your change of mind on this issue.



It started with recognition that, concerning variants, the argument for the Traditional Text that says it was the text in use by the church universally down through the ages is fallacious.

The Traditional Text (used broadly here for Byzantine Text form) was the text of the later Greek speaking church (become the Eastern Orthodox Church). So to put it simply, it is the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church not the church as a whole.

The western church used the Latin Vulgate through this time and the Vulgate has more in common with the Western Text Form. There are also other texts used for peoples of other languages that are not really examples of the Byzantine Text Form (Coptic, Old Syriac, Old Latin, etc.).

Before the 4th Century, we see within the Greek texts used, different manuscript traditions. Considerations regarding Western and Alexandrian readings prior to the 4th Century will establish the fact that as long as we have had the manuscript traditions, there has been variance. 

One of the ways I got around these problems in the past was to assume that only the Greek manuscripts should be considered when assessing the variant readings. The problem here is that you cannot claim to only acknowledge the Greek manuscripts and at the same time use the argument that this was the textual family at use by the church through the ages. This arguement also doesnt deal with the varying Greek manuscript traditions in use in large sections of the empire during the first 4 centuries.

The point is, I came to see that there is no Traditional Text in the sense that most Traditional Text proponents claim. I believe the Traditional Text position is fundamentally a theological argument, not an argument from the actual evidence. As some of my presuppositions began to change I was able to see that much of the evidence I would use for the Traditional Text position was not very sound. Without my theological presuppositions to hold them up they toppled.

I developed a great appreciation for the Alexandrian manuscripts. I had believed before that they were corrupt works of Gnostics or other heretics. That they were not used because of their poor quality and that is the only reason they had survived. 

The facts of the matter are, the Alexandrian manuscrptis were used, and used much for centuries. The scribal notes in some of these make it clear that they were used. 

Regarding the heretical arguement, the facts simply did not bear these things out to be true. If these manuscripts are the works of heretics, they represent the works of the most inept heretics the world may have ever known. Simply pointing to texts where the deity of Christ is 'removed' (compared with later Byzantine manuscripts) does not prove these manuscripts were heretical corruptions. Heretical copies are characterized by the systematic expulsion of certain doctrines from the text. If the short version of the Lords Prayer in Luke is due to heretical corruption, then why didn’t they also do the same thing to the version in Matthew?

And the Lord's Prayer is a very good case study. Tradition Text adherents generally say that the Lord's Prayer as found in Luke in the Alexandrian Text Form is a corruption though the same thing is not found of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew. Critical Text people say that this is a clear case of later harmonization in the Byzantine Text form (where a scribe copied the longer version from Matthew into a copy of look making them match). Harmonizations are one of the things that identify a manuscript tradition to be secondary.

So, looking at the Lord's Prayer, saying the Alexandrian readings are heretical corruptions just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense while the argument of subsequent harmonization in the Byzantine Text Form is perfectly logical.

It was many such things as this that led me to seeing that a Critical Text based primarily on the Alexandrian manuscripts is the best text available.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 7, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> It's a pity the reformers didn't have this "superior test" to work with while they were pumping out those spurious translations. just my
> As for me, I'll stick with the TR.



The Reformers did not deal with this subject if at all because they were not, by and large, aware of the scope of the problem (they also had bigger fish to fry at the time  ). Having ANY edition of the Greek text commonly available was a new revolution thanks to the printing press. (not to mention how the printing press also assured uniformity of all the copies in any given edition which would further cloud the scope of the issue of textual varients in the manuscripts).

It was not until the later part of the 1600s that the textual issue with the manuscripts began to come to light more broadly through the works of men like Dr John Fell (Bishop of Oxford) and John Mill (Queen's College, Oxford). Mill's edition of the Greek New Testament in particular caused a stir because he also included an apparatus that revealed many of variants (and these mostly varients with the Byzantine Text Form itself!).

As more scholars became aware of the problem, scholarship began to develop that would address it and seek to aid us in comprehending the best readings.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 7, 2006)

prespastor said:


> It started with recognition that, concerning variants, the argument for the Traditional Text that says it was the text in use by the church universally down through the ages is fallacious.
> 
> The Traditional Text (used broadly here for Byzantine Text form) was the text of the later Greek speaking church (become the Eastern Orthodox Church). So to put it simply, it is the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church not the church as a whole.
> 
> ...




Good post, especially with regard to the charges of heretical corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts. This is an assertion that we often hear but one for which evidence is never produced. As you say, if it is a case of heretical corruption, then they must have been the most inept heretics in the world! 

If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong), the TR that many refer to is the Scrivener text which I understand to be basically a reverse engineered critical text that represents what Scrivener thought to be the Greek underlying text of the KJV. If that's the case (and I don't mean to malign Scrivener here) and if we're told that this text is the "original" and any deviation from it is akin to tampering with the Word of God, how is this point of view really any different from Ruckman's statement that when the English (KJV) and Greek differ, correct the Greek with the English!?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 7, 2006)

People need to understand that when a TR person defends the TR as THE text they are doing far more than what their underlying theological presuppositions actually allow.

They say that the Critical Text is based upon rationalistic science that puts men in the place of judges of the word of God. Sometimes I have heard them say that textual scholars act like little popes.

This makes their strict TR position extremely problematic as they are claiming that Erasmus and the subsequent editors had an almost infallible oversight of the text. This fact is made obvious when one notes that the Majority Text has around 1500 Textual Variations from Scrivener's TR. 



Pilgrim said:


> Good post, especially with regard to the charges of heretical corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts. This is an assertion that we often hear but one for which evidence is never produced. As you say, if it is a case of heretical corruption, then they must have been the most inept heretics in the world!
> 
> If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong), the TR that many refer to is the Scrivener text which I understand to be basically a reverse engineered critical text that represents what Scrivener thought to be the Greek underlying text of the KJV. If that's the case (and I don't mean to malign Scrivener here) and if we're told that this text is the "original" and any deviation from it is akin to tampering with the Word of God, how is this point of view really any different from Ruckman's statement that when the English (KJV) and Greek differ, correct the Greek with the English!?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 7, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The first question we must ask is, Do we believe in the traditional text, that is, has God preserved His word pure in all ages? Then we must ask, Where is the traditional text to be found? We follow the same method with the church. Do we believe in the true church? and then we ask, Where is the true church to be found?



I believe that the word has been 'kept pure in all ages'. Not in the Byzantine Text Form alone, but also in the other Text Types as well. None of them are so abberant that they are not 'pure'. This does not mean that some are not more pure than others, but all are God's word, varients notwithstanding.

If you try to claim absolute inerrancy for the TR, you will not be able to demonstrate that the edition of the TR you choose was in use before its publication. It is not enough to say the TR is essentially the same (or very close to ) the Majority Text or Byzantine text form; not if your arguement is dealing with preservation in an absolute sense. 



armourbearer said:


> Concerning the TR, infallible oversight is not claimed for the editors, but for the providence that guided the editors. So it comes back to a question of faith. Do you believe that God singularly preserves His word pure in all ages? If so, then that necessarily requires a belief in infallible oversight.



This is a slippery slope. For God to give 'infallible oversight' over editors, you are really back into the realm of inspiration, not preservation. You are dealing with that which is miraculous, not providential.


As I see the text, I see it 'pure in all ages'. I believe God's providence made it so and the nature of the transmission is exactly what we would expect from providential preservation. I can demonstrate that in spite of the variants in the different textual traditions, the word was pure and profitable. I can also demonstarte this throughout the age of the church.

The TR position cannot do this. With its strict view of preservation, one cannot demonstrate the same strict text in use in all ages.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 7, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The first question we must ask is, Do we believe in the traditional text, that is, has God preserved His word pure in all ages? Then we must ask, Where is the traditional text to be found? We follow the same method with the church. Do we believe in the true church? and then we ask, Where is the true church to be found?



If the method is indeed the same, then we must confess what the confession states, "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error."


----------



## larryjf (Nov 8, 2006)

What had a big impact on me was the 14 theses put forth by D.A. Carson in his book, "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism."

1. There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century.

2. The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition by appealing to the fact that most extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament attest to this Byzantine text-type, is logically fallacious and historically naive.

3. The Byzantine text-type is demonstrably a secondary text.

4. The Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available.

5. The argument to the effect that what the majority of believers in the history of the church have beleived is true, is ambiguous at best and theologically dangerous at worst; and as applied to textual criticism, the argument proves nothing very helpful anyway.

6. The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is logically and theologically fallacious.

7. The argument that appeals to the fourth-century writing practices to deny the possibility that the Byzantine text is a conflation, is fallacious.

8. Textual arguments that depend on adopting the TR and comparing other text-types with it are guilty, methodologically speaking, of begging the issue; and in any case they present less than the whole truth.

9. The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.

10. The KJV was not accepted without a struggle, and some outstanding believers soon wanted to replace it.

11. The Byzantine text-type must not be thought to be the precise equivalent of the TR.

12. The argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically fallacious.

13. Arguments that attempt to draw textual conclusions from a prejudicial selection of not immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, or by a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence, are not only misleading, but ought to be categorically rejected by Christians who, above all others, profess both to love truth and to love their brothers in Christ.

14. Adoption of the TR should not be made a criterion of orthodoxy. 

Of course he also had the argumentation following each thesis.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 8, 2006)

> "6. The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is logically and theologically fallacious."
> 
> Over and again this debate comes back to theological convictions. Carson doesn't share the confessional conviction that God preserrves His Word pure in all ages.



One can’t say that God’s providence was effective in preserving the Byzantine text-form and then deny His providence in preserving the Alexandrian text-form. In fact God’s providence was there in 1611 with the production of the KJV and it is here today with the production of modern versions. God's providence touches everything that happens, not just the Byzantine textform.

Using that line of logic it would seem to imply a denial of God’s providence in the first few centuries of the Church as there is no record of any Byzantine text during that period.

Preservation is a different issue. And I've heard some say that God wouldn't preserve His word hidden away somewhere only to be discovered later. But that is quite a presumption on the means that God has chosen to preserve His word. Especially when we read from the Bible that His word has been lost only to be found later…

Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan. (2Ch 34:15, NASB)


----------



## larryjf (Nov 9, 2006)

> There is only one Word of God. Quite clearly the Alexandrian text form has not been preserved in all ages, else it would not have required rediscovery. That is the point.


Preservation and Providence are two different things.



> "In all ages," seems like a fairly straightforward phrase. I am not sure why people have such difficulty with it.


Being preserved in all ages does not mean it has been accessible in all ages. As the Scripture reference i used pointed to, the Bible gives evidence that its preservation is not connected to the accessibility of it.

Clearly if the Alexandrian text was not preserved, how could translators be using it today?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 10, 2006)

Robert,

Going back to your post #6, I concur with the first six paragraphs, where you elaborate on the idea that “the argument for the Traditional Text that says it was the text in use by the church universally down through the ages is fallacious.” As you show, this is a misunderstanding some TT or AV proponents hold. In another thread (contemporaneous to this one) I discuss this issue (I will give the link to the post so as not to make this too long): http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=214794&postcount=47 (that is from “The Merits of the AV” thread). It is far more nuanced than those you critique have claimed. Seeing their errors, some – perhaps yourself – have flown the coop of such bad information.

A little further in your post (#6) you say you “developed a great appreciation for the Alexandrian manuscripts”; I can also agree that they are not “the works of heretics” but are indeed valuable items in our repository of MSS. Although P75 and B are very close, the other primary Alexandrian MS, a (Sinaiticus) differs (I am sure you have heard these stats before!) from B in 3,036 places just in the Gospels. Some of the excisions based _almost exclusively_ upon B & a include the last 12 verses of Mark and the word “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Were Hort’s theory of the Antiochian rescension true, and were his conjecture that B and a represented a neutral (uncorrupted) text, _then_ you had somewhat of a case for exalting these two almost _lone_ witnesses against the _thousands_ who testify against them. But modern scholarship has shown Hort’s theory on both counts false, the first with utterly _no_ historical evidence at all – mere supposition – and the second these exalted codices shown to be ancient yet unreliable. Have you ever considered the work of Burgon, or Hoskier, or – in more modern times – Pickering, or Robinson on the assessment of the Critical Text?

I am not sure what you are referring to in this paragraph:

And the Lord's Prayer is a very good case study. Tradition Text adherents generally say that the Lord's Prayer as found in Luke in the Alexandrian Text Form is a corruption though the same thing is not found of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew. Critical Text people say that this is a clear case of later harmonization in the Byzantine Text form (where a scribe copied the longer version from Matthew into a copy of look making them match). Harmonizations are one of the things that identify a manuscript tradition to be secondary.​
In the CT the end of the Lord’s prayer in Matthew – “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” – is omitted; the note in the NIV says “some late manuscripts add” it, as not belonging in the original. Would you like to make this a “case study” of the reliability of our respective texts?

I can appreciate your being disillusioned because of the often poor presentation of the TT position. I try to make the case cogent, accurate, and winsome, _for it is the word of our Lord we are discussing!_ 

But as I once heard said, “You can’t argue someone into liking the taste of beer.”

Steve


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 10, 2006)

*Accuracy vs. Ancientness*



prespastor said:


> It started with recognition that, concerning variants, the argument for the Traditional Text that says it was the text in use by the church universally down through the ages is fallacious.
> 
> The Traditional Text (used broadly here for Byzantine Text form) was the text of the later Greek speaking church (become the Eastern Orthodox Church). So to put it simply, it is the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church not the church as a whole.
> 
> ...



Hi:

Critical Text advocates tend to deny the findings of Herman Hoskier. In his book, "Codex B and its Allies", he lists 3036 references where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in the four Gospels. These are very real differences, not a matter of punctuation or differences in spelling. In every case one or the other must be in error; and in a multitude of situations both of them err. 

Hoskier, a distinguished scholar, in a magnificent rebuttal of the outrageous claims made in favour of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, has published over 900 pages of scholarly refutation. The differences in the four Gospels alone amount to 3,036; as follows:

Matthew 656+ Mark 567+ Luke 791+ John 1022+ Total 3036+

It is my contention that the liberal scholars of the 19th and 20th Century made use of these differences in order to create a text that is more acceptable to their theological persuasion. In other words: by claiming that Aleph and B were the "older mss" they could substitute whatever change in the Greek Text they wanted. That they were successful in arguing that the older texts are better despite the errors of these texts is exemplified by some Reformed types, such as White and Carson, who make similar arguments.

I would suggest that Accuracy is far more important than Ancientness.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 10, 2006)

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/div-orig.asp

Early Greek and Latin writers -- The "Fathers" 

The writings of early champions of the truth (and heretics) contain copious references to the Scriptures and again testify concerning the Greek text as it was in the 2nd century onwards. The majority of these witnesses support the "Byzantine" or "Received" or "Traditional" text underlying the Authorised Version, and they establish the antiquity of this text and its superior acceptance in the early period. 

So who is lying?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 10, 2006)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Critical Text advocates tend to deny the findings of Herman Hoskier. In his book, "Codex B and its Allies", he lists 3036 references where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in the four Gospels. These are very real differences, not a matter of punctuation or differences in spelling. In every case one or the other must be in error; and in a multitude of situations both of them err.
> 
> ...



Would you be up to the challenge of backing up the statement of the CT being more in line with liberal theology? We often hear these assertions, and like the charge of Arian or Gnostic tampering, seldom if ever is any evidence brought to the table to prove the assertions.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 11, 2006)

Certainly Chris:

Here is an example:

Codex Vaticanus in Hebrews 1:3 reads: "Who manifesting, (phanerôn) the all by the Word of His power ...." 
The correct reading thus: "Who upholding (Greek: pherôn) all things by the Word of His power ...." 

The difference seems slight. However, the use of the word "manifesting the all" lends itself to early Gnosticism, and especially the school Valentius. The doctrine at stake is the fact that Jesus actually came in physical flesh. The Gnostics held that Jesus was simply a phantasm or ghostly manifestation on earth. This is not the only problem here. The redactor at this point writes in the margin:

"Why don't you leave the original alone and stop altering it?" (Greek: amathestate kai kake, aphes ton palaion, mê metapoiei.) The language indicates that the original scribe of the Vaticanus had altered other parts of the manuscript as well. I took the liberty of not translating the first part out of politeness.







Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 11, 2006)

Larry, in post #16 you list Carson’s 14 theses. I would like to comment on the first:

1. There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century.​
I cite the following to show there are more recent _and abundant scholarly_ findings to the contrary. I hope no one will object that it is a bit lengthy (not too), for it is a serious and technical assertion that has been posited, and the rebuttal must do justice to the matter. The footnotes are given after the text.

The following discussion of the early appearance of the Byzantine text-type is taken from Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_ (Wipf and Stock Pub; 3rd edition: 2003) [http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/], chapter 4:

*A biased expedient*

Before closing this section, it remains to take up the expedient, alluded to earlier, whereby many seek to evade the ante-Nicene patristic evidence for the "Byzantine" text. Vincent Taylor states the expedient as baldly as anyone. "In judging between two alternative readings [of a given Father in a given place] the principle to be adopted is that the one which diverges from the later ecclesiastical text (the TR) is more likely to be original."[122]

This expedient is extended even to cases where there is no alternative. The allegation is that copyists altered the Fathers' wording to conform to the "Byzantine," which the copyists regarded as "correct."[123] It is obvious that the effect of such a proceeding is to place the "Byzantine" text at a disadvantage. An investigation based on this principle is "rigged" against the TR.[124]

Even if there appear to be certain instances where this has demonstrably happened, such instances do not justify a widespread generalization. The generalization is based on the pre-supposition that the "Byzantine" text is late—but this is the very point to be proved and may not be assumed.

If the "Byzantine" text is early there is no reason to suppose that a "Byzantine" reading in an early Father is due to a later copyist unless a clear demonstration to that effect is possible. Miller shows clearly that he was fully aware of this problem and alert to exclude any suspicious instances from his tabulation.

An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately with the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious Houses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day familiar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to which they were accustomed and which they regarded as correct. This fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1, whereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about 8:3. [But might it possibly be the case that, precisely because of the "continual use in Religious Houses" (the more so if that use began early on), the 6:1 ratio reflects a pure/faithful transmission while "the other books" suffered some adulterations?]

For the same reason I have not included Marcion's edition of St. Luke's Gospel, or Tatian's Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because such representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to have been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgment of those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were self-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion. (Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual readings.) And the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness of the Ethica and Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that of the other works of Basil on the other, suggests that too much variation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of readings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author's pen. Variant readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are found, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have been supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS noted in the Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other prints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it. Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general trustworthiness the more evident.[125]​
After this careful screening Miller still came up with 2,630 citations, from 76 Fathers or sources, ranging over a span of 300 years (100-400 A.D.), supporting readings of the "Byzantine" text as opposed to those of the critical text of the English Revisers (which received 1,753 citations). Will anyone seriously propose that all or most of those citations had been altered? What objective grounds are there for doing so?

Hills discusses the case of Origen as follows:

In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by Papyrus Bodmer II) out of 52 instances in which the Byzantine text stands alone Origen agrees with the Byzantine text 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus the assertion of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Byzantine text becomes difficult indeed to maintain. On the contrary, these statistics suggest that Origen was familiar with the Byzantine text and frequently adopted its readings in preference to those of the Western and Alexandrian texts.

Naturalistic critics, it is true, have made a determined effort to explain away the "distinctively" Byzantine readings which appear in the New Testament quotations of Origen (and other ante-Nicene Fathers). It is argued that these Byzantine readings are not really Origen's but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works. These scribes, it is maintained, revised the original quotations of Origen and made them conform to the Byzantine text. The evidence of Papyrus Bodmer II, however, indicates that this is not an adequate explanation of the facts. Certainly it seems a very unsatisfactory way to account for the phenomena which appear in the first fourteen chapters of John. In these chapters, 5 out of the 20 "distinctively" Byzantine readings which occur in Origen occur also in Papyrus Bodmer II. These 5 readings at least must have been Origen's readings, not those of scribes who copied Origen's works, and what is true of these 5 readings is probably true of the other 15, or at least of most of them.[126]​
This demonstration makes it clear that the expedient deprecated above is in fact untenable.

*The testimony of the early Fathers*

To recapitulate, "Byzantine" readings are recognized (most notably) by the Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second century; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half; by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all heavily) in the first half of the third century; by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half; by Eusebius, Athanasius, Macarius Magnus, Hilary, Didymus, Basil, Titus of Bostra, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Epiphanius, and Ambrose (all heavily) in the fourth century. To which may be added the testimony of the early Papyri.

*The testimony of the early Papyri*

In Hort's day and even in Miller's the early Papyri were not extant—had they been the W-H theory could scarcely have appeared in the form that it did. Each of the early Papyri (300 A.D. or earlier) vindicates some "Byzantine" readings. G. Zuntz did a thorough study of P46 and concluded:

To sum up. A number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P46. . . . How then—so one is tempted to go on asking—where no Chester Beatty papyrus happens to vouch for the early existence of a Byzantine reading? Are all Byzantine readings ancient? In the cognate case of the Homeric tradition G. Pasquali answers the same question in the affirmative.[127]​
Colwell takes note of Zuntz's statement and concurs.[128] He had said of the "Byzantine New Testament" some years previous, "Most of its readings existed in the second century."[129]

Hills claims that the Beatty papyri vindicate 26 "Byzantine" readings in the Gospels, 8 in Acts and 31 in Paul's epistles.[130] He says concerning P66:

To be precise, Papyrus Bodmer II contains thirteen percent of all the alleged late readings of the Byzantine text in the area which it covers (18 out of 138). Thirteen percent of the Byzantine readings which most critics have regarded as late have now been proved by Papyrus Bodmer II to be early readings.[131]​
Colwell's statement on P66 has already been given.

Many other studies are available, but that of H. A. Sturz sums it up.[132] He surveyed "all the available papyri" to discover how many papyrus-supported "Byzantine" readings exist. In trying to decide which were "distinctively Byzantine" readings he made a conscious effort to "err on the conservative side" so that the list is shorter than it might be (p. 144).

He found, and lists the evidence for, more than 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings that have early (before 300 A.D.) papyrus support (pp. 145-59). He found 170 "Byzantine-Western" readings with early papyrus support (pp. 160-74). He found 170 "Byzantine-Alexandrian" readings with early papyrus support (pp.175-87). He gives evidence for 175 further "Byzantine" readings but which have scattered "Western" or "Alexandrian" support, with early papyrus support.[133] He refers to still another 195 readings where the "Byzantine" reading has papyrus support, but he doesn't bother to list them (apparently he considered these variants to be of lesser consequence).[134]

The magnitude of this vindication can be more fully appreciated by recalling that only about 30 percent of the New Testament has early papyrus attestation, and much of that 30 percent has only one papyrus. Where more than one covers a stretch of text, each new MS discovered vindicates added Byzantine readings. Extrapolating from the behavior of those in hand, if we had at least 3 papyri covering all parts of the New Testament, almost all the 6000+ Byzantine readings rejected by the critical (eclectic) texts would be vindicated by an early papyrus.

It appears that Hort's statement or treatment of external evidence has no basis in fact.


Footnotes:

[122]Taylor, p. 39. Fee continues to vigorously propound this expedient. "My experience is that in every instance a critical edition of the Father moves his New Testament text in some degree away from the Byzantine tradition" ("Modern Text Criticism," p. 160). He has recently observed that "all of Burgon's data . . . is suspect because of his use of uncritical editions" ("A Critique," p. 417).

But there is reason to ask whether editors with an anti-Byzantine bias can be trusted to report the evidence in an impartial manner. Certainly a critical edition of Irenaeus prepared by Fee could not be trusted. In discussing the evidence for "in the prophets" versus "in Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2 ("A Critique," pp. 410-11) Fee does not mention Irenaeus under the Majority Text reading, where he belongs, but says "except for one citation in Irenaeus" under the other reading. He then offers the following comment in a footnote: "Since this one citation stands alone in all of the early Greek and Latin evidence, and since Irenaeus himself knows clearly the other text, this 'citation' is especially suspect of later corruption." He goes on to conclude his discussion of this passage by affirming that the longer reading is "the only reading known to every church Father who cites the text." By the end of his discussion Fee has completely suppressed the unwelcome testimony from Irenaeus.

But is the testimony of Irenaeus here really suspect? In Adv. Haer. III.10.5 we read: "Mark . . . does thus commence his Gospel narrative: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets, Behold, . . [the quotations follow].' Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him . . . whom they confessed as God and Lord." Note that Irenaeus not only quotes Mark 1:2 but comments upon it, and in both quote and comment he supports the "Byzantine" reading. But the comment is a little ways removed from the quote and it is entirely improbable that a scribe should have molested the comment even if he felt called upon to change the quote. Fair play requires that this instance be loyally recorded as 2nd century support for the "Byzantine" reading.

Another, almost as unambiguous, instance occurs in Adv. Haer. III.16.3 where we read: "Wherefore Mark also says: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets.' Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets . . . ." Note that again Irenaeus not only quotes Mark 1:2 but comments upon it, and in both quote and comment he supports the "Byzantine" reading.

There is also a clear allusion to Mark 1:2 in Adv. Haer. III.11.4 where we read: "By what God, then, was John, the forerunner . . . sent? Truly it was by Him . . . who also had promised by the prophets that He would send His messenger before the face of His Son, who should prepare His way . . . ." May we not reasonably claim this as a third citation in support of the "Byzantine" reading? In any case, it is clear that Fee's handling of the evidence from Irenaeus is disappointing at best, if not reprehensible.

While on the subject of Fee's reliability, I offer the evaluation given by W.F. Wisselink [cf. footnote 167, below] after a thorough investigation of some of his work.

While studying Fee's account ["P75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria," New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 42-44] it became apparent to me that it is incomplete and indistinct, and that it contains mistakes. Fee gives account of his investigation in a little more than one page. He introduces this account as follows: "The full justification of this conclusion will require a volume of considerable size filled with lists of data. Here we can offer only a sample illustration with the further note that the complete data will vary little from the sampling" (Fee, 1974, 42).

Therefore I called upon Fee for the complete data. I received six partly filled pages containing the rough data about the assimilations in Luke 10 and 11. After studying these rough data I came to the conclusion that the rough data as well are incomplete and indistinct, and contain mistakes. So question marks can be placed at the reliability of the investigation which those rough data and that account have reference to. [Wisselink, p. 69.]​
Wisselink then proceeds to document his charges on the next three pages.

I repeat that a critical edition of Irenaeus prepared by Fee could not be trusted, and I begin to wonder if any edition prepared by someone with an anti-Byzantine bias is to be trusted. This quite apart from their fallacious starting point, namely that the "Byzantine" text is late.

The three quotations from Irenaeus are taken from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1973, Vol. I, pp. 425-26 and 441, and were checked for accuracy against W. W. Harvey's critical edition (Sancti Irenaei: Episcopi Lugdunensis: Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses, Cambridge: University Press, 1857). I owe this material on Irenaeus to Maurice A. Robinson.
[123]Of course this principle is also applied to the Greek MSS, with serious consequences. A recent statement by Metzger gives a clear example.

It should be observed that, in accord with the theory that members of f1 and f13 were subject to progressive accommodation to the later Byzantine text, scholars have established the text of these families by adopting readings of family witnesses that differ from the Textus Receptus. Therefore the citation of the siglum f1 and f13 may, in any given instance, signify a minority of manuscripts (or even only one) that belong to the family. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [companion to UBS3], p. xii.)​
Such a procedure misleads the user of the apparatus, who has every right to expect that the siglum will only be used when all (or nearly all) the members agree. A distorted view of the evidence is created—the divergence of f1 and f13 from the "Byzantine" text is made to appear greater then it really is, and the extent of variation among the members is obscured. Greenlee's study of Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 30, see next footnote) affords another example. Among other things, he appeals to "the well-known fact that all the Caesarean witnesses are more or less corrected to the Byzantine standard, but in different places, so that the groups must be considered as a whole, not by its [sic] individual members, to give the true picture." Would not the behavior of the individual MSS make better sense if viewed as departing from the Byzantine standard?
[124]I believe J.H. Greenlee's study of Cyril of Jerusalem is an example. The Gospel Text of Cyril of Jerusalem (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1955).
[125]Burgon, The Traditional Text, pp. 97-98. I believe that Suggs tends to agree with Miller that the assimilating proclivity of medieval scribes can easily be overestimated ("The Use of Patristic Evidence," p. 140). The Lectionaries give eloquent testimony against the supposed assimilating proclivity. After discussing at some length their lack of textual consistency, Colwell observes: "Figuratively speaking, the Lectionary is a preservative into which from time to time portions of the living text were dropped. Once submerged in the Lectionary, each portion was solidified or fixed" (Colwell and Riddle, Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, p. 17). Similarly, Riddle cites with favor Gregory's estimate: "He saw that as a product of the liturgical system they were guarded by a strongly conservative force, and he was right in his inference that the conservatism of the liturgy would tend frequently to make them media for the preservation of an early text. His analogy of the Psalter of the Anglican church was a good one" (Ibid., pp. 40-41). Many of the lessons in the Anglican Prayer Book are much older than the AV but have never been assimilated to the AV. In short, we have good reason to doubt that medieval copyists were as addicted to assimilating the text as scholars such as Taylor would have us believe.
[126]Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, p. 58. Sturz lists a number of further "Byzantine" readings that have had early Patristic support (Clement, Tertullian, Marcion, Methodius) and which now also have early Papyrus support (pp. 55-56). Here again it will no longer do to claim that the Fathers' MSS have been altered to conform to the "Byzantine" text.
[127]Zuntz, The Text, p. 55.
[128]Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes," p. 132.
[129]Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, p. 70.
[130]Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, p. 50. (Hills wrote the Introduction.)
[131]Ibid., p. 54.
[132]H.A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism.
[133]Pp. 188-208. Sturz remarks that a number of readings (15 from this list) really should be considered as "distinctively Byzantine" but one or another so-called "Western" or "Alexandrian" witness also has them and so. . . .

Sturz draws the following conclusions from the evidence he presents: 1) "Distinctively Byzantine" readings are found in early papyri (p. 55). 2) Such readings are therefore early (p. 62). 3) Such readings cannot be the result of editing in the 4th century (p. 62). 4) The old uncials have not preserved a complete picture of the textual situation in the 2nd century (p. 62). 5) The "Byzantine" texttype has preserved some of the 2nd century tradition not found in the others (p. 64). 6) The lateness of other "Byzantine" readings, for which early papyrus attestation has not yet surfaced, is now questionable (p. 64). 7) "Byzantine-Western" alignments go back into the 2nd century; they must be old (p. 70).

(Fee speaks of my "misrepresentations of the papyrus evidence" and says with reference to it that I have "grossly misinterpreted the data" ("A Critique," p. 422). I invite the reader to check the evidence presented by Sturz and then to decide for himself whether or not there has been misrepresentation and misinterpretation.)
[134]P. 189. This means that the early Papyri vindicate "Byzantine" readings in 660 (or 885) places where there is significant variation. One might wish that Sturz had also given us the figures for "distinctively Western" and "distinctively Alexandrian" readings, but how are such expressions to be defined? Where is an objective definition for "Western reading," for example?

[End of Pickering]

----------

This book (available online, as can be seen) is full of wonderful eye-opening material. It is a wealth of scholarship.

For those of you who aren't aware, Edward Hills' classic, _The King James Version Defended_, is also available online. It is a wonderful bonus that the preface is written by Ted Letis. http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJV_Defended_Hills.html

Steve


----------



## larryjf (Nov 14, 2006)

> Larry, in post #16 you list Carson’s 14 theses. I would like to comment on the first:
> 
> 1. There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century.


After reading your post i can't really defend the thesis.

To tell you the truth i have been back and forth on the issue of NT text for a while now. I was very convinced of the TR for quite some time until i started reading the Aland's, Carson, and some others that are pro-critical. Then i read some folks like Maurice A. Robinson and they made alot of sense to me.

I have read D.A. Waite's pro-KJV book and started to read Hills recently.

What would you consider to be the most comprehensive defense of the TR or Byzantine text in general?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 15, 2006)

The problem with what you are citing is that proving there are Byzantine readings in the early Papryi does not prove the early existence of the Byzantine Text-Type.

Textual Scholars have recognized for some time now that there are Byzantine readings in the early Papyri. These Byzantine readings here and there do not constitute proof for the text type as a whole.

I understand that the current editions of the Critical Text follow the Byzantine readings in the majority of cases where they are corroborated by the early papryi (correct me if I am wrong...I have read that but have not confirmed it).



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Larry, in post #16 you list Carson’s 14 theses. I would like to comment on the first:
> 
> 1. There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century.​
> I cite the following to show there are more recent _and abundant scholarly_ findings to the contrary. I hope no one will object that it is a bit lengthy (not too), for it is a serious and technical assertion that has been posited, and the rebuttal must do justice to the matter. The footnotes are given after the text.
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 16, 2006)

Robert,

The things that I have been (and will below be) citing may not prove the early existence of the Byzantine text to you, but it no doubt will to many. This is what I meant when I said “You can’t argue someone into liking the taste of beer.” A person’s presuppositions will screen out that interpretation of data which disagrees with their viewpoint.

The instances I posed to you regarding Matthew 1:7 and 10 (Asaph and Amos replacing the rightful royal ancestors of Christ), and Mark 16:9-20 and “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16 were meant to provoke some discussion of the merits or lack thereof in the CT. These “talking points” are extremely important in establishing the reliability or _un_reliability of respective texts. 

What I am seeking to do here is establish the reliability of the KJV/1894 TR (and specifically, the Hebrew and Greek texts, as well as the translation), so that those who hold the presupposition based on God’s explicit promises that He has preserved His word – and that in the aforementioned texts – may have withal to resist the attacks of those who denigrate and deny their belief. I do not aggress, but defend, and if I go on the offensive it is to respond to “first blood” drawn. Not against _people_, mind you, but ideas and imaginations.

The work of Pickering, Robinson & Pierpont, Van Bruggen, Hodges & Farstad, et al, provide a profound assault on the CT rationale. It is such that it has precipitated what has been called the “post-critical” study of the Biblical texts, so dismal has been the failure of textual criticism the past century or two. People are looking for alternatives to a discipline run amok. Even the Byz or MT position is greatly wanting, for they differ among themselves, and confess it may be ages before we can be provided with “the Biblical text” – and until that far-off “maybe” will have to make do with uncertainty. Not that there is, as Robinson says in his Intro, more than a 2% difference between the MT/Byz textforms (the 1894 TR being one of them), but we are looking at the _minutiae_ of the providential preservation issue, which only the KJV view can; all other views are tentative (provisional) and uncertain – and contrary to God’s promises, as we understand them.

I do not mean to denigrate your faith in your Bible, and it pains me to seek to undermine so important a belief you and others may hold, but this is a sorting out of truth-claims among friends and brothers, to the end of supporting a minority view which – so I aver – rightly defends a most precious possession: the authentic Biblical text, despite a terrific onslaught against it. I write not only for today but for posterity, for I am nearing the end of my course (but who knows for sure?). I write also to demonstrate that one not need be learned in Hebrew and Greek (though those are wonderful and valuable skills), nor an erudite text-critic, to be able to understand the issues involved in the defense of the Bible. What makes it somewhat difficult is that the knowledge of these things are to a great extent extra-Biblical, being matters of the _history_ of the Scripture and its transmission and not the Scripture itself. Of course, the _bases_ of our presuppositions are the Scripture, and on them we both stand and see.

This is from David Cloud’s site, an excerpt from an article by Jeffrey A. Young Ph.D, touching on the Byzantine (AKA “Traditional”) text:

-----------


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examinationof.htm

Recent Papyri Finds Prove the Major Premise False

When Westcott and Hort published their Greek Text in 1881, all but one of the more than 200 early Egyptian Papyri were yet to be discovered. According to their view, none of these Papyri (dated between 100 and 300 A.D.) should support the readings that are included in the traditional [*i.e., Byzantine*] text but not in ALEPH, B, or D. They believe their major premise (that the traditional text was fabricated in the fourth century).

Sturz [14] has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. This evidence is extremely damning to the major premise because it is 50 times longer than the list Westcott and Hort offer for proof of conflation. A second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did not contain the reading. 

14. _The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism_, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.


----------

For those who are interested in evidences which support the presuppositions I have been both operating from and talking about, I give a link here to Robinson & Pierpont’s _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, © 1991, Original Word Publishers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Introduction: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

This Introduction is a valuable treatise. Needless to say, for those who have been following my arguments, Robinson and Pierpont do not support the King James view I espouse (they state so in this intro), yet I find their work most valuable in a) critiquing the CT theories, and b) defending the “Byzantine priority” which is an important component of my view. I list here the contents of their Intro so you may get an idea of what is in it. I then post an excerpt from the Intro having to do with the Byzantine text and its antiquity.

Contents

Introduction
The Approximation of the Byzantine/Majority Textform
A Case for Byzantine Priority
Hort's Basic Contentions
A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic
Addressing Current Objections to Byzantine Priority
Fallacies of Some Claimants of the "Majority Text" Position
Footnotes



*A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic*

In response to Hort's five "pillars," modern scholarship can declare the following counter-arguments:

The genealogical argument was never actually applied to the New Testament text by Hort, and in fact has never been so applied by anyone. As Colwell noted, Hort utilized this principle solely to "depose the Textus Receptus," and not to establish a line of descent. His "stemmatic diagram" was itself a pure fabrication.[15]

Even though a hypothetical stemma might "demonstrate" that "a majority of extant documents" may only have descended from the text of a single archetype (one branch on the genealogical "tree"), Hort was not able to establish that the Byzantine majority of manuscripts were genealogically dependent (and therefore belonged to a single branch of the stemma). Nor could he disallow that the essential archetype of the Byzantine Textform might not in fact be the autograph text itself rather than a later branch of the stemma. The virtual independence of the Byzantine-era manuscripts (as mentioned earlier) alone suffices to refute Hort's genealogical claim regarding the entire Byzantine/Majority Textform. Further discussion of this point will follow.

Conflation is not exclusive to the Byzantine-era manuscripts; the scribes of Alexandrian and Western manuscripts conflate as much or more than what has been imputed to Byzantine-era scribal habits.[16] (Hort argued that only the Byzantine manuscripts practiced conflation, and that manuscripts of supposedly "earlier" texttypes never followed this practice).

Over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers.[17] (Hort emphatically maintained that, were this principle overthrown, his entire hypothesis would have been demolished).

There never has been a shred of evidence that an "authorized revision" of the Greek New Testament text ever occurred, and the Greek church itself has never claimed such. (Hort maintained that, apart from such formally-authorized revision, there would be no way possible to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform).[18]

Many Byzantine readings have been strongly defended by non-partisans on internal grounds; in fact, all Greek New Testament editions since Westcott-Hort have increasingly adopted Byzantine readings to replace those advocated by Westcott and Hort.

Despite the inherent subjectivity of this approach, Byzantine-priority advocates maintain that a successful internal-evidence case can be made for nearly every Byzantine reading over against the Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian readings.[19] (Hort claimed that every purely Byzantine reading was "inferior" on all sound principles of internal evidence).

Hort adamantly maintained that the concurrence of all five points was essential to the establishment of an Alexandrian-preference theory. His modern successors have retreated from all these points into a position which in essence favors only the external age of documents, their particular texttype, and/or the internal quality of the readings they contain. Unlike Hort, however, the modern critics fail to offer a systematic history of textual transmission which satisfactorily explains the phenomenon of the Byzantine Textform. Hort at least postulated a deliberate authorized revision as a possible explanation for the later Byzantine predominance. Yet today, the supposed rise and overwhelming dominance of the Byzantine Textform out of the presumed primordial Western and Alexandrian texttypes is accounted for merely as the result of a lengthy, vague "process." But, as Hodges has cogently pointed out,

“No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text.... An unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination.[20]”

This consideration should again force the scholars who forsake Hort to do as Colwell suggested; namely, to come up with a better reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the New Testament text which offers a credible explanation for the utter dominance of the Byzantine/Majority Textform.[21] A "process" view is not necessarily wrong[22] -- only the insistence that the process begin with the Alexandrian and Western texttypes rather than the Byzantine Textform. In light of the preceding discussion, it would appear that "process" advocates are forced to return to Hort's initial presumption regarding "a majority of extant documents," and acknowledge that the Byzantine/Majority Textform indeed has a strong (if not the best) claim to reflect the original text.

----------
Footnotes

15 Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," _Studies_, p.158. Colwell stated in 1947 that "genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts in such a way as to advance our knowledge of the original text of the New Testament." ("Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Limitations," _Studies_, p. 63). Yet at the time of Colwell's statement, the stemmatic approaches of Hoskier (to the Apocalypse) and of Von Soden (to Jn. 7:53-8:11) had been in print for about 20 and 45 years respectively. Colwell doubtless would have declared the same today regarding the approach of Hodges-Farstad to the same portions of Scripture. The principle remains: genealogical stemmatics have not been applied successfully to the New Testament Greek documents because such cannot be applied to a textually "mixed" body of manuscripts. Kinship in such a case is remote in the extreme, and the mixture within the manuscripts varies not only from book to book but even within chapters of the same book (See Thomas C. Geer, Jr., "The Two Faces of Codex 33 in Acts," _Novum Testamentum_, 31 [1989] 39-47, for a demonstration of this point). 

16 See Wilbur N. Pickering, "Conflation or Confusion," Appendix D in his _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, rev. ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), pp. 171-200. Contributors to that Appendix included William G. Pierpont, Maurice A. Robinson, Harry A Sturz, and Peter Johnston. 

17 See Harry A. Sturz, _The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230. 

18 See John William Burgon, _The Revision Revised_ (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics rep. ea., n. d. [1883]), pp. 276-294; Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," _Studies_, pp. 157-159, 164-169. 

19 See for example, George Dunbar Kilpatrick, "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus," in _The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of G. H. C MacGregor_, ed. H. Anderson and W. Barclay (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), pp. 189-208; J. Keith Elliott, "Rational Criticism and the Text of the New Testament," _Theology_ 75 (1972) 338-343; also any other articles by Kilpatrick or Elliott which favor the "rigorously eclectic" methodology, and as a result defend on internal principles the authenticity of many "distinctively Byzantine" readings. 

20 Zane C. Hodges, "The Implications of Statistical Probability for the History of the Text," Appendix C in Pickering, _Identity_, p. 168. 

21 Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," _Studies_, pp. 149-150, 155-157,164-169. 

22 Colwell, "Method in Establishing the Nature of Texttypes," _Studies_, pp. 53-55. 

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

Another excellent resource for appreciating what has been a factor in the emergence of the new paradigm of “post-critical” textual study is _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, by Professor Jakob Van Bruggen. This now rare and out-of-print book is available online. I would suggest downloading it, as some sites have a short life.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html

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

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 17, 2006)

The early Byzantine readings are not even close to establishing the existence of the Byzantine Text Type. It is not a matter of my presuppositions, it is a fact of history. There are no early papryi that demonstrate a distinctly Byzantine Text Type; not even within a mixed text. Respectfully...arguements that the Byzantine Text Type is established within the early Papryi are either niave or dishonest.

Now if I were going to swap sides a moment, based on the actual manuscript evidence, I would argue for the Byzantine upon two primary grounds.

1. The dominance of the Byzantine Text Type from the 5th Century forward and not limited to one small geographical area is evidence for the antiquity of the text form. Unless one can demonstrate a recension of the text by the church in history, uniformity and geography are strong evidence that this text is much more ancient than its oldest exemplars.

2. On the flip side of 1., lack of historical citations of an official recension of the text would indicate that such a recension did not take place. Where than did the Byzantine Text Form come from if it is not much more ancient than its oldest exemplars. Lack of a good answer to this questions provides support for the antiquity of this text form.

Of course, I am comfortable with the way that I would answer those arguements. I submit them because I think they are particularly effective arguements for the Traditional Text and opponents cannot honestly dismiss them out of hand.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Robert,
> 
> The things that I have been (and will below be) citing may not prove the early existence of the Byzantine text to you, but it no doubt will to many. This is what I meant when I said “You can’t argue someone into liking the taste of beer.” A person’s presuppositions will screen out that interpretation of data which disagrees with their viewpoint.
> 
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 18, 2006)

*Accuracy vs. Ancientness*

Greetings:

Does Ancientness necessarily mean Accuracy? I think not. Yet, the CT'ers will stake their theological reputation on this very point. When they are pushed the fact that the Alexandrian variants comprise the older texts is the only island that they stand on. I would suggest that simply because a text is ancient does not mean it is accurate. Consider the following:

The Apostle Peter in the very first century complains that there are heretics who already are twisting Scripture to their own ends:

*As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned andunstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction,* 2 Peter 3:16.

If during the very time of the Apostles that heretics had the gall to redact the Scriptures, then why not during the successive ages? Is this not the testimony of the Church as well? F.F. Bruce notes:



> Some light may be thrown on the question by a remark of Tertullian's. There are two ways, he says, of nullifying the scriptures. One is Marcion's way: he used the knife to excise from the scriptures whatever did not conform with his own opinion. Valentinus, on the other hand, 'seems to use the entire instrumentum' (which here means the New Testament), but perverts its meaning by misinterpreting it. Valentinus was contemporary with Marcion: he came from Alexandria in Egypt and lived in Rome from about AD 135 to 160


Dr. Scrivener notes:



> ...the willful corruptions introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud complaint in the primitive ages of the Church. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its Bishop (A.D. 168-176), complains that even his own letters had been tampered with ... Nor was the evil new in the age of Dionysius. Not to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or Hermophylus, or Apolonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the sacred text corrupted it, or the Gnostics Basilides (A.D. 130?) and Valentinus (A.D. 150?) who published additions to the sacred text which were avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the arch-heretic of that period, coming to Rome on the death of the Bishop Hyginus (A.D. 142), brought with him that mutilated and falsified copy of the New Testament, against which the Fathers of the second century and later exerted all their powers.


Considering this the obvious becomes evident: An ancient text may, in fact, be one of these corrupted texts used by heretics. Consequently, using such a text does not bring one "closer" to the Autographs, but much farther away.

"Prior to the 4th Century there is no evidence of a Byzantine text." There are many answers to this one, of which, I will list a few:

Sir Frederick Kenyon, a CT'er by the way, provides a window into how the Jewish and Early Church Fathers conducted the transmission of the Scriptures:



> The same extreme care which was devoted to the transcription of manuscripts is also at the bottom of the disappearance of the earlier copies. When a manuscript had been copied with the exactitude prescribed by the Talmud, and had been duly verified, it was accepted as authentic and regarded as being of equal value with any other copy. If all were equally correct, age gave no advantage to a manuscript; on the contrary, age was a positive disadvantage, since a manuscript was liable to become defaced or damaged in the lapse of time. A damaged or imperfect copy was at once condemned as unfit for use. Attached to each synagogue was a 'Geniza' (from a Hebrew word 'to hide', 'to store'), a sort of lumber room or cupboard in which worn or defective manuscripts or indeed any other documents containing the Divine Name were laid aside. *Thus far from regarding an older copy of the Scriptures as more valuable, the Jewish habit has been to prefer the newer, as being the more perfect, and free from damage. *The older copies, once consigned to the Geniza, where they would be safe from profanation, were left until the room or cupboard was full, and were then removed and buried with elaborate ceremony.


The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven to us that this method of the transmission of the Scriptures was highly accurate. Consequently, the lack of "older" texts in the Byzantine tradition is a good indicator that they are the true apographia of the autographs. Once an official copy was made and verified the "older" text would be destroyed. One should not expect to find "older" texts in the tradition that closely follows the autographs.

My pastor once pointed out to me that the reason why the Byzantine is in the majority is because it was considered the true apographia of the autographs by the Church. Certainly, Christians living in the 4th Century were more familiar with the apographia of the autographs than we would be today? That the Alexandrian variants were not so copied indicates the rejection of them by the Church.

According to the Alands prior to the 4th Century there was a short span of non-persecution of Christians in the Empire. This time period (260-300 AD) was important for the transmission of the Scriptures:



> This period of peace was critical for the development of the New Testament text. In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Fourth-century tradition called it the text of Lucian. At the same time another scholarly theologian working from a papyrus with an early text undertook a more thorough revision (probably of only the Gospels and Acts). But in the fourth century the text of Lucian received strong support, while its rival text (a precursor of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) was given no official support and was consequently preserved in only a few manuscripts.


One can obviously see their bias in this paragraph: 1) If the text of Hesychius was a "more thorough revision" then why was it only of the Gospels and Acts? 2) Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis is considered a corrupt mss, and even Theodore Beza so argued. Finally, 3) They provide no evidence that Lucian's text (which was the father of the Byzantine text) was "polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally." They come to this conclusion because of the differences between their own CT and the BT. But, was not Paul considered the greatest scholar of his age? Would we not expect him to be eloquent? Or, Luke who was a Doctor of Medicine? And Peter, though a fisherman, had a massive gift of eloquence as evidenced by his sermon in Acts 2. Not to mention that all of the writers were inspired by God who created eloquence? We should expect the Autographs to exhibit a profound eloquence that the CT has not replicated, but the BT has as illustrated by the Johannine Comma.

Prespastor has mentioned geography. I do not know what he means by this, but when one looks at *where* the autographs were written, and sent to, it becomes very evident that they are Byzantine in nature. Ephesus, Galatia, Phillipi, Colossae, Thessalonica, are all in modern day Turkey (Byzantine). Matthew was probably written for the Jews (Israel). Mark probably wrote for Roman gentiles. Luke for the people of Greece. John ministered all through Turkey and was exiled on an island nearby (Patmos). Peter explicitly states that his letters are for the people in Turkey (1 Pet. 1:1). While James was a leader in the Jerusalem Church as well as his brother Jude. Hebrews was obviously written for the Jews. Thus, the autographs would be found from Israel stretching north into Turkey, then west into Greece, and finally into Italy.

So what does this prove? It shows that the Alexandrian churches did not possess the autographs, but copies that were made and distributed to them. I would also suggest that those churches that actually did possess the Autographs would be in a better position to recognize the true apographia when they saw them.

After this period of peace mentioned by the Alands above the Church suffered severe persecution until Constantine took the throne around 313 AD. J. Harold Greenlee, another CT'er, writes about this time:



> When Christianity attained official status under Constantine, MSS of the NT needed no longer be kept concealed for safety. Very soon afterwards the emperor himself ordered fifty new copies of the Bible to be made for the churches of Constantinople. In this new position, there would soon arise both a greater opportunity for the official comparison of the text of various MSS and a more evident need for such comparison and for bringing together into a unified tradition the divergent streams of the local texts. Professional scribes could now be employed for copying the MSS ... With the rise of Constantinople as the center of the Greek-speaking church, it is not surprising that the local text in use there seems to have become the dominant text throughout most of the church. There was apparently some comparison of this text with other texts, resulting in something of a mixed type of text. ... The evidence of the MSS indicates that the processes of standardization of the text and consequent displacement of the older text-types continued from the fourth century until the eighth, by the end of which time the standardized or "Byzantine" text had become the accepted form of the text. ... Approximately 95 percent of the existing MSS of the NT are from the eighth and later centuries, and very few of these differ appreciably from the Byzantine text.


Again, one can see the bias in his presentation. However, the undisputed fact is that the Lucian/Byzantine text was recognized by those churches that actually possesed the autographs as the received apographia of the autographs. The Church would continue to accept the Byzantine readings and reject the Alexandrian variants until the mid to late 19th Century.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2006)

Robert, you say,

“The early Byzantine readings are not even close to establishing the existence of the Byzantine Text Type. It is not a matter of my presuppositions, it is a fact of history.”

In a court of law there are conflicting truth-claims. The lawyers present their respective cases, and a judge or a jury decide which case has merit over the other. Can you support your claim that “it is a fact of history….the existence of the Byzantine Text Type [has not been established]”? That is a rather preposterous statement. The Byzantine Text Type is that text-form used by the Greek Orthodox Church for over a millennium. It is virtually identical with what in the West is termed the Majority Text, and comprises over 90% of the extant Greek MSS. The issue is the age of this text-type. The papyri demonstrate that Byzantine readings antedate the extant Alexandrian MSS, seeing these readings were in existence before they were (Aleph & B being written around 375 AD).

Perhaps it was just your wording that threw me off. The Byz texttype exists; it is its own proof.

“There are no early papryi that demonstrate a distinctly Byzantine Text Type; not even within a mixed text”

This is from Leland M. Haines’ _Authority of Scripture_, chapter 6 “Translations and the Greek Text,” (http://www.bibleviews.com/authority-6.html):

Sturz's List I shows 150 "distinctively Byzantine readings . . . those supported by the bulk of the later manuscripts but which at the same time are opposed (or not supported) by the principle manuscripts and witnesses to the Alexandrian and Western text"[101] that have early papyri support. He emphasizes that these papyri are from the second century, preceding the time of Lucian (the "acknowledged" editor of the Byzantine text) by one hundred years, and thus they are not a fourth-century recension. "It is startling from the standpoint of the WH theory to find that so-called 'Byzantine' readings not only existed early but were present in Egypt before the end of the second century." Sturz makes a third point that "the Old Uncials have not preserved a complete picture of the second century. . . . have not retained all of the second-century tradition. . . . [This] is underscored further when P45, P66, P72, and P75 are also seen to confirm early and wide-spread existence of [Byzantine] readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Western." Sturz concludes that Westcott and Hort were "mistaken in regard to their insistence that all the pre-Syrian evidence for readings was to be found in the Alexandrian, Neutral, and Western texts, i.e., that these three text-types and their chief witnesses preserved the complete second-century picture of the textual tradition on which the Syrian editor(s) built. . . . The Byzantine text-type has preserved second-century tradition not preserved by the other text-types."[102]
--------------
[101] Aland, op. cit., p. 64. Aland believes major text-types were due to the demand caused by Diocletianic persecution and to it being fulfilled in Constantine's times. See p. 65.
[102] Ibid., p. 57.​
The point of citing this work is to show that it will no longer do to simply deny the early existence of a “distinctly Byzantine text-type,” when the scholarly world does, even those not of an MT view.

The following is taken from:

Notes Upon the Byzantine Text-Type as Concerns the Pauline Epistles, by Gary S. Dykes: http://www.biblical-data.org/BOX/APPEN_01.pdf

Excerpted from the appendix of his work on First Corinthians. A basic argument for the priority of the ancient Byzantine text-type. “As simple as its perspicuity. Clear step-by-step logic mingled with my oftentimes pristine suppositions, and not nearly as verbose as is this introduction!”

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


The late Harry A Sturz, author of _The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Criticism_ [Thomas Nelson, 1984], collected numerous samples illustrating various manuscript alignments. His conclusions are still largely valid. For example, on page 155 he shows:

1 Corinthians 9:7 - ek tou karpou [of the fruit] P46, C(3), D(bc), E, K, _pl_, c, d, e, t, vg(sc), am, fu, sy, co, arm, Or, Aug, Amb, K, V

ton karpon [the fruit] a*, A, B, C*, D*, F, G, P, 33, 1739, _pc_, f, g, tol, harl, floriac, _al_, sa, go, Or; WH​
Generally, he is correct in the above demonstration that P46 does support the majority of miniscules and major Byzantine uncial manuscripts. In the list from which the readings are demonstrated, he states that this list shows Byzantine-papyrus agreements against the Alexandrian and Western texts. One might argue that the presence of some Latin manuscripts (c, d, e, t, fu) would nullify this but the primary Western representatives do not here support the Byzantine-P46 reading. Sturz makes his case overall, but some of his examples are weak. His text on the subject is a must read.

It is true that with a little effort and an accurate apparatus one can show all sorts of alignments (such as P46 agreeing with just Western witnesses), however there are a small number of papyri readings which only agree with the Byzantine supported variants.

So we do see the archaic features of the Byzantine text-type. We see ancient agreements betwixt the Syriac and the Gothic versions and the Byzantine/Antiochian text. I suspect that when we see old papyri readings and several Byzantine MSS in agreement _against all other witnesses_, that herein we have a strong case for an ancient Antiochian or original reading.​
The above is cited to show an actual reading and the MSS/fathers/versions which support it.

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

“Respectfully...arguements that the Byzantine Text Type is established within the early Papryi are either niave or dishonest.”

Who said the Byzantine text-type was _established_ within the early papyri? That would be a rather strange assertion! What I – and others – have been saying is that it is _supported_ – attested to – by readings shown to be distinctively Byzantine in those papyri. As Sturz said, to deny this, the burden of proof is now upon you to back up such a view, given the numerous – and widely accepted – early Byzantine readings.* But if you refuse to acknowledge them, well, they are accepted and documented, even by CT adherents; they just interpret the data differently – but they don’t deny what all know to be so!

It is _established_ by its existence in over 90% of the extant Greek MSS, now _proven_ to antedate the 4th century by MSS of both one and two centuries earlier. Robert, if all you are going to throw at me are unsubstantiated _theories_ (following Hort’s method – now debunked even by CT adherents) without dealing with any particular MSS or Scripture passages, you are not effectively defending your position, or tearing mine down.

*“Numerous distinctively Byzantine readings now proved early would seem to reverse the burden of proof. Instead of assuming that characteristically Byzantine readings are late, it may be more logical and more in accord with the facts to assume that they are early. The burden of proof now appears to rest on whoever claims that a Byzantine reading is late. Furthermore, making textual decisions on the basis of how three or four ‘old’ uncials read should be abandoned because they do not give a complete picture of the second century traditions.” [Harry A. Sturz, _The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), pp. 64, 65]​
--------------

The old myth about an official edition of the New Testament at the hands of Lucian in the 4th century, and that this is the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority Text has been long laid to rest. To make assertions – as Hort did – without _a shred_ of supporting evidence eventually become insupportable, as his “Antiochian recension” did in the eyes of the critics. It was known that Lucian worked on the Old Testament, but there is no _hint_ *anywhere* that he did any work on the New.

So then where did the preponderating majority of Byzantine manuscripts come from? The papyri _do_ show that the Byzantine readings existed very early – in the 2nd century at the least. It is asserted by some – myself included – that the apostolic writings themselves were the source of the “Byzantine” readings.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2006)

P.S. Robert, to return to my first post to you, and which I have repeated, the matter of passages like Matt 1:7, 10 -- reflecting the Greek CT -- and Mark 16:9-20, and 1 Tim 3:16 (just a few of many I could mention), show the basic corruption of the CT, and its audacity (fueled initially by Hort) in seeking to overthrow the united majority with the intensely disagreeing duo B & a, evident to some, if not all, even as the emperor who didn't have his clothes.

Will you ignore these? Pretend they are clothed with reliability?

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 20, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Robert, you say,
> 
> “The early Byzantine readings are not even close to establishing the existence of the Byzantine Text Type. It is not a matter of my presuppositions, it is a fact of history.”
> 
> ...



I have not denied the existence of the Byzantine Text Type. I am saying it is a later text and the the eariler 'readings' do not establish the text type as a whole from earlier periods.

This has been my point. The Byzantine 'readings' in the early Papryi do not substantiate the early existence of the Byzantine Text Type as a whole. You may cite them as evidence but this is far from conclusive evidence for the text type as a whole. 



> “There are no early papryi that demonstrate a distinctly Byzantine Text Type; not even within a mixed text”
> 
> This is from Leland M. Haines’ _Authority of Scripture_, chapter 6 “Translations and the Greek Text,” (http://www.bibleviews.com/authority-6.html):
> 
> ...



But this begs the point. When we are speaking of the actual evidence, while there are a few examples of what we now label as 'Byzantine' readings in the early Papryi, again, this does not constitute proof for the Byzantine Text Type as a whole.

You keep using the term 'Byzantine Readings' as if it is synonymous with 'Byzantine Text Type'. 

I don't think I can make this any clearer than I have. Is there another CTer out there that can perhaps convey what I am saying in a way that might be more understandable?



> The following is taken from:
> 
> Notes Upon the Byzantine Text-Type as Concerns the Pauline Epistles, by Gary S. Dykes: http://www.biblical-data.org/BOX/APPEN_01.pdf
> 
> ...



Here you make a clarification about 'readings' versus 'text type' but yet you continue to treat the as virtually the same thing in your logic. 

The truth of the matter is that since the objective data...the actual extant manuscripts we have, reveal the Alexandrian Text Type (as as a Text Type, not only readings) in the oldest manuscripts, it is up to those who hold to the Byzantine Text Type to prove their position. 

As for me, I can point out that 1. the manuscripts I view to generally have the most weight are the old ones (because they are old) and 2. The charactersitcs of the text in the oldest manuscripts best explain the readings found in the later manuscripts. Flip that around and it is inexplicable how many of the Alexandrian readings could have been derived from the Byzantine unless they were the result of heretics deliberatly tampering with the text (a point often made by Traditional Text defenders). As I said before, if the Alexandrian Text-Type is the result of heretics, they were the most inept, least consistent heretics who ever tampered with the scriptures. Casting off arguements that these Papryi were the works of heretics, the arguement from their age also bears much weight.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 20, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> P.S. Robert, to return to my first post to you, and which I have repeated, the matter of passages like Matt 1:7, 10 -- reflecting the Greek CT -- and Mark 16:9-20, and 1 Tim 3:16 (just a few of many I could mention), show the basic corruption of the CT, and its audacity (fueled initially by Hort) in seeking to overthrow the united majority with the intensely disagreeing duo B & a, evident to some, if not all, even as the emperor who didn't have his clothes.
> 
> Will you ignore these? Pretend they are clothed with reliability?
> 
> Steve



Matthew 1:7

Asaph is an alternate spelling for Asa. Alternate spellings for names was not uncommon as there were no standard spellings guidelines back then (as we have today). The same holds true in verse 10.

If 'Asaph' is a corruption here, what was the heretic trying to accomplish that introduced it?

If 'Asa' is the corruption, it makes sense that a scribe made what he thought was a correction to an error in the manuscript he was copying.

1 Tim 3:16

If the passages like 1 Tim 3:16 are the result of deliberate corruption by heretics, then why were they so inconsistent? Why did they leave numerous passages that clearly contain the diety of Christ? 

Mark 16:9-20

This is not an easy one. This is a disputed text from ancient days. In the Codex Vaticanus there is what appears to be space left on the page for the long ending (as if the scribe were not sure whether or not to add it). This passage was also disputed by some early writers of the church.

Some reject this passage based upon the internal evidence; that it contrasts sharply with the context (Mary Magdalene is introduced a second time though she had already been introduced at the beginning of the chapter) and Marks writing style. 

For me, I believe that the interal evidence is fairly conclusive that it was not penned by Mark but by a seperate author. This however does not mean that it is not inspired and to be received as the true ending of Mark. Deuteronomy 34 is a similiar example. Moses clearly didn't write that last chapter (it has the account of his death) but it is still God's word (God used a second human agent to complete it).


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 20, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade,

Let me fire one back at you if I may...

What do you do with Acts 8:37?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 20, 2006)

*Lucian and Jerome*

Hi Steve:

I have a question for you based on what you wrote here:



> The old myth about an official edition of the New Testament at the hands of Lucian in the 4th century, and that this is the Byzantine/Antiochian/Majority Text has been long laid to rest.



Schaff in his History of the Christian Church writes:



> Lucianus is known also by his critical revision of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek Testament. Jerome mentioins that copies were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea," but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian, and of Hesychius, a bishop of Egypt ... As to the New Testament, it is likely that he contributed much towards the Syrian recension (if we may so call it), which was used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus.



In the notes Dr. Schaff received his information from Hort's Introduction to the Greek New Testament. What derives my curiosity is how one can deny that Lucian did not work on the New Testament when Jerome makes a reference to it?

Where can I find information that a Lucian Greek Text is a myth that has been long laid to rest?

Grace and Peace, brother,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 22, 2006)

Hello Robert W.!

Before I answer regarding Lucian, just a brief note about 1 John 5:7. In the T.H.L. Parker translation (Torrance editors, Eerdmans) of Calvin’s commentary, the sentence reads, 

…and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies (_codicibus_), *I also readily embrace it*. [Bold emphasis mine –SMR]​
And in his _Institutes_ (the Westminster/Battles edition), 3:1:1, page 538, he writes, 

For, as three witnesses in heaven are named—the Father, the Word, and the Spirit—so there are three on earth: the water, the blood, and the Spirit [1 John 5:7-8].​
I want to add an excerpt from Will Kinney’s article on the matter (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html):


It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies"; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus' sixteen manuscripts contained this verse. There was a time in history when over 50% of the providentially available Greek manuscripts contained the reading found in the King James Bible.​
I appreciate your posts in defense of this part of Scripture, Robert. Now to Lucian.

Schaff says concerning him,

As to the New Testament , it is *likely* that he contributed much towards the Syrian recension (if we may so call it), which was used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the _textus receptus_. [Bold emphasis mine –SMR] (Schaff, _History_, vol. 2, p. 815.)​
Schaff here gives a footnote to Hort’s _Introduction_, and cites him to this effect:

“Of known names his [Lucian] has *a better claim than any other* to be associated with the early Syrian revision; and the *conjecture* derives some little support from a passage of Jerome…” (Ibid.) [Bold emphases mine-SMR]​
So Schaff’s comment has no other basis than Hort’s view. Before I comment on Hort’s presumption – now shown to be groundless – of Lucian and his “revision,” let’s look at what Jerome actually said. In his Preface to The Four Gospels, discussing various manuscripts and writers, he says:

I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. (_Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers_, vol. 6, Schaff and Wace, Editors; Hendrickson Pub. MA 1994) p. 488.​
First, Hort merely conjectures without any historical basis his entire schema of Lucian and the fabulous “Syrian revision”! And Schaff is but parroting him (and quite a squawk of parrots ensued through the field in the century following!).

But it “worked” in Hort’s mind, apart from events in the real world—so historical research has shown—and evidently it works in many minds down to this day. It is a good thing we can appeal to facts of known history, and common sense can dispense with mere fabrications and wishful thinking.

Pickering, in his _The Identity of the New Testament Text_ (INTT), remarks, “Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanansians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?” (1980 edition, pp. 95, 96) We will cite Pickering on Metzger & co. shortly.

These “additions” mentioned by Jerome cannot be construed to indicate a massive and official recension such as Hort conjectured. According to Jerome, they were likely a few corruptions easily discerned and the manuscripts which contained them discarded by him.

For more about Lucian and the Hortian theory involving him, I would like to introduce those who do not know him to Jakob Van Bruggen, and his classic, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html

This book is now out-of-print and is rare, and when it is available fetches quite a high price. Those of you interested in these textual issues should download the book and put it in a file, as a small treasure.

In chapter 2, *The Value of the Number of Manuscripts*, Bruggen states,

The Byzantine textual tradition, which is at present rejected, is found in a large majority of manuscripts. Rightly so Aland introduces the new siglum *M* (Majority-text) for this text-type. When the team of textual scholars, that determined the Greek text for the United Bible Societies, could not come to an agreement, the opinion of the majority settled the matter. Seeing that there is still no certainty in the 20th century about the correct text of the New Testament, one could consider allowing the majority of manuscripts to decide the matter. Why does not this happen? Because, according to most people, this majority of manuscripts can be traced back to one recension: the many manuscripts would be nothing else than copies of only one manuscript. The large number is traced back to the one recension in the 4th century. The majority is reduced to a minority which receives only one vote and then also only a secondary vote because here we are thought to have a later revision of the original and not a faithful copy of it. In this way, the large number is reduced and disqualified. The counted majority appears to be a weighed minority. Two matters call for attention here. In the first place, the question whether historical proof can be given for the proposition that the text of the New Testament has undergone a revision in the fourth century. In the second place, the question whether the Byzantine textual tradition can be characterized as the result of such a recension.

The historical starting-point for this recension-idea is sought in the person of Lucianus of Antioch(30). That we, however, can not speak with great certainty here, appears from the fact that Hort did not do anything more than mention the possibility that Lucianus stands at the beginning of the Byzantine text(31). In the sixties of this century Metzger still refers to what he calls the decisive work of Lucianus(32), but it is striking that he does not repeat this name in his later Textual Commentary. Metzger then still speaks only about "the framers of this text"(33). It is also not possible to prove historically that Lucianus of Antioch offered a revised text of the New Testament. Even though for along time, since De Lagarde, people have anxiously searched for the assumed LXX-recension of Lucianus, some are at present even sceptical concerning Lucianus' revisionary work on the _Old_ Testament(34). What Hieronymus says in mutual contradictory statements about the work of Lucianus, also gives little support(35). In any case there is no clear indication in Hieronymus' statements of influential work that Lucianus was thought to have done on the Greek _New_ Testament(36). If he was busy with a revision of this text, his work remained of very limited value"(37). This also appears to be so from the fact that the later _Decretum Gelasianum_ speaks with aversion about some Lucianic manuscripts(38). If the original Greek text is superseded by an inferior recension in the 4th and following centuries, then this process has left surprisingly few trails behind in the historiography. Does this point out that people were never aware of such a process? Or does this show that such a process did not take place? These questions can only be answered by going into the second point that calls for attention here: can the Byzantine text be characterized as a recension on the basis of its textual tradition?

Although the name of Lucianus is mentioned less and less as the historical starting-point, people in the 20th century maintain with undiminished certainty that there was a recension in the 4th century. This is striking. Closer examination of the Byzantine tradition has shown, in the period after Hort, that several tendencies can be pointed out in this tradition. Von Soden distinguished various layers in these Koine manuscripts(39). It proved to be impossible to describe the layers as a variation arising within a group of manuscripts, which in fact all go back to one archetype. That there is much agreement between all these manuscripts does not mean that they all come from one and the same source. The later research-work done by Lake and Colwell did change the picture given by Von Soden, but at the same time it has shown even more clearly that it is better to describe the Byzantine textual tradition as a collection of converging textual traditions than as a varying reproduction of one archetype(40). This fact now prevents us from thinking of one recension as the source for the text that is found in the majority of the manuscripts. No matter how one judges about the value of the growing consensus in the textual tradition, one can not simply reduce the large majority of manuscripts to one vote and then only a secondary vote. To say it differently and more technically: it is impossible to treat the majority of the manuscripts during the evaluation of them as though they textually formed one _family_ (41).​
[For those wanting to see the footnotes, please access them via the online book, at the end of it.]

The first chapter of Bruggen’s book is titled, *The Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism*, and the third (of five) is, *The Age of the Byzantine Type*. The entire work is only 40 pages long.

Next we will cite Pickering’s (updated) classic, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, which is also available online (http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html). I’m citing from near the end of chapter 4, *An Evaluation of the W-H Theory* (pages 93, 94 in the book),

*The "Lucianic Recension" and the Pesh-itta*

Burgon gave the sufficient answer to this invention.

Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history.[189]​
It will not do for someone to say that the argument from silence proves nothing. In a matter of this "magnitude and interest" it is conclusive. Kenyon, also, found this part of Hort's theory to be gratuitous.

The absence of evidence points the other way; for it would be very strange, if Lucian had really edited both Testaments, that only his work on the Old Testament should be mentioned in after times. The same argument tells against any theory of a deliberate revision at any definite moment. We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event as the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its original Greek.[190]​
Colwell is blunt: "The Greek Vulgate—the Byzantine or Alpha text-type—had in its origin no such single focus as the Latin had in Jerome."[191] F.C. Grant is prepared to look into the second century for the origin of the "Byzantine" text-type.[192] Jacob Geerlings, who has done extensive work on certain branches of the "Byzantine" text-type, affirms concerning it: "Its origins as well as those of other so-called text-types probably go back to the autographs."[193]

In an effort to save Hort's conclusions, seemingly, Kenyon sought to attribute the "Byzantine" text to a "tendency."

It seems probable, therefore, that the Syrian revision was rather the result of a tendency spread over a considerable period of time than of a definite and authoritative revision or revisions, such as produced our English Authorised and Revised Versions. We have only to suppose the principle to be established in Christian circles in and about Antioch that in the case of divergent readings being found in the texts copied, it was better to combine both than to omit either, and that obscurities and roughnesses of diction should be smoothed away as much as possible.[194]​
But what if we choose not "to suppose" anything, but rather to insist upon evidence? We have already seen from Hutton's _Atlas_ that for every instance that the "Syrian" text possibly combines divergent readings there are a hundred where it does not. What sort of a "tendency" is that? To insist that a variety of scribes separated by time and space and working independently, but all feeling a responsibility to apply their critical faculties to the text, should produce a uniformity of text such as is exhibited within the "Byzantine" text seems to be asking a bit much, both of them and of us. Hodges agrees.

It will be noted in this discussion that in place of the former idea of a specific revision as the source-point for the Majority text, some critics now wish to posit the idea of a "process" drawn out over a long period of time. It may be confidently predicted, however, that this explanation of the Majority text must likewise eventually collapse. The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text. Even an official edition of the New Testament—promoted with ecclesiastical sanction throughout the known world—would have had great difficulty achieving this result as the history of Jerome's Vulgate amply demonstrates. But an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination.[195]​
An ordinary process of textual transmission results in divergence, not convergence. Uniformity of text is usually greatest near the source and diminishes in transmission.

The accumulating evidence seems not to bother Metzger. He still affirmed in 1968 that the "Byzantine" text is based on a recension prepared by Lucian.[196] There is an added problem with that view.

Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanasians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?​
[Footnotes found at end of online chapter four: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_4.html

To close this post, for those interested in learning of the Byzantine text, I introduce Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s essay (that being their Introduction in _THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM_), also available online: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html.

Robert, I hope this is sufficient to answer your questions, plus provide some research trails. In the next post I will give Burgon’s answer to Hort’s Lucianic fantasy.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 22, 2006)

In the work, _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (London: 1881, reprinted by A.G. Hobbs Publications, TX: 1991), the author remarks on this Hortian hypothesis concerning Lucian and the alleged official recension. I quote this passage at length so the issue may be seen with the clarity of the learned text-critic Burgon:

But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a university which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a ‘Revision’ of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—‘_To suppose_’ that such a revision took place: and (2)—‘_To suppose_’ that all our existing Manuscripts [comprising the TR] represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as ‘to suppose’ either the one thing or the other.

Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that all he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving for ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(‘it is impossible to say with confidence’ [-Hort, _Introduction-Appendix_, p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors incline to the latter half of the 3rd century, i.e., circa A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East…

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed as to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the ‘leading Personages or Sees’ [Hort, p. 134] of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest [most excellent, prosperous] days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a ‘strictly Western,’ or a ‘strictly Alexandrian,’ or a ‘strictly Neutral’ type. *In plain English, if codices B, Aleph, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three*, but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. *In the meantime, the immediate ancestors of B, Aleph and D will perforce have come under judicial Scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.* [Bold emphases added –SMR]

Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is ‘_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.’ _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of the greatest men belong to the period of which we are now speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet no inclination is manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but ‘carry out more completely the purposes of the first;’ and ‘the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350’ [Hort, p. 350].—So far the Cambridge Professor.

But one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ a: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
(3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (ibid. 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​
Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices B and a,)—the many illustrious Bishops who (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that these famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Considering the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient…

It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. ‘If Baal be GOD, then _follow him!_’ Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex a to guide him. He informs us [Hort, p. 276] that ‘the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _preeminent relative purity_’ of those two codices ‘is approximately _absolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.’ On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the 3rd and the 4th Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a ‘Syrian Text,’—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text. (pp. 276, 277, 278—282, 283, 284)​
In this above illustration of the saying, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:5), Burgon, knowing what the reality would be if Hort’s hypothesis were actual fact, turns it against him:

For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene Age. The _Latin_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ ‘Vulgate’ was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250—A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a _‘Textus Receptus’_ as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is ‘all up’ with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere_. He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that_. The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two;_—_Which_ are we to believe? _the consentient Voice of Antiquity_,—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION…All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s ‘New Textual Theory.’

Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did_. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. (pp. 292, 293)​
I trust the faithful (if a little weary) reader has understood Burgon’s strategy; he has allowed – for the sake of argument – Hort’s theory, and shown that if it were indeed true, it would be a wondrous thing, and a great boon, to have such a profoundly attested and authorized text; but it not being the case, it is nothing – but the dream of a man hostile to the Greek text of the AV. For the young Hort, near the beginning of his studies at Cambridge, said to a friend,

I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous _Textus Receptus_…Think of that vile _Textus Receptus_ leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones… (_Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort [Macmillan, London, 1896] Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, p. 211)​
So much for impartial and careful scholarship!

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 24, 2006)

Robert, 

To answer your question about the genuineness of Acts 8:37, I shall begin with the remarks of J.A. Alexander in his, _A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles_ (Banner of Truth, 1991):

…it may be argued that the verse, though genuine, was afterwards omitted, as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the third century. It is moreover found in many manuscripts, including some of the most ancient, and is quoted as a part of this context, not only by Cyprian but by Irenæus. It is therefore one of those cases, in which the external testimony may be looked upon as very nearly balanced, and in which it is the safest course to let the scale of the received text and traditional belief preponderate. (pp. 349, 350)​
But perhaps you will say that since 1857 when this was first published more manuscripts have come to light, and this changes the picture (even though it has not changed the picture).

F.H.A. Scrivener, in his _A Plain Introduction To The Criticism Of The New Testament_ Vol. 2, discusses this verse at length. Although he is what may be termed a “majority text” advocate, he nonetheless pronounces against this verse, albeit in somewhat guarded language:

We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn, and which seems to have been received from the margin…extracted from some Church Ordinal: yet this is just the portion cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek and Latin; so early had the words found a place in the sacred text….Bede, however, who used Cod. E, knew _Latin_ copies in which the verse was wanting: yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among the Latins, to Œcumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks. Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the later hand of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate; it is not in the Complutensian edition. This passage affords us a curious instance of an _addition_ well received in the Western Church from the second century downwards, and afterwards making some way among the later Greeks codices and writers. (pp. 369, 370)​
I have not listed the numerous MSS Scrivener noted that it was found in, as I will do so below. Even from his non-acceptance of it, one can see it is well-attested. I draw your attention to his use twice of the word “seems” – indicating that his view is conjecture.

Jack Moorman, in his, _When the KJV Departs From the “Majority” Text_ (pp. 60, 61), notes that the AV reading is also found in:

[Bibles] Tyndale Great Geneva Bishops / [Text editions] Steph. Beza Elz.
[MSS] E 4 36 88 97 103 104 242 257 307 322 323 385 429 453 464 467 629 630 913 945 1522 1739 1765 1877 1891 & others. Note: the above and following witnesses include those with minor variation.
Von Soden indicates: I b1 (522 1758), I b2 (2298).
Lectionary 59.
Old Latin: ar c? e gig h l m ph r; Vulgate: Clementine am-2 tol demid; Syriac: Harclean-with asterisk; Coptic Middle Egyptian; Armenian Georgian.
[Fathers] Irenaeus, Lyons, Latin, 178; Tertullian, N. Africa, Latin 220; Cyprian, Carthage, Latin, 258; Ambrosiaster, Latin, 384; Pacianus, Barcelona, Latin, 392; Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397; Augustine, Hippo. Latin, 430; “Praedestinatus”, Latin, 434; Bede, England, Latin, also cites Greek mss., 735; Theophylact, (cor.) Bulgaria, 1077.​
The point of citing these many places where our excised verse is _present_ is to “flesh out” J.A. Alexander’s statement that “the external testimony may be looked upon as very nearly balanced”.

I will finish this post with a testimony from Dr. Thomas Holland:

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter8.html

*Acts 8:37*

Here the testimony of this faithful and beloved African, the Ethiopian eunuch, does not appear in the Critical Text. Some have argued that the verse is not genuine because it is found in only a few late manuscripts and was inserted into the Greek text by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. It is true that the passage appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However, the passage also appears in a vast number of other Old Latin manuscripts (such as _l, m, e, r, ar, ph,_ and _gig_). It also is found in the Greek Codex E (eighth century) and several Greek manuscripts (36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 610, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1678, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others). While there are differences even among these texts as to precise wording, the essence of the testimony still remains where it has been removed from other manuscripts. Additionally, Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Ambrosiaster (fourth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD) all cite Acts 8:37.

The natural question posed by textual scholars is this: if the text were genuine, why would any scribe wish to delete it? [Metzger, _A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament_, 315-316.] In his commentary on the book of Acts, Dr. J. A. Alexander provides a possible answer. By the end of the third century it had become common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. [ J. A. Alexander, _The Acts Of The Apostles_ (New York: Scribner, 1967), vol. 1, 349-350.] It is possible that a scribe, believing that baptism should not immediately follow conversion, omitted this passage from the text, which would explain its absence in many of the Greek manuscripts that followed. Certainly this conjecture is as possible as the various explanations offered by those who reject the reading.

Nevertheless, because of biblical preservation, the reading remains in some Greek manuscripts as well as in the Old Latin manuscripts. Clearly the reading is far more ancient than the sixth century, as some scholars have suggested. Irenaeus noted that "the believing eunuch himself: . . . immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, ‘I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God’." [_Against Heresies_: I 1:433.] Likewise, Cyprian quotes the first half of the verse in writing, "In the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest’." [_Treatise_ 12:3:43.] These statements, clearly quotations of Acts 8:37, appear by the end of the second century and at the first half of the third. We see that the passage was in common use long before the existing Greek manuscripts were ever copied. This in itself testifies to its authenticity and to the assurance of biblical preservation.​
The weight that tips the balance decisively in favor of the genuineness of the reading is the conviction that God providentially brought the manuscripts which contained it into the awareness and judgment of the editors and translators who used the manuscripts and versions that were the bases of the Authorized Version, thus fulfilling His promise to preserve His word, even in the minutiae, in this the final stage of its preservation.

*Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away. —the Lord Jesus*

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


I will get back to you, Robert, on your post #30 shortly.

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 25, 2006)

You have an 'a priori' logic that receives all of the readings of the KJV (TR) and then picks the best arguments to defend them; even in cases where the arguement for one reading is grossly inconsistent with an arguement for another reading.

Can you cite a single reading from the King James Version that you think is there in error due to the underlying Greek text?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Robert,
> 
> The weight that tips the balance decisively in favor of the genuineness of the reading is the conviction that God providentially brought the manuscripts which contained it into the awareness and judgment of the editors and translators who used the manuscripts and versions that were the bases of the Authorized Version, thus fulfilling His promise to preserve His word, even in the minutiae, in this the final stage of its preservation.
> 
> *Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away. —the Lord Jesus*


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 25, 2006)

Hello Robert,

You say,

You have an 'a priori' logic that receives all of the readings of the KJV (TR) and then picks the best arguments to defend them; even in cases where the arguement for one reading is grossly inconsistent with an arguement for another reading.​
I think you are essentially correct, although I would call “an ‘a priori’ logic” the _logic of faith_ (to use Dr. E.F. Hills’ phrase). It amounts to this: In numerous places God promised to preserve His inspired word – given through prophets, His Son, and His Son’s apostles – until the end of the world, and into eternity. We discern that He has done this through the process resulting in the manuscripts, both Hebrew and Greek, from which the King James Bible was translated. There are some threads which have followed – and defended – this process in its particulars (“Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?” and “What is the authentic New Testament text?”).

Based upon God’s promises we take our stand. We believe our view is far more cogent as far as proposing a history of the textual transmission, and the result of it – fairly examined – than the CT or MT views, although we hold with the MT view up to a certain point.

Let me give you an illustration from another area. Assuming you hold to the historicity of the Book of Genesis – a few years ago a book came out, _The Bible Unearthed_, which purported to debunk the historicity of patriarchal accounts, the exodus of Israel from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, etc. And over a century ago Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ shook the Christian world, and the intellectual children and grandchildren of Darwin continue to shake it, or mightily try. Now we do not have _scientific_ *proof* of the Genesis account of creation, nor of the historicity of the patriarchs, as we were not there to observe these things, which science requires. Yet we believe them despite many supposedly sound “proofs” given against our view. _Apart_ from preponderance of evidences in favor of the various Biblical accounts, we believe, and that solely because we believe in our God’s word.

You might say we “have an 'a priori' logic that receives all of the readings” of the Bible, and then we pick the best evidences we can gather to support our “logic of faith.” What it comes down to is that we believe our God’s word against all appearances and supposed evidences to the contrary. We take this stand on the Scriptures in this light.

As far as those “cases where the arguement for one reading is grossly inconsistent with an arguement for another reading,” it is simply a matter of different situations textually. We defend the texts on a case-by-case basis, and not all are the same, for instance, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7. The defense of each must needs be different, as the circumstances require.

The CT does not have a settled text – it keeps changing, as does the MT – which its adherents admit is but “provisional.” We do have a settled text – since the Reformation, when the process of preservation was completed.

As regards “an error in the underlying Greek text,” Hills said that Romans 7:6 had a letter in it that was erroneous in the TR (see the “A Short Analysis of Romans 8:28(a)” thread, post #2), and I am currently researching that. Being in a country where the Byzantine text is native, I have some leads. The 1904 Byzantine text by Antoniades does not have the TR reading, but the Bambas edition from the 1800s does, as does the 1638 edition of Maximos, and a parallel column in that edition done in 1819 does also, but I cannot yet identify what that text is.

Steve


----------



## larryjf (Nov 25, 2006)

Steve,



> It amounts to this: In numerous places God promised to preserve His inspired word – given through prophets, His Son, and His Son’s apostles – until the end of the world, and into eternity. We discern that He has done this *through the process resulting in the manuscripts*, both Hebrew and Greek, from which the King James Bible was translated.





> The CT does not have a settled text – it keeps changing, as does the MT – which its adherents admit is but “provisional.” We do have a settled text – since the Reformation, when *the process of preservation* was completed.



Does this mean that you don't believe it is perfectly preserved in every generation, but was a progressive preservation that ended up in a preserved text - the TR?
Because clearly there is no text exactly like the TR before it.

Was a text just like the TR in existence as the original autographs, then lost only to go through a process to recover the preserved word of God resulting in the TR?

It seems that CT supporters also argue for a restoration of God's preserved word. You think it was accomplished a few hundred years ago, and they are still working on it. But neither of you think that it has been purely preserved in every age?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 26, 2006)

Larry,

These are your questions:

Does this mean that you don't believe it is perfectly preserved in every generation, but was a progressive preservation that ended up in a preserved text - the TR?
Because clearly there is no text exactly like the TR before it.

Was a text just like the TR in existence as the original autographs, then lost only to go through a process to recover the preserved word of God resulting in the TR?

It seems that CT supporters also argue for a restoration of God's preserved word. You think it was accomplished a few hundred years ago, and they are still working on it. But neither of you think that it has been purely preserved in every age?​
Well, if I asserted that it was “perfectly preserved in every generation” I would have no text to demonstrate this before 1611. And then the TR 1894 (the text Scrivener compiled to give the Greek exactly underlying the A.V.) only exists because it was put together to show the Greek readings – taken from the MSS the 1611 translators used.

I quote a line from the “The merits of the A.V.” thread, post #43, “*There was a process over time during which God guided ‘all things together for good’ to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text.*”

Most defenders of the AV do say that the AV / TR 1894 is a trustworthy reproduction of the original autographs; some say it is _exactly_ that, while others say it is virtually that, given some minor, almost negligible scribal errors.

The CT supporters, following B.B. Warfield’s view (after W&H), was that the Alexandrian texttype would allow us to scientifically recover the original readings of the NT. In another thread I wrote this:

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

Folks, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but this is a truth-claim issue, and I’m taking a stand. Perhaps you will appreciate that I did not draw “first blood,” in this conflict (as Rambo was wont to say), Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield did when he wrote to the general Christian public in _Sunday School Times_ 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in _The Ecclesiastical Text”_, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an _urtext_, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, _The Presbyterian_ (April 13, 1892):15]​
Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [_Family 13 (The Ferrar Group_ (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​
Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​
Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.


[End of quote from thread]
-----------------

Larry, that dream of Warfield has evaporated, and the textual situation as far as the CT text revealing the autographs is bleak, although many are not aware of how desperate the situation is. I don’t know what CT adherents still believe the originals can be restored. Letis talks about this in his essay on Warfield in _The Ecclesiastical Text._

About the originals being “purely preserved in every age,” no; I – and no one – thinks this of the originals, although below (in another excerpt – again from “The merits of the A.V.” thread, post #43, in turn quoting from the “Authentic” thread) I distinguish between “adequate preservation” and preservation “in the minutiae”. Dr. Price had brought up the issue of the Latin Vulgate and its long usage in the Roman “Church” and how that E.F. Hills’ view was negated by this. So I quoted Hills to show this was not the case, and added some other comments after Hills.

Edward F. Hills:

Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.

In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.

During the 4th century the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, a Greek-speaking Eastern half and a Latin-speaking Western half. In the West the knowledge of Greek died out, and only the Latin language remained. Hence for the Western Christians the Greek Bible became useless. For more than 1,000 years the Latin Vulgate was their only Bible. It was the Latin Vulgate that John Wyclif translated into English, and it was through the study of the Vulgate also that Martin Luther gained his knowledge of those Gospel truths by which he ushered in the Protestant Reformation. Hence, in spite of its errors, it is not too much to say that the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of Western Europe during the medieval period.

But if the Septuagint was the providentially appointed Old Testament version during the days of the early Church and if the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of medieval Europe, much more is the King James Version the providentially appointed Bible for English-speaking Christians today. In it the true text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has been restored, and the errors of the Septuagint and of the Latin vulgate have been corrected. (_Believing Bible Study_, pp. 81, 82)​
I think this gives us a different picture of what Dr. Hills understood to be the truth. The superiority of the providentially appointed English Bible arrived when the English language was at its height, when the translators were the best and most learned, and in time for the greatest missionary outreaches — using the best Hebrew and Greek texts — to translate the Bible into the various languages of the nations. *There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text.* Hills put it this way,

The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of [the] universal priesthood of believers.

…The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. [Emphasis mine –SMR]

…Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. (_The King James Version Defended_, pp. 111, 112)​
It seems that if one is looking to find fault, find it they will, even if it means missing the thread of cohesion that holds their opponent’s arguments together. Sin has affected our ability to reason and perceive. No doubt I suffer from this also. Please, Lord, preserve me from that here!

So the phrase, “the text current among believers”, is not to be taken as an absolute, valid everywhere and for all time, but in the context of the historical steps of preservation, as Hills meant it to be taken. The crown of this process, being in English (for I have seen excellent translations from the TR in Arabic and in Dinka Padang New Testaments) the King James Bible, cannot be supplanted by inferior translations based upon inferior Greek texts, however widely used among believers, as is the case today.

----------

Another excerpt from the same thread:

To demonstrate briefly how Hills’ thought coheres, and how he does not contradict himself as regards his principles involved in preservation. He does not say that God’s providential preservation of the New Testament operated in the area of the Greek text *exclusively,* neither does he say that this “providential preservation operated within the sphere of the Greek Church” *exclusively*. One might try to paint Hills in a corner this way, but it is invalid to lay these thoughts at his doorstep. Please note this: *Hills’ presupposition that God would successfully preserve His word down through the ages was the lens through which Hills discerned in the factual history of the New Testament text God’s hand upon it.*

And consider this: the edition of the Majority Text / Textus Receptus in the English language given the world is the King James Bible; its underlying Greek text is the one God sovereignly chose to have used. 

It exists, a fait accompli! 

-------

As regards the issue of "If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype -- did they not have an adequate Bible?" I aver (again excerpting from an interaction with the writings of a text critic):

There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text—where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV and NASB. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language—the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to _understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it._ I am aware you may scoff at what you may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in your “science” or in your “learning,” so your judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. You may term this (as I have heard it said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for your disapproval.

Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.

I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)​
I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and Pierpont will disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts,” to use Machen’s memorable phrase. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.

---------

I bring these things up to indicate there is an _adequate_ preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae, and this will cast some light on the status of the Latin Vulgate, the Alexandrian texttype, etc.

[End of excerpts]
-----------

Larry, I hope I have not tired you with all this (nor been redundant if you remember these discussions from the earlier threads), and I hope I have answered your important questions.

Steve


----------



## larryjf (Nov 26, 2006)

> Larry, I hope I have not tired you with all this (nor been redundant if you remember these discussions from the earlier threads), and I hope I have answered your important questions.



You haven't tired me at all. I love reading your posts. You have definitely answered my questions.

This is an area that is very important to me, and i love reading your ideas on it. They are most illuminating for me.

Thank you.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 28, 2006)

Robert,

At the end of post #29 you said,

Here you make a clarification about 'readings' versus 'text type' but yet you continue to treat them as virtually the same thing in your logic.​
Well, you can’t deny they _are_ a text type. They exist. They comprise the _vast_ majority of extant manuscripts. What else would you call the thousands of MSS which read virtually (not exactly) the same, within 2%? It is a type of text.

The truth of the matter is that since the objective data...the actual extant manuscripts we have, reveal the Alexandrian Text Type (as a Text Type, not only readings) in the oldest manuscripts, it is up to those who hold to the Byzantine Text Type to prove their position.​
I cannot argue against the truth of this. The MSS, particularly Aleph and B, are Alexandrian in origin, and they are the oldest complete MSS we have, and they do exhibit a type of text – the Alexandrian. But they are no more a type of text than the Byzantine, although the _MSS_ of the Byz are later than the Alex. This, however, does not mean that the _text-type_ of the Alexandrian is more ancient than the Byzantine. We assert that the Byzantine _text-type_ – _not_ the manuscripts – are more ancient than the Alex. The individual _readings_ of distinctively Byzantine type found in the papyri _prove_ that there were Byz _readings_ even before the Alex. exemplars. As for the Byz. _text-type_, where do you suppose it came from? How did it come to have such extreme numerical superiority over the Alexandrian? Can you account for it?

As for me, I can point out that 1. the manuscripts I view to generally have the most weight are the old ones (because they are old) and 2. The characteristics of the text in the oldest manuscripts best explain the readings found in the later manuscripts. Flip that around and it is inexplicable how many of the Alexandrian readings could have been derived from the Byzantine unless they were the result of heretics deliberately tampering with the text (a point often made by Traditional Text defenders). As I said before, if the Alexandrian Text-Type is the result of heretics, they were the most inept, least consistent heretics who ever tampered with the scriptures. Casting off arguements that these Papryi were the works of heretics, the arguement from their age also bears much weight.​
We are to respect our elders, so the Scripture teaches. But do you know the saying, “There’s no fool like an old fool”? Not all that has age is _per se_ excellent in character, whether men or manuscripts.

When you say, “The characteristics of the text in the oldest manuscripts best explain the readings found in the later manuscripts,” would you please clarify that for me?

I think you _way_ overstate the case when you keep saying that some allege the Alex. and the papyri “were the works of heretics” and “the result of heretics.” Of course they were the products of sincere believers. (Have you been listening to the KJV _extremists_ and so think this is the norm for TT defenders?) A few factors: _none_ of the NT manuscripts – _the apostolic originals_ – were sent to anywhere in Egypt; rather, most were went to Asia Minor. Hence, the MSS they received were copies, and they did not have the autographs to compare copies to. In Alexandria, the theological school had certain traits both theologically and as regards the manuscripts (i.e., they were not so averse to making “corrections” in the texts they received if they thought the reading was wrong – Origen is a prime example of this tendency). It is a different thing to say a bad _reading_ crept into a text than to say “a heretic produced the MS.” Even in the Byzantine Church some bad readings crept in. In Marcion’s case one _could_ say “a heretic produced the manscript”.

If the two main exemplars of the Alexandrian text-type – Aleph and B – show intense disagreement between themselves, each testifying against the other (over 3,000 times in the gospels alone), what do you make of that? If they show the hand of correctors revising the manuscripts again and again, what do you make of _that_? If they are shown not to exhibit a “neutral” (i.e., uncorrupted) text-type, as Hort alleged, by virtue of internal contradictions between the exemplars, does that still allow them to retain the weight of their age?

When you make a statement like, “Alexandrian readings could have been derived from the Byzantine [as] the result of heretics deliberately tampering with the text,” are you suggesting that those bad readings in the Alex. were there because heretics inserted Byz. readings into it? (I hope I have not misconstrued your meaning here.)

To turn to the three passages you remarked on in post #30.

You say (and I thank you for responding),

Matthew 1:7

Asaph is an alternate spelling for Asa. Alternate spellings for names was not uncommon as there were no standard spellings guidelines back then (as we have today). The same holds true in verse 10.

If 'Asaph' is a corruption here, what was the heretic trying to accomplish that introduced it?

If 'Asa' is the corruption, it makes sense that a scribe made what he thought was a correction to an error in the manuscript he was copying.​
Your argument (please note that I think this is the preferred spelling of “argument”) assumes a primitive literary consciousness among the Jews around Christ’s time, which is most unwarranted. As regards spelling, what holds true for early English does not hold true for ancient Hebrew. Their linguistic skills were quite finely honed, and their spelling standardized. 

It is as though you were saying that a skilled writer in _our_ day would say *agent* is an alternative spelling for *age*, and *Jewel* is an alternative rendering for *Jew*, both of which are obviously untenable. Neither was Matthew such a dummy as to make such an error, especially as he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write his gospel. “Alternative spelling” is so far-fetched as to not even be an option. Asaph was not introduced by “a heretic,” but is simply a scribal blunder reproduced in fortunately very few MSS. Asaph is neither the original reading (the Holy Spirit does not make such mistakes), nor an alternative spelling.

1 Tim 3:16

If the passages like 1 Tim 3:16 are the result of deliberate corruption by heretics, then why were they so inconsistent? Why did they leave numerous passages that clearly contain the diety of Christ?​
Are you saying that this deletion of the deity of Christ cannot be a deliberate act of a heretic *because he (or they) did not delete all references to His deity?* What kind of logic is that? Because some references to His deity remain proves that this passage could not have been deliberate, seeing as this would make the perpetrator inconsistent? Remind me not to write a reference for you to get a job as detective in a Homicide or Grand Larceny unit! One mutilation of the Sacred Text – especially such a key one – would be a great score for the demon prince; and this one would be quite enough to do tremendous damage, had it not been so fiercely contested, and the stolen word restored!

A _competent_ heretic-mutilator would be careful not to make his activities obvious, just as a thief stealing but one precious jewel from a room of treasure would be more successful than a thief carting off a wheelbarrow full. It would be a most inefficient and thoughtless heretic-mutilator of Scripture to make his activities so easily _noticeable_. Not all who take a scissors to the Bible are as unsubtle as a Marcion.

Listen to three defenders of this verse; This is Wilbur Pickering:

(I will of course be reminded that witnesses are to be weighed, not counted; I will come to that presently, so please bear with me.) Still, with the above reservation, one may reasonably speak of up to 95% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority text-type.

I see no way of accounting for a 95% (or 90%) domination unless that text goes back to the Autographs. Hort saw the problem and invented a revision. Sturz seems not to have seen the problem. He demonstrates that the "Byzantine text-type" is early and independent of the "Western" and "Alexandrian text-types," and like von Soden, wishes to treat them as three equal witnesses.[42] But if the three "text-types" were equal, how ever could the so-called "Byzantine" gain a 90-95% preponderance?

The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75, B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who."[43] So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.

It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem. How is it to be explained if it does not reflect the Original? Hort's notion of a Lucianic revision has been abandoned by most scholars because of the total lack of historical evidence. The eclecticists are not even trying.​
This was from Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, as copied in another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=194935&postcount=4

John William Burgon, responding to the margin note in the 1881 Revision which says “The word _God_, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”, replies (quoting from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the ‘mystery of Godliness;’ declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that ‘GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.’ And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ [cursive] copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such ‘Consent’ amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,— (I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer,)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_…

The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:

In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] _God manifest in the flesh_, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:—by 3 VERSIONS:—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]…

The reading _who_ (…in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (a , Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER. (From Burgon’s, _The Revision Revised_, pages 494, 495, 496.)​ 
In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in a’s Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.

---------

This is from Ted Letis’ _The Majority Text_, an essay of his in that book responding to Carson’s _The King James Version Debate_, dealing with “Thesis 9,” which states “The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.” (p. 62) (This is the only one of Carson’s theses he responds to, as he has a purpose to achieve with it.) And then he picks the one verse which Carson does not use (in his chart by Victor Perry (p. 64)): 1 Timothy 3:16. Letis comments:

The one passage, however, which unambiguously states, in a dogmatic formula, that Jesus Christ was in every sense of the word deity (and is therefore, the pivotal passage of sufficient clarity, by which the other ambiguous passages must be understood and without which, we have at best, ambiguity concerning this doctrinal issue) was not treated by Carson, namely, 1 Timothy 3:16.

I will not attempt to defend the majority text reading as this has been done admirably by Burgon.(37) the traditional reading is as follows:

and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…​
After showing how almost all the modern versions chose the significant variant that replaces “God” with “He” or “He who” (contrary also to proper Greek grammar), aligned with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ _New World Translation_ (seeing as the JWs use the _actual_ Westcott-Hort Greek text), Letis remarks:

By recognizing the manuscript tradition that altered this confession of the apostolic church, the modern translations have endorsed a form of Christianity that was considered by Nicean/Chalcedonian Tradition to be outside the pale of the catholic Faith. Burgon recognized the reading supporting Arianism was adopted by the revisers of 1881, and he likened the change to a strong characterization penned by the Apostle Peter:

May we be permitted to say without offence that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the revisers bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page—with which the church universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found at II S. Peter ii:22.(38)​
Burgon had good reason to accuse the Church of England of taking up the ancient error of Arianism, unwittingly perhaps, because Eusebius gives clear testimony that is was heretics, subordinationists, who were altering the manuscripts in the pre-Nicean period to substantiate their position.(39)

So there is a clear line of demarcation, because of this passage alone, which puts the majority text/TR/KJV in the Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition whereas _all_ modern translations from 1881 on, not founded on the majority text, are clearly aligned with the Arian reading. A telling demonstration of this is found in the fact that our modern-day Arians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their Bible, guard their understanding of Christ’s “subordination” to the true God, at this passage; but queerly enough, all Bibles used by evangelicals, which are not the KJV, read like _The New World Translation_ at this point. That the KJV offers the reading the Reformers recognized (and they _did_ have the optional reading in Erasmus’ notes on this passage), as “received,” is clear from the following quotes from the historic editions of scripture used by Luther and the English, Protestant churches:

Luther’s (1552)…..Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch…
Tyndale’s (1525)…..God was shewed in the fleshe…
Coverdale’s (1535)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Matthew’s (1537)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
The Great (1539)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Geneva (1560)…..God is manifested in the flesh…
Bishop’s (1568)…..God was shewed manifestly in the flesh…

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only 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…(pp. 201-204)​
----------
Footnotes:
(37) Burgon, _The Revision Revised_, pp. 424-501. Also, see Terence H. Brown’s _God Was Manifest in the Flesh_ (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.); Hill’s _King James Version Defended_, pp. 137-38; and Frederick H.A. Scrivener’s, _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 390-95, where he affirms, “I dare not pronounce qeovvV a corruption.”
(38) Burgon, _The Revision Revised_, pp. 105-06. The passage reads; “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
(39) Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ (translated by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 5:28, pp. 213-16).​
[End of Letis excerpt]

---------

I might disagree with Letis in that there are other “unambiguous” texts proving the deity of Christ, but he is right that they are not in a “dogmatic formula.”

Robert, for the last of your defenses, you say:

Mark 16:9-20

This is not an easy one. This is a disputed text from ancient days. In the Codex Vaticanus there is what appears to be space left on the page for the long ending (as if the scribe were not sure whether or not to add it). This passage was also disputed by some early writers of the church.

Some reject this passage based upon the internal evidence; that it contrasts sharply with the context (Mary Magdalene is introduced a second time though she had already been introduced at the beginning of the chapter) and Marks writing style. 

For me, I believe that the internal evidence is fairly conclusive that it was not penned by Mark but by a separate author. This however does not mean that it is not inspired and to be received as the true ending of Mark. Deuteronomy 34 is a similar example. Moses clearly didn't write that last chapter (it has the account of his death) but it is still God's word (God used a second human agent to complete it).​
Mary Magdalene _is_ mentioned at the beginning of chapter 16, along with Mary the mother of James, and Salome, when they had come early the first day morning to anoint the body of Jesus, but found the tomb empty. After they were spoken to by the angel, and they went and told the disciples, Mary came back (we are told in John 20), and after Peter and John left, she remained, weeping, and the Lord then appeared and spoke with her. It is perfectly appropriate for Mark to mention her again by name in 16:9 of his gospel, so as to identify her in this continuing drama. Otherwise we would not _know_ her identity.

Mark’s alleged writing style in this passage being unlike his normal style is a fiction by those who wish to believe it. It is not so.

What makes the gospel of Mark (and the other gospels) authoritative is that they were written under the authority of the apostles (Mark, Luke, and Acts not by apostles directly).

It is especially important to note that the apostles esteemed their own commandments as of the same divine authority as the books of the Old Testament (2 Pet 3:2; 1 Thess 4:2; 2 Thess 2:15), and the teachings they held forth in the name of the Lord were to be obeyed in all the churches (2 Thess 3:14; 1 Cor 14:37). B.B. Warfield, in _The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible_, says, "In the apprehension...of the earliest churches, the 'Scriptures' were not a _closed_ but an _increasing_ canon." (p. 412) [All emphases here and immediately below are by Warfield.]

Warfield has an interesting take on this issue:

"...it was not exactly apostolic _authority_ which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the 'canon'....The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but _imposition by the apostles as 'law'_....And in imposing new books [on top of the 'old books' of the O.T.] on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in 1 Tim 5:18 with Deuteronomy as equally 'Scripture' with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture." (Ibid., pp 415,416)

We begin to get a glimpse of the forces at work in determining the N.T. canon, and that was, primarily, the authorization of the apostles themselves, as agents of the Spirit of God.”​
Now if the last 12 verses of Mark were not written by Mark they are not inspired, as it was Mark who (so the early church tells us) wrote under the authority and direction of Peter. We recognize no substitute for Mark as author in the acknowledging of his gospel as inspired Scripture. It is his or it is not by apostolic authority. There is no relation between this passage and Deuteronomy 34; this was acknowledged by the Jews without reservation as written by an inspired author. We probably cannot do any better than Calvin: “It is not certain who wrote this chapter; unless we admit the probable conjecture of the ancients, that Joshua was its author. But since Eleazar the priest might have performed this office, it will be better to leave a matter of no very great importance undecided.” (OT Commentaries, Vo. 3, Bingham/Baker Books edition, p. 404)

(Cont.)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 28, 2006)

We will now sample the view of two-fisted Fundamentalist Baptist, Dr. William Grady, in his study of textual history and criticism, _Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible_, William Grady’s superb investigation into, and his defense of, the manuscripts and Bible preserved by God, and in particular – in this excerpt – the results of his examination of the evidences for and against those last twelve verses in Mark.

Remember, we are looking for understanding and for evidence concerning which is the best – the reliable – Bible.

In his book Dr. Grady uses the name “Nicolaitane,” taken from Revelation 2:6, and 15, to refer to those who proclaim themselves experts and whose expertise is used to destroy faith in the inspired and providentially preserved Scriptures God has given to His people. What follows is a brief paragraph on the significance of this name, summarizing Grady's view.

Nicolaitane: followers of Nicolas, a name from the Greek words _nikos_ – to conquer – and _laos_ – the people. The only solid information we have regarding this name is from the meaning of it; the historical data is nonexistent, and what there is is simply conjecture. Most commentators are agreed that whatever the actual “deeds” and “doctrines” of the Nicolaitanes were which the Lord _hated_ (see the verses in Revelation) they pertained to the division of God’s people into so-called “lords” exercising authority over the “common” people and replacing the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then using this advantage to lead these people into error and sin. The people were thus divided into those with “higher knowledge” and those without it, which culminated in the wickedness of a New Testament priesthood exclusively ministering “grace” through an invented system of “sacraments” and rituals, as in the Roman Church, and the forbidding of the people to even read the Bible. Thus the “lords” in the “church” ruled over the people with an iron hand, often leading them into damnation. This “priesthood” of the “learned” over the common believers was not limited to Rome or Constantinople, for the Protestants had (and have) their own version: the highly educated, the textual scholars (often not even genuine believers), lording it over the people and trying to separate them from their trusted Bible by means of alleged superior “scholarly” knowledge, but in fact bringing them under the bondage of uncertainty and doubt in their God’s word. Dr. Grady does a service to the “common” people of God by putting his own godly scholarship to use in defense of the Scriptures. If he gets angry at the oppressors, if he hits hard, if the words out of his mouth seem a little rough, remember, this is no game, and the word of our God and King is at stake, or more accurately, our faith in it is. Grady plays for keeps, and well he should. What follows in this section is his, excerpted from the 5th chapter in his book, titled, “Mark 16:9-20”. Please note that all emphases are his.


*From Dr. William Grady’s, Final Authority:*

For a quarter of a century, the classic work in this field [of Biblical Introduction] has been _A General Introduction to the Bible_ by Geisler and Nix (Moody Press, 1968). We will examine this evangelical standard-bearer’s particular treatment of Mark 16:9-20 against the established tenets of manuscript evidences….

That a cloud of suspicion has engulfed this passage is not to be denied. While most translation committees have expressed their disdain for these verses by confining them to reproachful brackets, the more audacious have dislodged them altogether. However, it is this author’s contention that the blame for such “perplexity” must be placed upon unreasonable Christian scholars for their refusal to acknowledge the truth.

Their opening dogmatic pronouncement illustrates their irrationality: “These verses are lacking in *many* of the oldest and *best* Greek manuscripts.”[1]

By technical definition the “oldest” Greek manuscripts would comprise the uncial (or majescule) style, characterized by inch-high, block capital letters running together without breaks between words.

For our first example of Nicolaitane indifference to reality (not to mention blatant dishonesty), we submit the following statistics. With uncials prevailing for about ten centuries, we learn that five of their number have obtained particular notoriety due to age. They are, in addition to [the fourth century’s] a and B; _Codex Ephraemi_ (C), fourth century; _Codex Alexandrinus_ (A), fifth century; and _Codex Bezae_ (D), sixth-seventh century. As all five include the sixteenth chapter of Mark, we soon discover that when Geisler and Nix stated that the last twelve verses were lacking in “many” of the oldest Greek manuscripts, what they really meant was only *2 out of 5* – _Sinaiticus_ and _Vaticanus_. 

They are soon in trouble with another “scholarly” disclosure: “The familiar long ending (AV) of the Received Text is found in a vast number of uncial manuscripts (C, D, L, W, Q)….”[2]

Having subpoenaed the remaining uncial witnesses to Mark 16, we discover that the “vast number” of corroborating majescules is in reality *15 out of 15!*

Our next example of intellectual dementia involves the choice of vocabulary words when describing the quality of the two uncials in question, _Sinaiticus_ and _Vaticanus_. Apparently for Geisler and Nix the word _best_ was the “best” they could do when portraying a pair of manuscripts which disagree with each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone.[3] (See chapter 8.)

Moving right along, we discover another incredible statement: “The familiar long ending (AV) of the Received Text is found in…*most* miniscules.”[4] The uncials were gradually replaced by the cursive or minuscule style manuscript (introduced by the scribes of Charlemagne, approximately 800 A.D.), employing lower case letters in a running-hand style with the normal break occurring between words. When Geisler and Nix said “most” miniscules contained the familiar ending, what they _really_ meant to say was *600 out of 600!*[5] (And these are the kind of people who would condemn the Jehovah’s Witnesses for wresting the Word of God?)

Dean Burgon epitomizes the ageless exasperation of God’s people when confronted by such an unscrupulous disregard of Holy Scripture: 

With the exception of the two Uncial manuscripts which have just been named, there is not one codex in existence, uncial or cursive, (and we are acquainted with, at least, eighteen other uncials, and about six hundred cursive copies of this Gospel), which leaves out the last twelve verses of Mark.

The inference which an unscientific observer would draw from this fact is no doubt, in this instance, the correct one. He demands to be shown the Alexandrine (A), and the Parisian Codex (C), neither of them probably removed by much more than fifty years from the date of the Codex Sinaiticus, and both unquestionably derived from different originals; and he ascertains that no countenance is lent by either of those venerable monuments to the proposed omission of this part of the sacred text. He discovers that the Codex Bezae (D), the only remaining very ancient manuscript authority—notwithstanding that it is observed on most occasions to exhibit an extraordinary sympathy with the Vatican (B)—here sides with A and C against B and a. He inquires after all the other uncials and all the cursive manuscripts in existence, (some of them dating from the tenth century,) and requests to have it explained to him why it is to be supposed that all these many witnesses, belonging to so many different patriarchates, provinces, ages of the church, have entered into a grand conspiracy to bear false witness on a point of this magnitude and importance? But he obtains no intelligible answer to this question.[6]​
The credibility gap widens still further with their comments on ancient versions. When Geisler and Nix stated that the traditional ending is found in, “*some* Syriac manuscripts,”[7] what they _really_ meant was all but one—the _Sinaitic Syriac_.[8] When they assured us that the disputed verses were in, “*most* old Latin manuscripts…”, we know that what they _intended_ to say was all but one—the Codex Bobiensis (K).[9]

Finally, there is an unusual assertion given concerning the silence of the church fathers. “Many of the ancient Fathers show no knowledge of it (e.g., Clement, Origen, Eusebius, et al.).”[10] By now, the alert student can discern the Nicolaitanes’ frequent recourse to desperation when confronted by *facts*. Besides containing a glaring inaccuracy concerning Eusebius, this last remark smacks of futility in at least two other areas. Not only is their charge of patristic ignorance ridiculously false (as we shall presently demonstrate) but were this not the case, it would still represent a mere argument of silence. How weak can you get?

Although a number of the fathers labored under varying degrees of theological deficiency, the trio recommended by Geisler and Nix is almost as credible as their “many,” “best,” and “most” manuscripts. Clement (of Alexandria) believed that Plato’s writings were inspired because they _contained_ the truth,[11] while his celebrated pupil, Origen denied both a physical resurrection and a literal Hell.[12] (Concerning Origen’s departures from orthodoxy, scholars are uncertain whether his mental faculties were affected by his self-mutilation in obedience to Matthew 19:12 or vice versa.[13]) His favorite student Eusebius prophesied that Constantine and Christ would reign together throughout eternity.[14]

As for Eusebius’ unfamiliarity with the so-called “long ending,” he not only knew of it, but expressed his willingness to accept _either_ ending. Dean Burgon cites Eusebius’ epistle to a certain Marinus as follows:

But another…will say that here are two readings (as is so often the case elsewhere,) and _both_ are to be received, – inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, _this_ reading is not to be held to be genuine rather than _that_ nor _that_ than _this_.[15]​
Geisler and Nix then appeal to Jerome’s testimony that “almost all Greek copies do not have this concluding portion.”[16] Dr. Frederick H.A. Scrivener (leader of the conservative forces within the Revision committee of 1871-1881) counters with an accent on Jerome’s duplicity:

Jerome’s recklessness in statement has already been noticed (_A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, Volume II, p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for how could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious.[17]​
That Geisler and Nix are in desperate straits is apparent by their listing of the Latin Vulgate as one of the havens for our verses in question. In any case, these authors imply that the fathers’ primary input is negative. *Nothing could be further from the truth!* There was enough positive evidence in circulation over a century ago for Dean Burgon to publish a massive 350-page volume in defense of the disputed passage entitled _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark_. In a stinging letter to Bishop Ellicot, chairman of the Revision Committee, Burgon summarized his research as follows:

Similarly, concerning THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p.53), (whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus disallowing the last 12 verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and a omit them: – that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them: – and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to _“the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities.”_ And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The verses in question I find are recognized,

In the 2nd century, – By the Old Latin, and – Syriac Verss. – by Papias; – Justin M.; – Irenaeus; – Tertullian.

In the 3rd century, – By the Coptic – and Sahidic versions: – by Hippolytus; – by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage; – by the “Acta Pilati;” – and the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.

In the 4th century, – By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.: – besides the Syriac Table of Canons; – Eusebius; – Macarius Magnes; – Aphraates; – Didymus; – the Syriac “Acts of the Ap.;” – Epiphanius; – Leontius; – ps. – Ephraem; – Ambrose; – Chrysostom; – Jerome; – Augustine.

In the 5th century, Besides the Armenian Vers., – by codices A and C; – by Leo; – Nestorius; – Cyril of Alexandria; – Victor of Antioch; – Patricius; – Marius Mercator. 

In the 6th and 7th centuries, – Besides cod. D, – Georgian and Ethiopic Verss.: – by Hesychius; – Gregentius; – Prosper; – John, abp of Thessalonica; – and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.[18]​
Obviously, the extant testimony of the church fathers is overwhelming. And for the reassuring benefit of a tangible illustration, note the presence of Mark 16:19 as found in its natural context within the second century work, _Irenaeus Against Heresies_ (A.D. 177).

Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point Him out at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in “the spirit and power of Elias, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, toward the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: *“So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”* confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: _“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.”_ Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.[19]​
Irenaeus is only one of approximately _thirty_ patristic endorsements recorded by Burgon over a century ago. Why couldn’t Geisler and Nix find them? Or if they knew of their witness, why did they suppress this important evidence? But how could they be ignorant when they refer to Burgon’s work? The Authorized Version A.D. 1611 is not suspect for containing Mark 16:9-20. _The Alexandrian codices are suspect for excising them!_

The final witness of our three fold cord is the unassuming lectionary. Burgon wrote:

But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern Christendom_ these same twelve verses – neither more nor less – have been from the earliest recorded period, and still are, _a proper lesson both for the Easter season and for Ascension Day._[20]​
It is noteworthy that Dean Burgon’s defense of Mark’s ending has yet to be refuted. Facts are stubborn things. And yet, with Burgon’s four other scholarly works on manuscript evidences bringing his total pages count to nearly 2,000, his great potential for good was frustrated by the solitary, patronizing remark of Geisler and Nix that, “Defense of the Received Text (vv. 9-20) has been made by John W. Burgon.[21]​
Footnotes:
1 Normal L. Geisler and William E. Nix, _A General Introduction to the Bible_ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 372.
2 Ibid.
3 Herman C. Hoskier, _Codex B and Its Allies_, vol. 2, _Chiefly Concerning_ a, _but covering three thousand differences between_ a _and B in the Four Gospels_. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Publisher, 1914), 1.
4 Geisler and Nix, _Introduction to the Bible_, 372.
5 David Otis Fuller, _True or False?_ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: International Publications, 1973), 95. [Original source: _The Last Twelve Verses of Mark_, by John Burgon, pages 70, 71]
6 Jay P. Green, ed., _Unholy Hands on the Bible_, vol. 1, _An Understanding to Textual Criticism, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester_ (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), c40-c41.
7 Geisler and Nix, _Introduction to the Bible_, 372.
8 Edward F. Hills, _Believing Bible Study_, 2d. ed. (Des Moines, Iowa: Christian Research Press, 1977), 133.
9 Ibid.
10 Geisler and Nix, _Introduction to the Bible_, 372.
11 Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, LL.D., eds., _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, vol. 2, _Fathers of the Second Century_ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 192.
12Earle E. Cairns, _Christianity Through the Centuries, A History of the Christian Church_, 1st ed., rev. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House for Academie Books, 1981), 112.
13 J.G. Davies, _The Early Christian Church, A History of Its First Five Centuries_ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1965), 124.
14 Colm Luibheid, _The Essential Eusebius_ (n.p.: Mentor Omega Book for New American Library, 1966), 213.
15 [Hills is here citing Burgon] Edward F. Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, 4th ed. (Des Moines, Iowa: Christian Research Press, 1984), 165.
16 Geisler and Nix, _Introduction to the Bible_, 372.
17 Frederick H.A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student_, ed. Edward Miller (London: George Bell & Sons, 1894), 2:342.
18 John William Burgon, B.D., _The Revision Revised_ (Paradise, Pa.: Conservative Classics, 1883), 422-23.
19 Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, LL.D., eds., _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_, vol. 1, _The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus_ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.., 1989), 426.
20 Burgon, _Revision Revised_, 40.
21 Geisler and Nix, _Introduction to the Bible_, 372-73.

[End of Dr. Grady’s excerpt]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2006)

A caveat with regard to Dr. Grady’s book. Before any of you staunch Calvinists (as I am myself!) buy it, please be aware that he is strongly _anti_-Calvinist! And that this view informs some of what he writes in _Final Authority_. I am not put off by such, though some of you may well be. As regards defense of the Scripture we are allies, as regards God’s sovereignty in salvation, opponents.

It is a different battle.

I am going to be taking a vacation from posting for a little while. I want to spend more time with my wife, and my friends (my style of posting can be most time-consuming!).

Steve


----------

