# Text Tradition of New Testaments



## God'sElectSaint (May 16, 2015)

I have been doing quite a bit of study on textual criticism and English translations lately. I came into this study I must admit with a bias in support of TR/KJV. I've definitely been enlightened quite a bit. I must say I've gained some respect for the Alexandrian text-type. There is quite a bit of good evidence in favor of it. I am starting to think that tradition/emotion may fuel this issue more then the actual evidence does, myself being included in that. I have been favoring the arguments of TR/Majority text folks admittedly. I like to hear from some who favor the Critical Text and their reasons for doing so. Plus maybe a few suggestions on some good FAIR books/articles on the subject. I know this has been discussed before but it's always a good lively discussion as long as no punches get throw!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 16, 2015)

I am not sure that there are any books that would meet that criteria since most of the books written on this subject take one position or the other. However u would recommend William Hendriksens NT commentary. I have always found that he takes a fair and balanced approach to textual issues.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 16, 2015)

Duly noted, Ill check that out


----------



## DMcFadden (May 16, 2015)

D.A. Carson is a go-to guy for the CT folks.
Anything by Daniel Wallace.
The books by James White.


----------



## py3ak (May 16, 2015)

So far, the most even handed treatment I've read of the topic was David Alan Black's _New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide_. He's a good communicator, which cannot be said of all authors on the topic.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> D.A. Carson is a go-to guy for the CT folks.
> Anything by Daniel Wallace.
> The books by James White.



I am currently reading D.A Carson's KJV debate book. I love James White, and I'll look into Daniel Wallace.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 17, 2015)

I second Ruben's endorsement of Black. Also a VERY good choice.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 17, 2015)

William Hendriksen's New Testament (Reformed) commentaries are—to me—_the_ best, _and_ my favorites, even though he is a thorough CT guy; nonetheless, when he's dealing with CT variants and against the TR, I overlook his views at that place, as being unsound. 

I think a fair and irenic book, although Dr. Thomas Holland is a classic Textus Receptus man, is his, _Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. I say "fair" as he deals even-handedly with the issues. This is to me one of the best treatments of the textual situation, _and_ one of the best defenses of the AV, if that's possible. Am I biased? That's also quite possible!

An example of Holland's scholarship from a thread defending the traditional reading of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6: Defending the Lord's Prayer 1. Earlier in the thread is some interaction with James White from his book on the KJVO controversy.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 17, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> William Hendriksen's New Testament (Reformed) commentaries are—to me—_the_ best, _and_ my favorites, even though he is a thorough CT guy; nonetheless, when he's dealing with CT variants and against the TR, I overlook his views at that place, as being unsound.
> 
> I think a fair and irenic book, although Dr. Thomas Holland is a classic Textus Receptus man, is his, _Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_. I say "fair" as he deals even-handedly with the issues. This is to me one of the best treatments of the textual situation, _and_ one of the best defenses of the AV, if that's possible. Am I biased? That's also quite possible!
> 
> An example of Holland's scholarship from a thread defending the traditional reading of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6: Defending the Lord's Prayer 1. Earlier in the thread is some interaction with James White from his book on the KJVO controversy.



Thank you Mr.Rafalsky, I want to read material from both perspectives. But no matter which underlying Greek text I end up favoring or believing to be closet to the the original the AV will always be a favorite of mine. Regardless of the underlying text I can't deny it's beauty and faithfulness to it's text. I think the AV stands alone among the English Translations, it's one of a kind. I have sentimental connection to it because it was the Version I first really dug down in to. Like I have said before I do not think it to be a relic of the past or inferior to the modern translations in accuracy. When it comes to a TR translation I believe the Authorized Version will always be my first choice.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> There is quite a bit of good evidence in favor of it. I am starting to think that tradition/emotion may fuel this issue more then the actual evidence does, myself being included in that.



The historian can only tell you "how" things happen; he cannot tell you "why" they happen. The explanation why one chain of events occurred and another did not is traced back to one's philosophy of history, and that philosophy is often influenced by tradition and emotion among other things. Discerning the text of Scripture includes historical factors, and this is true regardless of which text one decides on. Besides, the very idea of the Word of God touching someone's life is going to have an emotional element to it.

When it comes to this so-called "critical text," I would point out that it is not an actual text. It is an idea that is developed in opposition to the received text. The received text is a fixed text. The so-called "critical text" is in a state of flux. It differs from one scholar to another. Nor does it claim to be an exact copy of the original. It is at best a reconstruction with a degree of "probability." At the end of the day, not one word of this critical text can be proven by empirical evidence to be the word of God.

Of the recommended authors, Carson and White are not presenting a positive case based on text critical expertise. They are simply offering an apologetic for moving away from the text which underlies the AV. Daniel Wallace is more technically a textual critic, but coming from a fundamentalist background there is also an anti-AV apologetic in his work. If one desires to learn text-critical theory it would be best to go straight to the sources which are utilised by Messrs. Carson, White, and Wallace. Consider the arguments of a Westcott and Hort, of a Metzger and an Ehrman, and of the Alands. Examine the historical basis on which they argue for a reconstructed text. Weigh the theological presuppositions which influence them. Then ask yourself if you can personally commit to such a theory in good faith.


----------



## KeithW (May 17, 2015)

Daniel Wallace has an online article in four parts called The History of the English Bible. To me it reads more like a history than simply a bias towards one text type.

A work like Dr. James White's _The King James Only Controversy_ sticks more to text types and examines many individual verses. So it is useful for examining differences in verses.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 17, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > There is quite a bit of good evidence in favor of it. I am starting to think that tradition/emotion may fuel this issue more then the actual evidence does, myself being included in that.
> ...



Ah . . . you have picked off my scab. I was educated by CT only devotees (since beginning Greek in college in 1971!). But, when you look at the theological presuppositions of W&H, Ehrman, the Alands, et. al. it makes it VERY difficult to be favorable to their conclusions. I firmly believe that how you ask the question often predetermines the answer you will receive. And, in the case of the original CT gang, those presuppositions fail to satisfy my orthodoxy. During the KJV 2011 celebration year, I read a number of histories on the creation of the KJV and was constantly impressed by the scholarship, piety, and carefulness that went into the efforts by the amazing translation team.

My profs always said that you need to differentiate between the reliability of higher criticism and lower criticism. But why? Other than the fact that my profs were all CT folks and needed to justify their conclusions, I am still waiting for a theologically satisfying defense of the CT that does not partake of the errors of W&H and gang.


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Ah . . . you have picked off my scab.



You need some friars balsam, Dennis. No, it looks like you already have some from 2011. 



DMcFadden said:


> My profs always said that you need to differentiate between the reliability of higher criticism and lower criticism. But why? Other than the fact that my profs were all CT folks and needed to justify their conclusions, I am still waiting for a theologically satisfying defense of the CT that does not partake of the errors of W&H and gang.



I found that this division between higher and lower criticism doesn't exist with the critics. They seem very happy to reconstruct a second century communal text or even to regard variations as original. Then along comes an evangelical prof., and he teaches that the same text-critics are wonderful for confirming a first century uniform text. "Wonderful" is not the word for it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 18, 2015)

Dennis and Matthew, thank you for bringing these text-critical issues up. I think Theodore Letis addresses them well in these quotes from his book, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate,_ from the essay, "In Reply to D.A. Carson's '_The King James Version Debate_' " :

As Letis begins his interaction with Carson, he proceeds thus:

​If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay. . .​
Further on in the essay Letis continues,
That Carson’s school claims total theological neutrality with regard to the method of textual criticism applied, and the overall approach to the NT documents, is a quality that is boasted of by its proponents.

In Carson’s school of textual criticism those who do not necessarily hold to any view of inspiration and those who are supposed to hold to an evangelical view of inspiration, share agreement. This is conceded by Gordon D. Fee:

​​What is most probable in textual choices transcends confessional boundaries, hence, confessional evangelicals are generally at one with other scholars on the principles, if not on the actual choices, of textual criticism.(9)​
Here is where the plumb-line is drawn. Hills protests, saying,​
If, now, the Christian Church has been correct down through the ages in her fundamental attitude toward the Old and New Testaments, if the doctrines of the  
Divine inspiration and providential preservation of these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the textual criticism of the New Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of antiquity. The textual criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under which the original manuscripts were written and also those under which the copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are true, then the original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions, under the inspiration of God, and the copies were made and preserved under special conditions, under the singular care and providence of God.(10)​
What Hills offers is an unambiguous “confessional statement” that leads to a particular interpretation of New Testament textual criticism data. Such a confessional statement, the omission of which in one’s method of textual criticism will lead to a totally different interpretation of the same data, is precisely what Fee admits is conspicuously absent from the school represented by himself and Carson. Is it any wonder that the two schools do not see eye to eye? Is it not clear by now why Nolan never convinced Griesbach’s disciples (1815),(11) Scrivener never convinced Westcott and Hort who dominated over the revision committee for the Revised Version (1870-1881),(12) Burgon never convinced Bishop Ellicott (1883),(13) Miller never convinced Sanday (1897),(14) Hoskier never convinced Souter (1914),(15) Hodges never convinced Fee (1978), (16) and finally, why Hills, Pickering, and van Bruggen have not convinced Carson?

Hills himself a well-trained textual critic, who earned his doctorate in NT textual criticism from Harvard, has classed Carson’s school because of its omission of the before-mentioned “confessional statement,” the “naturalistic method”(17) of textual criticism; Hodges at one time similarly called it “rationalistic.”(18)

The mystery of the ages must be put forth in the question: At what point were confessing evangelicals persuaded to “compartmentalize” their beliefs concerning inspiration and preservation, in order to be allowed to play at textual criticism? (e.g., as Carson has mentioned: Warfield, Machen, Robertson, et al.). While agreeing that much unfair abuse has been heaped on Westcott and Hort in pro-TR literature, I am nevertheless compelled “by the facts of history” to acknowledge them carefully as the major force in producing this situation…(pages 191-196 of Letis’ _Majority Text_)

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

*(9) Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of the New Testament and Modern Translations,” _Christianity Today_ (June 22, 1973), pp. 6-11)
(10) Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 2.
(11) See Frederick Nolan’s critique of Griesbach’s premises and methodology in his _An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament_, (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815). 
(12) See his critique of Westcott and Hort’s theory in F.H.A. Scrivener, _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. 285-301.
(13) See Burgon’s “Letter to the Right Rev. C.S. Ellicott, D.D., bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reply to his pamphlet in defense of the revisers, and their new Greek text of the New Testament,” as it appears in his _Revision Revised_, pp. 369-520.
(14) See Edward Miller’s _The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament _which is an edited version of the public debate held at New College on May 6, 1897, principally between Edward Miller the advocate of the traditional (majority) text, and William Sanday, the advocate for Westcott’s and Hort’s text. Interesting to note is the fact that many of the same arguments raised in this debate were being raised again in the JETS debate between Hodges and Fee, eighty-one years later.
(15) Notes Souter’s harsh comments in review of H. Hoskier’s _Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the New Testament_, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910, 1911), as they appeared in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, Vol. 13 (1912): “We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime” (p. 122). Hoskier’s response was the massive two-volume _Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914), wherein he replied directly to Souter: “I refuse to be bound by such advice” (p. i).
(16) See the debate between Hodges and Fee in the _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_, Vol. 21, Nos. 1 and 2 (March 1978, June 1978).
(17) Hills, _The King James_, pp. 62-114.
(18) Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Bibliotheca Sacra 128_ (January, 1971), 27-35. Hodges has, however, been similarly criticized for his rationalistic use of the argument of statistical probability.​
[End Letis]

__________

This may be a bit too much scholarship for some, but how else can we discern what is going on unless we seek to understand the presuppositions of those putting forth their arguments! This really is the crux of the matter!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 18, 2015)

Thanks gentlemen for your insightful thoughts. I am enjoying Carson's book but definitely am not sold on the CT. I think more then anything I respect the Alexandrian text-type more and think it should be considered. In all honesty it's a tough decision to make for me. For now I will continue to enjoy the KJV for my TR text translation and the NASB/ESV for my CT translations. I do enjoy the NKJV and it's footnotes it help's to weigh all the options out. There are a few parts of the TR I believe are not original I must admit. Looking at 1 John 5:7,8 so far and I've looked at a lot on this text I don't think it's original. Also rev 16:5 I must as well question. But then again like Matthew and Steve have said as well as Dennis the theology behind a lot of these critical texts guys are suspect. I understand emotion will be involved seeing this is the Word of the Living God we are speaking of the most important Book ever written. But I don't want to be blinded by my emotions. They are some good godly men on both sides of the fence. And more than anything in studying all this I am amazed at how pure the NT has been kept through the last 2000+ years in circulation. It's really beautiful to see how God has preserved his word and that none of our doctrines hang in the balance of any textual variants. I think we can all agree that the New Testament is the purest historical writings that have ever existed. Overall my confidence and faith has been built up in all this studying of these issues. And I am extremely blessed to have the privilege to hear the insights and illumination all you men have gained through the years. I value the wisdom of the PB very much and am grateful God has provided a forum like this for young inexperienced believers like my self to seek and hear the insights of men that have studied many more years that I have. Sorry to get all sentimental lol But I really mean it, thank you gentlemen!


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 31, 2015)

I myself have had a falling the with the CT over the last few years. It's come after preaching expository sermons for years and growing increasingly disillusioned with how reasoned eclecticism handles determining the readings.


----------



## TrustGzus (May 31, 2015)

For years I used only KJV/NKJV. I was schooled on the issue initially by a series from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. Then I listened to and read James White. 

I think the most important thing is context. If one reads entire paragraphs, chapters and books in your Bible, I don't see the disputes over CT/MT/TR making much of a difference. 

If I read Romans or John or what have you from 1:1 to the end, whether I read the UBS, any of various editions of the TR (yes, they have variants between each of them) or a KJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV 1984, TNIV, or NIV 2011, I don't find any serious difference. 

When we leave the telescopic approach and look microscopically, then it looks serious. When I was TR-only, I looked microscopically. As I look telescopically, I find it not mattering a whole lot. 

Thus, I can pick up and enjoy my Reformed Heritage KJV Study Bible or some other non-TR Bible and enjoy either. 

This issue isn't as big a deal as I think some make it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 31, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> For years I used only KJV/NKJV. I was schooled on the issue initially by a series from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. Then I listened to and read James White.
> 
> I think the most important thing is context. If one reads entire paragraphs, chapters and books in your Bible, I don't see the disputes over CT/MT/TR making much of a difference.
> 
> ...



I feel similar to you though I prefer TR/KJV mostly but I like the NASB a lot as well though they seem to bracket verses rather then deleting or marginalizing them.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 31, 2015)

I agree with Joe. I find the approach of reasoned eclecticism more problematic than the end product though I'm definitely somewhere in the Byzantine stream these days...


----------



## MW (May 31, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> When we leave the telescopic approach and look microscopically, then it looks serious.



Both are basically magnifying the object. Perhaps another metaphor is needed.

The idea that we should not look microscopically at the text will certainly save on commentaries but I doubt it will bring us closer to understanding the meaning.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

Using another analogy, and to use a specific example to make the point, when one looks at the tree of Colossians 1:14, one can think new versions do a terrible thing and "delete" the words "through his blood". However, when one doesn't look at such a narrow range (microscopic realm or looking at a tree) but looks at a broader range (a telescopic view or looking at the forest) one sees "blood" always six verses later in Colossians 1:20. Also, when looking at parallel passages, such as Ephesians 1:7 in this case, "through his blood" is in every version and every manuscript. 

These kind of facts are what made the issue minor to me. When I looked at narrow info, the "perversion" of newer versions seemed clear. When I looked at a much bigger picture, what at first was so apparently clear appeared to vanish at the inconsistency throughout the texts.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> When I looked at a much bigger picture, what at first was so apparently clear appeared to vanish at the inconsistency throughout the texts.



You have narrowed your view, not broadened it. Broaden your view to take in the whole forest, and you will see that there are some trees on fire. Not all of them are on fire, but some of them are, and they require careful attention. You are telling us that there are other trees which are not on fire. Well and good. But looking at trees which are not on fire is not going to put out the fire where it burns.

You might be able to excuse the omission of blood in one place because you see it a few verses later. But what do you do when "God" is omitted from being manifest in the flesh, and there is no way of seeing it in the context? You then have a choice to make, and your choice is going to make a real difference.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

Brother Matthew, let's go back to Colossians 1:14 and then I will gladly talk about 1 Timothy 3:16 in another post.

You describe my position as being "able to excuse the omission of blood in one place because you see it a few verses later." I disagree with this comment because the comment is circular. Your comment assumes your conclusion - that _through his blood_ was originally part of Colossians 1:14.

The simplest fact in discussing this phrase is that there are manuscripts that have the phrase and there are manuscripts that do not have the phrase.

The next important point is that I want what Paul wrote. If Paul wrote δια του αιματος αυτου, then I want that in my Bible. If he did *not* write δια του αιματος αυτου, then I do *not* want it in my Bible despite how orthodox it may be and that I agree 100% with what it states!

Obviously I agree with it. It's definitely a part of Ephesians 1:7 not to mention many other passages that speak of the blood of Jesus. So there's no bloodless bias.

This passage is very interesting in manuscript evidence. It's not in any papyri. It's not in any uncials. It's only in four miniscules (the earliest is from the 9th century) and it's in five lectionaries. Only nine manuscripts have it and five of those are lectionaries and none from the papyri and uncials. That's pretty loud manuscript evidence. If Paul wrote it, how come there are eight centuries of silence in the manuscript evidence?

Here's another interesting bit. I own the church fathers. Chrysotom when teaching through Colossians doesn't inlcude the phrase. I don't want to quote the entire paragraph because it's quite long and not all needed, but I will quote a little extra oontext on each side. He writes . . .

_For lest, when thou hearest that the whole is of the Father, thou shouldest suppose the Son excluded, he ascribes the whole to the Son, and the whole to the Father. For He indeed translated us, but the Son furnished the cause. For what saith he? “Who delivered us out of the power of darkness.” But the same is, “*In whom we have the full redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.*” For had we not been forgiven our sins, we should not have been “translated.” So here again the words, “In whom.” And he said not “redemption,” but “full redemption,” so that we shall not fall any more, nor become liable to death._

I think it's easy to explain why Chrysostom doens't include the phrase. He lived way before the 9th century in which the oldest known copy contains the phrase.

So, I don't think there is a tree on fire here.

When I was TR only, I don't think I necessarily wanted the _right_ answer when asking a question like "Did Paul write 'through his blood' in Colossians 1:14?" Back in those days I wanted the _right kind_ of answer - I wanted the TR to be correct. I wanted the kind of answer that agreed with my already held position.

Looking at an example like this where even the Majority doesn't agree with the TR and I can find nothing prior to the 9th century, the answer seems obvious and looking at Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:20 and a host of other places, I've concluded no omission was committed. I think an innocent addition was added some 800 years after Paul wrote.

Grace & peace to you Brother Matthew!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Brother Matthew, let's go back to Colossians 1:14 and then I will gladly talk about 1 Timothy 3:16 in another post.
> 
> You describe my position as being "able to excuse the omission of blood in one place because you see it a few verses later." I disagree with this comment because the comment is circular. Your comment assumes your conclusion - that _through his blood_ was originally part of Colossians 1:14.
> 
> ...



So this a TR text that's not included in the Majority Text?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

Edward, that is correct. I've got a Byzantine Greek text by Robertson & Pierpont. It's not in there. If you have a NKJV, and look at the footnotes, it will not only list NU at the marginal note to say it's not in Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society's text, it will also list a "M" indicating it is not in the Majority.

It's nearly as weak a case as the Comma Johanneum.

But again, as my main point in talking textual differences, if I exposit Colossians from an NIV, ESV, KJV or NKJV, I'm going to have the same message. I really think a lot of the argumentation about TR v. CT is a diversion from more important things. I talk about it a lot to put people's minds at ease who use newer versions.

When people don't bring it up, you won't see me start any threads over it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Edward,that is correct. I've got a Byzantine Greek text by Robertson & Pierpont. It's not in there. If you have a NKJV, and look at the footnotes, it will not only list NU at the marginal note to say it's not in Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society's text, it will also list a "M" indicating it is not in the Majority.
> 
> It's nearly as weak a case as the Comma Johanneum.



Yeah i noticed on e-sword that the World English Bible doesn't have it.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Looking at an example like this where even the Majority doesn't agree with the TR and I can find nothing prior to the 9th century, the answer seems obvious and looking at Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:20 and a host of other places, I've concluded no omission was committed. I think an innocent addition was added some 800 years after Paul wrote.


Brother Joe, I'm thinking your conclusion _must_ be suspect ....... because I completely agree with you !


----------



## SeanAnderson (Jun 1, 2015)

The TR reading of Colossians 1:14 appears in a work of Irenaeus (_Against Heresies_): 



> By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.



But I suppose it could be argued that later copyists amended it, unless anyone knows of an ancient copy?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

SeanAnderson said:


> The TR reading of Colossians 1:14 appears in a work of Irenaeus (_Against Heresies_):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sean, I personally wouldn't go to the point of saying a later copyist amended it unless they had verified it through the tools they have to test such things.

I know there is a note in the ECF stating Colossians 1:14, but the notes aren't from Irenaeus. The notes were added and I suspect they made a mistake in the note.

If we look at the Greek for both Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 surrounding the phrase _through his blood_, the Greek is identical except for one word that I will comment on:

Colossians 1:14 (UBS4)
*14 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν·*
Ephesians 1:7 (UBS4)
*7 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, *

The phrase that translates _in him we have redemption_ I have put in blue in both verses. I put the _through his blood_ phrase in Ephesians in red. The phrase that translates _the remission of_ I put in purple. However, what is remitted is a different Greek word in each epistle and I put that in green.

The blue and purple are identical wording. We have the phrase in question. The only other different word is the word for _sin_. In Colossians, Paul uses the most frequent word for sin, _hamartia_. The word in Ephesians, however, is _paraptoma_. Newer formal translations (such as NASB/ESV) render this _trespasses_ nearly every time, if not every time. But for whatever reason, the KJV translates it as _sin_ in Ephesians 1:7. So in the KJV, there is no way to tell a different word is used in Ephesians compared to Colossians. The English is identical.

The easiest solution would be (1) if Irenaeus either said he was quoting Ephesians or Colossians or (2) he quoted more of the surrounding passage to determine which book he was quoting. However, Irenaeus did neither.

I don't know what the original wording was in Irenaeus. Without having access to it, and since the KJV translates both verses identically including the words hamartia and paraptoma, I think the reasonable conclusion is that Irenaeus is quoting Ephesians 1:7, not Colossians 1:14 and that the translator(s) of the ECF followed the KJV and put _sin_ instead of _trespass_ following the KJV instead of the consistency used by the NASB and ESV translators.

It's a little conjecturing on my part. However, seeing that Irenaeus never identifies the source of his quote, nor gives any hints, and seeing that every other source till the 9th century, including Chrysostom, doesn't have the phrase in Colossians, it seems like very reasonable conjecturing to me.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> The simplest fact in discussing this phrase is that there are manuscripts that have the phrase and there are manuscripts that do not have the phrase.



You were saying it doesn't matter as long as you have a "telescopic" view. Now you are saying it does matter, and you have "microscopically" stated a text critical position.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> It's nearly as weak a case as the Comma Johanneum.



Then it has very strong support!


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 1, 2015)

MW said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> > The simplest fact in discussing this phrase is that there are manuscripts that have the phrase and there are manuscripts that do not have the phrase.
> ...



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough because you are using my statement out of context in which I meant it. The sense in which I said it doesn't matter is small variants don't change the meaning of paragraphs, chapters or books of the Bible. Not that it doesn't matter in any sense at all. As I said, I want what Paul or John or Peter or whoever actually wrote. I want their actual words even if a variant is more theologically in agreement with me. I want the actual words. I hope we all want that.

I'm saying that ultimately, when it comes to teaching, if a person exposits entire books, the variants between the different translations won't change a pastor's message into something entirely different. Take the example of Colossians 1:14 again, while John MacArthur, to use a real example, won't exposit the phrase _through his blood_ in 1:14, MacArthur will get to talk about Jesus having made peace _through his blood_ at verse 20. And when MacArthur teaches through Ephesians 1, he will get to exposit the exact Greek reading in Colossians in a TR when he exposits Ephesians 1:7. Paul's letter to the Colossians addresses the same problems at Colosse whether I'm reading a KJV or an NASB or an NIV.

Using your example of 1 Timothy 3:16, which I still haven't posted on, the pastor who exposits the entire counsel of God, surely has covered the doctrine of God being manifest in the flesh. In fact, using MacArthur again, he exposits it from that very text. No one is left wondering who it was that was manifest in the flesh. If no manuscript ever had _theos_, I don't think people would be confused as to what Paul was saying.

These variants look glaring and scary if I read Gail Riplinger and her charts of special pleading. When I look at the entire picture of the transmission of the text, the fear writers such as her instill dissipates greatly, if not entirely.

Brother Matthew, grace and peace to you.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> I'm saying that ultimately, when it comes to teaching, if a person exposits entire books, the variants between the different translations won't change a pastor's message into something entirely different. Take the example of Colossians 1:14 again, while John MacArthur, to use a real example, won't exposit the phrase _through his blood_ in 1:14, MacArthur will get to talk about Jesus having made peace _through his blood_ at verse 20. And when MacArthur teaches through Ephesians 1, he will get to exposit the exact Greek reading in Colossians in a TR when he exposits Ephesians 1:7. Paul's letter to the Colossians addresses the same problems at Colosse whether I'm reading a KJV or an NASB or an NIV.



Your example just happens to be an example which supports your microscopic omission. When others exposit the passage they draw meaningful content from words you consider to be unoriginal. I cannot see why one group should be permitted to draw microscopic meaning while others should not.



TrustGzus said:


> Using your example of 1 Timothy 3:16, which I still haven't posted on, the pastor who exposits the entire counsel of God, surely has covered the doctrine of God being manifest in the flesh. In fact, using MacArthur again, he exposits it from that very text.



On what basis? There is nothing in the reconstructed text to support it.



TrustGzus said:


> When I look at the entire picture of the transmission of the text



The "entire picture" is not known. Most of it is hypothesis and conjecture.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 2, 2015)

I think it is rather pointless to try to have a discussion of a reading between a Byzantine Priority or Majority Text position against a TR-Only position. The former is a critical position based upon evidence and reason, the later is a faith position based upon the presupposition of divine preservation exclusively in the TR (which doesn't necessarily mean it is without reasons, just that faith precedes reason in this view).

Trying to talk evidence for readings between those two positions is pretty pointless. You really have to back up and talk about the BIG PICTURE presuppositions behind each position as any evidence is slanted ahead of time by the said presuppositional commitments of each side.


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2015)

As soon as anyone speaks about canonical concepts we are confronted with a testimony-based presupposition which is necessary for sifting and sorting the evidence. It is not that the TR is faith-based and the MT isn't. Nor is it the case that the MT is concerned with evidence while the TR isn't. Each view has its own commitments and its own way of incorporating the evidence.

The problem with the MT is that it begins with the same presuppositions as eclectic text advocates. At some point the text has been lost and has to be rediscovered in the sea of mss. that has flowed down to us. This sea is thought to be providential. But nobody knows what these mss. are. They are presumed to be canonical without evidence. And that is where the empirical process is inevitably caught in a contradiction.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 8, 2015)

In my post 14 above I quoted Dr. Ted Letis’ critical remark on Don Carson’s book on the KJV Debate,
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)​ 
As he noted with respect to the evidence (data), both camps have access to the same data, but both use it according to their respective presuppositions (dogmas).


Hello Joe,

I gather, from how you write, you are a serious student of textual matters. In your post 29 I saw you used the expression “tools they have to test such things” re emendations of the texts. I gather you’re referring to “canons” of text criticisms such as were formulated by Messieurs Westcott and Hort. I would term these more conjectures than tools, though they have indeed been used as tools by many.

I was interested in your remarks on Colossians 1:14; and I must say I appreciated your neatly and carefully laying out the differences between this verse and the similar saying in Ephesians 1:7.

I do not believe there is an extant Greek version of Irenaeus’ _Against Heresies_ any longer. All I could find was the Latin from W. Wigan Harvey’s work, and it does have some of the Greek paralleling, but not the sections we are concerned with, see here and here.

It was either the translators / editors in Edinburgh in the mid-1800s or A. Cleveland Coxe (around 1867) who put the Scripture references for various biblical citations in the work in its English version of the early fathers, as Harvey likely did in his own Latin / Greek edition. What is of interest is that _both_ editions, in Book 5, Chapter 2.2, have Col 1:14 for the citation of the phrase in question; but that is not the only appearance of the phrase in both works: in Book 5, chapter 14.3 it appears again, yet both editions have the source there as Ephesians 1:7 (the Latin gives no hint as to the word for sins or trespasses, using _peccatorum_ in both passages). Likely the translators knew something we don’t have access to at present as to why they gave the differing citations. 

But you also said, after too hastily dismissing Irenaeus, “every other source till the 9th century, including Chrysostom, doesn't have the phrase in Colossians”. But that’s not really accurate, for John Cassian (360 – 435 AD), in _On the Incarnation (Against Nestorius)_ Book 5, chap 7, quotes the entirety of Col 1:12-20, and that according to the TR reading—_through His blood_.

Constantine Tischendorf, in the apparatus of his NT, identified two patristic sources having the TR reading as Theodoret (420 A.D.) and Oecumenius (sixth century).

So when you say of _through his blood_, in Irenaeus in 5.2.2, it is a “reasonable conclusion” he is citing from Eph 1:7, and that although “it’s a little conjecturing” on your part, it is “a very reasonable conjecturing”—I would differ, and say it’s far more reasonable to affirm he’s quoting from Colossians 1:14.

While I was looking at Irenaeus my eye happened to fall on 5.2.3 (the section just below the one we are discussing), and I noticed he has this statement, “the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that ‘we are members of His body, _of His flesh, and of His bones_.’ ” While that italicized is in the TR at Eph 5:30 it is absent in the CT, and its omission is not even noted in the margins of the NIV ESV and NASB, so that users of those versions may not have even a clue it is in the ancient Bibles. Another very old attestation for the TR reading at this place!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 8, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In my post 14 above I quoted Dr. Ted Letis’ critical remark on Don Carson’s book on the KJV Debate,
> 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)​
> As he noted with respect to the evidence (data), both camps have access to the same data, but both use it according to their respective presuppositions (dogmas).
> 
> ...



Thanks Steve! i was not aware of the variant in eph 5:30. I don't know the whole story behind this variant but I usually check e-sword and look at the World English Bible(Majority text version) and The WEB is the same as the KJV so I'm guessing this is not a TR only text but has some more support.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 8, 2015)

Hello Edward, seeing your interest in the majority text vis-à-vis the textus receptus, in the thread I will link to below you'll find some interesting info on that—in the first section—plus a good bit more afterwards:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/24839-Answering-Alan-Kurschner-of-aomin


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 8, 2015)

Steve, interesting info. I was not aware of the Cassian quote. While not categorized as a manuscript, it definitely is earlier evidence than I had been aware of. Thank you. Also, that is an interesting note in Against Heresies in the next paragraph. The last two weeks I was on vacation and able to respond more easily. I'm working at least 60 hours this week. I will try to get back to this hopefully Wednesday or Thursday. I'm hoping to have a little more time those days than I do today. 

God bless, 

Joe


----------

