Problems with the modern text-critical approach and the ESV

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim,

In the interests of transparency – flying my colors fully – I’d like to give an idea of some of the nuances of my view.

Though as Paul F. said, it is a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism” just because many of them hold to it. As I mentioned earlier, Will Kinney, a Calvinist (whether paedo or credo, I don’t know), holds to it with excellent scholarship.

Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:

[From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​

* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.​

Letis is one of the best resources for understanding the historical background of the textual criticism of the Reformers and the post-reformation divines, and their views of the TR and the KJV.

I have suspended my judgment between the two schools (I have made this clear elsewhere), as I ponder them. For instance, where Turretin disallows Cainan in Luke 3:36, I find the work of Floyd Nolan Jones far more reasonable (see here) and in accord with the presuppositions of providential preservation.

There is the more abstract realm of presuppositions, and the “down-in-the-trenches” realm of dealing with each contested textual reading. The VPP – and especially the brilliant IFBs – school excel in researching and defending individual TR and KJV texts. Though Burgon excels by far most other scholars in his defenses of numerous TR texts. Still, he was more a Majority Text man than a strict TR defender, yet he was loath to have the TR and AV changed, as he knew it would likely do damage rather than better them. Hills, by the way, was a Presbyterian (J. Gresham Machen a powerful early influence on his spiritual life). Perhaps the best writing on the life and development of Hills is Letis’ essay in his book, Edward Freer Hills’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text.

I continue researching and studying particular textual problems – both OT and New – and likely will till the Lord calls me home. By the way, Tim, this “King James Onlyism” [the proper spelling], is, in my case – as I’ve made known a number of times – properly called, the “King James priority” school, if you are indeed interested in showing the nuances rather than an erroneous and simplistic black and white stereotype. I bring this up as there are KJO folks who disallow the validity of Bibles not KJV, and I am not of that bent. I have taken pains to establish this. I may call readings or variants in those Bibles invalid, but not the Bibles in their entirety. The “King James Onlyism” jargon completely misrepresents the distinction I labor mightily to establish. You wouldn’t misrepresent someone deliberately, would you? I didn’t think so, as I believe you are a man of integrity.

 

[TimV]

"Though as Paul F. said, it is a mocking slur to label the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) school as the “Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism”"

I was super careful from the start to say "largely", and I didn't feel it necessary to express that caveat after the first half dozen times. Ferguson's argument seems to be something like "Out of the 50 top proponents of my school of thought, only 47 are Fundy Baptists, therefore you are mistaken". I may be wrong on that, however.

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

That would be an interesting and helpful quote to look into. Calvin quotes Erasmus (it's on this thread) as saying John 8:59 should be read as it is today in my ESV. If that's true, Erasmus has to be taken off that list. John Trapp quotes Beza as saying Cainaan should not appear in Luke 3:36. If true, Beza has to be taken off the list. Trapp's wrong on a lot of things, though.
EDIT: I misread the above statement. He's using Owen alone, rather than the others as holding to a TR only position. So, we can put Owen on the other list, as the first name.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

PS I did some thinking last night about Ferguson's "if they were alive today they'd see it my way" theory. So Gill, Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Henry, Poole and everyone else I've seen who in places chose readings not in any published TR editions or even MT compilations would have "seen the light" if they were alive today.

I have a friend who is push a Federal Vision agenda here and he uses the same argument. My old Pastor Rushdoony would have hated the FV. If nothing else, the stupid new definitions they use like "elect" meaning everyone baptised would have filled him with contempt. I spent a lot of time showing J. that this would have been the case, but he just sticks up his nose and says "he's dead, so you can't prove me wrong".

I thought the burden of proof in that case would have been on him. But I confess I don't even know how to begin dealing with that mentality. How do you reason against it? Calvin said "no, the TR is just wrong". Ferguson says "If Calvin would have been alive today he would have been on board with my largely Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlyism". What gives?

 

[ThomasCartwright]

I was super careful from the start to say "largely", and I didn't feel it necessary to express that caveat after the first half dozen times. Ferguson's argument seems to be something like "Out of the 50 top proponents of my school of thought, only 47 are Fundy Baptists, therefore you are mistaken". I may be wrong on that, however.

Actually what you said was that about me was that my view was "with the Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlism that you champion." There was no "largely" or other qualification in it. It was a cheap shot trying to poison the wells. As I pointed out, you view is in line with the BJU Baptist Fundy School of MultiVersionOnlism. So what does that prove?

PS I did some thinking last night about Ferguson's "if they were alive today they'd see it my way" theory. So Gill, Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Henry, Poole and everyone else I've seen who in places chose readings not in any published TR editions or even MT compilations would have "seen the light" if they were alive today.

I thought the burden of proof in that case would have been on him. But I confess I don't even know how to begin dealing with that mentality. How do you reason against it? Calvin said "no, the TR is just wrong". Ferguson says "If Calvin would have been alive today he would have been on board with my largely Fundy Baptist school of KJVOnlyism". What gives?

That is exactly my point - neither of us can be definitive on what Calvin would have decided if he was living in our day. He died in 1564 so how you can be sure what he would have regarded the final edition of the TR coupled with 400 years of Providential blessing on the 1611 KJV is beyond me. We do know that he regarded the Traditional Text as the uncorrupted authentical fount. We do know that he regarded the TR edition of his day as needing some minor amendments (most of which were later picked up in future TR editions). All of us here agree with him on that!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David (Grimmson),

In your post #113 you say,

I think the text has been preserved throughout time by the Holy Spirit, and in some cases added to by the traditions of man. I think John 5:4 is a perfect example of that, along with John 7:53-8:11. What needs to be done is to shave off these man-made traditions in scripture.

You wanna “shave off” these passages from my Bible? Or at least say they oughta be? I can’t let that slide!

John 7:53–8:11 I gave a defense for here, so I’d like to talk about John 5:4.

In your post #116 you seem to have a high esteem for Westcott and Hort (W&H) and their two favorite mss, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] or aleph). I appreciate that you have a scholarly approach, but I wonder how exposed you have been to critiques of W&H and B & [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]. There are some pretty monstrous worms in them apples! But first to John 5:4. Later for the worms.


In his book, The King James Version Defended, chapter 6, Dr. Edward F. Hills writes,

2. The Angel At The Pool (John 5:3b-4)

The next test passage in which the Traditional reading ought to be examined is John 5:3b-4, the account of the descent of the angel into the pool of Bethesda. For the benefit of the reader this disputed reading is here given in its context.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 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. 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, He saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? 7 The impotent man answered Him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked.​

The words in italics (vss. 3b-4) are omitted by Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B C, a few minuscules, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, the Bodmer Bohairic, and a few Old Latin manuscripts. This disputed reading, however, has been defended not only by conservatives such as Hengstenberg (1861) (13) but also by radicals such as A. Hilgenfeld (1875) (14) and R. Steck (1893). (15) Hengstenberg contends that "the words are necessarily required by the connection," quoting with approval the remark of von Hofmann (an earlier commentator) that it is highly improbable "that the narrator, who has stated the site of the pool and the number of the porches, should be so sparing of his words precisely with regard to that which it is necessary to know in order to understand the occurrence, and should leave the character of the pool and its healing virtue to be guessed from the complaint of the sick man, which presupposes a knowledge of it." Hilgenfeld and Steck also rightly insist that the account of the descent of the angel into the pool in verse 4 is presupposed in the reply which the impotent man makes to Jesus in verse 7.

Certain of the Church Fathers attached great importance to this reference to the angel's descent into the pool (John 5:3b-4), attributing to it the highest theological significance. The pool they regarded as a type of baptism and the angel as the precursor of the Holy Spirit. Such was the interpretation which Tertullian (c. 200) gave to this passage. "Having been washed," he writes, "in the water by the angel, we are prepared for the Holy Spirit.'' (16) Similarly, Didymus (c 379) states that the pool was "confessedly an image of baptism" and the angel troubling the water "a forerunner of the Holy Spirit.'' (17) And the remarks of Chrysostom (c. 390) are to the same effect. (18) These writers, at least, appear firmly convinced that John 5:3b-4 was a genuine portion of the New Testament text. And the fact that Tatian (c. 175) included this reading in his Diatessaron also strengthens the evidence for its genuineness by attesting its antiquity. (19)

Thus both internal and external evidence favor the authenticity of the allusion to the angel's descent into the pool. Hilgenfeld (20) and Steck (21) suggest a very good explanation for the absence of this reading from the documents mentioned above as omitting it. These scholars point out that there was evidently some discussion in the Church during the 2nd century concerning the existence of this miracle working pool. Certain early Christians seem to have been disturbed over the fact that such a pool was no longer to be found at Jerusalem. Tertullian explained the absence of this pool by supposing that God had put an end to its curative powers in order to punish the Jews for their unbelief. (22) However, this answer did not satisfy everyone, and so various attempts were made to remove the difficulty through conjectural emendation. In addition to those documents which omit the whole reading there are others which merely mark it for omission with asterisks and obels. Some scribes, such as those that produced A and L, omitted John 5:3b, waiting for the moving of the water, but did not have the courage to omit John 5:4, For an angel . . . whatever disease he had. Other scribes, like those that copied out D and W omitted John 5:4 but did not see the necessity of omitting John 5:3b. A and L and about 30 other manuscripts add the genitive of the Lord after angel, and various other small variations were introduced. That the whole passage has been tampered with by rationalistic scribes is shown by the various spellings of the name of the pool, Bethesda, Bethsaida, Bethzatha, etc. In spite of this, however, John 5:3b-4 has been preserved virtually intact in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts (Traditional Text).​

For footnotes see here. For full table of contents, here.

Burgon, noting the utter disarray of discordant readings in the extreme minority variants at John 5:4, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]BCD, remarks, “When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you believe them?” (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, p. 83.)

With the exception of these few extreme minority variants, the vast – overwhelming – majority of Greek manuscripts retain the Traditional Text reading.

So it behooves us to look a lot more closely at Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]). Now, David, if you really have a hankering to do some shaving on the Bible, I’d suggest you start at the ESV’s (and the underlying Vaticanus’) travesty of the true record in the genealogy of Christ at Matthew 1:7 & 10, where it puts the psalmist Asaph and the prophet Amos in place of the rightful Asa and Amon, and which aberrant reading Metzger had the nerve to say was the reading of the autograph, and that Matthew just made a mistake. Regarding this matter I’ll reintroduce something I said earlier:

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1897)]. (From the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, the essay by James A. Borland, “Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy” [reprinted from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission].

One of the things Borland wrote about was the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos in Christ’s genealogy, alleged by text-critics to be error in the original autograph. Borland’s remarks in this thread, starting at post 40. It’s very interesting reading, for those who want some background of Westcott and Hort and their “choice” mss.

Before we take a look at those mss., I want to look at something you said (still in your post #113):

And I do accept verbal plenary inspiration from the Holy Spirit by the original authors of the original autographs of scripture, which is one reason why I have a high respect for the LXX. I do believe that the Holy Sprit guided the words that the authors were using by their own use of style to communicate what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate. . .

It’s not really clear if you’re talking about the Holy Spirit guiding the writers of the LXX, though it does look like that, in what I’ve quoted, and in the rest of the paragraph. In the OT it was only the Levites / priests who were authorized to keep, maintain, and reproduce the Scriptures. The translators of the LXX (of which there were many and varied) were not authorized, and mainly did a very poor job, save perhaps in the books of the Pentateuch, which are considered to be better than the rest. Yet even these are not the authorized and inspired word of God.

Looking now at the manuscripts B and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], I am going to repost something from a thread of some 4 plus years ago, “Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?” The following is from post #14 in that thread (in the event anyone want to read further in it):

---------

It is noteworthy how few people are familiar with the works which examine the alleged “most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” that the Critical Text (CT) is based upon, which latter derives in the main from the Westcott and Hort (W&H) Greek text of 1881.

The quote above is from the margin note found in the NIV, and meant to indicate the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20. The margin notes in the NASB and ESV are similar and to the same effect, the CT being the Greek they are also based upon.

The primary, and almost exclusive “ancient witnesses” that omit these 12 verses are codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]) or aleph, after the first Hebrew letter, both of Alexandrian origin. Without looking at their origins in detail at this time, they were very likely Egyptian manuscripts modified by Origen, or at least accepted by him, and made into the official NT text by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339) when Constantine requested 50 Bibles of him, due to the scarcity of Scripture after the destruction of churches, Bibles, and believers in the reign of Diocletian and his 10 years of horrific persecution (302-312). The fierce conflict in the days of Eusebius between the orthodox Christians and the Arians and Sabellians led to the manuscripts being tampered with for doctrinal reasons, as has been documented.

More to the point for the purposes of this thread is how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in a two-volume study. The first is titled, Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], but covering three thousand differences between and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt. . . . 656+
Mark . . . 567+
Luke . . . 791+
John . . . 1022+

Total . . . 3036+ (2)​

Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, the foundation of W&H’s critical text.
----------
(1) Codex B And Its Allies, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such unreliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, and the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

---------

Rather than clutter up this present post with too much verbiage, I’ll just give the links to two following posts in the “Westcott and Hort manuscripts” thread, post #21 and post #25.

I may print some more material from these posts later, but not now. This stuff hasn’t seen the light of day for a number of years.

------

I won't be back till later Sunday (eastern Mediterranean time).

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Case in point, John 5.4 has the testimony of the Syriac Peshitta, which dates it to the 2nd century, so the date test weighs in its favor.

First, Syriac Peshitta is not from the second century, but instead fourth to fifth century. See New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, by Philip W. Comfort (p. xxxiii) and The Reference Charts of New Testament Criticism, by Roy M. Clampa (p. 21-makes the calm it is from the 5th century). Also to be found at (WAM) Reference Charts for New Teastament Textual Criticism - Roy M Clampa .

It has the testimony of Tertullian, of Jerome's critical work, and of the entire Byzantine tradition, and of Codex A.

Now I made the claim earlier against Tertullian’s application of the text. The following comes from John 5:4:

for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.


This is what Tertullian said (in the surrounding context), to be found in On Baptism chapter 5:

“Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.” (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites—of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged, we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of God, while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects. What similarity is there? The unclean cleanses! the ruiner sets free! the damned absolves! He will, forsooth, destroy his own work, by washing away the sins which himself inspires! These (remarks) have been set down by way of testimony against such as reject the faith; if they put no trust in the things of God, the spurious imitations of which, in the case of God’s rival, they do trust in. Are there not other cases too, in which, without any sacrament, unclean spirits brood on waters, in spurious imitation of that brooding of the Divine Spirit in the very beginning? Witness all shady founts, and all unfrequented brooks, and the ponds in the baths, and the conduits in private houses, or the cisterns and wells which are said to have the property of “spiriting away,” through the power, that is, of a hurtful spirit. Men whom waters have drowned or affected with madness or with fear, they call nymph-caught, or “lymphatic,” or “hydro-phobic.” Why have we adduced these instances? Lest any think it too hard for belief that a holy angel of God should grant his presence to waters, to temper them to man’s salvation; while the evil angel holds frequent profane commerce with the selfsame element to man’s ruin. If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men, an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They who were wont to remedy bodily defects, now heal the spirit; they who used to work temporal salvation now renew eternal; they who did set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body daily, death being done away through ablution of sins. The guilt being removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be restored for God to His “likeness,” who in days bygone had been conformed to “the image” of God; (the “image” is counted (to be) in his form: the “likeness” in his eternity for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but had afterward lost through sin.

As you can see it is not a direct scriptural quotation, but instead the earliest known source for this tradition in the patristic writings. It is not dealing with the exergesis of John 5, instead is concerned with reinforcing his mystical view of salvation in contrast to unclean sprits and Mystery Cult baptisms.

I do not have time to track down Jerome, but Chysostom who is earlier then Jerome does not quote from it directly as well in regards to his homily of John 5. If you don’t believe me then look it up.

Because I do not see the text in scripture in the second century, but instead the tradition of the angel at the pool of Bethesda in the third leaves me to believe an infection of the manuscripts by the end of the fourth and fifth centuries starting to emerge. I would use Chrysostom and Syriac Peshitta as part of my evidence for such.

It has continuously been a part of the Greek New Testament in every age which it has been handed down, until the present day.

There no clear evidence of that in the textual traditions. Nor is it clear that in the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were scissor happy in my study of the documents thus far. Therefore I still hold to my position. By the way, Codex A is fifth century.

David,

I won't make this long, because JerusalemBlade already posted a lot of what I was going to write, and in greater detail than I would have, in response to you here. I find Burgon's treatment to be convincing on this verse. He is only one voice, but at a minimum he needs to be answered. He contends that the variation between the codices listed as against this verse vary too much among themselves to be reliable, as another poster has typed more fully.

The point I was making about historic continuity is this: Even you agree that this verse has come down to us from prior centuries in the church, since the 5th century at the latest. This 1500 years (minimum) of continuous use by the churches of this verse as God's holy word is significant testimony in its favor as being authentic.

As far as the Tertullian quote, (and Burgon lists other fathers from that era in addition to Tertullian who also quoted it according to his research,) he had to have gotten the idea of the angel from somewhere. What do you think he was quoting from, if this verse be not original?

As far as the Peshitta, since there is such a wealth of exemplars from the 5th century Aramaic-speaking churches (more numerous than we have of the Greek codexes up to that time) with so little textual variation, it seems most likely that what we have handed down to us is an accurate reproduction of the original Syriac translation of the New Testament, which would put it in the late first to early second century.

Again, I find the evidence against John 5:4 wanting, upon examination of the arguments, which leads me to not want it taken out of our Protestant Bibles.

 

[Grimmson]

The long response

I was wondering if someone was going to respond to my latest post here, because typically the more data I put up the less likely I am going to get a response. I also want to make it clear that the process of shaving off isn’t being done to get rid of the deity of Christ or deny his miracles or even to just shave something off of scripture. The issue is what exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references, not based on inserted man-made traditions. Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century.

I do not know where to begin in this post to respond to the esteemed Steve Rafalsky and also to Riley. I get the impression that Steve seems to think we have two different bibles as implied by the “my bible” and his issues with the use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and thus two different sets of scripture to the faithful; rejecting as it were the unity of the one faith that we all share in the Word of God. I want to make this clear that I see both sides as having the inspired word of God and some of what I see as accused of corruption of a text is not based on earlier standards; but instead more on modern standards. What I will do is cover some of the issues of 5:4, cover Matthew 1:7-8, 10, and then cover with in more detail the arguments presented against Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

I find it interesting that there is not in any biblical manuscript, and I mean fragment or codex of scripture, prior to fifth century that has John 5:4. There is no Jewish tradition that I have ran across in Josephus or in Qumran (including 3Q15- the treasure scroll known as the copper scroll), at least in the Qumran literature I have read, that contain the tradition of the angel going to Bethesda. The earliest reference that we have is Tertullian, third century, and I made it clear that he was not directly quoting scripture. I even cited and underlined it in post 119 for confirmation. So we see no reference to the tradition in the first century, or the second century and no Greek biblical manuscripts two centuries there after. Does this mean that cripples man wasn’t going to try to be healed going into the pool when the water was stirred? No, that not the case I am saying. I question that it was by the means of an angel that the water was stirred which is the main means pointed out in the verse. This notion of an angel over the waters goes back to the idea of pagan fonts blessed by spirits for healing and good fortune. Zavim Mishnah five of the Mishna gives mention of a place called Gad-Yawan, which may have been used as a place of healing; but only if the water is moving by Jewish tradition for the healing and would have been blessed by God or the patron god of that spring for the fulfillment of healing and blessing; in other words its pagan ideas, more particularly of Greek influence, entering in and not Christian or even early Jewish as reflected by the literature. And I find it interesting that this tradition doesn’t start to gain scriptural traction until about the time of the rise of the cult of the martyrs, which included the use of relics for healings, protection, and other blessings.

Another issues of concern is that the Syriac tradition is not consistent with this passage. It is in Peshitta and Palestinian Syriac, but it is not in Syriac Curetonianus. The earliest manuscript tradition which trump the Syriac tradition in regards to date is the Coptic tradition. The Coptic tradition from the third through the fourth century agrees with clarity in the absence of verse four unanimously. We do not have a third century Syraic manuscript to compare the passage to that of a later tradition in its own family or to the Coptic tradition of it’s own time for comparison. It would be a good study though to compare the third century texts that we have from the third century between the two traditions. Another fact to point out is you don’t see the passage entering into the Coptic tradition until about the ninth century. Also one needs to be careful to remember that the reason why a particular text or reading of a text is common in a particular region is because of the process of mass professional copying by scribes from a single text. It would have been done by someone reading the text and people writing what they hear. It is a easier and quicker way to reproduce massive amount of a given text. Therefore if a given text has a error or somebody’s commentary inside the text itself, then that error and commentary would have been transmitted down the line and integrated into the tradition and recognized over time as scripture. Which would explain why in a given geographical region and tradition you have little variants within that tradition family.

This leads me to the various spellings and readings of Bethesda, which even has a slightly different spelling in the Cooper Scroll. P75 (about 200s), which actually contain the oldest and about the same time as P66, has Bethsaida(Βηθσαιδά) as the English equivalent spelling. Wescott and Hort, using Eusebius and Sinaiticus have Bethzatha (Βηθζαθὰ) as the English spelling equivalent. These spelling between the two are really not that big of an issue, in fact they sound extremely similar to each other if you think about the sound each letter makes. The zeta in Bethzatha makes a z or dz sound. If you have a problem with hearing and processing sounds like me, the dz can sound like an s with the dropping of the d in finds. The theta makes a th sound, like in th ings, which could be confused with d sound such as in the word then. This confusion can further be reinforced when considering the relationship of stem and stem variation relationship with verbs when a another sigma is added to a delta, theta, or tau. Remember bayith is not a Greek word, but Aramaic which increases the probability of misspelling and mishearing a word( so when you write it down you write it down as a word that sounds similar to your own understaqnding). The Aramaic and Hebrew equivalents must be considered in the explanation of it’s use and rendering (including under etymological factors), implying second and third century equivalents must be looked at for a clearer explanation for the movement of this change. Βηθεσδά is the most common rendering of it and I think an explanation can be given to the movement from Βηθεσδά to Βηθσαιδά or perhaps the other way around. I cannot give a clear honest answer due to my own limited amount of time on this issue. There are people who have given their life to Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic word study comparisons; but am not that guy. It requires days, maybe weeks, not hours of study for such an extensive project. Also a important consideration to keep in mind is the importance of spelling or the lack there of the people developing these manuscripts. Spelling, particularly of names, wasn’t always as major of a concern compared to a more recent age. It has been said as an example that Wycliffe wrote his name at least three different ways.

Going back to 5:4, I couldn’t say for sure where Tertullian got it from without a paper trail. And you have to be careful with Tertullian at times because his view of subjects, like baptism for example, is not the same for anyone here in this board under the current rules. I know that Tatian, the Assyrian in section 22:10 of the Diatessaron does recount the passage. However you need to be careful of him because he did alter the gospels in his Diatessaron to try to bring the gospels in harmony with one another as a redactor, and eliminated genealogies of Matthew and Luke and reworded many sections of scripture. Plus he wasn’t well liked in the West, removed by the church in Rome (Irenaeus made quite clear), and was seen as a heretic later on by Clement of Alexandra (who at one time was possibly a student of Tatian in Alexandria, but did not call him a heretic to my knowledge during Tatian’s lifetime), Origen ( I know it is funny coming him), Eusebius( almost as funny considering his Arian background, but the issue here was the accepted tradition that Tatian was the founder of the Encratites, to be taken over by Severus later on) and Jerome ( he also accepted the story of Tatian being the founder of the Syrian Gnostic group called the Encratites). The Syrian church widely used his work through the fifth century, which of course would not make the west that happy and could allow for the charge of corruption on the Syraic texts by the western churches. On the side, I think it is important to point out that 7:53-8:11 was not in his Diatessaron. This work would have be done somewhere around the mid to third quarter of the second century. His influence in Alexandria and Greece could have carried to Tertullian in North Africa by word of mouth, which does explains why Tertullian did not explicate quote the passage and instead related the idea in contrast to the pagan environment around him. If I was to guess where Tatian received what was to be called John 5:4, I would say Valentius maybe a possible candidate. So if the first tracked reading comes from one who is known as heretic in the history of the church, then worry about your position; especially if it not in early well established biblical manuscripts.

You probably had enough of me talking about 5:4, so let move on to Matthew 1:7-8, 10. Should it be Asaph or Asa. Well some people may find this funny, but the main difference between the spellings of these two words is one letter, a phi. It is not that big of an issue. But if you really want to push it, all of the biblical manuscripts fourth century and earlier, including the old Latin, Coptic readings, and P1(third century copy of Matthew) has it as Asaph. The all puts the nail in the coffin for me. You don’t see the dropping of the phi at the end of the word to make Asa with the manuscripts that we have until the fifth century (including Ambrose who a late fourth century father). That does not mean it didn’t occur in the late fourth century and spread however, this is based on texts that we have. It is not like a few texts are looked at here, but a clear temporal reading change in the tradition. What probably happened is people realized the spelling in the LXX matched Asa and the Hebrew and started to correct their tradition in a redactionary process. This does not mean however that all the church fathers and the ESV translators thought the text was speaking of the Psalmist. I never thought it was going back to 1 Chronicles 3:10. These people were not dumb, the ancient fathers and the ESV translators. The ancients probably saw Asaph as just another spelling of Asa. I know in my ESV Study Bible the writer of the commentary sees it as just another spelling of Asa. If someone made the claim that the people who translated the ESV or those involved in textual criticism believed it is talking about the Psalmist, I would show that person “Asaph is probably an alternate spelling for Asa” in my ESV. Now if such a person continued to push and would not prove that Asaph can no way be a alternate spelling beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would stop reading what they had to say about textual criticism because they are showing to me that their blinded by their tradition and much rather keep their tradition then seek after the truth.

I do not want to do verse 10, but I guess I should. Instead of a dropping of a letter in this case we have a substituting of a letter at the end from a sigma to a nu. The argument is the same as with verses 7-8, it a alternate spelling. Do not mock my intelligence by saying that it has to be the prophet, but prove instead that it cannot be a alternate spelling. Now I am going to mention the documents that use the two variants for verse 10, along with their dates.
For Ἀμώς :

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both fourth century), C(fifth century), D(fifth century I think) Δ(ninth century), Θ(ninth century), f1(12-14th century), 33(ninth-tenth century), 157(seventh through eighth century), 205(eighth century), 1071(twelfth century), 1292(thirteenth century), l 68 (twelfth century), l 253 (early eleventh century) l 672( ninth century) l 673 (twelfth century), l 813(mid eleventh century), l 1223 (thirteenth century), l 1627 (eleventh century), it(c- twelfth through thirteenth century, d-fifth century, ff1-sixth century, g-eighth through ninth century, l-eight century, k-c. 400, q-sixth through seventh centuries), vg(mss) cop(sa-4th through fifth century, bo-ninth century, fay-unknown date), Armenian(fifth century), Georgian (fifth century), Ethiopioc (sixth century), and Epiphanius (early fifth)

For Ἀμὼν:

L(eight century), W (fifth century), f13(eleventh through fifthteen century ), 28(mid-tenth century), 180(sixth century), 565 (ninth century), 579(thirteenth century), 700 (eleventh century), 982 (ninth through tenth century), l 211(twelfth century)

And there also a third variant for the name, you can look it up in
NA27 or USB4 if your interested. But as we can see Ἀμώς was pretty well preserved throughout the various ages of the church from the earliest manuscript date that we have on the passage. Maybe Matthew used a variant spelling. The manuscript evidence I am presenting is based from UBS4.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such unreliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority.

I agree that witnesses impugn each other testimony if they are not in agreement, the problem I think we have here is the issue of what we define as reliable and the majority. As you can see what is typically defined as the majority text, shouldn’t be classified with having the majority title because it wasn’t the majority until the ninth century. I define the most reliable reading based on a comparison of the earliest biblical manuscripts in their time in relation to the original autographs themselves. If the majority of the early biblical manuscripts are giving a different story in the third and fourth centuries to that of the fifth to later in the ninth century then we must question the testimony of the later source because they are further removed temporally from the person and point of origin. It is natural in the transmission of a text for it to receive slight changes over time, like in Homer’s Iliad, because you do not have a printing press to make an exact copy, but instead a fallible human being. So the question that must be considered is under what standard must a text be held by? The only honest way to do that is to compare readings of that time, the population of those readings during that time, the debates that were going on in that time, and a look at how those scriptures were quoted and applied. If a earliest reading came from a known liar or heretic, outside of the historical boundaries of orthodox during that time, then that witness and their work must be placed into question; such as Tatian. Now if the work was a commissioned work and supervised by what was classified as orthodox and fell in line with the confessional or creedal standards then there a chance at a more credible witness in history. So a comparison to as many early manuscripts must be done and if there is a noticeable shifts in readings from earlier to later, then one must be willing to confess that the evidence points into that direction as one moved diachronically in history.

.

Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

There are several things I can say about Sinaiticus. First of all it has been well used in the centuries. If it wasn’t for the masterful production of the work and the dry climate of Egypt it wouldn’t have survived. It was produced during the age in which the cult of the saints were becoming more and more popular. By the time it reached it’s three hundredth year it was probably looked at as a treasure for their monastery, to keep by the steward of the convent. It was altered several times from it’s conception to the twelfth century (see Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T.C. (1938). Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus. London: Trustees of the British Museum) to show that the ancient relic was still useful and needed to be used. And at some point warped in a pretty red cloth as sign of how respected such an ancient treasure would be. It was an expensive book that was meant to last and be used. It was by the reading of the relic by the keeper of the convent and the interesting conversation with Tischendorf that the keeper knew and could show Tischendorf the great treasure that would later be seen by the world. The beautiful document has been well marked over the years, much in poor condition, but by the grace of God not in as poor as it could have been in parts; but that only because the caretakers of it saw of precious it was..

[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844.

Codex Sinaiticus was not discovered in 1844. It wasn’t until 1859 that it was discovered.

It obtained his approval in the month of September, 1858, and the funds which I asked for were placed at my disposal. Three months subsequently my seventh edition of the New Testament, which had cost me three years of incessant labour, appeared; and in the commencement of January, 1859, I again set sail for the East.
I cannot here refrain from mentioning the peculiar satisfaction I had experienced a little before this. A learned Englishman, one of my friends, had been sent into the East by his Government to discover and purchase old Greek manuscripts, and spared no cost in obtaining them. I had cause to fear, especially for my pearl of the Convent of St. Catherine; but I heard that he had not succeeded in acquiring anything, and had not even gone as far as Sinai--"for," as he said in his official report, "after the visit of such an antiquarian and critic as Dr. Tischendorf, I could not expect any success." I saw by this how well advised I had been to reveal to no one my secret of 1844.
By the end of the month of January I had reached the Convent of Mount Sinai. The mission with which I was entrusted entitled me to expect every consideration and attention. The prior, on saluting me, expressed a wish that I might succeed in discovering fresh supports for the truth. His kind expression of goodwill was verified even beyond his expectations.
After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy, which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I fat. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence--a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has been made in vain for the original Greek of the first part of this Epistle, which has only been known through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired writings of the New Testament. This was the very reason why these two writings were both thus bound up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century, and about the time of the first Christian emperor.
Early on the 5th of February I called upon the steward. I asked permission to take the manuscript with me to Cairo, to have it there transcribed completely from beginning to end; but the prior had set out only two days before also for Cairo, on his way for Constantinople, to attend at the election of a new archbishop, and one of the monks would not give his consent to my request. What was then to be done?

What indeed? I suggest that people continue to read the story. It can be found at Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus .
This is the document that he brought back with him, the codex we now call Sinaiticus, not something to be burned in a fire. The stuff he saw burned was not Sinaiticus, they were manuscript copies of their mother. The 1844 myth for its discovery needs to end.

Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

That sounds much like trail of blood theory, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with Vaticanus. There were terrible things that happened then, but the cataloging of Vaticanus has no overall effect towards the treatment of people under Rome. The Waldensians under Lutheran standards, and perhaps under Reformed standards as well, were seen as heretics.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, and the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

That still sounds like a trail of blood theory to me. Are you saying because I have no problem with using Vaticanus that I love and want to submit to Rome? You better be careful if your charging me with that, because that is a heavy charge I will fight.

In conclusion I do not see a major issue with the ESV translators, the use of older manuscripts, and applying of the science of textual criticism to our modern bible. What it does in reality is strengthen your faith in the reading of God’s Word, because the majority of the variants does change the meaning of a given text. And we should all praise God for this reality.

 

[alhembd]

Among a Greek-speaking people, that would make more sense than pairing the Masoretic Text with the NT. Most people wouldn't be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. Should we assume that these codices were intended to be the source, rather than the translation? Obviously the NT wouldn't have needed to be translated if the language in which it was written was still spoken, so it makes as much sense to regard these codices as translations as to regard them as the authoritative source (NT excepted since it was the same language and didn't require translating). Perhaps the MT was regarded as the authority but the LXX was used as the translation, just as today the Hebrew and Greek are the authority while the churches are using English translations.

I wasn't trying to argue against the Hebrew and Greek texts being the ultimate authority. I was responding to this claim:

There is no objective evidence that the True Church used the LXX. Speculations and smoke and mirrors! You are moving from one assumption to another in your postings again.

I agree that the Hebrew and Greek are the final authority. However, the Greek Septuagint is very important in the reconstruction of the Hebrew text because its vorlage is very old; in some cases, at least as old as the DSS. We have to take into account that it is a translation, but, as we study the translation methodology of the translators of the LXX, we are able to discern their techniques, and understand how that relates to the vorlage. That also goes for the Peshitta and the Vulgate. They are all extremely important even though they are not written in Hebrew. Compare this with the DSS, the Wadi Murabba'at manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic Manuscripts, the Cairo Geneza fragments, etc., and you have plenty of material for reconstruction the text of the Hebrew Bible.

God Bless,
Adam

We have to be careful here. There are some who would "reconstruct" the Massoretic Text by virtually setting it aside. The New American Standard Bible at times approaches this. However, with respect to the Greek Septuagint - we must confess that all the Reformers used it to reconstruct Psalm 22.16 (vs 17 in the Massoretic text). The majority Massoretic Text - the Massoretic Text, in all the printed editions - reads "like a lion my hands and feet." The Greek Septuagint, nine Massoretic manuscripts, and a Dead Sea Scroll (the only Dead Sea Scroll extant in this verse) read "they pierced my hands and feet."

Now: all the Reformers agreed with Calvin that, while normally, one would follow the reading of the majority of the Massoretic manuscripts, yet here, "like a lion my hands and feet" simply makes no sense. Moreover, there simply was too much of a temptation here for the unbelieving Jewish scribes to tamper with the text. After all, it only amounts to the changing of a final vav into a final yud - ka'aru to ka'ari. Calvin points this out in his commentary on the text, and says that the text should be critically emended to read "ka'aru" (they pierced), since this is the reading that obviously makes sense. Calvin himself had not seen the nine Massoretic manuscripts, certainly not the Dead Sea Scroll.

But the Greek Septuagint was invaluable in this isolated case for the reconstruction of the verse. Some have even argued that "ka'ari" might be a singular variant spelling of "ka'aru" (though saying that is likely a bit far-fetched).

But leave it to be said that, in some few instances, it is indeed necessary to look at the Septuagint for the reconstruction of the text, where it may indeed have been tampered with.

Another instance is 2 Samuel 21.19. "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam."

The Massoretic Text actually says that Elhanan slew Goliath. The words "the brother" do not occur in the text. However, the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20.5 tell us that it was the brother of Goliath that Elhanan slew.

Now: the Greek Septuagint actually translates 2 Samuel 21.19 to say that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath.

The fact is: there are a few isolated ugly realities about the Massoretic Text, isolated instances where the Hebrew text appears to have been corrupted in the majority of the copies. While we should, as Calvin advises, generally follow the majority reading, yet in some few instances, it is necessary to repair the text, and the Septuagint historically has been useful in that regard (even though the Septuagint itself is quite bad in a number of places, and appears even to have used a corrupted Hebrew text, as in Jeremiah).

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

Tim,


Myself, I have expounded the tenets of both schools, what you likewise disparagingly call, the “Reformed view of KJVOnlism” and the VPP, showing how each of them are formulated and operate in practice, as in the following:

[From this discussion: History of the KJV and TR.]

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​

* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills.​

Steve,

Thanks so much for this very responsible and fair-handed treatment of the Westminster doctrine of Providential Preservation as the Reformers themselves understood it. I myself agree with Hills and Owen. There are some few variants amounts the printed editions of the Textus Receptus, and some very few of them are reflected in a few very minor differences between the Staten Vertaling and the King James Version. However, I believe it very reasonable to say that the autographic text is indeed preserved in them.

As for the Comma: it is interesting that the modern-day Christian opponents of the Comma nonetheless support a reading in the Massoretic Text - Psalm 22.16 "They pierced my hands and feet" - that also has just as little manuscript support in the Hebrew. The overwhelming majority of Hebrew manuscripts read "like a lion my hands and feet." Calvin pointed out that the Greek Septuagint differed with that reading. He says in his commentary on that verse that it obviously does not make sense. He says that normally, he will follow the Hebrew manuscripts, but that in this case, the evidence was too strong for the unbelieving Jews having corrupted the text. The corruption amounts to the changing of a final vav into a final yud - ka'aru into ka'aru. So, Calvin, on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, recommends the emendation of the Hebrew text to read ka'aru (correctly, I believe).

Interestingly, since Calvin's day, manuscript evidence has surfaced confirming his conjecture. Nine manuscripts read "they have pierced" (not "like a lion"), and these manuscripts are listed in the Kennicott collection. Moreover, the only Dead Sea Scroll extant in this verse reads "they pierced my hands and feet."

And so: the Greek Septuagint here was a valuable instrument for recovering the the original reading in this one extraordinary instance. Since the Reformers' day, a small amount of manuscript (not printed edition, but manuscript) evidence confirms their conjecture.

Now: the interesting thing is, all the modern evangelical Critical Text advocates who oppose the Comma, nonetheless support this minority reading in Psalm 22.16! The NIV, the NASB, the ESV - they all read "they pierced my hands and feet" (in their text, anyway). Yet they oppose the Comma, which actually has an equal amount of manuscript support, and much more patristic support on the Latin side of the fence. Moreover, the Greek Orthodox Church itself - the stewards of the Byzantine Majority Text - include the Comma in their Greek Patriarchal Text, and in their "Apostolos" lectionary text. The Comma is officially read in their churches every year. So, the Greek Orthodox Church itself has admitted to their being a deficiency in the majority of their manuscripts!

Let's put it this way. Generally, our Reformed, Calvinistic forefathers followed the Byzantine Majority Text. However, in some very few isolated instances, they used wise, judicious textual criticism - a judicious textual criticism based upon a greater spiritual acuity and taste for these things than is known in our backslidden day. We need to rest in the wise judgment of our Reformed forefathers. We need to embrace the Providentially-Preserved Text that they believed in, that indeed, they prepared for us. We may believe, with Edward Hills and Ted Letis, that the hand of the LORD was upon those Bible-believing men.​

 

[alhembd]

Here, Calvin agrees with Erasmus against the TR at John 8:59. It is also interesting that none other than Edward F. Hills, in Chapter 8 of his book The King James Version Defended notes that Calvin departed from the TR in eighteen different places [p.204].

I thought we were discussing the integrity of the MT.

At any rate, the very fact that you mention E. F. Hills should alert you to the consistency of departing from some individual readings while holding the MT or the TR in principle. If Hills himself had never departed from the TR your quotation would mean something; as it stands, you have only managed to discover how little you know about the position you are opposing.

Reverend Winzer, and Hebrew Student:

I might shed some light on this subject, from my own review of what Greek text the AV translators followed. In some few instances, the AV translators did not follow Erasmus. However, it is important to note that Stephanus' 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus had marginal notes in it, and sometimes, the AV translators (or the Staten Translators) follow one of the marginal notes in Stephanus. The AV translators did use Stephanus' 1550 heavily. Moreover, in general, if they follow a marginal note in Stephanus, that reading is backed by older manuscripts, like Codex E.

By the way, studies by unbelieving scholars at the Society for Biblical Literature have nonetheless confirmed that the text of Gregory Nazianuzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom, were 80% in conformity with Codex E, which proves that that text existed well into the fourth century. Moreover, there are variants amongst their readings, which proves they were not reading from a standardised church recension of the text. If they had been reading from a standardised church recension, there would have been little or no variants. The fact is, the Codex E text-type was a well-established text family in the 4th century, which proves it had to have been in existence in the second and third centuries as well, even from a merely natural logic point of view.

Only in Mark do the above Byzantine Fathers differ significantly from E. In fact, if one factors out E, their percentage of agreement with Codex E is actually much higher. You see: the Gospel of Mark was likely penned by the inspired Mark in Rome, and so, it is possible that, after the persecutions, the best copies of Mark did not make their way into the Byzantine area until the 5th century or so. (Manuscript copying was slow.)

But this is the important thing: every important Reformation translator in the seventh century had access to Stephanus, and to the readings in the marginal notes. Consequently, they sometimes follow the marginal note. However - and this is very important - you cannot honestly say that follow a marginal note in Stephanus is a departure from the Textus Receptus!! No! Stephanus 1550 edition is the queen of the Textus Receptus family, in many ways. The marginal notes include in them the variant TR readings. Consequently, following a marginal note in Stephanus is still following the Textus Receptus.

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text, and Simon Colines was a former partner of Stephanus, and Stephanus used his manuscript for some of the variant readings in his 1550 edition. (Colines' edition is still of the Textus Receptus family.)

Hope these comments shed light.

 

[TimV]

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text

Does anyone here have access to Stephanus with notes?

 

[alhembd]

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is, since Calvin often used Simon Colines' text

Does anyone here have access to Stephanus with notes?

Tim,

Go to Sola Scriptura Publishing It is a website of the Reverend Mark Langley, a conservative Reformed Baptist in Topeka, Kansas. On that website, Reverend Langley (whose congregation worship using only the Scottish Metrical Psalms and the Massachusetts Bay Psalms, without instrumental accompaniment) carries a CD with Stephanus' 1550 edition. It is a little hard to read. It is a facsimile, a photocopy, of an actual printed edition of the Stephanus, done, I believe, by a major university which has the Stephanus in their library. (Possibly, the University of Toronto.)

When I read it (it is a .pdf) I increase the size of the text to about 150%. It would be a great service to the Reformed Church at large if someone were to do this in a friendly Greek font, with all the marginal notes, in a digitalised font that could be searched.

However, even in the state that the .pdf is in now, it is tedious scrolling through it, but well worth the time!

 

[TimV]

Rather than me buying it, if you already have it, could you just look John 8:59 up?

Thanks

 

[alhembd]

Rather than me buying it, if you already have it, could you just look John 8:59 up?

Thanks

Tim,

There are no variants listed in Stephanus for John 8.59. The words "going through the midst of them. And he went out thus," are included in all Stephanus' manuscripts. They are also included in the Greek Patriarchal Text of the Greek Orthodox Church, and in Maurice Robinson's Majority Text, as well as the Hodges-Farstad text. The words are included in all the Byzantine manuscripts. Only the Egyptian text omits them.

Most of the variants in Stephanus are variants one would find in the Byzantine Majority Text. For that matter, one could almost assemble most of the Byzantine Majority Text from Stephanus' variants. However, the Egyptian readings - like the omission of Christ's shedding drops of blood in the garden, or the omission of the woman taken in adultery, or the inclusion of Christ's supposedly being pierced before He gave up the ghost on the cross, in Matthew 27.49 - these all occur in the Alexandrian Text alone.

Hope this helps!

 

[TimV]

Thanks, Albert. So in this case we definitely have Calvin (and it would seem Erasmus?) rejecting the totality of the TR in favor of another reading. It surprised me that you said

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is

 

[alhembd]

Thanks, Albert. So in this case we definitely have Calvin (and it would seem Erasmus?) rejecting the totality of the TR in favor of another reading. It surprised me that you said

Accordingly, "Hebrew Student", in order to judge whether Calvin was following the TR, you must first see if indeed the reading he cites is listed in Stephanus' margin. It almost certainly is

Tim,

Good observation! This is an exceptional instance. There is a reason for it, however. The Latin Vulgate omits these words. It appears that both Erasmus and Calvin were influenced by the Vulgate.

Here are Calvin's words:

"Some copies have the words, And so Jesus passed through the midst of them; which Erasmus
justly considers to have been borrowed from the Gospel by Luke 4:30."

And here are the words of the Vulgate:

"Jesus autem abscondit se, et exivit de templo." Translated (roughly) "Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." The words, "and going through the midst of them, he went out thus," are omitted.

That said, however, the omitted words are in all the Byzantine Greek copies.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Albert,

I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I've got Stephanus 1850 in Logos. Can you provide a verse with an example of a variant so I can see what it looks like?

It looks like Biblegateway provides a copy of the Stephanus 1850 but I'm not sure if it contains the marginal notes as I need to find some examples that I could check.

 

[alhembd]

Albert,

I'm finding this discussion fascinating. I've got Stephanus 1850 in Logos. Can you provide a verse with an example of a variant so I can see what it looks like?

It looks like Biblegateway provides a copy of the Stephanus 1850 but I'm not sure if it contains the marginal notes as I need to find some examples that I could check.

Rich,

I'll gladly try to help. Let me know if you can find a copy of Stephanus with the marginal note readings on the following:

Matthew 3.8, Matthew 8.5, Matthew 12.35, Matthew 4.10, Matthew 5.47, Matthew 7.14, Matthew 23.35, Matthew 27.35, Matthew 27.41.

All these variants, by the way, are differences between the Textus Receptus and the majority readings of the Byzantine Majority Text. In some cases, Stephanus found that the Byzantine Majority Text was the reading that all his manuscripts had, over against Erasmus. However, I have found in my own studies that, in many of those cases (using Tischendorf), I find that the TR reading is confirmed by the older Byzantine texts that Stephanus did not have in his possession: as for instance Codex E.

Matthew 27.41 is an interesting reading. Stephanus says, with Erasmus and the AV, the following: "Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said…" However, all of Stephanus' manuscripts read "Likewise also the chief priests mocking [him], with the scribes and elders and Pharisees, said…"

The Staten Vertaling departed from Erasmus on this verse, and followed the Complutensian, which had the reading that all Stephanus' manuscripts had. However, again, the older Byzantine manuscripts omit "and Pharisees."

All-in-all, however, the added words do not affect the real meaning of the history of the text, and, in fact, would only be describing what is a real fact. We know from the other accounts that the Pharisees were indeed present at the Saviour's crucifixion.

The differences amongst the various editions and manuscripts of the Textus Receptus family are minimal, and they attest to the high reliability of that tradition.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

There's an online version of the Stephen's 1550 here; in a number of different formats. It is the same, I believe as the Zondervan 1970 The Englishman's Greek New Testament. In the apparatus it has the variants as noted:

1877 - The Englishman's Greek New Testament, giving the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, with the various Readings of the Editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, together with an interlinear literal Translation, and the Authorized version of 1611.
London: Samuel Bagster, 1877. 3rd ed. 1896.
Reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.

This interlinear uses the text of Robert Estienne (Stephens) 1550, and gives the text of the King James version in a parallel column. Newberry gives in the lower margin of each page a complete collation of six critical editions. Most of the variants which make a difference in translation are also given in English.
Because of the critical apparatus, it is the best interlinear New Testament.
It does not give information on the three most important critical texts of our century: Nestle 1898, Westcott and Hort 1881, and Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikren and Martini 1975. Most of the readings adopted in these three texts are however represented in the apparatus as the readings of earlier editors.

N.B. The following contemporary review shows that The Englishman's Greek N.T. was originally Newberry's work, not George Ricker Berry, as was later claimed by Zondervan.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David, you said,

I also want to make it clear that the process of shaving off isn’t being done to get rid of the deity of Christ or deny his miracles or even to just shave something off of scripture. The issue is what exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references, not based on inserted man-made traditions.

Is that the issue, “What exactly did the original author write based on the earliest references”? Is that how you propose to arrive at the correct readings?

And then you go on,

Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century.

On John 5:4, David, notwithstanding your displayed erudtion, it seems to all come down to your invalidating the majority of cursive mss, and elevating the “earlier texts” as a textual methodology. Are we going to have a B[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] vs. TR shootout at the PCA Corral? Do you have a lot of spare time on your hands? I will be aiming at your foundational presuppositions. Why shoot the machine-gunner when you can take out the general commanding and directing the troops? Or better, take them both out (saving some foot-soldiers in the process.

But first, let’s take a brief look at the methodology and evidences for the readings Asaph and Amos supplanting Asa and Amon.

In the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, James A. Borland has an essay, “Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy” [reprinted from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:

Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.​

He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,

In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…

In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, The New Testament and Criticism (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” JETS 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.​

He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,

Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide, Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.

In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs.

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1897)]

I. The Case of Asa and Amon

One example of current import is found in the readings of Matthew 1:7, 10. These texts contain part of the kingly genealogy of Christ. Many conservative commentators seem almost oblivious to the problem [and in a footnote he lists a number]. But scholars who do not adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy do not pass up a chance to point out what they consider to be a fallacy in Matthew’s autograph. The majority of all MSS read Asa (Asa; v. 7) and Amōn (Amon; v. 10), easily recognized as two kings of Judah who were ancestors of Christ. Matthew’s point is to demonstrate our Lord’s royal lineage. But the United Bible Societies’ text instead chooses alternate readings based on the “better” manuscripts as well as some very subjective internal considerations. They substitute for the kings Asa and Amon the names “Asaph” and “Amos,” a psalmist and prophet respectively. They reason that “the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred.” [B.M. Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (NY: United Bible Societies, 1971), p.1] Prior to that confident assertion, Bruce Metzger and others, claimed that “most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting Asaph.” [Ibid.]

What is the composition of this “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” in favor of the Asaph blunder? Heading the list are the fourth and fifth century codices, Aleph B and C. Next come the minuscules of families 1 and 13 and two eleventh- and twelfth-century cursives, 700 and 1071, followed by fourteenth-century manuscript 209. Among the versions are several Old Latin MSS (notably k, Bobiensis, a fourth or fifth century production), along with others of the seventh century and beyond. The Coptic, following the basic Egyptian text of Aleph and B, agrees; and the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian translations, each perhaps related to Caesarean origins (of f1 and f13), indicate Asaph also. In the Harclean Syriac it merits only a listing in the margin. In summary, barely more than a dozen Greek MSS carry the Asaph reading, followed by a few Old Latin MSS, the Coptic and several minor versions.

On the other hand, the expected reading of Asa is found in literally hundreds of Greek witnesses beginning with uncials E K L M U V W Γ Δ and Π. These MSS date from the fifth through the tenth centuries and no doubt represent a wide geographic distribution, including Washingtoniensis (the Freer Gospels of the fifth century) and Regius (L), which in Metzger’s opinion has a good type of text, “agreeing very frequently with codex Vaticanus.” [Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), p. 54] In addition, hundreds of cursives lend their support including numbers of those known “to exhibit a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition.” [Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. xvii] These would include 33 (the queen of the cursives and constant ally of Aleph and B) and other minuscules beginning with the ninth century. To this may be added the entire bulk of cursive manuscripts that must represent nearly every geographical point where Greek was studied and copied throughout the middle ages and demonstrates an unbroken continuity of evidence sorely lacking in the paucity of material supporting the Asaph reading.

The lectionaries too stand solidly behind Asa, as do a number of Old Latin MSS including the notable fourth-century Vercellensis. the entire Vulgate is another early and uniform witness to Asa—as are the Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian versions of the Syriac. To these may be added both Ephiphanius and Augustine of the first quarter of the fifth century. Only a preconceived notion as to which witnesses are best would cause anyone to deny that the truly “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” favors the traditional reading of Asa.

If such is the case, then Asaph should be viewed as an early scribal blunder injudiciously copied into (fortunately) only a handful of Greek MSS. The evidence for Amon versus Amos in Matthew 1:10 is somewhat similar. It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew ’āsā’ and ’āsāp’ or between the even more distinguishable ‘āmôn and ‘āmôs. Not only would he have known the names of Israel’s kings by memory, but he probably would have used the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in securing the names he used.

Lest one thinks this all amounts to academic irrelevance, we should be aware that the Revised Standard Version places the prophet’s name Amos in the text of Matthew 1:10 with the note “other authorities read Amon.” The Catholic New American Bible (1970) reads Amos without explanation. The American Standard Version, the RSV and the New American Standard Bible each read Asa for Matthew 1:7 but append a note indicating that the Greek reads Asaph. But where does the reading for Asa come if not from the Greek? The ASV and NASB do the same for Amos in Matthew 1:10, and the Jerusalem Bible is similar. At the least, this nomenclature is certainly inconsistent with the usual way of introducing a textual variant. We might well believe that Matthew got his kings, prophets and psalmists a bit confused! (excerpted from pp. 46-52)​

[End Borland]

------

David,

You said with regard to the spurious Amos replacing Amon (and the exact same applies to Asaph replacing Asa in v. 7), “Do not mock my intelligence by saying that it has to be the prophet, but prove instead that it cannot be a alternate spelling.” What? That note in your ESV Study Bible comes from a counsel of despair! What would you expect to read with a version where both the Greek and the English posit an error in the autograph! Before I respond, I shall continue to quote you:

The ancients probably saw Asaph as just another spelling of Asa. I know in my ESV Study Bible the writer of the commentary sees it as just another spelling of Asa. If someone made the claim that the people who translated the ESV or those involved in textual criticism believed it is talking about the Psalmist, I would show that person “Asaph is probably an alternate spelling for Asa” in my ESV. Now if such a person continued to push and would not prove that Asaph can no way be a alternate spelling beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would stop reading what they had to say about textual criticism because they are showing to me that their blinded by their tradition and much rather keep their tradition then seek after the truth.

It is the esteemed editors of the Critical Greek text who say these names are not “alternate spellings” but errors in the autograph! You should boycott their writings and not say of such as I, we are “blinded by [our] tradition”!

It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition:

Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)

In other words, because of the Committee’s presupposition “that the name ‘Asaph’ is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” (Ibid.) they decided that Matthew had to have made an error, and this error is recorded in the “earliest and most reliable” MSS, and they weren’t going to tamper with “corrections” made by later scribes. “Like Duh, Matthew! Couldn’t you have found a reliable source!?”

But wait a minute! Although Matthew was the human writer of the first Gospel account, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God….[and] no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20)

But it is not surprising that Dr. Metzger (with presumably & co.) would aver error in the apostle’s account, for he has said that the Pentateuch was not only not written by Moses, but was not to be taken as history but as “religion”.

When I am told that in the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos replacing the royal forebears of the Lord Jesus we have the authentic Greek text (reflecting the reading of the CT), with disdain I reject that assertion which posits error in the autograph of the apostle.

It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and especially its functionality is 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? 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 Sola was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

In this discussion of the relative merits of the CT vs. the TR there are two approaches I use, the macro and the micro. The former pertains to the overview – positing a plausible (for some of the details are lost to us) history of the textual transmission, including the corruption of the text – and the latter involves fighting in the trenches, as it were; that is, looking at the specific variants introduced initially by Rome to subvert the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura / “preserved text” (and before Rome introduced in some mss early on), and now touted by those seduced to the progressive allure of those manuscripts who claim the variants represent the superior text.

So in this trench, Matt. 1:7, 9, we see the Critical Text asserting that in Matthew’s original the apostle made an error. This cannot be allowed to stand. It is on the face of it false.

If anyone is “mocking your intelligence”, Davis, it is Metzger and company, not I. It is the “experts” who have weighed in with the verdict of error in the autographs and not alternate spellings. Oh, did I call you Davis? We all know that is an error – for it cannot be an alternative spelling of David!

Okay, David – for I as well as ancient Matthew know how to spell! – you take me to task for saying the discovery of Sinaiticus was in 1844 rather than 1859? And you say, “The 1844 myth for its discovery needs to end”? Let’s look at that.

In A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, they write concerning Codex Sinaiticus,

This fourth century Greek manuscript is generally considered to be the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy, and lack of omissions. The story of the discovery of Aleph is one of the most fascinating and romantic in textual history. It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar. On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus [after his patron, Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony]. Tischendorf's second visit, in 1853, proved unfruitful; but in 1859, under the authority of Czar Alexander II, he returned again. Just before he was to return home empty-handed, the monastery steward showed him an almost complete copy of the Scriptures and some other books. These were subsequently acquired as a “conditional gift” to the czar. This manuscript is now known as the famous Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). It contains over half the Old Testament (LXX), and all of the New, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. All of the Old Testament Apocrypha, with the addition of the "Epistle of Barnabus", and a large portion of the "Shepherd of Hermas" are also included. This codex was written in large clear Greek uncials on 364½ pages (plus the forty-three at Leipsig), measuring 13½ by 14 inches. (pp. 273-274) [Emphasis added]​

Apart from the blatant errors in the first sentence regarding “accuracy, and lack of omissions” (this will be discussed by me shortly), what interests me is their statement in the last sentence, that it was written on “364½ pages (plus the forty-three at Leipsig)” – do they include those forty-three in the Codex? Let’s have Count Tischendorf answer this himself. Telling of his first visit in April of 1844, he writes,

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.​

A friend of his living in Egypt wrote him to say, “The monks of the convent have, since your departure, learned the value of these sheets of parchment, and will not part with them at any price.” Of his second visit the Count writes,

I resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. Having set out from Leipzig in January, 1853, I embarked at Trieste for Egypt, and in the month of February I stood for the second time in the Convent of Sinai. This second journey was more successful even than the first, from the discoveries that I made of rare Biblical manuscripts; but I was not able to discover any further traces of the treasure of 1844. I forget: I found in a roll of papers a little fragment which, written over on both sides, contained eleven short lines of Genesis, which convince me that the manuscript originally contained the entire Old Testament, but that the greater part had been long since destroyed.​

Finally, on a third visit in 1859, he strikes paydirt :

After having devoted a few days in turning over the manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here and there on some precious parchment or other, I told my Bedouins, on the 4th February, to hold themselves in readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the 7th, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: “And I, too, have read a Septuagint” — i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy, which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I fat. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence--a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has been made in vain for the original Greek of the first part of this Epistle, which has only been known through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired writings of the New Testament. This was the very reason why these two writings were both thus bound up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century, and about the time of the first Christian emperor. [Emphasis added]​

Tischendorf’s published account: The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript

From these accounts it appears that what the steward held forth in the red cloth were, along with the “very fragments” Tischendorf had seen years before, other vellum leaves likewise rescued from the burning pile by those monks who quickly realized their value and secured them. So the initial discovery – and possession of but 43½ leaves from it – was in 1844, per the count’s own statement. The final possession of Sinaiticus was in 1859.

----------

David, so the Lord kept this “queen of the uncials”, Vaticanus – the purported exemplar of the best textual tradition – secreted away in the den of the killers of saints, and even had it named after the seat of the antichrist, the Vatican?

Are you really going to throw a “trail of blood” theory at me when I quote Reformation historians on the atrocities of Rome? What have we come to? Will you slander the Waldenses as heretics? Perhaps you have not considered in-depth their history.

I am not in the slightest charging you with “loving and wanting to submit to Rome” because you exalt their textual treasure. The Lord doeth all things well, and this “treasure” in the devil’s keep is bizarre. It is not His royal style, if you will.

I will add to this shortly.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David, to strike a conciliatory note between us in this potentially volatile discussion – I see by your avatar you’re a backpacker, who I assume loves the outdoors, and such am I also. We’d probably get along well apart from contentions like this! I wish I was near my forests and mountains – the southern Catskills in mid-state New York – but here in the Mideast those are far away. Do you get any good mountain climbing in California? I do hope to be back in NY next year, DV, but I’d have to get in shape again to get to my mountains, as I’ve become pretty sedentary here. But back to the OK Corral!

In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let’s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”, replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):

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

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

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

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

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

The reading who (…in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all ([size=+1]a[/size], Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by only one VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):—not for certain by a single Greek FATHER. (1)​

In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.

Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,

We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by codices B & [size=+1]a[/size] [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two ‘independent’ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (comparatively) late Copy…

The result is, that codex [size=+1]a[/size], (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words,— [size=+1]a[/size] has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.

One solid fact like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such ‘reckless and unverified assertions,’ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)​

Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by “lack of omissions,” the facts are glaringly contrary:

…Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex [size=+1]a[/size],—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words. (3)​

-----------

(1) The Revision Revised, Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
(2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
(3) Ibid., page 75.

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

The discussion below I have excerpted from my booklet-in-progress, To Break A Sword. In this section I look at the Theory behind Westcott & Hort’s favoring the codices B and Aleph, and their basis for disdaining the majority Traditional Text. I have availed myself of the labors and wisdom of others which the Lord granted them. If in my bringing up the characters and documented motives of these two men, someone says, but this is argumentum ad hominem (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), please note that a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially (1) working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms. (2)​

Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy” (3) (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in many areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Bishop Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day. (4)​

If one says, “What does it matter the character or beliefs of these men provided they were competent in their field?”, I say it matters much. Once I (unwittingly) had an unbeliever translate a Gospel teaching from English into Arabic, and he butchered it, because he did not comprehend what the Spirit of Christ was saying in the Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7). Worldly competence is far removed from spiritual competence.

These two men – even in their early twenties, before they were accomplished Greek classicists (note that I say, “classicists,” and not believing scholars) – had an antagonism to the Bible of the Evangelicals similar to those unbelieving intellectuals of our day who resent the authority behind the claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it is preached in arresting power, and in its integrity. Pleasant and aesthetic church services, soothing to the religious temperament, are acceptable, but not soul-convicting Spirit-empowered Gospel preaching! As we have shown by a few representative quotes, early in their lives they decided to pit themselves against the Bible of the Evangelicals, and labored almost thirty years preparing their substitute Greek text. How did they manage to overturn the Traditional Text, and curry the favor of the scholarly community (or a good part of it)? We will look at that now.

Quoting from Dr. Alfred Martin’s dissertation, “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory”:

The Westcott-Hort theory holds the field in the opinions of so many people because it disposes of ninety-five percent of the documentary evidence in such a clever way that they do not perceive the loss of it. “Good riddance,” they say to all manuscripts, versions, and Fathers except a little handful (a handful, incidentally, which do not agree among themselves).

In an earlier chapter the Westcott and Hort theory was compared to a temple, the two chief columns of which were the “Syrian recensions” and the “Neutral Text.” Certainly enough has been said to show that these columns were in reality made of air. Scarcely any scholar can be found today, even among those most favorable to Westcott and Hort, who will vouch for deliberate and authoritative Syrian recensions or who will call their Neutral Text neutral.

Is it possible to believe that a text [the Textus Receptus] actually fabricated in the fourth century rapidly became so dominant that practically no copies were made any longer of exemplars which contained the type of text found in B and Aleph, also of the fourth century? This is really asking too much. The subjective character of the evidence adduced by Westcott and Hort permeates their whole theory. (1)​

In other words, W&H contrived a theory to explain away the overwhelming numerical dominance of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. This is the theory: an official church council – in Syrian Antioch, they say – in approximately 250 A.D., headed by a man named Lucian (who was a real “church” leader at that time, but an Arian), gathered the various, differing Greek manuscripts in circulation and combined them into an “official recension” (recension: “a critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources” –American Heritage Dict.). The trouble with this theory (we will get to the second part, the “Neutral Text,” in a moment) is that it is sheer conjecture, without even the minutest shred of historical – or any other – evidence. It is not even sound inference, as the data does not remotely lead to that conclusion. As with the theory of evolution (which we saw both these men held), it is an interpretation of events and data unsupported by factual evidence. In impartial (i.e., true) science, the evidences for the creation model of origins are overwhelming, and the evidence for the “Big Bang” life-out-of-inorganic-matter (which matter supposedly always existed) is nonexistent upon close examination. Likewise, in the science of textual criticism data – solid facts – are essential in the establishing of a case; unsupported theories, while perhaps clever, are insufficient to make a case. And so it is with W&H’s theory; whenever any significant council was convened or church decision was effected, it is recorded in history. We have many records of various church councils, of various textual productions and (even) mutilations of Scripture by heretics, but there is absolute silence concerning their alleged Antioch council which produced a “Syrian recension.” They just made it up! In order to displace the hated “vile Textus Receptus” (Hort’s phrase, quoted from his son’s biography in an earlier part of this writing) it was necessary that it somehow be discredited.

John Burgon’s unusual approach – one of his approaches – to Hort’s fantastical theory (it having no basis whatever in historical records or in fact) is to take it seriously and on its face, to see what the implications of Hort’s scheme of an official recension would amount to. Burgon comments:

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

It is a sad exercise reading through Burgon’s five volumes of mountainous detailed proofs supporting his critique of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and their appended volume regarding their operating theory, as well as his proofs for the authenticity of the Traditional Text. It is like a skilled attorney defending a virtuous and godly woman whom he loved against well-rehearsed and skilled false testimony before a jury disposed to receive sensational hearsay accounts over established and irrefutable facts provided by reliable witnesses. The outrage! (but held in check), the sadness, the righteous anger! (also held in rein), the frustration! Burgon marshals the proofs, but they are dismissed with scorn! Or ignored. But we may benefit, that our sword might be held with confidence. And that is the issue for us: that we be able to hold and wield our sword in behalf of our King, with His word proclaimed throughout the territory of the enemy, the devil, that the captives be set loose.

Burgon continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We request him to note that, by the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices B and Aleph: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
(3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (ibid. 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​

Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, according to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices B and Aleph,)—the many illustrious Bishops who (still according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of condemnation. We are assured that these famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

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

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

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the 3rd and the 4th Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a ‘Syrian Text,’—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text. (3)​

In this above illustration of the saying, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:5), Burgon, knowing what the reality would be if Hort’s hypothesis were actual fact, turns it against him:

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

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

Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. (4)​

As stated earlier, the Textus Receptus (TR) – the majority text comprising 90 to 95 percent of all the Greek manuscripts – did not happen because of a supposed official church decision and edict (although one might wish, as did Burgon, it had happened that way), but because the Lord worked through the priesthood of believers cleaving to – and faithfully reproducing – the text He supported through the collective wisdom imparted by Him, and also His faithfully providing the best texts to the right hands just when they were needed, and in particular this was the case in the years leading up to the production of the King James Bible in 1611.

----

(1) [for they did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871]
(2) Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Vol. I, page 445.
(3) 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
(4) Ibid., page 421.
(5) Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller, ed. (MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990), “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Theory,” by Dr. Alfred Martin, p. 171 (later Dr. Martin became Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago).

-----

Further scrutiny of Vaticanus, [size=+1]a[/size], and the Hortian methodology to follow.

 

[alhembd]

There's an online version of the Stephen's 1550 here; in a number of different formats. It is the same, I believe as the Zondervan 1970 The Englishman's Greek New Testament. In the apparatus it has the variants as noted:

1877 - The Englishman's Greek New Testament, giving the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, with the various Readings of the Editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, together with an interlinear literal Translation, and the Authorized version of 1611.
London: Samuel Bagster, 1877. 3rd ed. 1896.
Reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.

This interlinear uses the text of Robert Estienne (Stephens) 1550, and gives the text of the King James version in a parallel column. Newberry gives in the lower margin of each page a complete collation of six critical editions. Most of the variants which make a difference in translation are also given in English.
Because of the critical apparatus, it is the best interlinear New Testament.
It does not give information on the three most important critical texts of our century: Nestle 1898, Westcott and Hort 1881, and Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikren and Martini 1975. Most of the readings adopted in these three texts are however represented in the apparatus as the readings of earlier editors.

N.B. The following contemporary review shows that The Englishman's Greek N.T. was originally Newberry's work, not George Ricker Berry, as was later claimed by Zondervan.

Steve,

You say that there is an online version of the Newberry. You give the name of the interlinear itself, which I would very much like to get, but you forgot the URL of the online version. Would you mind giving us the web address of the online version, please?

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
(3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (ibid. 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​

Steve,

These omissions above constitute the crux of the matter, I think. Did Christ sweat great drops of blood in the Garden? Irenaeus, one of the earliest Church fathers, and a very reliable one, says that he did. Accordingly, he says also that these manuscripts are unreliable. Did Christ pray for His enemies on the Christ, or did He not? For ourselves, we cannot but be persuaded that anti-semitic followers of Marcion deleted that quote.

I might make a small correction: the Alexandrian codices mention that the waters were troubled, but they omit the fact that it was an angel which did this. Again, this is a verse with much early patristic support.

I might add, too, that the Alexandrian codices say that Christ was pierced before His giving up the ghost, in Matthew 27.46, which thus blasphemously makes the piercing of the spear a cause of Christ's death; whereas, we know from the Saviour Himself that no man, nay, no one (as the Greek says) could take His life from Him, because He alone had power to lay down His life, and power to take it up again.

We could also add the number of variants which prove that the Alexandrian codices were corrupted by the Coptic translation. I'm busy at the moment, but sometime I will mention them (headings that follow the Coptic version, verses in the Greek which are only found in the Coptic translation, showing that the Greek in those codices was back-translated from the Coptic...)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Albert,

The Englishman's Greek New Testament contains the Newberry edition; it was reprinted by Zondervan in 1970.

This link gives more info on it: Newberry Bibles.

Hope this helps.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David,

Before I tackle the issue of the Majority Text (aka Byzantine Text) and its emergence in the 9th century, one last entry (with more info) by Metzger on Asaph. In his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed., Metzger says,

It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts…([size=+1]a[/size] B)….the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the King of Judah (1 Kgs 15:9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of [size=+1]Asa[/size] [Asa] in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.

….Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p. 1)​

Do you see the implications of Metzger (and Committee) having this view of the Scripture? Matthew got it wrong. To err is human, right? Not so! Metzger’s assertion that [size=+1]Asaf[/size] [Asaph] is “the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” is false. It is rather a form of text preserved in the earliest surviving manuscripts ([size=+1]a[/size] B), for the “earliest form of text” must needs be identical with the apostle’s original, the autograph.

Yes, this is a theological view impinging on the supposedly scientific field of textual criticism: yet it is a doctrine of the Scripture itself: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16). Scripture attests to itself; and it corrects the errors of men pertaining to itself.

And as I said earlier, if Metzger is “mocking your intelligence” by refusing the “alternate spelling” route, you’d better take that up with him and not me. But where he likely is I don’t think you’d want to go to confront him!

-------

I see that in post #126, David, you affirm, “I agree that witnesses impugn each other’s testimony if they are not in agreement”, though I wonder if that will shake you from your headlong infatuation with sisters Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, despite their disagreement in the gospels alone 3,036 times! They do indeed impugn and cancel out each other’s testimony!

But then you immediately change the subject from that embarrassing admission and say, “the problem I think we have here is the issue of what we define as reliable and the majority. As you can see what is typically defined as the majority text, shouldn’t be classified with having the majority title because it wasn’t the majority until the ninth century.”

And in the beginning of that same post you say much the same: “Therefore looking at the majority of the earlier texts is key, not just looking at what is called the majority texts, which started to emerge in popularity by near the end of the eighth century and did not become popular until the ninth century.”

Again in post #126 you say – and I repeat it here so it may be clear to all what exactly your text-critical methodology is:

“I define the most reliable reading based on a comparison of the earliest biblical manuscripts in their time in relation to the original autographs themselves. If the majority of the early biblical manuscripts are giving a different story in the third and fourth centuries to that of the fifth to later in the ninth century then we must question the testimony of the later source because they are further removed temporally from the person and point of origin.”

Just this evening I was reading in Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (I would suggest downloading and saving this tiny (40 page) online version, as it is an out-of-print classic in the field, and one never knows how long links last); anyway, I was just reading van Bruggen’s remarks in the chapter, “The Age of the Byzantine Type”:

One of the first things a student must learn regarding the textual history, is the distinction between the age of the manuscript and the age of the text offered in that manuscript. A rather young manuscript can give a very old type of text. This is a true and interesting proposition. You would expect that this proposition would have the result, that people in the modern New Testament textual criticism would hardly argue from the age of the manuscript. However; the opposite is the case. Time and again you come across a comparison between "older manuscripts" and "many, but younger manuscripts". The common argument used against the Byzantine text‑type is even that this type is only found in young manuscripts. This argument, however, does not say anything as such. One must prove that the text‑form in these manuscripts is also of later date. (p. 22)​

He gives as an example of how this works,

Imagine that someone said: in the Middle Ages mainly cathedrals were built, but in modern times many small and plainer churches are being built. This statement seems completely true when we today look around in the cities and villages. Yet we are mistaken. An understandable mistake: many small churches of the Middle Ages have disappeared, and usually only the cathedrals were restored. Thus, a great historical falsification of perspective with regard to the history of church‑building arises. We are not able to make a general assertion about church‑building in the Middle Ages on the basis of the surviving materials. It we would still dare to make such an assertion, then we wrongly assumed that the surviving materials enabled us to make a fair comparison. But how is the situation in the field of New Testament manuscripts? Do we have a representative number of manuscripts from the first centuries? Only if that is the case, do we have the right to make conclusions and positive statements. Yet it is just at this point that difficulties arise. The situation is even such that we know with certainty that we do not possess a representative number of manuscripts from the first centuries. (p. 25) [emphases in original]​

When you say, David, “the majority text . . . wasn’t the majority until the ninth century”, that statement doesn’t give the true picture. I shall give a quote from Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s “Introduction” to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,

We do know that, after the 9th century, almost all manuscripts ceased to be copied in the uncial style (capital-letters), and were systematically replaced by the "modern" minuscule style (cursive-letters) which then predominated until the invention of printing. This "copying revolution" resulted in the destruction of hundreds of previously-existing uncial manuscripts once their faithful counterpart had been produced in minuscule script. Many truly ancient uncials may have vanished within a century due to this change in the handwriting style. Those palimpsest[34] manuscripts which survive provide mute testimony to the fate of many of those ancient uncials, the remnants of which, having been erased and re-used to copy sermons or liturgical texts, might simply have perished or been discarded once those texts were no longer considered valuable.

Since Kirsopp Lake found only genealogically-unrelated manuscripts at Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem, he concluded that it was "hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars."[35] If strictly applied to all copying generations, this view would lead to a number of logical fallacies. Some of these have been discussed by Donald A. Carson and Wilbur Pickering.[36]

However, the real explanation of Lake's comment revolves around the "copying revolution": scribes apparently destroyed uncial exemplars as they converted the Greek text into the then-standard minuscule format. Thus, the apparently unrelated mass of later minuscules may in fact stem from long-lost uncial sources far older than the date of the minuscules containing them. This in itself adds a significant weight to the testimony of the minuscule mass, especially those copied in the ninth and tenth centuries, at the height of the copying revolution.

For modern researchers summarily to neglect the text of the minuscules because they mostly reflect a Byzantine type of text is to suggest that their text is all one and all late, in accord with Hort's thesis concerning the ultimate origin of the Byzantine Textform. Yet Von Soden and subsequent researchers have clearly shown the internal diversity found among the manuscripts of the Byzantine Textform – a diversity which cannot be accounted for genealogically. An unprejudiced consideration of the present hypothesis will impart a value to (at least) the earlier minuscule testimony which ranges far beyond that allowed by modern critics. This factor now makes the complete collation of all known minuscule manuscripts an important task which should be completed as rapidly as possible.[37] (pp. xxxix – xl)

------
Footnotes
34 From the Greek, "to rub again." The term denotes a manuscript from which the original text was erased and a second, differing text placed on top of the original writing. Through the use of various methods (e.g., ultraviolet light), the original text can often be recovered with extreme accuracy.

35 Lake, Blake, and New, "Caesarean Text of Mark," p.349.

36 Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 47-48, note 5. Pickering offered a clarification and rebuttal of Carson's critique which differs at points from the present hypothesis; see Pickering, Identity, pp. 230-231, note 30

37 See further W. J. Elliott, "The Need for an Accurate and Complete Collation of all known Greek NT Manuscripts with their Individual Variants noted in pleno," in J. K Elliott, ed., Studies in New Testament Language and Text [G. D. Kilpatrick Festschrift] (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 137-143.​

I should say that Dr. Robinson has no sympathy with the KJV/TR point of view, and distances himself and his work from it. He is a strictly Byz priority man.

I go to these lengths in citing sources as it is crucial to begin breaking the oft-stated error that these thousands of 9th and 10th century Majority Text minuscules were “late” and thus of no consequence! Of the minuscules, Kirsopp Lake says in his book, The Text of The New Testament,

Then, in the ninth century, Theodore the Studite, or some of his associates in the monastery of the Studium in Constantinople, invented an new and extremely beautiful form of cursive writing for literary purposes. This appears to have been adopted almost at once throughout the Greek world, and, although in succeeding centuries some local differences can be noticed, it remained dominant throughout the Byzantine Empire....It must not be assumed that an uncial is necessarily a more valuable witness to the text than a minuscule. Many uncials have a late text, while not a few minuscules have rare readings which bear witness to types of text otherwise lost to us. In short, it is neither the date nor the script of a MS. which determines its value for the critic, but the textual history of its ancestors. (p. 12)​

To assume an uncial is a “more valuable witness” than a minuscule has led to a mudslide of opinion obscuring a proper apprehension of the history of the text! Not to belabor the old Westcott and Hort fallacies (held by few and far between nowadays, though it seems that you, David, may be one of these rare birds), I shall quote Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort himself, in his volume II of The New Testament in the Original Greek, the “Introduction” to his theory:

A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vise versa. p. 45.​

What he is saying is that the majority of existing manuscripts would presumably represent a majority of ancient manuscripts, thus validating the contention of MT advocates that the Byzantine text was of ancient widespread origin reflecting the original autographs. It is interesting to note that regarding the Byzantine/Majority Text he said,

The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century. Ibid. p. 92. [cited in Burgon’s The Revision Revised, p. 257. Emphases Burgon’s, I believe. –SMR]​

Of course Hort – concerning the first quote – sought to annul any connection of the Byzantine (what he calls the “Syrian” or “Antiochian”) Text with the ancient autographs by immediately positing a theory accounting for the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine / Traditional Text, saying it came to be as a result of an official edition (“recension”) of the church in Syrian Antioch. I have dealt with this issue above: see John Burgon’s response to Westcott and Hort’s “Syrian recension” theory in post #139.

In sum: There was a revolution in manuscript writing that reached its height in the 900s, where minuscule writing (using lowercase Greek letters) replaced the older Uncial / majuscule (uppercase) letters, and all the old uncials in use were copied in the new format and then, as text critic Kirsopp Lake suggested, were destroyed as outdated. One can only imagine what old uncials existed before that time. And in what quantity.

Even that great opponent of the Textus Receptus, Dr. Hort, conceded that the Byzantine (“Antiochian”) text was “dominant…[in] the second half of the fourth century”, and that this text “is beyond all question identical… [with the] late extant Greek MSS. generally”, that is, the majority of mss, a.k.a., the Majority Text. We have noted that Hort found a way to annul this numerical superiority with his theory, which has been thoroughly examined, and found wanting.*

So David, it will not do to just blithely assert that the oldest (B and aleph) are the best and most reliable, for we have seen that they are far from that! They are rather, representatives of a local text type circulating in Egypt, and probably Alexandria in particular. It is also widely acknowledged that they do not at all represent a “neutral” text type (i.e., pure, uncorrupted from local sources). Wilbur Pickering gives a good look at the historical situation of the texts early on: here. A link to full contents of his book below.

-------

* There is an excellent – and brief! – examination and rebuttal of the Hortian theory in the “Introduction” to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. See the two sections, “Hort's Basic Contentions” and “A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic”.”

For further excellent and concise examinations and rebuttals of Westcott and Hort’s unfounded theories see also, Dr. Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament

and Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II. This is slightly different from his hard copy edition.

There are many more besides these, but these should suffice for the moment.

-------

After all that has been said above, David, we look again at — and evaluate — your comment (at the end of post #126): “In conclusion I do not see a major issue with the ESV translators, the use of older manuscripts, and applying of the science of textual criticism to our modern bible.” [Emphasis added]. Okay. . . . And here is a sampling of the results of your alleged “science of textual criticism” on text critics in the 20th century:

“The ultimate text, if ever there was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable” (F.C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 129)

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” New Testament Manuscript Studies, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles. A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum, 1953, p. 9).

“In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must remain a hypothesis” (H Greeven, Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments, 1960, p. 20, cited in Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 67.

“... so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by general pessimism about the possibility of recovering the original text by objective criteria” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited in Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, p. 25).

“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible. Therefore, we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility’ ” (R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, 1963, p. 51).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​

This is what the New Testament Greek scholars think of your vaunted “science of textual criticism”! Whence, pray tell, cometh your optimism when the experts in the field have none? Are you seeking to lead us down their woeful path in your naïveté? Please, spare us the pangs – the death throes – of a discipline gone awry! With good reason did Theodore Letis call this the “post-critical” age!