# KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority



## Robert Truelove

I am wondering if there is anyone on the puritanboard who is for the superiority of the Byzantine Text Type (MT or Byzantine Superiority positions) who is not KJV-Only?

By KJV-Only I mean those who (1) hold that the KJV is without error in its translation and (2) in every single case of varients in the manuscripts; the KJV has infallibly went with the correct reading.

Most of the scholarly work cited here by KJV defenders in defense of one form of the Traditional Text or the other, is by men who would not have held to either of the 2 points above (i.e. Farstad, Pickering, Robinson, Burgon).


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

I do not defend the KJV when it is in error. It is a translation, and, as a translation it has many fine points to it. I actually think the Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV - Does that make me a Geneva Bible Onlyist? No. I think the Geneva Bible has errors in it as well.

When the WCF talks about the "providential preservation" of the mss it is referring the the Hebrew and Greek and not a translation of them into English:

*The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages; are therefore authentical,* chapter 1, section 8.

There can be no doubt that the WCF is talking about the Byzantine mss as it was/is found in the Textus Receptus. The Alexandrian Variants were known by the Church since the 7th-8th Century, but were consistently rejected by the Church as corrupt.

Erasmus, for example, was well acquainted with the Vaticanus (B) mss. But he never used it in his early Greek texts. It was considered a corrupt mss, and to use a corrupt mss would be a degradation to the text. In his 5th edition he used one reading from the Vaticanus, but his 5th edition was never used by anyone.

The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.

What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.

As for me, since there are better translations in English out there, the purchase of the ESV, or any other such text, is neither expedient nor necessary. 

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## larryjf

CalvinandHodges,

What is your view on the NKJV?


----------



## BobVigneault

> What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.




HUH????? Are you saying Crossway Bibles and Goodnews Publishing is owned by the NCCUSA? I hope you're talkin' jibberish.


----------



## Casey

prespastor said:


> I am wondering if there is anyone on the puritanboard who is for the superiority of the Byzantine Text Type (MT or Byzantine Superiority positions) who is not KJV-Only?


Me.  And since there are no MT translations available, I use the NKJV. I like the ESV a lot myself . . as a translation, that is . . I just prefer the MT to NA27 for presuppositional reasons.


----------



## larryjf

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Me.  And since there are no MT translations available, I use the NKJV. I like the ESV a lot myself . . as a translation, that is . . I just prefer the MT to NA27 for presuppositional reasons.



I must say that i really like the NKJV because in the margins they include more textual variants than other versions. You can read the majority text (Farstad style) with a NKJV if you read the margin textual notes. Or you could read the critical text, or you could read the TR straight in the text.

Maybe i should be a NKJV-Onlyist since the word of God is preserved in that version...if you include textual variant margin notes. One way or another it's preserved in there. Is the critical text right?...it's in there. Is the majority text right?...it's in there. Is the TR right?...it's in there.

That reminds me of a Prego commercial ("it's in there").


----------



## Blueridge Believer

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> I do not defend the KJV when it is in error. It is a translation, and, as a translation it has many fine points to it. I actually think the Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV - Does that make me a Geneva Bible Onlyist? No. I think the Geneva Bible has errors in it as well.
> 
> When the WCF talks about the "providential preservation" of the mss it is referring the the Hebrew and Greek and not a translation of them into English:
> 
> *The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages; are therefore authentical,* chapter 1, section 8.
> 
> There can be no doubt that the WCF is talking about the Byzantine mss as it was/is found in the Textus Receptus. The Alexandrian Variants were known by the Church since the 7th-8th Century, but were consistently rejected by the Church as corrupt.
> 
> Erasmus, for example, was well acquainted with the Vaticanus (B) mss. But he never used it in his early Greek texts. It was considered a corrupt mss, and to use a corrupt mss would be a degradation to the text. In his 5th edition he used one reading from the Vaticanus, but his 5th edition was never used by anyone.
> 
> The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.
> 
> What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation. The copyright of both the RSV and ESV are owned by the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/). The proceeds of the purchase of the ESV - even if it is a "Reformation Study Bible" - goes to an organization that encourages homosexual and women pastors, evangelicals and catholics together, and abortion. One must decide on one's own if such a thing is right or wrong.
> 
> As for me, since there are better translations in English out there, the purchase of the ESV, or any other such text, is neither expedient nor necessary.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH




I knew th ESV was based on the NRSV text but I didn't know the NCC still owned it. Whoa!


----------



## BobVigneault

I want to see that validated. I'm not buying the assertion. Show me.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Based on the RSV text

The Historic Legacy of the ESV
The ESV stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression.

The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text. Archaic language was brought to current usage and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the translators’ goal was to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

ESV copyright info:



> Copyright Information
> The "ESV"; and "English Standard Version" are trademarks of Good News Publishers. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Good News Publishers.
> 
> When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation.
> 
> Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.
> 
> Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to Good News Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA.
> 
> Permission requests for use within the UK and EU that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to HarperCollins Religious, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, HammerSmith, London W6 8JB, England.
> 
> The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
> 
> Good News Publishers (including Crossway Bibles) is a not-for-profit organization that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the good news of the gospel and the truth of God's Word, the Bible.



Also see this:



> ESV Copyright and Permissions Information
> The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®
> Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
> a division of Good News Publishers
> All rights reserved.
> 
> The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
> 
> The ESV text may be quoted for audio use (audio cassettes, CDs, audio television) up to two hundred fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
> 
> Notice of copyright must appear as follows on the title page or copyright page of printed works quoting from the ESV, or in a corresponding location when the ESV is quoted in other media:
> 
> “Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”
> 
> When more than one translation is quoted in printed works or other media, the foregoing notice of copyright should begin as follows:
> 
> “Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from . . . [etc.]”; or,
> “Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from . . . [etc.].”
> 
> The “ESV” and “English Standard Version” are registered trademarks of Good News Publishers. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Good News Publishers.
> 
> When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation.
> 
> Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.
> 
> Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to Good News Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA or [email protected].
> 
> Permission requests for use within the UK and EU that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to HarperCollins Religious, 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB, England.
> 
> The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
> 
> Good News Publishers (including Crossway Bibles) is a not-for-profit organization that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the good news of the gospel and the truth of God’s Word, the Bible.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Source:



> The English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books, had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.
> 
> The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day's strategy. During the course of the evening it became clear their concerns with the NIV extended beyond gender issues. The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version, first published in 1952 by the National Council of Churches and recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.
> 
> Some months later, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations with the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. An agreement was reached in September 1998 allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary to rid it of de-Christianing translation choices.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> ESV copyright info:
> 
> 
> 
> Also see this:





The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

So what exactly, if any, is the relationship of the ESV with the NCC now?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hay:

I think the NKJV is a good translation mostly because, as I understand it, the translators kept with the Byzantine mss.

As far as the ESV is concerned - all you have to do is look at the inside page of your Reformation Study Bible ESV and you will find this note:

_The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved._

Crossway, Good News and others are just publishers. They pay the NCCC for the use of the text. I believe the NCCC also gets a commission on every ESV purchased.

Read this article and weep:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989211

The NCCC was going bankrupt until it received a royalty check from a conservative publishing company.


Blessings,

-CH


----------



## larryjf

Blueridge reformer said:


> The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
> 
> So what exactly, if any, is the relationship of the ESV with the NCC now?



It is my understanding that there is no relationship now. They ESV folks did pay the NCC to use the RSV, but after the initial deal there is no longer a relationship. Crossway purchased full rights to use the RSV. So although it did bring profit to the NCC originally, they no longer are tied to them.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm having a heard time following this argument over the loud clippety-clop of those hobby horses.


----------



## CDM

BobVigneault said:


> I'm having a heard time following this argument over the loud clippety-clop of those hobby horses.



 

Do you mean the last several posts didn't answer your request?



BobVigneault said:


> I want to see that validated. I'm not buying the assertion. Show me.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm satisfied but I think brother Wieland is still trying to form an unholy alliance between the ESV and the NCCC. Thank you for the links and documentation.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

What I find offensive about the RSV and ESV is not only that they enrich the NCCC, but that both of them are non-Byzantine in nature. They both are derived from the Critical Text/Alexandrian mss that have been consistently rejected by the Church since they were first created.

Crossway Books denies paying yearly royalty fees to the NCCC, but they will not disclose the agreement they have with the NCCC concerning the use of the RSV. I have inquired this of them and have not received a response as of yet to date.

Sermon Audio has an interesting discussion of this by Dr. Letis:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=41504103537

I think the comments on it are quite apropos.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

I actually contacted Crossway about the relationship they have with the NCCC.

Their response, was that the paid NCCC a one time undisclosed amount for the use of the RSV text.

Crossway owns the full copyright to the ESV and no proceeds from the sales of ESV bibles goes to the NCCC.

Below is the relevant Q&A from the Crossway.com Web site...

"Does Crossway pay royalties to anyone for use of the ESV text?

No. Crossway owns the rights to the text."

I know some KJV-Only folks (none here) that have been informed about the status of the ESV's copyright but yet continue to propagate the myth that each purchase of the ESV sends funds to the NCCC. This is slander.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From the article cited above:



> The $625,000 check from Crossway Books received this summer carried with it a bit of irony. Well before Edgar was elected to the NCC's chief executive post in late 1999, the council had sold special rights to its Revised Standard Version Bible to Crossway. That publisher edited "a derivative" version for a theologically conservative market--the English Standard Version. Other publishers with rights from the NCC use the updated NRSV translation.
> 
> Rather than stringing out royalty checks over the term of the ten-year contract, Crossway negotiated a large advance payment. "It's a Win-win situation for us both," said John Briscoe, NCC director of development. The sum in turn enabled the NCC to erase a debt owed to Church World Service arising from their organizational separation last year, said Briscoe. "Now, we have no squirrelly footnotes in our auditor's report on this long-term [ten-year] obligation to CWS," he said. "Having a clean, clean audit is a critical part of rebuilding confidence from our [member] communions, foundations and donors."


----------



## Casey

So . . perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.


----------



## MW

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> So . . perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.



I agree, but not because the discussion has strayed from the OP, but because the OP sets up a false dilemma. One may hold to the superiority of the AV AND the Byzantine text-type.


----------



## Casey

armourbearer said:


> I agree, but not because the discussion has strayed from the OP, but because the OP sets up a false dilemma. One may hold to the superiority of the AV AND the Byzantine text-type.


Well, the RT and the MT are not the same thing -- as I'm sure you're aware. There are some like myself who prefer the MT to the RT.


----------



## MW

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Well, the RT and the MT are not the same thing -- as I'm sure you're aware. There are some like myself who prefer the MT to the RT.



Regrettably, yes, the MT and RT have been made opponents by modern scholars; whereas anyone willing to look at the issue carefully will observe that the MT is merely ms. evidence which bears witness to the RT, the ecclesiastical text. It is only the crude notion of making a witness a judge, which leads to the absurd situation created by modern scholars. Whereas the traditional reformed position is, that the church has the spiritual ability to discern the Scriptures. William Perkins: "hence we may gather that the church of God hath a gift to discern scripture from that which is no scripture." (Revelation, 265.)


----------



## Casey

armourbearer said:


> Regrettably, yes, the MT and RT have been made opponents by modern scholars; whereas anyone willing to look at the issue carefully will observe that the MT is merely ms. evidence which bears witness to the RT, the ecclesiastical text. It is only the crude notion of making a witness a judge, which leads to the absurd situation created by modern scholars. Whereas the traditional reformed position is, that the church has the spiritual ability to discern the Scriptures. William Perkins: "hence we may gather that the church of God hath a gift to discern scripture from that which is no scripture." (Revelation, 265.)


There are variants in the RT that aren't supported by the MT (ecclesiastical text). That's all I'm saying. What is it about this that's "absurd"?


----------



## MW

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> There are variants in the RT that aren't supported by the MT (ecclesiastical text). That's all I'm saying. What is it about this that's "absurd"?



There seems to be some confusion in terminology. The MT is the majority text as contained in the Byzantine family of mss. It is merely ms. evidence. The ecclesiastical text is the text received by the church through the ages. The one is witness, and the other is judge. It is absurd to make one witness the sole witness and ultimate judge of the matter.


----------



## bookslover

larryjf said:


> It is my understanding that there is no relationship now. They ESV folks did pay the NCC to use the RSV, but after the initial deal there is no longer a relationship. Crossway purchased full rights to use the RSV. So although it did bring profit to the NCC originally, they no longer are tied to them.



Right. Somewhere on its website, it says that the ESV translation is owned by Crossway publishers, _*not*_ the National Council of Churches. That latter group still owns the rights to the RSV. The website specifically says that the NCC _*does not*_ receive any royalties from sales of the ESV.

So, if you buy an ESV, you're not supporting the liberals at the NCC.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> What I find offensive about the RSV and ESV is not only that they enrich the NCCC, but that both of them are non-Byzantine in nature. They both are derived from the Critical Text/Alexandrian mss that have been consistently rejected by the Church since they were first created.
> 
> Crossway Books denies paying yearly royalty fees to the NCCC, but they will not disclose the agreement they have with the NCCC concerning the use of the RSV. I have inquired this of them and have not received a response as of yet to date.
> 
> Sermon Audio has an interesting discussion of this by Dr. Letis:
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=41504103537
> 
> I think the comments on it are quite apropos.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH




Oh no. Not Theodore Letis.  

I'm an Byz/Maj advocate, but I *love* the ESV. I wish they'd kept the Holman Christian Standard Bible using the Byz text like they were originally going to, instead of switching it to the NA27. I think we can use a good Byz/Maj translation other than the NKJV. 

With Robinson, I believe that although 88% of the text in both families agree, no one will suffer any ill effects by using a non-Byz text.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Crossway Books*

Greetings:

OK. Crossway Books has paid the NCCC a flat fee of $650,000 for the use of the RSV over the next ten years. So, purchases of the ESV over that ten year period will go to re-finance the original purchase of the rights to the RSV.

What happens at the end of the 10 years? Will Crossway pay another $650,000 to the NCCC for another 10 years? This is a direct financing of the NCCC for years to come - at a time when the NCCC was going bankrupt. In my opinion this is unconscionable. Where is the outrage about this?

"It is ok to buy the ESV - Crossway Books has only made a flat fee payment."

This is not acceptable. If you decry the failing of our society, but you support a "conservative" publishing company that finances those who are undermining it, then you are either a fool or a hypocrite.

A fool - because you do not accept the logical consequences of your actions.

A hypocrite - because you know the logical consequences of your actions and you don't care enough to do something about it.

Someone here said, "I love the ESV..."

Then you love something that has been rejected by God and the Church. You are on the side of the Devil who questions and changes the Word of God.

This is probably the harshest post I ever wrote, but I believe it needed to be said.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## BobVigneault

Blessings to you brother. You have discharged your duty with great passion. You have made a complete catharsis regarding your opinion and conviction pertaining to the ESV. Not everyone here will agree with you. Please find satisfaction that you have given your warning and said your piece. Now let's leave this argument for others to read and form their own convictions. You have brought this discussion to a level and tone that will not benefit the spirit of the board if it gets any more bold. Let's not persist. Your protest has been noted.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Mr. Wieland's signature line, shall we say, Ironic?

CT


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ChristianTrader said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else find Mr. Wieland's signature line, shall we say, Ironic?
> 
> CT



In Essentials unity?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## larryjf

CalvinandHodges said:


> Someone here said, "I love the ESV..."
> 
> Then you love something that has been rejected by God and the Church. You are on the side of the Devil who questions and changes the Word of God.



Why would you say God and the Church reject it. If God rejected it why is it here? If the Church rejected it, why are many churches using it today?

As far as questioning and changing the Word of God, couldn't the same thing be said of the KJV? Wasn't that version a change from previous versions? And didn't it add question to the Word of God through its marginal readings?


----------



## ChristianTrader

CalvinandHodges said:


> In Essentials unity?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



Hating the ESV is essential?

CT


----------



## Robert Truelove

So now the ESV is the 'Devil's Bible'? 

Are you related to Gail Riplinger in any way?




CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Someone here said, "I love the ESV..."
> 
> Then you love something that has been rejected by God and the Church. You are on the side of the Devil who questions and changes the Word of God.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

ChristianTrader said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else find Mr. Wieland's signature line, shall we say, Ironic?
> 
> CT





No, H-man..... I found it ironic too.


----------



## Bondman

BlackCalvinist said:


> No, H-man..... I found it ironic too.



I don't get it. Where's the irony?


----------



## Bondman

larryjf said:


> Why would you say God and the Church reject it. If God rejected it why is it here? If the Church rejected it, why are many churches using it today?



You will find that in the Old Testament God allowed Israel to forget about and add to Scripture. God rejects many things and yet allows them to continue to exist.

I believe what the man was trying to point out is the fact that the Alexandrian mss. were rejected by the church in or prior to the 7th century. The fact that many churches and pastors support them today does not make them authentic. Modern evangelical churches are teaching a great number of things which were condemned by the church in the past.

I don't see any of the modern translation guys actually dealing with the facts. You may think the claim that the Alexandrian mss are corrupt is goofy prima facie, but the KJV fellas are making a pretty good case in the various discussions that have been popping up lately. 

I appreciate Calvin and Hodges post. It _is_ harsh, but we need thick skins. I'm looking for someone on the ESV side who has a compelling argument.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

If you all had read my first post, then you will know that it is the Greek and Hebrew text that underlies the RSV, ESV, NASB that is rejected - the Critical/Alexandrian texts.

It is these texts, as they are the foundation of the above versions, that have been rejected by God and the Church. To ask the question as to why God would allow corrupt mss to be translated into English or any other language the answer is twofold:

1) To show which are approved and which are not - similar to 1 Cor. 11:19.

2) One could also ask, "Why does God allow the Devil to exist?" Unless you don't believe that the Devil really exists?

In speaking about the Byzantine/TR John Owen writes:

*We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared. In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves,* Owen, John, Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text, Banner of Truth Trust, 1995, Vol. 16, pg. 357.

It is an historical fact that the Church has consistently rejected the Alexandrian Varients/Critical text throughout history. That Erasmus was conscious of the fact that he had few mss to work with, and that he was well aware of the Vaticanus (B) mss, but rejected it as corrupt. In essence God providentially preserved His text from the corruptions found in the Alexandrian Varients - as Owen noted above.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## larryjf

CalvinandHodges said:


> It is an historical fact that the Church has consistently rejected the Alexandrian Varients/Critical text throughout history.



I was under the impression that the Alexandrian Text is the only type of manuscripts that we have proof of existing up through the fourth century. And that from the fifth to eighth century it is found to be in the majority. It was not until the ninth century that the Byzantine text-type became predominant.

To follow your logic of the Church rejecting families of manuscripts, wouldn't it make more sense to reject the Byzantine since the first four centuries have no proof of such a text-type at all? And even after that it is found in the minority until the ninth century? Doesn't this show that it is not the favored text of the early Church.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

larryjf said:


> I was under the impression that the Alexandrian Text is the only text that we have proof of existing up through the fourth century. And that from the fifth to eighth century it is found to be in the majority. It was not until the ninth century that the Byzantine text became predominant.
> 
> To follow your logic of the Church rejecting families of manuscripts, wouldn't it make more sense to reject the Byzantine since the first four centuries have no proof of such a text-type at all? And even after that it is found in the minority until the ninth century? Doesn't this show that it is not the favored text of the early Church.



Hey:

The short answer to your questions is no. The long answer will take several pages, but here is a short synopsis:

1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).

If you find, then, older copies lying around one can argue that these were never copied - hence the very small number of copies of the Alexandrian Varients. If these texts were copied, then they would have been destroyed, and the newer copies would have survived in exactly the same fashion that we see the Byzantine texts surviving.

2) Ancient translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, the Old Italic of the Waldensians, and the Syriac all agree with the Byzantine texts. The Old Italic of the Waldensians, for example, has been traced back to circa 130 AD.

3) If you consider where the Autographs of the New Testament originated, or, which churches these Autographs would be found in, then you will find that they will be found in what would be known as the Byzantine Empire. From Jerusalem, Matthew, James, and Jude (possibly), through Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, Thessolonica, Rome (Romans), the epistles of Peter (1 Pet. 1:1), and of the rest of the NT will be found in the Byzantine Empire.

I would suggest that those churches that actually handled and copied the Autographs would be able to recognize which are authentic and which are not. That after the Roman persecutions were aleviated by Constantine (313 AD) these churches came together and standardized the New Testament Text. The result is the Byzantine mss. Consequently, once the standard text was determined the multitude of copies would be made.

4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.

Consider, the Apostle Peter warned the Church of heretics who were corrupting the Scriptures even in his very day:

*...which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction,* 2 Peter 3:16b.

Out of some eight hundred thousand various readings of the Bible that have been collated, about seven hundred and ninety-five thousand are of just about as much importance to the sense of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the question in English orthography is, whether the word honour should be spelled with a u or without it. The vast majority of the remaining readings come from the Alexandrian Varients. These readings change the doctrinal nature of the passage in question.

I will leave you to your own conclusions.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: Psa 101:3 I wil set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the worke of them that fall away: it shal not cleaue vnto me. 

Psa 119:104 By thy precepts I haue gotten vnderstanding: therefore I hate all the wayes of falshoode. 

-CH


----------



## Bondman

The horse may be likened to that body of manuscripts called the critical text; it's violent assailant, Mr. Wieland.

Great argument. Greatly appreciated.


----------



## larryjf

CalvinandHodges said:


> 1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).



Excellent point. In that situation the copy would probably be considered better than the original because it had the same words but was without the decay.


----------



## MW

larryjf said:


> I was under the impression that the Alexandrian Text is the only type of manuscripts that we have proof of existing up through the fourth century. And that from the fifth to eighth century it is found to be in the majority. It was not until the ninth century that the Byzantine text-type became predominant.



The mythical recension of Hort's devising is said to have taken place in the 4th century when Christianity had conquered the civil establishment and a uniform Bible was to be placed in the churches (50 copies, if I remember correctly). It's Da Vinci code material.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......


----------



## larryjf

BlackCalvinist said:


> I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......



Could you be more specific?


----------



## ChristianTrader

BlackCalvinist said:


> I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......





larryjf said:


> Could you be more specific?


----------



## Robert Truelove

CalvinandHodges said:


> 1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).
> 
> If you find, then, older copies lying around one can argue that these were never copied - hence the very small number of copies of the Alexandrian Varients. If these texts were copied, then they would have been destroyed, and the newer copies would have survived in exactly the same fashion that we see the Byzantine texts surviving.



OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century. Judging from the fact that we have copies reflecting the Western Text Type and the Alexandrian Text Type from these earlier centuries but no copies of the Byzantine Text Type it is extremely curious that not a single manuscript exists of this text type prior to the 5th Century if it is indeed most representative of the original. 

Furthermore, what you are describing was the process for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but you are going way out on a limb to say that this was the process for the copying of the New Testament text. There is no evidence that the original was destroyed when a copy was made of the New Testament Text during the first several centuries of its transmission (I'm not even sure one can establish that from the later stage of the transmission of the text either.). 



CalvinandHodges said:


> 2) Ancient translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, the Old Italic of the Waldensians, and the Syriac all agree with the Byzantine texts. The Old Italic of the Waldensians, for example, has been traced back to circa 130 AD.



This is pure fiction. A 'trip into cloud land' to quote one textual scholar  .

The Old Italic is a representative of the Alexandrian Text as Tischendorf pointed out...

"...the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the old Italic version, which the translator, who lived in North Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the old Syriac version which has been recently found is quite as closely related as the Italic."

Regarding the Syriac...While the Peshitta does reflect the Byzantine Text Type, the Old Syriac copies (which pre-date the Peshitta) does not (as Tischendorf also pointed out in the quote above).

Finally, the Latin Vulgate...neither the Old Latin that preceeded the Latin Vulgate nor the Vulgate itself reflect a Byzantine Text Type. The Latin Vulgate most closely identifies with the Western Text Type.



CalvinandHodges said:


> 3) If you consider where the Autographs of the New Testament originated, or, which churches these Autographs would be found in, then you will find that they will be found in what would be known as the Byzantine Empire. From Jerusalem, Matthew, James, and Jude (possibly), through Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, Thessolonica, Rome (Romans), the epistles of Peter (1 Pet. 1:1), and of the rest of the NT will be found in the Byzantine Empire.
> 
> I would suggest that those churches that actually handled and copied the Autographs would be able to recognize which are authentic and which are not. That after the Roman persecutions were aleviated by Constantine (313 AD) these churches came together and standardized the New Testament Text. The result is the Byzantine mss. Consequently, once the standard text was determined the multitude of copies would be made.



The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning. 



CalvinandHodges said:


> 4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.



Then how under the heavens do we have the Alexandrian manuscripts (and other non Byzantine manuscripts and translations) today if God did not preserve them? 

Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Consider, the Apostle Peter warned the Church of heretics who were corrupting the Scriptures even in his very day:
> 
> *...which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction,* 2 Peter 3:16b.
> 
> Out of some eight hundred thousand various readings of the Bible that have been collated, about seven hundred and ninety-five thousand are of just about as much importance to the sense of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the question in English orthography is, whether the word honour should be spelled with a u or without it. The vast majority of the remaining readings come from the Alexandrian Varients. These readings change the doctrinal nature of the passage in question.



Finally we come to the arguement that the Alexandrian manuscripts are the deliberate result of heretics perverting the Scriptures. The doctrines which some claim are under attack in the Alexandrian manuscripts are all so thouroughly present, that these heretical copyists must have been the most inept heretics in the history of the Christian church.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably pick up a translation like the NASB and claim the text reflects the deliberate work of heretics (since translation like the NASB are essentially Alexandrian in nature). 


God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.


----------



## larryjf

prespastor said:


> God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.



The main problem that i find with text critics who take the reasoned eclectic approach is that they all seem to totally discount the Byzantine witness altogether. And although the text-type is not seen to be in existence during the early Church, Byzantine readings do exist. And i don't think that the Byzantine text-type just came out of thin air. I would feel much better about the critical text if it treated the Byzantine text with a little more respect.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Reasoned Eclectics do not completely throw out the Byzantine witnesses. Rather, based upon the evidence, see it as a secondary witness. 

The fact that the 27th Edition of the Nestle Aland contains numerous readings that are Byzantine is proof that this approach does not completely throw out this manuscript family.



larryjf said:


> The main problem that i find with text critics who take the reasoned eclectic approach is that they all seem to totally discount the Byzantine witness altogether. And although the text-type is not seen to be in existence during the early Church, Byzantine readings do exist. And i don't think that the Byzantine text-type just came out of thin air. I would feel much better about the critical text if it treated the Byzantine text with a little more respect.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

ChristianTrader said:


>



Post #48 lays out a few. Thanks Robert. 

Give me a day or three and I'll be back with a few more.

One major one, of course, is the fact that I can use 'special pleading' in the same fashion to claim providential preservation of the Alexandrian text:

[special pleading]
And proof of God's leading and providential care over the Alexandrian text is that He kept them safe for thousands of years in a dry area where they would not rot or decay so that in an age where we can spend more time on biblical scholarship, they would gradually become more available to us. [/special pleading]


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

To exemplify prespastor's unreliability concerning the Old Italic Bible. Here are 16 examples of verses in the Old Italic that are not found in the Critical Text 3rd Edition:

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." 

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." 

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." 

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." 

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." 

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." 

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV. 

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." 

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." 

John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." 

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 

Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV but found in the Old Latin and the KJB. 

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." 

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions. 

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." 

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." 

I can only speak of the 3rd edition since that is the copy I own. Tishendorf was simply trying to link his new found copy with that of accepted versions without criticism. In other words - he had a bias. In these passages, and many others, the Old Latin, Syriac, and Old Italic agree with the Byzantine Textus Receptus against the "Western" and "Critical" Texts.

It was the Alands who argued that the "Western Text type" is not a legitimate text type, and I have seen no refutation of their arguments from the Critical Text group?

Robert Olivetan translated the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians into French. He did so at the College of the Barbar's in the Waldensian valley. This Bible is decidedly Byzantine in its readings. The Olivetan Bible, or the French Geneva translation, was also a source document for the Geneva Bible in English, Now, who will argue that any of these translations are not Byzantine?

We do not deal with the Alexandrian Varients in regards to determining the correct text because these varients were entirely rejected by the Church after the 4th century.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

If the Old Italic from the second century contain those readings, it would be a revolutionary discovery for the science of textual criticism. One would wonder why much use has not been made of this by Traditional Text advocates?

I am curious to know exactly where you are getting your data. Which Old Italic manuscripts contain those readings exactly? I would very much like to research that.

As for the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate conforming to the Byzantine Text Type...I'm sorry my brother, you are just wrong about that.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> To exemplify prespastor's unreliability concerning the Old Italic Bible. Here are 16 examples of verses in the Old Italic that are not found in the Critical Text 3rd Edition:
> 
> Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
> 
> Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
> 
> Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
> 
> Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
> 
> Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
> 
> Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
> 
> Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
> 
> Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.
> 
> Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
> 
> Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."
> 
> John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
> 
> Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
> 
> Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.
> 
> Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
> 
> Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.
> 
> Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
> 
> Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
> 
> I can only speak of the 3rd edition since that is the copy I own. Tishendorf was simply trying to link his new found copy with that of accepted versions without criticism. In other words - he had a bias. In these passages, and many others, the Old Latin, Syriac, and Old Italic agree with the Byzantine Textus Receptus against the "Western" and "Critical" Texts.
> 
> It was the Alands who argued that the "Western Text type" is not a legitimate text type, and I have seen no refutation of their arguments from the Critical Text group?
> 
> Robert Olivetan translated the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians into French. He did so at the College of the Barbar's in the Waldensian valley. This Bible is decidedly Byzantine in its readings. The Olivetan Bible, or the French Geneva translation, was also a source document for the Geneva Bible in English, Now, who will argue that any of these translations are not Byzantine?
> 
> We do not deal with the Alexandrian Varients in regards to determining the correct text because these varients were entirely rejected by the Church after the 4th century.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

prespastor said:


> OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century. Judging from the fact that we have copies reflecting the Western Text Type and the Alexandrian Text Type from these earlier centuries but no copies of the Byzantine Text Type it is extremely curious that not a single manuscript exists of this text type prior to the 5th Century if it is indeed most representative of the original.
> 
> Furthermore, what you are describing was the process for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but you are going way out on a limb to say that this was the process for the copying of the New Testament text. There is no evidence that the original was destroyed when a copy was made of the New Testament Text during the first several centuries of its transmission (I'm not even sure one can establish that from the later stage of the transmission of the text either.).
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure fiction. A 'trip into cloud land' to quote one textual scholar  .
> 
> The Old Italic is a representative of the Alexandrian Text as Tischendorf pointed out...
> 
> "...the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the old Italic version, which the translator, who lived in North Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the old Syriac version which has been recently found is quite as closely related as the Italic."
> 
> Regarding the Syriac...While the Peshitta does reflect the Byzantine Text Type, the Old Syriac copies (which pre-date the Peshitta) does not (as Tischendorf also pointed out in the quote above).
> 
> Finally, the Latin Vulgate...neither the Old Latin that preceeded the Latin Vulgate nor the Vulgate itself reflect a Byzantine Text Type. The Latin Vulgate most closely identifies with the Western Text Type.
> 
> 
> 
> The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Then how under the heavens do we have the Alexandrian manuscripts (and other non Byzantine manuscripts and translations) today if God did not preserve them?
> 
> Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we come to the arguement that the Alexandrian manuscripts are the deliberate result of heretics perverting the Scriptures. The doctrines which some claim are under attack in the Alexandrian manuscripts are all so thouroughly present, that these heretical copyists must have been the most inept heretics in the history of the Christian church.
> 
> I don't see how anyone could reasonably pick up a translation like the NASB and claim the text reflects the deliberate work of heretics (since translation like the NASB are essentially Alexandrian in nature).
> 
> 
> God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.



Other problems with Prespastor's post:

Speculation: he wrote:



> The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.


When did the Autographs cease to exist? Prespastor seems to know exactly when. Does he have proof? or, Was he there when it happened? - Talking about "significent dents"!!! Does he even know the nature of textual transmission? The large majority of Christians in the 1st through 3rd Centuries were Jews - 3000 Jews were converted at Pentecost alone, Acts 2. How could the church not adopt the Jewish method of textual transmission?

Revelation, according to most scholars, was written circa 97 AD - to say that it did not survive 3 years is rather egregious to say the least.

Prespastor is relying on liberal scholars such as Tischendorf to prove his points, but neglects the fact that these liberal scholars agree, in part or in whole, with the heretics of the 1st through 4th centuries: the denial of the deity of Christ, miracles, and the nature of God.

More speculation, he writes:



> Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.


Do we have all of the texts used during the 1st through 3rd centuries? No, we do not. If the Church was in the practice of destroying the older mss, and we have no reason to think that they did not, then it would follow that we would not find many texts during these centuries - *which is exactly what we do find*. We should expect that texts which differ from the newer texts were not copied, but ignored - *which is exactly what we find in the Alexandrian varients*!

Too many coincidences creates Providence. The very reason why we do not have many Alexandrian mss is because these varients were not copied, The reason why they were not copied is because they were not considered authentic. And, that is the reason why they are the "older" texts - because they were never copied or considered authentic.

Older does not mean better. From the Apostle Peter and all through the history of the Church, we find complaints concerning heretics, "wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction," 2 Pet. 3:16. The Alexandrian varients *prove* in their variations that they are the corrupted texts compiled by heretics.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

prespastor said:


> If the Old Italic from the second century contain those readings, it would be a revolutionary discovery for the science of textual criticism. One would wonder why much use has not been made of this by Traditional Text advocates?
> 
> I am curious to know exactly where you are getting your data. Which Old Italic manuscripts contain those readings exactly? I would very much like to research that.
> 
> As for the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate conforming to the Byzantine Text Type...I'm sorry my brother, you are just wrong about that.



Odd - I provide reasons for my position, but all prespastor can say in response is - you're wrong???

And, we are supposed to accept prespastor's beliefs because he is prespastor? - a little ex cathedra reasoning going on here? possibly?

You mean to say that you do not have copies of the Old Italic, Old Latin, or even the Vulgate to make comparisons? - And you are making such sweeping and "authoritative" statements about them?

A Berean you are not.

Dr. Hort himself states that the dominant text-type after the declaration of Constantine (313 AD) is the Byzantine mss:

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, Wescott, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

People who wish to study the subject out may do so. I'm just repeating what is universally accepted in the scholarly community by men who have dedicated their lives to the study of this subject.

I'm still waiting on your source for those Old Italic readings.




CalvinandHodges said:


> Odd - I provide reasons for my position, but all prespastor can say in response is - you're wrong???
> 
> And, we are supposed to accept prespastor's beliefs because he is prespastor? - a little ex cathedra reasoning going on here? possibly?
> 
> -CH


----------



## larryjf

prespastor said:


> OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century.



But what about Chester Beatty? Aren't those both Byzantine AND old...prior to the 5th century?

And while we are at it...why don't we carbon date some of these manuscripts??? Or has that been done yet?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

prespastor said:


> People who wish to study the subject out may do so. I'm just repeating what is universally accepted in the scholarly community by men who have dedicated their lives to the study of this subject.
> 
> I'm still waiting on your source for those Old Italic readings.



Hey:

I will not let you get away with what you wrote above. What you are repeating is what liberal scholars such as Tischendorf, Metzger, Hort, Griesbach, and others have stated. You have not at all interacted with their critics such as Van Bruggen, Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis and others on this matter.

What source are you looking for? Do you want me to quote from my copy of the Old Italic Bible?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

If Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, or Letis state that the Old Syriac, Old Latin, or Latin Vulgate conform to the Byzantine Text Type please provide quotes from their works where they state that.

As for your Old Italic source...you quoted a series of Byzantine readings before (post #52) stating they were found in the Old Italic. What is your source for these quotes?



CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> I will not let you get away with what you wrote above. What you are repeating is what liberal scholars such as Tischendorf, Metzger, Hort, Griesbach, and others have stated. You have not at all interacted with their critics such as Van Bruggen, Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis and others on this matter.
> 
> What source are you looking for? Do you want me to quote from my copy of the Old Italic Bible?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


----------



## BlackCalvinist

larryjf said:


> But what about Chester Beatty? Aren't those both Byzantine AND old...prior to the 5th century?
> 
> And while we are at it...why don't we carbon date some of these manuscripts??? Or has that been done yet?



Some are a tad too small to be carbon dated (i.e. John Rylands fragment).


----------



## CalvinandHodges

prespastor said:


> If Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, or Letis state that the Old Syriac, Old Latin, or Latin Vulgate conform to the Byzantine Text Type please provide quotes from their works where they state that.
> 
> As for your Old Italic source...you quoted a series of Byzantine readings before (post #52) stating they were found in the Old Italic. What is your source for these quotes?



Hay:

Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:

Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.

KJV reads:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):

touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.

Critical Text omits the verse.

ESV omits the verse.

The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you are not answering my question.

What is your source for all these Old Italic quotes? Either what manuscripts OR what edition if you are using a printed edition.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:
> 
> Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.
> 
> KJV reads:
> 
> Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
> 
> Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):
> 
> touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.
> 
> Critical Text omits the verse.
> 
> ESV omits the verse.
> 
> The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.
> 
> -CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.

Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) _passionately_ want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?

You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!

They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).

It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.

This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.
> 
> Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) _passionately_ want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?
> 
> You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!
> 
> They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).
> 
> It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.
> 
> This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
> 
> Steve


----------



## CDM

prespastor said:


> This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.
> 
> *However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.*



Which Bible?


----------



## Robert Truelove

The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.



mangum said:


> Which Bible?


----------



## CDM

prespastor said:


> This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.
> 
> *However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.*





mangum said:


> Which Bible?





prespastor said:


> The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.



Ok. So the people "_had all the more confidence in_" the *Critical Text*?


----------



## Robert Truelove

More precisely...in modern translations of the Critical Text like the NASB and ESV. I am not as favorable to the NIV and those like it.





mangum said:


> Ok. So the people "_had all the more confidence in_" the *Critical Text*?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Robert Truelove

I'm having to do a little study on this point. My study is a bit slow because I have a lot going on right now. I'll try and respond soon though.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Robert W.,

It sounds like a treasure easily worth the expense of its acquisition. I gather it is in Latin. Does it have a date? Are you able to discern, does it conform to the AV, especially as regards the "Alexandrian" variants?

Thanks,

Steve


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

The answer is yes to all of your questions - including the Comma. I find it difficult to read because of the Old Italic Type. I have compared it to Diodati's translation and have found them compatable (at least in the verses listed above).

I think that some scholars argue that texts like the Old Italic and the Old Syraic are Alexandrian partly because the Alexandrian mss agree with the Byzantine mss about 80% of the time. I once did a comparison for a paper between Metzger's 3rd edition and the 1550 Stephens:



> Comparing the Stephens 1550 with Metzer's third edition at the ending of Revelation would open some eyes. From Rev. 22:6 to the end in verse 21 there are 358 words (counting both text-types). Of these 358 words they differ only 40 times. Many of these differences have no real effect on the text: "kai", "tous", "gar", "toi", "tou" count for about 18 differences. Where the Critical Text append words it is done about 13 times. Where the Critical Text subtracts words it is done about 8 times. In verse 13 the Critical Text transposes two phrases - this is a difference only in the order of the words. Thus, Stephens 1550 and the Critical Text agree 88% of the time. If you take out the small words the agreement is about 94%. Considering the possibility that the Critical Text is wrong in some of its decisions, for example, the last word in the book of Revelation is omitted by the Critical Text, yet, the apparatus notes that it is included in the "oldest manuscript" the Sinaiticus! They give this omission a "C" rating indicating that their omission is not very reliable. The differences between the two are minute to say the least. One large difference between the two is found in verse 18:
> 
> Critical Text reads: Marturo ego panti...
> Stephens 1550 reads: Summarturoumai gar panti...
> 
> Outside of cutting out important words, like "amen" (as the CT does) mentioned above, this really is the only significant difference. The edition of Stephens has in its apparatus: Marturo ego. Consequently, the Textus Receptus is far more accurate than Dr. Metzger would have us think.


In my humble opinion it seems that it is not where texts agree that determines if a mss is Byzantine or not, but where they disagree. In the case of the Old Italic it seems that it disagrees with the CT on those very particulars wherein the CT disagrees with the Byzantine mss.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Nowdy

*Byzantine Brilliance vs. Alexandrian Acquiescence*

If I only could convince my good friend Steve to post in this room, I’d throw a party for all that have posted here. For the past five years, this has been his project. We’re talking dozens of hours a week. Funny but we both met each other at work and over the years have grown to the best of friends. The one thing we laugh at is the fact that Riplinger got both of our feathers ruffled and started our quest to study families of texts. I can claim I read her 500+(?) page book from cover to cover (getting a real kick out of her words (from my memory) “versions other than KJ use the letter ‘s’ more…can’t you just hear the hiss of the Snake/Satan” stuff…I ‘m still falling on the floor laughing) and D.A.Carson’s book against the King James ONLY faulty logic. Both Steve and myself are strongly leaning toward the Byzantine family as opposed to the Alexandrian family. My reasoning is nothing close to the sophistication and research that Steve presents. Any one have a hint how I can psychologically manipulate my best friend to come out of his research closet and share why in the heck he attempted to examine every Bergen variant form (millions?) from an original and rare Bergen research and defense project of this Byzantine tradition?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Nowdy! Welcome to PB.

Yes, tell your friend Steve that ideas tried by peer review and critique are more sure than those untried and kept safely in the closet.

Steve


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.



Could you provide evidence "that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century"? And, by whom have they been considered corrupt? Are they credible?




CalvinandHodges said:


> What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation.



Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.

http://www.bible-researcher.com (i think it might be .org ... ill have to re-check)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.



I see your bias...

As I was reading i saw no proof but only opinion. Could you please supply me with your "scholars"?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Andrew,

We have discussed this quite at length here. In the post I give the link to below are three scholars, with a significant essay by each, who discuss these very things.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=262198&postcount=1

Steve


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.



Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks.


----------



## bookslover

I wonder if it would be possible to make an English translation of the Bible completely from scratch - consulting no previous English translations, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and just doing the whole thing over again.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> I wonder if it would be possible to make an English translation of the Bible completely from scratch - consulting no previous English translations, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and just doing the whole thing over again.



Impossible given presuupositions; and if it were possible it would be undesirable because we believe in the catholic church (or at least that is what we should believe).


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Andrew,
> 
> We have discussed this quite at length here. In the post I give the link to below are three scholars, with a significant essay by each, who discuss these very things.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=262198&postcount=1
> 
> Steve



Thank you. I will have to take some time out to read them.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks.




Matthew,

I'm sorry if you are offended at what i have said. It would be benifitial for me to do what you have asked. I will take some time out as well to see the process that the AV translators took.

I have still given out the facts, so how is it then, that the NASB and ESV translators, supposedly doing a translation of a translation(when in fact they used the old manuscripts... referring more to them then the english translation), makes them "the devil", yet, the KJ translators also took the older english texts and referred to them as well; does that not make them "the devil"? Calvin's argument was to make the NASB and ESV less credible by using the old "it's a translation of a translation" routine. When you actually have the facts, I understand it's hard to swallow(being sincere). I was just pointing out the obvious Matthew, I wasn't being predjudice.


----------



## shelly

I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.

So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?

Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).

Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.

shelly


----------



## larryjf

shelly said:


> I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.
> 
> So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?
> 
> Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).
> 
> Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.
> 
> shelly



I would suggest that even the Jewish practice of destroying manuscripts after copied declined after time, that's why we do have Hebrew manuscripts from later dates (for instance the leningrad codes is from about 1008 AD).
So perhaps after time as the Church grew more and more away from its Jewish roots they started looking at the manuscripts differently and started holding on to them.

As far as circumcision, it's really not a comparable topic. OT circumcision and NT baptism are sacraments, how to handle old manuscripts is not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Shelly,

Part of the reason we have certain manuscripts (MSS) -- I am thinking in particular of those from Egypt upon which the "Alexandrian" texttype is based -- is that a) they were written on velum, very expensive antelope skin finely prepared and far more durable than the parchment used for most MSS; b) the climate in Egypt was dry, and thus conducive to the preservation of MSS, unlike the damper climates of Europe and Asia Minor; the climate was such in Egypt that even some of the far more fragile papyri MSS survived; and c) it is a factor that much use wore out some MSS. 

I recently purchased a new Bible; when I finish the long and tedious process of copying all my 40 years worth of notes/cross-references/etc from my two other Bibles into it, I will likely set the almost-worn-out one aside and use it very little. The pages are brittle and breaking.

In the 9th century all of a sudden appear a vast number of manuscripts in a new form, the smaller cursive Greek script as opposed to the uppercase uncials of the previous centuries -- and NO ancient uncials of the same texttype as the majority of these miniscules (mss), which happen to be of the Byzantine (or Majority, or Traditional) texttype. It has been noted by text critics that the likelihood is very high the scribes copying the old MSS into mss form destroyed the exemplars they used, much in the way I am going to set aside my old Bible when I am finished copying the annotations.

The things I am saying are a hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the NT text from the various manuscripts. For certain periods we are lacking in much information regarding the history of the manuscripts, and according to our presuppositions (our foundational view of what is real and how we know what is real) we interpret the data we have to make the best sense of it. The link I give here opens on a post which discusses something about how these presuppostions determine our views of which texts are best:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=199947&postcount=31

This matter of the texts is an area where one must delve deeply into the writings of those who propound the arguments for the various views. This "Translations and Manuscripts" board has a lot of information from differing viewpoints on the subject. Peruse it if it is an area of interest to you. We ALL start out "over our heads" when we approach any new field, so don't let that dismay you! I am in "over my head" on some topics here at PB, and so I just set myself to learn.

May the Lord guide you and give you light.

Steve


----------



## bookslover

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I recently purchased a new Bible; when I finish the long and tedious process of copying all my 40 years worth of notes/cross-references/etc from my two other Bibles into it, I will likely set the almost-worn-out one aside and use it very little. The pages are brittle and breaking.



Forty years' worth of notes and cross-references? Can you still read the text in that old Bible? 

How would you categorize the kinds of notes you've got, Steve?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

shelly said:


> I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.
> 
> So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?
> 
> Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).
> 
> Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.
> 
> shelly



Hi shelly:

I think that you are partly on track here. Since I made the argument I guess it is my responsibility to clarify it a bit.

The first few centuries of the Church saw a huge number of Jews become converts to Christianity. Peter, in Acts chapter 2, was preaching in the Temple where only Jews were allowed, and 3,000 of them were converted. The Apostles "went to the Jews first" like Paul did when he would first preach in a synagogue as he entered a city. The persecution that many Jews would stir up in the 2rd and 4th Centuries was because the Christians were successful in converting the Jews to Christendom.

This was such a problem that Jewish ceremonial practices that were fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ started to be taught as law. You pointed out one of these in the practice of circumcision which was changed to baptism, c.f. Col. 2:11-12.

However, not all Jewish practices were considered wrong - the singing of Psalms, for example, was the exclusive practice of the Church for the next few centuries - even Gentiles. The Jewish art of transcribing the Scriptures was also not a part of the ceremonial law. There was nothing ungodly or unbiblical about it. In fact, we see examples of how accurate they were when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 2nd Century BC) with our modern copies of the Old Testament.

The oldest copy we have of the entire Old Testament is about 1000 AD. Since the OT talks about matters that happened circa 4000 BC such a manuscript would be considered extremely late (according to the Critical Text theory). Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain only parts of the OT, would be considered late by this philosophy.

Yet, we have all the confidence in the world that the OT text that we read in our Bibles is the same text (translated) used by David, Isaiah, Daniel, and Jesus. Such is a testimony of the Providence of God in the transmitting of the Scriptures. There is little doubt that God continued to use the Jewish practice of transmitting the Scriptures through the first three centuries of the Church.

What evidence do we have of this?

What James White points out as "phantom manuscripts" actually proves that the Jewish practice was in place. We find no *Greek* manuscripts which uphold specifically Byzantine readings of the New Testament during the first few centuries. White argues that such readings never existed during this period in the first place. The problem with his argument is that we do have specifically Byzantine readings in various (non-Greek) translations of the Bible that date back to the early 2nd Century AD: the Old Italic (2nd century), The Old Syraic (3rd century), and Jerome's Vulgate (early 4th century), for example.

How do we reconcile this? Simple. The *Greek* copies of the New Testament were considered copies of the original Gospels and Letters of the Apostles. Consequently, they were subject to the Jewish rules of transmission: The "older" copies were destroyed while the younger ones were retained. This is why we do not have any "older" Greek texts that affirm the Byzantine manuscripts. The translations into Syraic and Latin were not considered "official" copies. Thus, they were not subject to the same rules of transmission that were used on the original Greek texts.

That we do find "older" Greek manuscripts that uphold the Critical Text indicates that these Greek manuscripts were never copied. In fact, we do not have any "younger" texts that uphold the Critical Text, and that is a very strong indicator that these "older" texts were considered by the Church to be corrupted - apart from the abundance of internal evidence that shows that they have been tampered/translated by Gnostics. These texts are referred to as the "Alexandrian Variants" and include such older texts as the "Sinaiticus" (reffered to as "Aleph") and the "Vaticanus" (also referred to as "B"). It is these texts that are the basis of the modern translations: RSV, ESV, and NIV.

After the 4th Century or so the Bible started to be copied more abundantly. The vast majority, if not all, of these copies followed the Byzantine manuscripts. The Church having received the Byzantine copies through history understood these copies to be the closest to the originals - and that is why they copied them.

So, to make this simple: The Byzantine manuscripts (which are the basis for the King James Version) have always been upheld by the Church as the true copies of the original writings of the Apostles. The Alexandrian Variants (which are the basis for the RSV, ESV, and NIV) have always been rejected by the Church throughout all of history.

Hope this clears things up a bit!

Blessings on your research on this matter,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Excellent points, Robert W!

Richard, I would say 95% or more are simply extensive cross-references or chains of references on various topics (Election, Perseverance, OT prophecies of Gentiles coming to Christ, Waiting on God, NT attestations to itself, etc), and some references to other versions' renderings, pertinent commentaries on certain Scriptures, and misc. remarks.

I set aside half an hour each day when I can, and some days work on it an hour or more. I anticipate finishing, Lord willing, in another month or two or three (I'm almost finished Eccl. now).

Steve


----------



## shelly

I'll tell you why I like the ESV, reguardless of where it came from.

I grew up in a KJVO kind of church and also spent the first 8 years of marriage in either KJVO or very strongly preferred that every one in the pew comply. I'm still trying to get warped teachings out of my mind and I can't read or listen to KJV without hearing old tapes play. One of those tapes concerns all the other translations that existed at the time. I can't bring myself to read from a version of the Bible that had such things said about it, the programming is so strong I still feel extremely guilty if I read any of those versions or hear someone else read from them. The ESV didn't exist at the time so there's no tape playing in my mind about it.

I would like to learn what is truth and extricate the error. It's a slow process. Even if I come to be convinced that the sourcecode for the ESV is somehow corrupted, I don't think I'll be shelving my ESV. I don't have anything else I could use.

Thank you for the clear explanations, not easy, but clear. I have a lot to work with now and its really interesting. One more item to deprogram

shelly


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey Steve:

Thanks! From a man who knows more about these things than myself that is quite a compliment!

Shelly:

That is truly a tragic thing to hear. If there is any thing that I can do for you, then simply ask - I will be praying for you.

You could use a worse Bible than the ESV - like the CEV, NIV, or the Living Bible! As I have calculated it the ESV is about 80% accurate.

As an alternative to the KJV you might want to check out the 1599 Geneva Bible:

http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php

In my humble opinion it is superior to the KJV, and the notes were written by Calvin, Beza, and other Reformed men. It is truly an excellent Bible to have.

Remember: The Life, Walk, and ultimate Triumph of the Christian is by Faith in Jesus the Son of the Living God.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## JohnOwen007

What I think is an interesting question in this whole critical text versus ecclesiastical text versus Byzantine text etc. discussion is this: what theological doctrines are at stake if we only use a certain text type.

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

Every blessing in Christ.


----------



## JM

I'll continue to use the AV, thanks.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

JohnOwen007 said:


> What I think is an interesting question in this whole critical text versus ecclesiastical text versus Byzantine text etc. discussion is this: what theological doctrines are at stake if we only use a certain text type.
> 
> For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?
> 
> Every blessing in Christ.



Greetings:

I think that one of the major doctrines at stake is the nature of the Church. The Bible tells us that the Church is founded upon the Word of God. If that foundation changes, then what does that mean about the Church?

Take a look at those churches that have embraced the NIV: their doctrine and practice have changed over the years. A baptist church I used to attend once had a Reformed pastor, and held to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The NIV was introduced as the official Bible. And, now, twenty years later, they are professing Arminians and subscribed to the Billy Graham crusade.

80% of the Bible is not enough. Sooner or later the "little leven" will leven the whole lump.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## JohnOwen007

CalvinandHodges said:


> I think that one of the major doctrines at stake is the nature of the Church. The Bible tells us that the Church is founded upon the Word of God. If that foundation changes, then what does that mean about the Church?



Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.

Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Take a look at those churches that have embraced the NIV: their doctrine and practice have changed over the years. A baptist church I used to attend once had a Reformed pastor, and held to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The NIV was introduced as the official Bible. And, now, twenty years later, they are professing Arminians and subscribed to the Billy Graham crusade.



This is the classic fallacy of _post hoc non propter hoc_. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.

Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.

Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.



CalvinandHodges said:


> 80% of the Bible is not enough. Sooner or later the "little leven" will leven the whole lump.



So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

JohnOwen007 said:


> Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.
> 
> Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the classic fallacy of _post hoc non propter hoc_. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.
> 
> Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.
> 
> Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common.



Greetings:

Touche' I stand chastised and cover my head in ashes.

A person who signs the WCF may not actually mean it. The PCA subscribes to the WCF, and, yet, they trample all over the Regulative Principle of Worship as it is taught in chapter 21. I had a PCA pastor tell me that it was ok to go to a restaurant every week on Sunday, c.f. WCF 21:7,8. Yet, he professed to subscribe to the WCF.

Using a different Greek Text is contrary to WCF 1:8 in which the context is that of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine mss. The vast majority of those who hold to the Critical Text deny this statement in 1:8, "and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."

The arbitrary omitting of good and holy words from the Greek Text is against the Word of God, Rev. 22:19. Consider, for example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 in the KJV and the ESV - only one of these can be what God actually inspired.

I will not completely abandon what I wrote prior, but I will modify it a bit. It may be that the baptist church had liberalizing tendencies prior it its acceptance of the NIV. However, its acceptance of an "80% Bible" (if I can use that term) may be indicative of its slide into the gutter. A symptom, if you will, of a greater disease. Since it took years for this to happen one could talk all about its "strength in numbers," and, "the strong preaching."

Also, I think it right and sound to point out that the many defections from sound doctrine concerning worship, the Church, etc... can be laid at the feet of those who hold to the Critical Text. This is a matter of degree. Those churches that hold to the King James Version are far more likely to be sound in their theology than those who do not.

I am personally grieved when I hear about the arguments of the King James Only crowd - like Riplinger and Waite. Such people may (partially) speak the truth, but in an obnoxious and irreligious fashion, and they may turn people, like Shelly here, away from the truth. Paul dealt with such a person in Acts 16:16-18.

Hope this, at least in part, answers your questions.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Marty (aka JohnOwen007),

Those are good questions, i.e., "what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness?"

I would answer them like this: the primary doctrine that is obviated is the providential preservation of Scripture. Seeing as you teach church history you are likely aware that this doctrine was the foremost weapon of the post-Reformation theologians (John Owen, Francis Turretin) contra the Counter-Reformation assault of Rome against the fledgling Protestant (Reformed) churches. The doctrine of God's providential preservation of His word is summed up in a number of confessional statements, a primary one being the Westminster Confession of Faith's Chapter 1, Section 8,

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical....​
_This_, Marty, is a key doctrine that has been changed. This change began in the nineteenth century; here's a note on it excerpted from another post:

-------
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield “drew first blood,” as it were, in the text-critical controversies within the Reformed communions 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 seemed 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 – almost 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 excerpt]

The second of your questions, Marty, regarding such a change in doctrine, "how does it affect people's godliness?", I would answer in this wise:

When I was a young believer around 39 years ago (I was 26 or 27 then), coming out of the 60's counter-culture with its drugs and occult spiritualities, I realized early on that in order to stand against my adversary the devil (& his cohorts) I needed absolute certainty in my mind as regards the trustworthiness of my God and His word.

When I told the demons to depart from me I needed to know exactly where such authority was granted to me in Scripture (chapter & verse), _and_ that these Scriptures were reliable, and not just these, but _all_ Scripture. It was a matter of being able to stand against spiritual opponents who had access to my mind -- relentless opponents, I might add -- and to resist them as directed by the Lord. I needed to know within myself with utmost certainty that the "sword of the Spirit" I wielded was sure...could not be broken.

_If_ I did not have the complete assurance that my sword was sound, I could not stand in the combat. This being able to "withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand" (Eph 6:13), was prerequisite to my being able to live a godly life.

When I would look at the margin notes in some of the Bibles I had I knew that the text of Scripture was contested in some quarters. I needed to get to the bottom of that. It was a matter of life and death to me. Coming from the depths of darkness the Savior rescued me from, I had to develop the wherewithal -- by His Spirit and Word -- to repel the denizens of the spirit-world I (and all my generation with me) had opened my being to. Certainty of mind is essential to stability of mind. And this certainty had to be based on God's word.

I find God has met this need. I am able to stand in Him, and to live godly (given the remaining corruption I must seek His help in constantly keeping crucified; when I fail, I have cleansing by His precious blood).

Perhaps the warfare is not so immediate or intense for some, nor their awareness of need so great. There are some of us who are Christ's desperados; in the instant we cleave to Him or fall. We need a word such as this,

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)​
In _His_ sure word, and in Him, is perfect rest.

Steve

P.S. Regarding the origin of my username,

In John Bunyan's classic, _Pilgrim's Progress_, Mr. Great-heart is questioning newly-met Mr. Valiant-for-truth concerning his adventures, and asks why he did not cry out for help when overwhelmed. Valiant answers, "So I did to my King, who I knew could hear, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me." Then said Great-heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, "Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy Sword;" so he shewed it him.

When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon a while, he said, "Ha! It is a right Jerusalem blade." And Valiant, "It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an Angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh, and bones, and soul, and spirit and all."


----------



## KMK

JohnOwen007 said:


> For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?



I know we have strayed from the OP, but oh well...

First of all, there is a thread related to your exact question around somewhere but I will offer my 

To suggest that Mark 16:9-20 are not inspired is to suggest that we cannot trust the canon at all. When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.

I believe there has been an attack on personal holiness due to the implication that we as individual Christians are able and encouraged to choose for ourselves which Bible is right for us. This idea advances individualism and diminishes unity. One could easily imagine a day when one would punch in a bunch of biographical data into a website and the website would spit out a personalized version God's Word just for you.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.



 This is the crux of the matter. Evangelicals have tried to divorce higher and lower criticism as if canon and text can be treated according to two different principles. They can't. The text is that which was canonised.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Thanks for your responses to my question. I've found them fascinating to read. As yet I remain unconvinced that substantial doctrinal changes are at stake depending on which position one takes. Godly reformed believers can be found on both sides.

To appeal to a change in the doctrine of God's preservation of the text is something of a dead end. This is because both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text; they simply disagree on how. And the difference would be critical if other substantial doctrines derived from Scripture change; which as yet no one has established. Again, there is no clear evidence that one side of the debate leads to a greater godliness depending on the conclusion they draw.

For example, in my neck of the woods the dead / dying churches are those that are KJVO / NKJVO types. However, I'm not then going to argue that their adherence to the TR / Ecclesiastical text etc. is necessarily the cause. To prove that empirically would be very difficult.

I was appreciative of Steve's testimony in coming out of the '60s darkness and his desire to know God's word. But again, I have plenty of friends that have come out of demonic backgrounds (not least ex-Hindus) and their use of the non-KJVO/NKJVO text has not been an obstacle to their deliverance from Satan. They have memorized lots of Scripture that has been a help. They are godly loving people to this day.

However, my eyebrows were raised when I read:



KMK said:


> When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark.



This is, in fact, a Roman Catholic view of the canon. Because Protestants don't believe that books in the Bible (say Mark) were canonized. If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.

Thus, the great issue is which text came from Mark's pen, not which text was "canonized".

I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate. However, I'm not so sympathetic to blowing the debate out of proportion and particularly accusing one side of being innately ungodly because of the position they (in good conscience) take. Both sides in the debate have their terrible representatives, but we don't judge a position by it's worst representatives.

God bless.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> This is, in fact, a Roman Catholic view of the canon. Because Protestants don't believe that books in the Bible (say Mark) were canonized. If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.



The reformed position is that the fountains have not been corrupted so that an ecclesiastical magisterium is not necessary, whereas the Roman Catholic position is that the fountains have been corrupted thus necessitating the authority of church tradition over the inspired text. It is easy to see which side of the debate adheres to the reformed position and which side adheres to the Roman Catholic view.

It is true, the church does not make the gospel of Mark canonical. Divine inspiration accomplishes that. Nevertheless the confessing church declares what books she believes are of divine inspiration and form the rule of faith and life (WCF 1:2). This includes the gospel of Mark, that is, the complete text of the gospel of Mark as preserved by the singular care and providence of God. To maintain that the gospel of Mark has been corrupted is to exercise a magisterium over the text and to contradict the reformed confessional belief that it is authoritative in and of itself.


----------



## KMK

JohnOwen007 said:


> If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; *it simply needs recognizing*. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.



But who does the *simple recognition*? Is it the individual or the church?


----------



## KMK

If your questions remain unanswered, here is a thread that might be helpful:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19437


----------



## JohnOwen007

KMK said:


> If your questions remain unanswered, here is a thread that might be helpful:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19437



Dear Ken,

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

God bless.


----------



## CDM

KMK said:


> I know we have strayed from the OP, but oh well...
> 
> First of all, there is a thread related to your exact question around somewhere but I will offer my
> 
> To suggest that Mark 16:9-20 are not inspired is to suggest that we cannot trust the canon at all. When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.
> 
> I believe there has been an attack on personal holiness due to the implication that we as individual Christians are able and encouraged to choose for ourselves which Bible is right for us. This idea advances individualism and diminishes unity. One could easily imagine a day when one would punch in a bunch of biographical data into a website and the website would spit out a personalized version God's Word just for you.



Here is the thread. Read the entire thing, JohnOwen007, it will help you.

edit: same link as above


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Marty, you first asked,

 For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

A little later you rephrased it,

…what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness?

But later you somewhat change the questions, especially as regards “godliness”:

To appeal to a change in the doctrine of God's preservation of the text is something of a dead end. This is because both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text; they simply disagree on how. And the difference would be critical if other substantial doctrines derived from Scripture change; which as yet no one has established. Again, there is no clear evidence that one side of the debate leads to a greater godliness depending on the conclusion they draw

Let me address the latter first. I say “it may indeed affect godliness.” But now you are putting it in the context of one side having “greater godliness,” which is another matter entirely. Frankly, there are many people who use Critical Text versions who are more godly than I. 

The reason I used myself as a personal example was to illustrate the point from intimate knowledge. It has nothing to do with _comparing_ godlinesses! Nor did you intimate such in your initial questions.

There are many today who, to use a line from a Johnny Cash prison ballad,

………get by on
what I can’t rely on​
and my concern is not only for the multitudes _today_ who are perplexed and shaken at the assertion of the CT folks that we do not “yet” have a settled text of the Bible (the CT editions themselves differing one from another), but my concern extends to the generations yet to come – assuming the Lord may delay His coming in His merciful wisdom – and the impact on them of this disintegration of confidence that God preserved His word for us and we have it – have it in our hands.

I live in a country where almost all the buildings are built of steel-reinforced concrete (not too much spare wood in this land). If the concrete is not waterproofed, eventually water will seep into the concrete (it being highly porous) and will get to the steel, which will rust and eventually expand, breaking and crumbling the concrete, the building sooner or later falling to ruin.

The disintegration does not happen quickly; the process is slow, sometimes taking decades. When one begins to doubt the _reliability_ of Scripture – beginning with a part here and there – the seeds of doubt are planted, and will grow. All it will take is a master-destroyer, one versed in these matters, to go after the logical consequences of purportedly errant portions of Scripture, and destroy faith in said Scripture. For many years I have been preparing to meet such a one, as I see this as the point of vulnerability of the House of God.

Be it noted that I do not see such persons as Dr. James White – and other anti-KJVO advocates – as the “destroyers” I am speaking of; no, rather he is a godly man of great value to the House of God in this generation, who happens to disagree with me on this topic.

The “destroyers” I am talking of are true enemies of the Faith, perhaps some who have fallen away from us – but never were “of us” (1 John 2:19) – and knowing of such issues in the House rightly perceive this to be an exposed portion of the heart, that at which to send their weapons of destruction.

In the days to come not only will there be outward persecution – arising from laws against free proclamation of the Gospel? – but also those attacks aimed at the morale and consciousness of those _within_ the Walls of Scripture. I am looking at the world my grandson and his children may inhabit. Why did Jesus say, “…when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) You understand, I believe, I am not talking merely of personal godliness being affected, but very faith itself. Souls are begotten by the word of truth (James 1:18), and when that is widely impugned, the net will – humanly speaking – pull in far less fish.

I know, not all see as I do. Who has ears to hear, let him or her hear.

And then, going to the first question, Mark, you discount my asserting that the doctrine of providential preservation has been damaged because both the CT and the TR camps hold to it in at least some sense. Let us examine that more closely, so as not to be lulled into stupor by superficial appearances. It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and particularly its _functionality_ are seen. A superior watch is known by its internal parts and not only its face.

In the _details_ of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error? Let us take the newest – and some say the finest – edition of the CT, the ESV. Matthew 1, verses 7 and 10. Both the Greek text and the English translation read, in v. 7, that Asaph was in the royal lineage of Christ rather than Asa, and in v. 10, that Amos was a progenitor of Christ rather than Amon. It will not do to aver “these are alternate spellings,” for Hebrew is a precise language, and Matthew was a literate man; we would not accept, in English, that Solar was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

When the external evidence is examined (I will not lengthen this unduly by producing such at this time), it is further seen that “providential preservation” was not operational in this portion of the CT’s mss.

So the _claim_ that “both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text” is shown to be wanting in this detail of the CT.

Steve


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your reply. I can see that you feel strongly about these issues, and perhaps in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'm enjoying the exchange.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It has nothing to do with _comparing_ godlinesses! Nor did you intimate such in your initial questions.



My point all along was simply that if the issue were as critical as some people make out then there would be obvious evidence in godliness, given that the truth should lead to godliness. That's all.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> In the _details_ of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error?



Yes, God's providence can function precisely like that. This is because God's providence extends to the _sufficiency_ of Scripture. Sufficiency means that we have everything for final salvation, life and godliness in the biblical text. Minor discrepancies may exist in the ET (let's just say for argument's sake) but not ones that affect eternal life and godliness.

This has been my point all along. No key doctrines that affect our life and godliness are called into question if we use either the CT or ET. If they were then someone please show me, I genuinely would like to know.

God bless.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Marty:

I think your question is a bit understated. If we, for example, cut out a whole book of the Bible - like 3 John for example - "would any doctrine of the Bible be affected?"

I would assume that you would say "no."

Would we have done gross violation against the Scripture?

I would assume that you would say "yes."

If the whole Bible is inspired by God, and God took the pains to preserve it, then why would you want to "change" the Greek text by using one that God did not seek to preserve?

You wrote above:



> My point all along was simply that if the issue were as critical as some people make out then there would be obvious evidence in godliness, given that the truth should lead to godliness. That's all.


I don't know how you measure "godliness" nor do I know how one can judge another more godlier than the other. If we pointed out ungodliness in ESV users, then you will point out ungodliness in KJV users. Your "point" is irrelevant.

I think that if we did a study in history we would find that the Church was much healthier, stronger in proclaiming the Gospel, and more influential in society 100 years ago than it is today. But you would say that to lay the fault at the feet of the Critical Text is a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ (not _non_ by the way) fallacy: "after this therefore because of this."

Can one make a causal connection between the growing acceptance of the Critical Text and religious decline? If the foundation of the Church is undermined, then what can one expect of the Church? Though there may be many factors resulting in religious decline it seems that one of the seminal components of it is a degradation of the Scriptures.

C.H. Spurgeon fought tooth and nail against those who would "Downgrade" the Scriptures. One of Spurgeon's good friends, Robert Shindler wrote:



> The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. "To the law and to the testimony," is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him. In looking carefully over the history of the times, and the movement of the times, of which we have written briefly, this fact is apparent: that where ministers and Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischief's have been the result, Shindler, Robert, _The Down-Grade_, The Sword and the Trowel, April 1887, 166.


I am quite convinced that defection from the Word of God is the main determinant in religious decline. The Critical Text is more insidious than anything that has gone before because it is only 80% of the Bible. The problem is not with "doctrine" it is with the Word of God that produces the doctrine.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

And two more cents from me also, Marty. I do appreciate your irenic attitude, by the way.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Steve,
> 
> Yes, God's providence can function precisely like that. This is because God's providence extends to the _sufficiency_ of Scripture. Sufficiency means that we have everything for final salvation, life and godliness in the biblical text….
> 
> This has been my point all along. No key doctrines that affect our life and godliness are called into question if we use either the CT or ET. If they were then someone please show me, I genuinely would like to know.



This is nuanced. I agree that CT users can be as godly as TR users, and that the _sufficiency_ of Scripture is such that even the texttype with a lot of it deleted can sustain the faith and spiritual vitality of those who use it with confidence. You won’t get an argument from me there.

Though I say that God’s providence extends to _more_ than just the _sufficiency_ of Scripture, even when slightly mutilated; it extends to its preservation – its being kept intact – in the minutiae. And _this_ is the doctrine of Providential Preservation _proper_. Why does this view matter? 

When you shoot a rifle at a target one foot in front of the barrel, at a bulls-eye 3 inches in diameter, and the barrel is ¼ inch off center, you will still hit the bulls-eye, but a little to the side. When you increase the distance to twenty feet, the bullet will not even hit the target. The principle is that distance increases the amount of deviation.

This is the problem so many disregard. They live only for today, for themselves, without regard to the effect of their _slightly_ errant doctrine. The effect is so _slight_ in the short distance of the present and near future, that they don’t calculate what it will mean for those who reap the logical, inevitable consequences of that _seemingly_ small error in another generation. It is so slight now they won’t even acknowledge it _as_ error. It is just a difference in opinion, of no significance.

There is a falling away from the purity of the Gospel. It is less pronounced in many Reformed communions, but it is happening here as well. At a certain point – attended by certain “markers” – a church apostatizes. As Robert W. pointed out above, a defection from the word of God – caused by a loss of confidence in it – is the main determinant in religious decline.

Before death one appears to have but a small illness. No big deal, we say. But time will tell.

And those of us who see this coming must speak out. For there are many who hear these words and take them to heart.

Shelly,

If these things I and others say distress you, there are other options if the KJV is too baggage-laden for you: there are the Modern King James Version, and the NKJV, and the Geneva Bible. And as others have pointed out (myself included) the Lord can sustain you using the ESV.

Steve


----------



## staythecourse

*Byzantines and smoothing text..*

The texts were later. Hard to understand readings in a passage were often smoothed out to make it easier to understand (though I believe often misleading).

If I had a Bible hobby, it would be text criticism. I enjoy trying to find what the autographs might have said in a passage. This can only be interpolated by what's been dug up from the sands or been pulled out of monastary trashcans (some in the process of being burned by the monks!) but it's is really enjoyable to do.

Take this article for example, against a Byzantine rendering:

http://www.csntm.org/essays/1thess3.2.pdf

It shows probable smoothing in Byzantine texts. Well-meaning scribes had to make a choice based on what they had as reference and put both known textual variants together.

Or consider John 3:13 KJV



> And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.



The Net Bible says on this:



> Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A[*] Θ Ψ 050 Ë1,13 Ï latt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven.” A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e syc), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì66,75 א B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading " who is in heaven" is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem.



All those symbols are numbers/letters refer to remarkable old fragments, parts of Bibles, parchments, lexicons, etc. They're in vaults or behind glass somewhere in many cases.

Here, I believe that Jesus was saying He was in Heaven and on Earth simultaneously. For me I see him in the Father in Heaven while walking the Earth. It's a harder read but a good rule of thumb is, "the harder read is may be more accurate to the autograph due to the temptation to smooth for understandability."

My favorite scribal editory addition (in my opinion) is at the end of Mark. It is as if some scribe had a few, was frustrated with the non-ending of Mark and said, "I'll fix this. Gimme that quill, Jerome."



> [[Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons. 16:10 She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 16:11 And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
> 
> 16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. 16:13 They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; 10 16:18 (_takes another swig_) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; 11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.]]


"There, that fixes THAT! We know that's pretty much what happened, right Jerry? We did our readers a favor. They oughta canonize us."

So what do I do? I prefer the NASB but I read USB Greek New Testament as I learn Greek more seeing what variations exists. The scribes were people just like us and struggled to help later generations with both accuracy and understandability of Scripture knowing they would be before God explaining their efforts someday. God bless them. Except for those that tried to "help" the text, we owe them much. They kept the Scripture Dove-soap pure (99.9+%)


----------



## KMK

staythecourse said:


> The scribes were people just like us and struggled to help later generations with both accuracy and understandability of Scripture knowing they would be before God explaining their efforts someday. God bless them. Except for those that tried to "help" the text, we owe them much. They kept the Scripture Dove-soap pure (99.9+%)



So did the scribes keep Scripture pure or did they corrupt it? I am confused.

Do you agree with WCF 1:8?



> ...being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...


----------



## staythecourse

*Not entirely pure: 1689 Confession*



> The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the *more sure *establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.



Discrepencies were already known to exist at his time. The Holy Scripture is most assuredly infallible. Scribes made mistakes occasionally. We (men today) have to find the mistakes and interpolate back to the infallible autographs.

That's my stance on infallibility of Scripture.


----------



## KMK

staythecourse said:


> Discrepencies were already known to exist at his time. The Holy Scripture is most assuredly infallible. Scribes made mistakes occasionally. We (men today) have to find the mistakes and interpolate back to the infallible autographs.
> 
> That's my stance on infallibility of Scripture.



So you hold to 1:1 of the 1689, but not entirely to 1:8. You do believe that there is an inspired word of God out there somewhere but it was not preserved in the Byzantine. Is this correct?

Who are the 'we' that must 'find mistakes' and 'interpolate'? Is it all Christians as individuals or is it the church as a whole?


----------



## staythecourse

*More thoroughly*

The assumption by the men who made the 1689 was that God kept the Word in tact verbatim in the original languages. I would want Scripture to verify that He would keep his word in tact verbatim and in whole.

I believe corruption is to be expected (and is found today in variants). It is found in Byzantine documents as well. I believe constant work on finding the original words in needed and to be blessed by the church to validate what exists or discredit it. I believe our text today has no significant errors due to the work of saintly men. If there are apparent errors, I say, "The Word is right. I am wrong. I have questions because of my limited understanding due to inherent sin in me and/or discrepencies in the text. I am called to find the Word and obey it and settle questions as to what the Word says."

If the texts we have are corrupt but all the verbage exists in some form even through variants, the church (made of of individuals who may be more gifted in this area) can discern what the truth is by analyzing them and compile the text to its original form.

If the texts we have are not corrupt, the same procedure would have taken place in the complilation of, for example, the authorized King James Bible. Those men, having the influence of the Holy Spirit in them, were able to compile a very good text that was accurate based on material they had available to them.

We now have more. We have more and older texts, spread across geography and time, some closer to the original in chronology and geography. That carries significant weight to many, including myself. We can go outside the NT writings for clarification. Wording, for example, that may not have been clear in 1611 can now be more clearly understood as Koine greek documents outside Scripture are applied to contemporary meanings of words. I can come up with examples if you like and would enjoy the search but it would not hinder my faith. It would help it.

We have a new wealth if information given by God to help us find Him in His Word. That information can refine translations as men of God apply their special skills (archaeology, linguistics, history, etc) to the work of improving already accurate translations.

So, my stance is there is a pure Word out there. It exists in the texts already extant. It may not have been compiled yet. The translations we have are very accurate and can lead us to salvation in Christ. Choose a Bible wisely and if we preach, stay with it as long as you can in good conscience for the good of the sheep. Use multiple translations in preaching and learn Greek and Hebrew if you can and really want to for the sake of others.

Does that answer your questions? I enjoy refining my own understanding of what I have concluded.


----------



## MW

staythecourse said:


> We now have more. We have more and older texts, spread across geography and time, some closer to the original in chronology and geography. That carries significant weight to many, including myself.



Why does it carry significant weight? Those well versed in textual criticism know that the divergent readings arose by 200AD. It does not matter how many mss. we find, or even how early they might be. Our earliest papyri speak gobbledygook, as any one will tell you who has examined them. The only time sense can be made out of them is when they agree with already existing readings, that is, readings which are derived from younger mss. But if that is the case, the oldest mss. are not the most reliable, contrary to popular belief.

The sifting of the ms. evidence comes back to what one believes those mss. contain. It is not a matter of counting or dating mss., but of holding in one's hand the living and abiding Word of God. One does not have to fetch this Word from the depths of the earth. That word is nigh thee. As believers we must start from the presupposition that we HAVE the Word of God, and must therefore rule out the idea that we are yet to FIND it.


----------



## KMK

I appreciate your candor and your desire to see the Word of God (whatever that is) preached. 

One of the problems I have with this line of reasoning is this:

First you say...



staythecourse said:


> *I* am called to find the Word and obey it and settle questions as to what the Word says.



Then you say...



staythecourse said:


> If the texts we have are corrupt but all the verbage exists in some form even through variants, the *church* (made of of individuals who may be more gifted in this area) can discern what the truth is by analyzing them and compile the text to its original form.



Who decides what the Word of God is? Does the burden fall on the individual Christian to decide for themselves based on their own research on the issue, or does the burden fall on the church which is made up of *gifted individuals*.

in my opinion, if it is the former then there is no hope of for 99% of Christians ever having surity that they possess the inspired Word of God. It must be the latter, and if so, the church already declared her position hundreds of years ago. 

If the English speaking church wants to get together and come up with a Version that she believes is better and more reliable than the AV, then I am all for it. But that is not the direction we are heading. We are moving in a direction where every Christian must do the research themselves and conclude for themselves what the Word of God is and they better not try to influence anyone else or they will be labled some kind of 'onlyist'.


----------



## staythecourse

*I understand your presuposition*

But I don't agree with it at least in the way you present it, I suppose, pastor.

Does Scriputure tell us that God will not let his word get corrupted in written form and to be passed through the ages uncorrupted in written form?

I don't think it does so I am a skeptic to any particular version as being authoritative. I see good men of God, taking what's out there, unafraid of what they might find, and chiseling away with their knowledge at creating the best translation out there based on all the known evidence they can get their hands on.

My presuppostion is that textual corruption will come and has. Thankfully, throughout church history, men were taught, saved and grew under good texts despite corruption. Apparently I don't trust one text and you do. I may misunderstand your stance on that. I believe Satan is at work in corrupting the written word, succeeded at times, and we (the church) pieced very accurate translations together.

I am not sure I follow you on your analysis of textual criticism. Even if you use the 1611 as an example, they compilied the book based on a variety of manuscripts which, even then, represented text over geography and time, even if they stayed within the Byz. family. They had to choose what verses were corrupt and uncorrupt and performed rudimentary (though still sophiticated for the time and surely better my weak abilities ever will be) textual criticism.

I can cite an example where the very scribe that heard Paul's words miswrote. To me it's fascinating and shows the value of grammar.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1159 

In short, the textual evidence and grammar support "we have peace with God" and not "Let us have peace with God."

1. Grammar: 'Let us have" and "we have" sound exactly the same in Greek.
2. Grammar: "Let us have peace with God" is a problem as it implies we don't have it when we certainly _do _have it by faith. "let us have peace" has no sense to it theologically as Paul is building an argument as to out position and not a feeling.
3. Textually: The difference came so early in the writing, split down the middle in Bzy, Alexandrian and the like, that it may have happened at the onset of the letter so that the autograph itself had to be corrected. The spoken word was right, but corruption came fast and early.

Meat and potatoes to me. I want to know the truth. Here the KJV is most likely right.

The apparant addition of the Comma Johanneum is an example of gloss in KJV text - added verbage to promote a view on a topic.




> “5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” --NET Bible





> For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV



Wallace writes:



> Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
> 
> In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.
> 
> Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.



I don't mean to agitate, pastor. I only mean to bring up that men are fighting for the true readings to this day. It's not an evil but a good.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

StaytheCourse:

I cannot reply to your whole post, but I will answer, in part at least, the article you cite concerning 1 Thess. 3:2.

The assumption of the author is that the Byzantine text was a "smoothing" of the Western and Alexandrian Texts on this passage. It is an assumption that is unproved. In order to make such a statement the author of the article would have to have read the mind of a scribe who died about 1500 years ago. Since the author of the article cannot read my mind, and I am a contemporary of his, then how can we think that he is able to read the mind of someone who died years ago?

The assumption of the author is that the Western and Alexandrian texts are "older" than the Byzantine. Yet, it has been shown here, and on other threads, that Byzantine readings of the Scriptures go back to the very beginnings of the 2nd Century AD. The Old Italic, for example, is decidedly Byzantine in nature - despite protests to the contrary. The Reformers dated the Old Italic to about 123 AD. This is earlier than either the Western or Alexandrian texts.

Based on this evidence the Western and Alexandrian texts at 1 Thess. 3:2 is a revision of the Byzantine text, and the Byzantine is not a "smoothing."

As far as John 3:13 is concerned: The Textus Receptus uses the word "who" not "which" in the text, and reads:

"the son of man who is in heaven."

The Critical Text philosophy follows a series of false assumptions that have been disproven over the last 100 years or so:

*Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,* Col. 2:8.

The Critical Text philosophy tickles the intellect, and it entices with its "scientific" accuracy. However, it is a false philosophy that will lead you astray from Christ in the end.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## staythecourse

*Mr. Wieland brother, you're using science, too.*

Crude forensics is what we are employing. You and I are coming to conclusions using evidence outside Scripture to support our points.

If you gave me a verse that convinced me the autographs would be copied without error till today I would drop this good discussion.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

StaytheCourse:

*For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, *1 Peter 1:24,25.

*Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away,* Mark 13:31.

*Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,* Matt. 28:20.

*For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven,* Ps. 119:89.

*For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things; God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,* Rev. 22:18,19.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Bryan,

To answer some of your posts, starting from the top (#109):



staythecourse said:


> Take this article for example, against a Byzantine rendering:
> 
> http://www.csntm.org/essays/1thess3.2.pdf
> 
> It shows probable smoothing in Byzantine texts. Well-meaning scribes had to make a choice based on what they had as reference and put both known textual variants together.



Notwithstanding your quoting from a well-known text critic (DW), the _operative_ word in your view of this Scripture is *“probable”*. It is a mere surmise, and that based upon a text critical methodology often (as in “almost always”) in conflict with more substantial evidences, as external attestation. As though the apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could not write elegant or “smooth” Greek!

You move on:



staythecourse said:


> Or consider John 3:13 KJV
> 
> “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.”
> 
> The Net Bible says on this: [and we have a quote from it doubting its genuineness — see the earlier post. -SMR]
> 
> All those symbols are numbers/letters refer to remarkable old fragments, parts of Bibles, parchments, lexicons, etc. They're in vaults or behind glass somewhere in many cases.
> 
> Here, I believe that Jesus was saying He was in Heaven and on Earth simultaneously. For me I see him in the Father in Heaven while walking the Earth. It's a harder read but a good rule of thumb is, "the harder read is may be more accurate to the autograph due to the temptation to smooth for understandability."



Again, you have this “the harder reading is apt to be the genuine one,” an axiom strongly (and effectively) contested as false by many text critics.

It is generally well known that the versions based upon the CT omit the last phrase, “which is in heaven.” There is a ton of second-rate textual theories available on the net (and in books), almost all of it derivative of the Westcott-Hort paradigm. A veritable Critical Text Industry has arisen giving jobs to a multitude of academicians whose bent is the deconstruction of the Traditional Text, as well as publishers making fortunes on what used to be the sacred volume entrusted to the Church – but now in the hands of others.

Bear with me, please, while I post here Rev. John Burgon’s response to the Critical Text of Dr. Hort on this phrase:

At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse, (‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—_which is in heaven_’) is not found in ‘many ancient authorities.’ But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not _also_ reminded that this…is _a circumstance of no Textual significance whatever?_

Why above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (o wn en tw ouranw) is found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthioptic,—and Arminian?—is either quoted or insisted on by Origen,—Hippolytus,—Athanasius,—Didymus,—Aphraates the Persian,—Basil the Great,—Epiphanius,—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,—Eustathius; —by Chrysostom,—Theodoret,—and Cyril,—each 4 times; —by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa (in a sermon on Christmas day, A.D. 431); —by Theodorus Mops.,—Amphliochius,—Severus,—Theodorus Heracl.,—Basilius Cil.,—Cosmas,—John Damascene, in 3 places,—and 4 other ancient Greek writers; —besides Ambrose,—Novatian,—Hilary,—Lucifer,—Victorinus,—Jerome,—Cassian,—Vigilius,—Zeno,—Marius,—Maximus,—Taur.,—Capreolus,—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short is _quite above suspicion_: why are we not told _that?_ Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—_why_, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?*…. Shame, — yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who, —finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct “_plain and clear errors_” in the _English_ ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit! Shame, —yes, _shame_ upon them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin…of S. John iii. 13 encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in [this] place…Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words o wn en tw ouranw which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of “_fearless_”!

---------
*[Burgon’s footnote] Let the reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several Versions above enumerated, and mentally assign each Father to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant Manuscripts agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them are found to be quite alike._ —Next, let him consider that, _in all the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week._ —This done, ;et him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—‘Western And Syrian.’

Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that ‘_the character of the attestation_ marks’ the clause (o wn en tw ouranw) ‘as a Western Gloss.’ But the ‘attestation’ for retaining that clause—_(a)_ Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom: —_(b)_ Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it: —_(c)_ Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1: — _(d)_ In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone… [W]e have _proved_ that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, _recognize_ the words in dispute… About the _internal_ evidence for the clause, nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our cause on _External Evidence_; —on Copies, on Versions, on Fathers. (From Burgon's, _The Revision Revised_, pp. 132-135)​
-------------

While there may be a few more mss discoveries available which bear on this verse than in Burgon's day, the proportion will remain the same, as it is a question of the majority text and the fractional variants. If need be, we will discuss Hort's (now defunct and widely discredited) "Antiochian rescension theory," in which he attempted to discredit the overwhelming numerical superiority — and "weightiness" — of the Traditional or Byzantine textform.

Bryan, regarding your “favorite scribal editory addition” (Mark 16:9-20), may I suggest looking at this post on the topic.

Are you familiar with Rev. John William Burgon’s writings? You may find them interesting, albeit against the grain of much lesser quality stuff which abounds.

Steve


----------



## JM

Rev. Winzer & Mr. Rafalsky, thank you for your posts I've enjoyed reading them.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Jason.

Bryan,

In your post #116 you cite a paper of Wallace’s where _he_ admits his thoughts are “speculative” but _you_ think of them as “gospel”: “I can cite an example where the very scribe that heard Paul's words miswrote. To me it's fascinating and shows the value of grammar.” This is not careful inquiry to me.

You asked Robert W. (CalvinandHodges) in post #119 for a verse that said the Scriptures would be copied without error till today. I would posit these two verses from Psalm 12:

6. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​
The problem is that only the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, and early Reformation Bibles have this reading. I submit a post that examines the linguistic controversy around this passage:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=196640&postcount=26

(For those who failed to access the Moorman link to his article on Ps 12:6, 7, it moved: http://www.feasite.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm)

Would you accept Isaiah 59:21?

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.​
Or Matthew 4:4:

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.​The question is how literally are we to take these sayings? If it is indeed _every_ word we are to live by, it falls to reason He would preserve every word. I read Matthew 24:35 in that light:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.​
On another point, seeing Dr. Wallace’s remarks about Erasmus – and seeing you are strongly under the influence of Wallace – I shall attempt to correct some misinformation about Erasmus that is widely believed, in another post addressing that (you see, we have been busy on this board dealing with such things!): 

 http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=196909&postcount=27

You said to Robert W. “Crude forensics is what we are employing. You and I are coming to conclusions using evidence outside Scripture to support our points.”

Well, that is the problem with textual criticism, we deal with the history of the text after it was written! The textual and historical data is available to all who seek it (though not all seek it thoroughly), but how we interpret this information is determined by our presuppositions, and for some of us these presuppositions _are_ based on Scripture. For others their presuppositions are based on the reliability of (purported) scientific method in discerning a neutral (uncorrupted) Biblical text. One might fairly say that the former is a view “theologically driven,” but I would deny that such involves circular reasoning (as Wallace states). For do we not all have as reigning presupposition that there is an infinite personal God who has revealed Himself to us in His word spoken through His chosen men, and inscripturated, and that His word is true? Thus we discount evolutionary theory because He has told us how He created all things. And so on. We view the matter of God’s preservation of the Biblical texts in light of our presupposition, based on His word, that He would and did do so. Thus we seek to discern His hand in this matter.

It will not do to say that one _must_ know Hebrew and Greek to master this field, because highly trained and knowledgeable experts in these languages disagree with one another.

One does not have to be a mechanic to know the production history – including minute components – of a Mercedes compared to a Ford, and the relative merits of each on the road.

When we “use evidence” it is to illustrate our presupposition, that is, God’s promises.

Steve


----------



## staythecourse

*Taking a break*

I've read your posts gents and apprecite your good efforts to not let higher criticism pull me into a heresy.

Taking a break for now.

God bless.


----------

