RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If you love the Textus Receptus for what it is, you should not have a problem with this book. James White acknowledges the value of the Textus Receptus and even the King James Version at times. What is problematic is the cult-like character of some King James Only advocates.
White begins with a survey of textual history and transmission. It’s one thing to say “God providentially preserved my favorite ms tradition.” It’s quite another to work through the transmission process. He explains the discovery of Sinaiticus and other texts. Even if you are a Ruckmanite, you will nonetheless appreciate the discussions on minuscule vs uncial texts, etc.
Copyists of manuscripts are going to make errors. Try it one day. Copy a page from a dictionary and see if you made any mistakes? Repeat a few thousand times. These minor errors are called textual variants (misspelled words, skipped lines, etc.). They are easily recognizable. White writes,
“Another kind of “scribal error” has to do with harmonization. Let’s say you were used to the way a particular phrase sounds in a particular passage of Scripture because your pastor uses that verse all the time in church. But let’s say that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture—similar, but not exactly the same. As you are copying that other passage of Scripture it would be very easy to inadvertently make that passage sound like the one you are accustomed to. You might not even know you had changed anything” (White 37).
Text Types (43)
“(1) The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri, and in the great uncial codices K and B.
(2) The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.
(3) The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later uncial and minuscule manuscripts.
(4) The Caesarean text-type, disputed by some, found in and “Family 1” (abbreviated f 1).”
One of White’s stronger arguments is that Erasmus used the same method of textual analysis that is condemned by KJV Only advocates today.
This book actually increased my appreciate of the NKJV. It’s a decent translation, but it also provides variant readings in the margin. This isn’t to “sow doubt,” but to alert the reader to the textual issues.
Responding to Byzantine-Text Arguments
White: “The question we must ask the proponents of the Byzantine text-type is this: upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine text, simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history; was in fact the best representative of the original writings during that vital period of the first few centuries” (152)?
The text, on the contrary, would have resembled the Alexandrian-type.
One often hears from KJV Only types that the modern translations delete passages proving the deity of Christ. While White explains how basic textual transmission works and how that accounts for these passages, he reverses the method and lowers the boom by showing passages where the modern translations are clearer on the deity of Christ than the KJV (Jude 4, Col. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:14-15, Acts 16:7). Does this mean the KJV translators were in conspiracy to deny the deity of Christ? Of course, such a position is idiocy.
Problems with the KJV
Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?
1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Pileser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.
Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.
The Changing English Language
“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,
what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), , “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28),, “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).
Some more:
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).
“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase Ttmuia rr/iov at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).
In the appendix there is a fine discussion of the Granville Sharp rule, something which wasn’t clear in the 17th century.
Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.
White begins with a survey of textual history and transmission. It’s one thing to say “God providentially preserved my favorite ms tradition.” It’s quite another to work through the transmission process. He explains the discovery of Sinaiticus and other texts. Even if you are a Ruckmanite, you will nonetheless appreciate the discussions on minuscule vs uncial texts, etc.
Copyists of manuscripts are going to make errors. Try it one day. Copy a page from a dictionary and see if you made any mistakes? Repeat a few thousand times. These minor errors are called textual variants (misspelled words, skipped lines, etc.). They are easily recognizable. White writes,
“Another kind of “scribal error” has to do with harmonization. Let’s say you were used to the way a particular phrase sounds in a particular passage of Scripture because your pastor uses that verse all the time in church. But let’s say that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture—similar, but not exactly the same. As you are copying that other passage of Scripture it would be very easy to inadvertently make that passage sound like the one you are accustomed to. You might not even know you had changed anything” (White 37).
Text Types (43)
“(1) The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri, and in the great uncial codices K and B.
(2) The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.
(3) The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later uncial and minuscule manuscripts.
(4) The Caesarean text-type, disputed by some, found in and “Family 1” (abbreviated f 1).”
One of White’s stronger arguments is that Erasmus used the same method of textual analysis that is condemned by KJV Only advocates today.
This book actually increased my appreciate of the NKJV. It’s a decent translation, but it also provides variant readings in the margin. This isn’t to “sow doubt,” but to alert the reader to the textual issues.
Responding to Byzantine-Text Arguments
White: “The question we must ask the proponents of the Byzantine text-type is this: upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine text, simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history; was in fact the best representative of the original writings during that vital period of the first few centuries” (152)?
The text, on the contrary, would have resembled the Alexandrian-type.
One often hears from KJV Only types that the modern translations delete passages proving the deity of Christ. While White explains how basic textual transmission works and how that accounts for these passages, he reverses the method and lowers the boom by showing passages where the modern translations are clearer on the deity of Christ than the KJV (Jude 4, Col. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:14-15, Acts 16:7). Does this mean the KJV translators were in conspiracy to deny the deity of Christ? Of course, such a position is idiocy.
Problems with the KJV
Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?
1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Pileser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.
Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.
The Changing English Language
“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,
what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), , “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28),, “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).
Some more:
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).
“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase Ttmuia rr/iov at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).
In the appendix there is a fine discussion of the Granville Sharp rule, something which wasn’t clear in the 17th century.
Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.
