# "All Hebrew MSS corrupt in some places" (D Wallace)?



## manuelkuhs (Jan 14, 2016)

This is my first post on PB so please bear with me 

I came across the following in Prof. Daniel B. Wallace's article Has God Preserved the Scriptures? . . . (Part 1):



> In some places all the extant Hebrew manuscripts (as well as versions) are so corrupt that scholars have been forced to emend the text on the basis of mere conjecture. That is, there is no manuscript in any language that has the true, original reading. Among the passages that make the list are Deut 32.8, 1 Sam 13.1, 1 Sam 14.47, Isa 21.8, Isa 53.11, and Jer 2.21.



Can someone give information regarding the evidence/argument for the supposed corruption in all extant MSS and versions of Deut 32.8, 1 Sam 13.1, 1 Sam 14.47, Isa 21.8, Isa 53.11, and Jer 2.21?

In a similar vein, Wallace continues to write:



> Besides these are passages that up until fairly recently were corrupt in all the manuscripts. For example, Eugene Ulrich, Septuagint scholar extraordinaire, noted that Josephus preserved â€œat least four genuine Samuel readings which were preserved by no other witness until 4QSama was recoveredâ€ (Samuel and Josephus, 2). Ernst WÃ¼rthwein, in his Text of the Old Testament, 142, noted that 1QIsaa confirmed conjectures that scholars had come up with at Isa 40.6 and 40.17. There are several other OT texts that could be added to the list. The point is that even in those places in which the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed the conjectures of scholars with hard data, the fact is that the Bible in its entirety—that is, in all of its very words—has not been available to Godâ€™s people for all these centuries.



I would also be interested in more information on this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 14, 2016)

The notion of "corruption" implies a degree of certainty that something is supposed to be in place-X, and either 1) nothing is there; or 2) something "wrong" is there. And furthermore, that no worthwhile accuracy concerning what sense the Word is meant to deliver may be derived from that which is present. How can one prove corruption without access to the original or a more pristine copy? So the allegation of corruption is a conjecture, and is itself subject to strong critical analysis.

Radical corruption is only possible if there is a genuine BREAK in the continuity of reading/hearing the Word and institutional transmission. People remember what they've heard (or written), and are able to recognize deviations.

One of the proposals listed is 1Sam.13:1. The MT text appears in the literal form: "a son of year (was) Saul in reigning; and two years he reigned over Israel." Read in just that way, it has a similar appearance of 2Sam.5:4, "a son of thirty year (was) David in reigning;and forty year he reigned over Israel." And yet, most of our translations continue to supply readers with a readable and rational gloss of the text we actually have.

We _don't_ know (in the sense of unqualified certainty) there is a corruption in 13:1. We know scholars have not found settled _*consensus *_for at least two millennia with finding either the sense or the meaning of what we have. But lack of scholarly consensus does not validate the notion of corruption.

The only real way of knowing (in the "perfect" sense) a _bona fide_ loss of the actual text occurred is if God repeated his inspiration, explaining he was preventing an hopeless loss.

"Recoveries" such as DBW points to in the second excerpt don't actually demonstrate that 1) the original Word was not preserved (in at least two senses, it proves the opposite); nor 2) that the correct interpretation of that text which was most accessible was unknown.

The doctrine of preservation is adjunct to the doctrine of inspired Scripture itself. It's Jesus who assured us (Mt.5:18) of the abiding character of the Word, as standing witness to the fulfillment of it in due time.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 14, 2016)

I'd be curious to know what axe this professior is trying to grind in that he lightly passes off his own NT field as beyond the reach of this discussion, and he teaches in an institution known for driving a wedge between the two testaments. Anyone can feel free to jump in here, but it seem that the WCF holds a general protection of the scriptures through the ages so that God has preserved the integrity of the gospel through all time, but that individual words or phrases may be difficult to maintain. For example, is anything lost if we can't be sure what was intended by the words translated as Joseph's multi-colored coat? On the other hand, can anyone seriously doubt that God redeemed his people and brought them out of slavery, concepts that almost become punctuation marks by their sheer repetition?


----------



## Justified (Jan 14, 2016)

This is proof that higher criticism is inseparable from lower criticism; there is an underlying parasitic principle.


----------



## Edward (Jan 14, 2016)

manuelkuhs said:


> Prof. Daniel B. Wallace



Dispensational trained at Dispensational schools and teaching at one of them. 

Filter his writing through that.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Jan 14, 2016)

Thank you Contra Mundum I appreciate your answer. 

Just in order to bring the thread back to the actual topic, I should clarify that I lean towards a Traditional/Ecclesiastical Text position and Wallace's entire article seems to me to be fundamentally flawed.

I am looking for the textual argument made to support the idea that the OT references given are corrupt in all extant MSS and versions. (I have presuppositions that I think prevent me from accepting this conclusion but I am interested in the argument and evidence).

Also As far as I know Wallace is one of the few Evangelical (in the sense that he affirms inerrancy) textual critics of the reasoned eclectic school and as such a good viewpoint to interact with.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2016)

> extant Hebrew manuscripts



I would suggest this is a compacted phrase which contains much that is unspoken and assumed, and if it were decompacted it would show that the Doctor believes what he sees but does not see what he believes.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2016)

I asked our (PuritanBoard's) Hebrew scholar, Albert Hembd, what he thought of Dr. Wallace's remark, "All Hebrew MSS corrupt in some places", and he answered me as follows. Please note Albert is busy in his work and cannot participate in the thread. Nor can I speak for him. I had asked him,

Hello Al,

I wonder if you would weigh in on Dan Wallace's remark noted on PuritanBoard? Thanks,

Steve

_________

Albert:

Regrettably, I am really strapped for time. That said, I have read these remarks, and deal with them in a book I am working on. Wallace quotes Ralph Klein to defend his views. Ralph Klein is an LCA minister who supports sodomite marriage. Such are Wallace's sources. 

As for Wallace's assertion "there are mistakes in all the Hebrew MSS", among conservative orthodox Jews in Israel, it is acknowledged that the Aleppo Codex is virtually perfect. This is the manuscript which was pointed by Aharon ben Asher. Ben Asher also added the Masoretic Notes. He also corrected the consonants. He made three "mistakes", but Steve, the "mistakes" are only in plenary/defective spellings. The words are absolutely correct; the only issue is that the spelling does not conform to the spelling specified in the Masoretic Notes. Ben Asher entered the correct spelling in the Masoretic Notes, but he did not correct the spelling that was in the text. (It was the job of the "masran", the man who entered the Masoretic notes, to correct the text if the spelling did not conform to the Masoretic notes.) 

It was the practice of the Masoretes that one man would write out all the consonants. This was a big job, because the words had to be entered into columns (in the Aleppo, into three columns), and there had to be the correct spacings for the "parashot" - double line spaces between various sections. After this, a second specialist would put in the vowel points, and enter the Masoretic notes in the margins. And where the "masran" (the nikkud specialist who entered the Masoretic notes) saw mistakes in the correct spellings, he would scrape off the old word (the texts were written on animal hides), and then, he would enter the correct spelling.

 In the Aleppo, ben Asher failed to correct three spellings in the entire Tanakh. This is virtual perfection. All the Masoretic notes in all the manuscripts point to the Aleppo, just as all the stars in the Northern Hemisphere point to the North Star.

 I'm sorry I cannot give you a more comprehensive reply to Wallace's comments, because I am very, very busy at the moment. But in his article, Wallace cites Ferdinand Deist, Ralph W. Klein, and Ernst Würthwein. Ralph Klein is the authority that Wallace cites to "prove" that the Hebrew text is corrupt, esp. in Samuel. This is Wallace's quote: "Most OT scholars today would agree with Klein that ‘Samuel MT is a poor text, marked by extensive haplography and corruption-only the MT of Hosea and Ezekiel is in worse condition’.” Wallace, 'Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism', p 40. 

This Mark Klein whom Wallace cites is an advocate for homosexual marriage. See Ralph W. Klein, The Bible and our Ethics', from the personal website of Ralph W. Klein, (prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/whatrole.htm). Here is the text of Klein's comments on sodomite marriage; you can confirm it from [the] web link:

 ___________________________________________________ 
*The ELCA has decided to address the issue of homosexuality. What guidance does the Bible give on this question?*

 I’m glad you asked. The answer is complicated. First of all, the biblical passages that speak about this question are few in number. Jesus never mentions the subject, one way or another. And where the Bible does discuss it, there are always issues of interpretation or other extenuating circumstances. We are faced with many challenges in deciding what these passages meant and what they might mean today.

 *But does not the Bible condemn Sodom precisely because of homosexuality?  That’s why certain homosexual actions are called Sodomy.*

God told Abraham that the sin of Sodom was very grave, without going into details (Gen 18:20), and much later the prophet Ezekiel accused Sodom of pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and failure to take care of the poor and needy (16:49). When the two angels visited Lot in Sodom, all the men of the city threatened them with homosexual rape. That’s why God struck them with blindness. Clearly, homosexual and heterosexual rape are wrong and sinful, perhaps expressing violence as much as lust. No one ever claimed that heterosexual rape made heterosexual sex wrong. That’s why this story doesn’t address modern homosexuality, which we assume is participated in by consenting adults. 

*I know Leviticus deals with details of the sacrificial system and a kosher diet that don’t apply to Gentile Christians, but doesn’t it discuss homosexuality and aren’t its ethical words normative even for us?*

 Leviticus 18 deals with forbidden sexual relations, such as with one’s father’s wife, one’s sister, daughter-in-law, or with both a woman and her daughter. And then, within a paragraph consisting of vv. 19-23, it exhorts: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” 

*Isn’t that clear enough?*

 The trouble is, that paragraph mentions two other issues. First, it says that a husband and wife should not sleep together during a woman’s menstrual period. While that is understandable in antiquity, when both semen and blood made a person ritually unclean, few modern couples consider this an ethical question. We recognize it as a culturally conditioned, time-bound prohibition. Couples today decide on esthetic or other considerations whether to make love during a woman’s period. Secondly, the paragraph also rules out sexual relations between a human being and an animal. Here the believing community and the wider society are in absolute agreement. We recognize such sex as ultimately selfish and exploitative. People who do such actions are wrong—we would probably either arrest them or require extensive counseling.

 *But what does this have to do with homosexuality?*

 I mentioned two other actions were discussed in this paragraph from Leviticus: the prohibition about a couple sleeping together during a woman’s period is now considered by us as time-bound, almost irrelevant; the prohibition about sleeping with an animal is totally endorsed by us. My question: is the prohibition against homosexuality more like the first case (sex during menstruation), or more like the second case (sex with an animal)? If a person is free to disregard the first prohibition, could not a person in principle consider the prohibition against homosexual actions similarly outdated? 

*But doesn’t Paul forbid both male and female homosexual actions in Romans 1?*

 Yes, but…. Once again, it’s a complicated issue and deserves more space than I have here. In Romans 1-3 Paul argues that both the Gentiles and the Jews have rejected God and need the salvation offered by Christ. He finds the sin of the Gentiles to lie in their idolatry, for which God has consigned them to the lusts of their hearts, to the degrading of their bodies…. That is, to homosexual actions? Yes, but…. There are at least three extenuating circumstances that call the direct applicability of this passage into some question. First, Paul speaks of people’s “passions.” Some scholars have proposed that Paul and many ancients thought that everything, sex included, should be done within limits, without excessive passion. Paul infers that homosexual persons surrender to their excessive passions. We might call them sexual addicts today. Did not Luther himself say that whatever we fear, love, and trust is our god? All of us, gay and straight, could turn sex into our god.

 *O.K. That’s one point. But doesn’t Paul consider homosexual actions “unnatural”? *

Yes, but…. What does he mean by unnatural? Does he mean that male and female genital organs just naturally fit together? Does he mean that natural sex is about reproduction? Paul’s understanding of what is natural and our understanding of what is natural are not necessarily the same thing. In 1 Cor 11:14, Paul argues that nature itself teaches that if a man wears long hair it is degrading and if a woman wears long hair it is her glory. Look around your congregation. There are a lot of long-haired men and a lot of short-haired women. We don’t consider that unnatural at all; “nature” teaches us something different. Could Paul’s observations about nature and homosexuality also be time-bound? 

*O. K., again. But doesn’t he condemn people for choosing to be homosexual?*

Paul says they “exchanged” one form of intercourse for another. Yes, but…. Since the late 19th century, Western science has observed that some people are primarily or even exclusively attracted sexually only to people of their same gender. We call this “sexual orientation.” No one fully understands the reasons for this: Is orientation the result of “nature” (genetics) or “nurture” (upbringing) or a combination of both nature and nurture and “other things”? Whatever the reason for their orientation, people do not choose to be gay or lesbian; they simply are that. O. K. again. But shouldn’t such people just be celibate? Some of them will no doubt choose to be so, just as some heterosexual people never have sexual relations with another person. Long-term sexual abstinence for religious reasons is called celibacy. But Lutherans have long observed that celibacy is a gift received only by a few and should not be required of clergy or of others. Is it not logical that the majority of homosexual people would not have the gift of celibacy?"​ 
[end Klein]

 _______________________________________________ 


As my book proceeds, I demonstrate the errors even logically of Klein's assertions that the Hebrew text is "corrupt." Many times, Steve, scholars claim that Samuel is corrupt, when in fact, the truth is, they do not know Hebrew. 1 Samuel 13:1 is a key example. 

There are places in Samuel where the style of the author is a bit clipped. The early translations then tried to INTERPRET the Hebrew, instead of translating it. But in each of those places, it is easily demonstrated that, in reality, there is no problem with the Hebrew at all. That said, there are two places where it appears a word may have been left out, but Chronicles makes it clear what the missing word would be. The prime example would be 2 Samuel 21.9. The Hebrew text as it reads says that Elhanan slew Goliath, whereas, 1 Chronicles 20.5 says Elhanan slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath. It appears that in the Hebrew text, the single word אחי ('the brother of') was left out. The King James puts "the brother of" in italics in its text. 

This said, however, it is also possible that Lachmi, the brother of Goliath, was granted Goliath's name after Goliath's death. There is a tradition for that among the Philistines. We know there were several Philistine kings named "Abimelech" - "my father is king." Thus, even in 2 Samuel 21.9, it could be that the Hebrew text is spot-on correct, and there are mitigating circumstances we are not fully informed of. In any case, 1 Chronicles 20.5 makes it perfectly clear that Elhanan slew the original Goliath's brother. 

You can cut-and-paste these comments into PuritanBoard. That would be fine with me. Regrettably, I can't devote time to the thread, however.  All blessings from Jerusalem... 

Al
[more from Klein]: 

*The Bible and our Ethics* _A discussion with Ralph W. Klein, _Christ Seminary-Seminex Professor of Old Testament: What role should/does the Bible play when Christians make ethical decisions?

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/whatrole.htm​ 
[end Albert's first response]
_____________

Steve's response to Albert:

Much thanks, Al, for taking the time to answer me! I'll cut and paste it for PB. A question of my own: I have always understood the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text underlying the KJV as the standard. How does the Aleppo relate to this? Is this the work you are doing for the TBS, perfecting the Hebrew they use?

What's the name of your book you're working on?

Steve
____________

Albert again: 

The book I am working for TBS is "Response to the King James Only Controversy by Dr James White." Nothing ornate. But the information on Wallace was part of the book, because White heavily references him. 

The ben Chayyim. It is a very good standard. As far as the Jews are concerned, they want absolute perfection in every letter. All the words of the ben Chayyim are correct, but sometimes, it is not so accurate with regards to plenary/defective spellings: i.e., "colour" vs. "color". Sometimes ben Chayyim's text does not follow the recommended spellings that are found in his own Massoretic notes. So, in 1626, a learned rabbi by the name of Yedidiah Norzi fixed ben Chayyim's text to conform the spellings to those specified in his Massoretic notes.

C. D. Ginsburg, it appears, followed Norzi's recommended fixes to ben Chayyim's text. Ginsburg, as you may well know, produced our TBS edition of the Hebrew Bible, in 1894, under the auspices of E W Bullinger. I am working now on a Master's degree thesis on Ginsburg's text in the Pentateuch. My hypothesis is that Ginsburg pretty much followed Norzi. If that is the case, then our TBS Ginsburg Bible is a little more accurate than ben Chayyim's with regards to the spellings. This then would prove the accuracy of our Ginsburg edition. This is not surprising given what a great Masoretic scholar Ginsburg was.

After I finish the Master's degree, I plan to go on to a doctorate on Ginsburg's text in the "prophets", i.e., Joshua through the Major and Minor Prophets, not counting Psalms and Job. TBS wants me to produce an electronic text of Ginsburg, and I want to do it under the supervision of Professor Yosef Ofer at Bar Ilan University, who is probably the greatest Hebrew Bible scholar in the world today, with regards to the text and the Masoretic notes.

I am very glad what I gave you was useful for Puritan Board. . . . [some text omitted as being off-topic]

With regards to why Textus Receptus is the best stream within the Byzantine Text - my book enlarges on that greatly. Let us just summarize thus: even the Byzantines themselves, the Greek Orthodox Church, have come to acknowledge that the Johannine Comma and Acts 8.37 are authentic. Those are the two major differences between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text.

Would appreciate your prayers that the Lord will help me in finishing my book. My prayers also for your book witnessing to the Jews, and confronting them with their unbelief.

Yours in Messiah,

Al

[end Albert Hembd]
_____________

This is Steve / Jerusalem Blade again. I hope this has been edifying to those looking on.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2016)

I look forward to Mr. Hembd's work in this area.

On Samuel, David Tsumura's NICOT volume shows how many text-critical "corruptions" are nothing more than a failure to understand the linguistic expressions which are preserved in the MT. His Commentary demonstrates that patience is needed in handling the MT, and that careful analysis can yield a better understanding. Hasty conclusions which cast doubt on the integrity of the text only lead to more problems.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 15, 2016)

It's astonishing and near unbelievable that people, like Klein, will do mental gymnastics to get homosexual marriage in the door. The utter craving that people have, straight or gay, to make this so despite the clarity on this from Scripture and history is breathtaking.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 15, 2016)

Thank you for passing that on, Steve. I find it very interesting.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Jan 16, 2016)

Thank you very much Steve!! Or rather, please pass along thanks to Albert Hembd!


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 17, 2016)

I just want to point out a couple factual errors above in Albert's comments...

1. "The liberals today, to the man, now acknowledge that Hort's notions about the Byzantine Text's being an artificial text created through conflation, is totally fallacious. The Byzantine Text, even by their standards, only has eight conflations in it."

While I am in agreement with rejecting the supposed conflations in the Byzantine text-form, we need to stop using Hort's list of 8 supposed examples of conflations (as if things have not moved on in this department since Hort). With the data we have today, scholars count far more than the 8 supposed examples of conflation in the Byzantine. Saying this discredits us (Byzantine proponents) in the eyes of the people who understand where the field of textual criticism is today and leads to quick dismissal of any other arguments we have against these supposed conflations.

2. "Whereas, the Byzantine copyists counted their letters per line, as also did the Jews"

There is no evidence that Byzantine copyists counted their letters per line. That would be a delightful fact if so, but where is the evidence for that? To my knowledge, none of the pro-Byzantine scholars have ever made this argument (Hodges, Farstad, Robinson, Pierpont, Burgon, etc.).

3. "Even the Egyptians themselves came to acknowledge the superiority of the Byzantine Text."

This is not true. Egyptian Coptics still use a thoroughly Alexandrian-based text.

4. "Even the Byzantines themselves, the Greek Orthodox Church, have come to acknowledge that the Johannine Comma and Acts 8.37 are authentic"

Those passages are found only in the Orthodox' Antoniades text, which was compiled not from continuous-text MSS, but from Lectionary MSS -- and even the Lectionaries do not include those passages, but they were added (in small print) by Antoniades in order to match the previously (printed) lectionary editions that had been based more on printed TR editions. And Antoniades in his preface openly acknowledges that those and other passages in small print were not found among the Lectionary base, but were added only because the "opinion of the Holy Synod" was to maintain continuity with what had previously been printed.

I don't point out these discrepancies to undermine a pro-Byzantine position (indeed, I myself am pro-Byzantine!), but for the reader who would read comments of this nature, question these propositions and then quickly dismiss the Byzantine position as uninformed (not that I accuse Albert of being uninformed in all matters, but am simply referring to the comments cited). The Byzantine position does have many strengths to promote its supremacy, and should not be quickly dismissed because of some factual errors made by some of its supporters.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Jan 17, 2016)

No offense, but isn't Albert Hembd poisoning the well with the sodomy comments. I don't see him arguing that Ralph Klein is biased or has an agenda for suggesting the corruptions in order to give weight to sodomy. Rather, he seems to be saying that Wallace gets his information from a pro-homosexual relationship scholar and therefore should not be trusted with respect to his work in another area. It's striking to read such a red herring.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 18, 2016)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> No offense, but isn't Albert Hembd poisoning the well with the sodomy comments. I don't see him arguing that Ralph Klein is biased or has an agenda for suggesting the corruptions in order to give weight to sodomy. Rather, he seems to be saying that Wallace gets his information from a pro-homosexual relationship scholar and therefore should not be trusted with respect to his work in another area. It's striking to read such a red herring.



If the guy can't see that the sin of Sodom is connected with homosexual lust, I wouldn't trust him on more complicated and obscure issues.


----------



## Edward (Jan 18, 2016)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> No offense, but isn't Albert Hembd poisoning the well with the sodomy comments. I don't see him arguing that Ralph Klein is biased or has an agenda for suggesting the corruptions in order to give weight to sodomy. Rather, he seems to be saying that Wallace gets his information from a pro-homosexual relationship scholar and therefore should not be trusted with respect to his work in another area. It's striking to read such a red herring.



Agreed. Like on the earlier thread where manuscripts were discounted because they were discovered by theological liberals. If someone can't win the debate on the merits, their position must be mighty weak, and I will discount their arguments. 

And, yes, it might be argued that my first post above would fall into that category.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 18, 2016)

I also would think that Albert erred with regard to Byz copyists counting their letters per line. And there are Egyptian Christians besides the Coptics—I pastored a congregation of Evangelical Arabic-speaking Christians with many Egyptians in it; most all of them use the Smith / Van Dyke Arabic Bible based on the Masoretic Text Hebrew / Textus Receptus Greek.

About "poisoning the well"—for a professing Christian to assert the Biblical validation and approval of homosexuality as Klein does indicates to me he is not regenerate. What does the LORD say about this? 

But unto the wicked God saith,
What hast thou to do to declare my statutes,
or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
Seeing thou hatest instruction,
and castest my words behind thee. (Psalm 50:16, 17)

The matters pertaining to the care and preservation of the Scripture is part of the LORD's covenant with His people, per Isaiah 59:21.

However the Greek Orthodox Church comes to the conclusion, even by way of an "opinion of the Holy Synod" (which is the ruling authority of the GOC), of the validity of 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 does say something regarding how they think about the Scriptures. It may be some of them are cognizant of the violent history which is part of the Byzantine's transmission in its early years, as I referred to here.

Due to work constraints Albert cannot respond to this thread, so I have as best I can. Robert, I also would love to see evidence re "Byz copyists counting their letters per line"!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 18, 2016)

I want to say a little bit more about "the violent history which is part of the Byzantine's transmission in its early years", so as to shed light on some peculiarities of that text. After recounting, through some of Wilbur Pickering's history of the Byzantine Text in his book, _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, as seen in this post, I proceed to look at the events of those early times in church history:
We may safely assume that reliable copies of the NT books proliferated in these regions. A quick jump to the end of the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century and beginning of the 4[SUP]th[/SUP]: in 303 AD Emperor Diocletian commenced a violent persecution of Christians in the Eastern part of the empire. All church buildings were destroyed, all sacred writings destroyed (there was even a special class of informers, which included ministers—called _traditores_—who would inform on those who believed and had secreted away copies of the Scriptures or other holy writings), all faithful ministers were to be arrested (till there was no more room in the prisons for them), and sacrifices to the Roman gods were required on pain of death—and vast multitudes of Christians were slain. After Diocletian died in 304, Galerius continued the persecutions with greater intensity, and other rulers continued them, and they did not completely end until Constantine became Emperor in 324.

Needless to say, copies of the Scripture were scarce. It is in the historical record that in 331 Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Bible, in order to replenish what had been destroyed. On Frederick Nolan’s view of these Bibles and how they impacted the Greek NTs see here. Interestingly, these Bibles did not catch on with the people, as there is little evidence of them proliferating in the years following. [If you look at Nolan there’s a typo: The phrase, “I have hitherto laboured to no purpose *if* it is not admitted”—the *if* should be supplied, as it’s absent.]

Nolan investigates the changes to texts like Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7 in light of the doctrinal battles of those days, Eusebius’ personal views and contentions, as well his Imperial authority to alter the texts he produced, and internal textual evidences, such as annotations and writing styles.

Before the time of the Diocletian persecution in 303 AD the Greek texts were fairly intact, but afterwards—after the great and effective campaign to root out and destroy all Bibles, and then the replacement of them with Alexandrian-type Scriptures—there were readings that disappeared during the 3rd and 4th century struggles against the Sabellians and later the Arians. Regarding the latter, with the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, it was those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ that were targeted. [An extensive treatment of this historical matter to be found in Frederick Nolan’s classic, _An Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate Or Received Text of the New Testament_; multiple formats.]

It is asserted that during the 50 years (approximately 335 – 385 A.D.) the Arian party held supreme power both in the Greek church _and_ the Imperial government, the zealous among them expunged parts of those verses they held to conduce to heresy (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, among others).* We’ve seen that Constantine had ordered from Eusebius 50 complete Bibles to replace those destroyed by Diocletian, and we know the textual treasure house of Origen’s library in Caesarea was available to Eusebius (a devotee of Origen); Tischendorf, among others, was of the opinion that Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) were of that 50, though this is hotly disputed. Still, these verses (not to mention numerous others) are altered or omitted in Aleph and B, and could well have been useful in the Arian and Sabellian causes. Even among the orthodox in the 2nd and 3rd centuries the Sabellians' use of 1 John 5:7's "and these three are one" made them highly suspect in their eyes [more on this in post #104].

This _would_ explain why 1 John 5:7 is missing in the Greek / Byzantine manuscripts of the Eastern Empire and remained intact in the Latin MSS of the Western portion of the Empire where neither Diocletian’s vendetta against the Scriptures (and Eusebius’ replacements) nor the Arian oppression had much impact. This, in part, is what Frederick Nolan investigated in his above-mentioned book. It’s a fascinating study.
______

* So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes, “in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…” (from, _A History of Heresy_, by David Christie-Murray, p. 51). One might imagine what fervent JWs or Unitarians would do if they held the same positions of ecclesiastical _and_ governmental authority in a country for 50 years. These are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh and to souls, what would they do to paper—“paper” which confirmed those beliefs they _hated_?​
All this to say, that the early history of the Byzantine Text was violent and bloody due to hatred toward the men and the manuscripts that held to the true doctrine of God. The opponents of Christ rent flesh and paper in seeking to subvert the gospel. This pertained to the transmission of the precious Scriptures in that day, and the battle continues, with slightly different emphases, in our day. Thankfully our God has provided men to stand for Him and His intact gospel in all ages, including ours.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 18, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> ...though with the eight Byz conflations he is only going by Maurice Robinson's data in his Byzantine Priority essay. And there are Egyptian Christians besides the Coptics—I pastored a congregation of Evangelical Arabic-speaking Christians with many Egyptians in it; most all of them use the Smith / Van Dyke Arabic Bible based on the Masoretic Text Hebrew / Textus Receptus Greek.



On the two points above...I have quite a bit of personal correspondence with Dr. Robinson and I think you are confusing his position on the issue of conflations. Dr. Robinson would adamantly reject the argument saying there are only the 8 supposed examples of conflation. He fully acknowledges that there are many supposed examples of conflations in the Byzantine (made by contemporary textual critics) while maintaining that he does not believe them to be true conflations.

Also, in The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Puckering there is an appendix entitled "Conflation or Confusion". That was actually written by Dr. Robinson and Dr. Pierpont (augmented by further contributions from Peter Johnston and Harry Sturz with Pickering providing the editorial comments). Here is a citation from that work directly from the pen(s) of Robinson and Pierpont. 

"It is evident that all 'text-types' have possible conflations and that 'Western' and 'Alexandrian' witnesses have actual conflations .... In any case it should be clear that 'conflation' may not responsibly be used to argue for a late 'Byzantine' text-type."

This was written in 1980. Here you see Dr. Robinson acknowledging actual conflations in the Alexandrian and Western text-types (that alone takes us well beyond Hort). 

Also, the article linked to above is not Dr. Robinson's, "The Case for Byzantine Priority" but Bob Waltz' site with Waltz' essay on Byzantine Priority as Waltz happens to understand and describe it. In Robinson's actual essay he states matters quite differently. Regarding conflation, the sum total of his comments there are as follows:

"The underlying premise is faulty: it assumes that scribes have a constant tendency to expand the text ... by a conflationary combination of disparate narratives"

So what I'm saying is, AND the reason it's important we get this right, is Dr. Robinson and would be horrified that he would be presented as teaching "there are only 8 supposed conflations in the Byzantine line". He fully acknowledges that textual critics have for quite some time now supposed many other instances of conflations. HOWEVER, what he demonstrates is WHY the premise behind the expansion of the Byzantine text by conflation is faulty. 

Finally, on on the other point about Egyptian Christians and the text, I have no doubt the Byzantine is used among some congregations today in Egypt. The point I was making was that the idea that Egypt, on the whole, rejected the Alexandrian text-form is not accurate. Again, I think it silly that Alexandrian proponents would attempt to get any mileage from that but it hurts our own polemic when we present such inaccuracies. 

Anyway, I hope these clarifications are a blessing to you brother.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 18, 2016)

One other thing...

"Really, when you examine both James White and Dan Wallace, you see that underlying both of them is that wretched education they had at Fuller Theological Seminary."

It's no secret at this point that the way White handles the textual issues has been at times irksome to me. However, the statement presents White as some sort of liberal. Apart from my disagreement with him on the textual issue, I must say he is thoroughly orthodox and I think it is a sign of the apostasy of this age that Phoenix Reformed Baptist church where he and Don Fry are elders is not drawing people by the hundreds. I've actually spoken to a few members of that church and encouraged them with my commendation of that ministry (and even White's specifically). This doesn't mean I don't have a sharp difference with the way he handles the textual issue (I have a bigger problem with the manner in which he deals with the textual issue at times than his actual position, though obviously I disagree with his position too).

So this coming from the man who coined the "James White Reality Distortion Field" in relation to how he presents (at times) the textual issue...The man is no liberal, and has a solid preaching and teaching ministry. We can engage in polemics against the man's textual position without going to unfair and unwarranted extremes (though I'm sure Dr. White thinks I have been extreme in my youtube critiques of him—though I have stayed on topic and not utilized character assassination). 

Regarding Dan Wallace...apart from his textual studies, I have little knowledge of him and his doctrinal commitments though I would not call him a "liberal" either. A Liberal Christian is no a Christian at all. Regardless, Wallace never attended Fuller. Here is the relevant info from the Wiki on him...

"He earned his B.A.(1975) from Biola University, and his Th.M. (1979) and Ph.D. (1995) in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He also pursued postdoctoral studies in a variety of places, including in Cambridge at Tyndale House, Christ's College, Clare College, and Westminster College, and in Germany at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, University of Tübingen, and the Bavarian State Library."

Finally, even if these men were liberals, ad hominem is not helpful if we are claiming to address the issues themselves. It's another form of argumentation that causes many to dismiss us without a full hearing. This is such an important issue I really hate to see it not get the fair hearing it deserves.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 18, 2016)

Robert, thanks for the corrections! Once before I mistook another's views for Dr. Robinson's, and he graciously asked me to correct it, which I did. It seems Waltz also published Robinson and Pierpont's Introduction to their Byz Greek NT on the same site, and the like url led me astray. I amended my post to reflect your correction. And it is indeed a blessing to be divested of error!

About James—like yourself, I have great respect for him, save that I differ with him on the textual issue (and baptism)—the man is a stand-up brother in these darkening days. As for Wallace, I have respect for him for his hunting down as many Greek mss as he can and photographing and registering them—a great boon to us. Nor would I call him a liberal, though he is far from the orthodoxy of James. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a liberal. Thanks for your fine-tuning these posts—it is important for our own credibility to get and to do things right, not to mention that we should not wrongly portray others. Thanks.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> With the data we have today, scholars count far more than the 8 supposed examples of conflation in the Byzantine.



Pickering notes in his Identity of the NT text that scholars repeat there are more examples, but in fact they regularly appeal to the repetition by other scholars instead of actually demonstrating more examples. With the emergence of new mss., it now appears that the other so-called families produce instances of "inversion," and thereby invalidate Hort's thesis. I think this is what Mr. Hembd was alluding to. And as he was speaking of generalities in a casual setting I don't think it warrants a point by point rebuttal as if he were giving specific data in a scholarly context.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 18, 2016)

MW said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > With the data we have today, scholars count far more than the 8 supposed examples of conflation in the Byzantine.
> ...



Generalities? I think the points were quite specific! 

I support the Traditional Text so I wouldn't consider my comments to be a rebuttal. I took the time to provide some correction to actually HELP readers fine tune our polemics against the popular approach behind the Critical Text.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> I took the time to provide some correction to actually HELP readers fine tune our polemics against the popular approach behind the Critical Text.



In terms of giving one generalisation on top of another generalisation, your comments are helpful for showing there are layers to consider. I'm not sure any of the comments on this thread are specifically polemical since we have not entered into any particular readings, but it is good to prepare the ground. As an online discussion board it is difficult to see how we could do anything more.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Jan 19, 2016)

I appreciate very much all the comments, including the helpful corrections by Mr Truelove. 

However I think we have all gone off topic??


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 19, 2016)

Manuel, I think the getting "off topic" was due to my adding material of Albert's on the Greek texts . . . which I have since deleted because of that (but really like shutting the barn door after the cow has gotten out!). Sorry about that.


----------

