When we speak of preservation, this is precisely what is meant -- that the Word was really preserved through the living witness of the church.
Verse differences
- Thread starter SeanAnderson
- Start date
- Status
When we speak of preservation, this is precisely what is meant -- that the Word was really preserved through the living witness of the church.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Jimmy, I rather frown on the “discussion method” of copy and pasting someone else’s arguments, and then expecting those in the discussion to answer, not your own thoughts, but the copy and pasted thoughts of others . . . . and this sort of thing can go on indefinitely, with you doing no work but copy (or typing) and pasting. Fortunately for me I had answered a very similar question from Dr. White’s lieutenant, Alan Kurschner, some years back, and I’ll put that here rather than “inventing the wheel twice”. The words in blue are Mr. Kurschner’s, and those in black mine:
(3) How did the Byzantine text-form end up having more attested Greek manuscripts than the other text-forms such as the Alexandrian and the Western? Here is a very important fact of history that KJVO advocates ignore. Given the supplanting of the Greek language for Latin in the West early on, and given the expansion of Islam into Egypt and other regions, it explains why Byzantine Greek manuscripts continued to be copied in the Byzantine corner of the empire and eventually became the majority Greek text around the ninth century onwards; and explains why the early Greek text-types such as the Alexandrian were not copied during later times in other areas of the Christian world.
If there were no Islam expansion and coupled with the West speaking Greek not Latin, certainly the Byzantine text would not have been the “majority.” The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace.
This is a peculiar argument. I do not think it does justice to the complexity of the linguistic situation during this period. Did the Latin language “supplant” the Greek in the West – which Latin had been spoken in Italy and parts of Europe, including Britannia, for centuries – or was it simply the language of all, both common and educated – in this region? After the Roman conquest of Greece (B.C. 146), an unofficial diglossy (see “diglossia”) of Greek and Latin was established in the city of Rome and Koine Greek became the lingua franca of the vast Roman Empire. Educated Romans read the Greek classics. It can be shown that Latin remained the primary written language of the Western empire, and was the language of the administration of its government. (In the East, eventually written Latin was replaced by the native Greek, where the Greek language remained the only spoken tongue. Yet as late as Emperor Theodosius II [408-50], Latin was used within his administration, but Greek was used in communication with his subjects.) Earlier in the West, the Roman legions carried a vernacular Latin throughout the provinces where they were stationed, and in Europe this Latin eventually mixed with the native tongues to become the Romance languages, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian. Latin survived the fall of the Roman Empire (the Western Empire, as distinguished from the Eastern, the Greek or Byzantine Empire), later to be transformed into the aforementioned Romance tongues, except in the Western / Roman Church, where Latin remained its language.
In Roman Egypt, after the conquest by Alexander the Great, the native language, Demotic (which later evolved into Coptic, and even later was replaced as the national language by Arabic), slowly decreased in official spheres in lieu of the Greek, probably as a result of Roman policy. Demotic and Greek were used in Roman Egypt in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century A.D. and beyond.
In Western Europe Latin did not “supplant” the Greek, but was its native tongue.
The “Byzantine corner of the empire” was no corner, but a vast territory.
The persecutions of Diocletian, 302-312 A.D., greatly diminished the copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as one of his laws was that all copies of them be destroyed. To conceal and keep a copy was a capital crime, which some risked nonetheless. There was a special class of informers, called traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church, who sought out copies of the Scripture (and those who owned them), and turned them over to the authorities for reward.*
To compensate for this scarcity of Bibles, it is historically documented that Constantine, upon his becoming emperor, ordered – and paid – Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Bible, an edition that is Alexandrian in nature (Tischendorf thought his Sinaiticus likely one of those 50, and others have thought that of Vaticanus). Copies of Scripture were few. How then, did the predominance of the “Greek Vulgate” – that is, the Byzantine textform – come to be? It came to be the dominant text in the Greek church from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century on, while the Alexandrian form of Eusebius’ official edition disappeared for the most part. Considering just this Byzantine development, how did it come to pass?
A difference needs to be made between the Old Latin Bibles of Europe – copied after the form of text that came from Palestine and Syrian Antioch (the missionary church) – and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that came into existence centuries later. The form of text that came to be standardized in the Latin West (where the Greek was discontinued) in the increasingly power-hungry church of Rome was a corrupted text, a debased form of the Scripture that was shunned by the dissenting Christians in Milan and the mountains of Europe (the Waldenses and Albigenses).
The “if-then” fallacy that if there had been no Islamic invasion of Egypt and no alleged “supplanting of Greek for [I think AK means “by” here] Latin in the West” then “The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace”, is without merit. It is sheer conjecture, and based at that upon false premises.
Around 641 A.D. Islam began to spread into Egypt, and before that the local text of that region (which had never had any autographs of the NT Scriptures sent to them) was not accepted by the Byzantine church, which had ample time and occasion to become familiar with them through Eusebius’ bringing them in from Origen’s Alexandrian/Caesarian library. By the time Islam took Egypt the dust had settled on the issue of the validity of their NT MSS, in the eyes of the Greek church.
And in all of these historical/geographical/linguistic events, what was the hand of God doing as regards His Scripture He had promised to preserve for His people (and this matter of His preserving them is pivotal in this whole discussion!)? Did the Muslims slip by Him and thwart the dominance of the supposed “superior” Alexandrian texttype? Did the changes of languages in the Roman Empire catch Him by surprise and ruin His plan to elevate the textform Mr. Kurschner thinks ought to have been elevated?
This is not the Sovereign we know, “who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will,” for He has said, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Eph 1:11; Isa 46:10).
____________
* History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, by Philip Schaff (MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1910), page 69.
[End quote from discussion with Mr. Kurschner]
---------
Jimmy, please spare me such distasteful type of discussion, where you paste and I work! Now you did ask, “what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly?”
Okay, I agree God did provide providential oversight of the Alexandrian texts as well, as “all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13), though His providence was such as we see in those very mss yet extant unto this day, and I will note only 3, Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), and P75 of the Bodmer papyri (which agrees with B 92% in John and 94% in Luke, and thus confirms the existence of the texttype B represents back to the early 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, rather than the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] as previously thought). The Lord certainly looked over these mss and preserved them, and due to them many of the churches today use a Greek text that has been preserved in the main though not in the minutiae, a NT text that is capable of being a vehicle used by God to convert souls to Jesus Christ and of sustaining and nurturing churches under the pastoral care of godly ministers.
Due to the variants (including many omissions) this text is not preserved in the minutiae yet is adequate to sustain souls and churches as noted just above.
(Will Kinney examines P75 and B as well as other papyri in an article on his KJV defense articles page. He’s a little tougher-minded than I, but he’s good. In his article he also shows that P75 agrees with the TR more than with Vaticanus!)
Now when you say, “the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century”, you leave your presuppositions showing, i.e., that the TR text is a young text without any ancient attestation. Perhaps it is better to call them “hearsay remembrances” than “presuppositions”. Maurice Robinson examines the history of the Byzantine / Majority Text in his excellent Introduction to The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine / Majority Textform, or in the newer Preface to the 2005 edition of this work.
Jakob van Bruggen in his, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, also examines the textual history, with a focus on the results for the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century text-critical enterprise. Note that both of these men, Robinson and van Bruggen, are Byzantine / Majority Text defenders, not KJV.
(These articles are rare, and internet links often go defunct, so download them if they are of value to you.)
I referenced it above, but will again, Wilbur Pickering’s account of the early history of the NT text is also of great value.
I post links to these articles not to engage anyone in discussion thereby, or to refute other views, but to steer readers who are interested in an alternative to the “provisional” Bibles that abound, that being the Authorized Version of the Reformation.
The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.
It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.
(3) How did the Byzantine text-form end up having more attested Greek manuscripts than the other text-forms such as the Alexandrian and the Western? Here is a very important fact of history that KJVO advocates ignore. Given the supplanting of the Greek language for Latin in the West early on, and given the expansion of Islam into Egypt and other regions, it explains why Byzantine Greek manuscripts continued to be copied in the Byzantine corner of the empire and eventually became the majority Greek text around the ninth century onwards; and explains why the early Greek text-types such as the Alexandrian were not copied during later times in other areas of the Christian world.
If there were no Islam expansion and coupled with the West speaking Greek not Latin, certainly the Byzantine text would not have been the “majority.” The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace.
This is a peculiar argument. I do not think it does justice to the complexity of the linguistic situation during this period. Did the Latin language “supplant” the Greek in the West – which Latin had been spoken in Italy and parts of Europe, including Britannia, for centuries – or was it simply the language of all, both common and educated – in this region? After the Roman conquest of Greece (B.C. 146), an unofficial diglossy (see “diglossia”) of Greek and Latin was established in the city of Rome and Koine Greek became the lingua franca of the vast Roman Empire. Educated Romans read the Greek classics. It can be shown that Latin remained the primary written language of the Western empire, and was the language of the administration of its government. (In the East, eventually written Latin was replaced by the native Greek, where the Greek language remained the only spoken tongue. Yet as late as Emperor Theodosius II [408-50], Latin was used within his administration, but Greek was used in communication with his subjects.) Earlier in the West, the Roman legions carried a vernacular Latin throughout the provinces where they were stationed, and in Europe this Latin eventually mixed with the native tongues to become the Romance languages, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian. Latin survived the fall of the Roman Empire (the Western Empire, as distinguished from the Eastern, the Greek or Byzantine Empire), later to be transformed into the aforementioned Romance tongues, except in the Western / Roman Church, where Latin remained its language.
In Roman Egypt, after the conquest by Alexander the Great, the native language, Demotic (which later evolved into Coptic, and even later was replaced as the national language by Arabic), slowly decreased in official spheres in lieu of the Greek, probably as a result of Roman policy. Demotic and Greek were used in Roman Egypt in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century A.D. and beyond.
In Western Europe Latin did not “supplant” the Greek, but was its native tongue.
The “Byzantine corner of the empire” was no corner, but a vast territory.
The persecutions of Diocletian, 302-312 A.D., greatly diminished the copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as one of his laws was that all copies of them be destroyed. To conceal and keep a copy was a capital crime, which some risked nonetheless. There was a special class of informers, called traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church, who sought out copies of the Scripture (and those who owned them), and turned them over to the authorities for reward.*
To compensate for this scarcity of Bibles, it is historically documented that Constantine, upon his becoming emperor, ordered – and paid – Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Bible, an edition that is Alexandrian in nature (Tischendorf thought his Sinaiticus likely one of those 50, and others have thought that of Vaticanus). Copies of Scripture were few. How then, did the predominance of the “Greek Vulgate” – that is, the Byzantine textform – come to be? It came to be the dominant text in the Greek church from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century on, while the Alexandrian form of Eusebius’ official edition disappeared for the most part. Considering just this Byzantine development, how did it come to pass?
A difference needs to be made between the Old Latin Bibles of Europe – copied after the form of text that came from Palestine and Syrian Antioch (the missionary church) – and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that came into existence centuries later. The form of text that came to be standardized in the Latin West (where the Greek was discontinued) in the increasingly power-hungry church of Rome was a corrupted text, a debased form of the Scripture that was shunned by the dissenting Christians in Milan and the mountains of Europe (the Waldenses and Albigenses).
The “if-then” fallacy that if there had been no Islamic invasion of Egypt and no alleged “supplanting of Greek for [I think AK means “by” here] Latin in the West” then “The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace”, is without merit. It is sheer conjecture, and based at that upon false premises.
Around 641 A.D. Islam began to spread into Egypt, and before that the local text of that region (which had never had any autographs of the NT Scriptures sent to them) was not accepted by the Byzantine church, which had ample time and occasion to become familiar with them through Eusebius’ bringing them in from Origen’s Alexandrian/Caesarian library. By the time Islam took Egypt the dust had settled on the issue of the validity of their NT MSS, in the eyes of the Greek church.
And in all of these historical/geographical/linguistic events, what was the hand of God doing as regards His Scripture He had promised to preserve for His people (and this matter of His preserving them is pivotal in this whole discussion!)? Did the Muslims slip by Him and thwart the dominance of the supposed “superior” Alexandrian texttype? Did the changes of languages in the Roman Empire catch Him by surprise and ruin His plan to elevate the textform Mr. Kurschner thinks ought to have been elevated?
This is not the Sovereign we know, “who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will,” for He has said, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Eph 1:11; Isa 46:10).
____________
* History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, by Philip Schaff (MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1910), page 69.
[End quote from discussion with Mr. Kurschner]
---------
Jimmy, please spare me such distasteful type of discussion, where you paste and I work! Now you did ask, “what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly?”
Okay, I agree God did provide providential oversight of the Alexandrian texts as well, as “all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13), though His providence was such as we see in those very mss yet extant unto this day, and I will note only 3, Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), and P75 of the Bodmer papyri (which agrees with B 92% in John and 94% in Luke, and thus confirms the existence of the texttype B represents back to the early 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, rather than the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] as previously thought). The Lord certainly looked over these mss and preserved them, and due to them many of the churches today use a Greek text that has been preserved in the main though not in the minutiae, a NT text that is capable of being a vehicle used by God to convert souls to Jesus Christ and of sustaining and nurturing churches under the pastoral care of godly ministers.
Due to the variants (including many omissions) this text is not preserved in the minutiae yet is adequate to sustain souls and churches as noted just above.
(Will Kinney examines P75 and B as well as other papyri in an article on his KJV defense articles page. He’s a little tougher-minded than I, but he’s good. In his article he also shows that P75 agrees with the TR more than with Vaticanus!)
Now when you say, “the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century”, you leave your presuppositions showing, i.e., that the TR text is a young text without any ancient attestation. Perhaps it is better to call them “hearsay remembrances” than “presuppositions”. Maurice Robinson examines the history of the Byzantine / Majority Text in his excellent Introduction to The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine / Majority Textform, or in the newer Preface to the 2005 edition of this work.
Jakob van Bruggen in his, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, also examines the textual history, with a focus on the results for the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century text-critical enterprise. Note that both of these men, Robinson and van Bruggen, are Byzantine / Majority Text defenders, not KJV.
(These articles are rare, and internet links often go defunct, so download them if they are of value to you.)
I referenced it above, but will again, Wilbur Pickering’s account of the early history of the NT text is also of great value.
I post links to these articles not to engage anyone in discussion thereby, or to refute other views, but to steer readers who are interested in an alternative to the “provisional” Bibles that abound, that being the Authorized Version of the Reformation.
The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.
It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.
Last edited:
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Steve, had I been able to copy and paste the quoted text by White, I certainly would have. I painstakingly read my copy of his book while I typed that text ...... and I am a self taught typist ..... In other words, ....... it ain't smooth and easy. So after an hour or so of typing, proofing, editing, it was ready for prime time.
As for it being the thoughts of others ....... where do we get these arguments if not from the thoughts of others ? Your defense of the AV in post after post is a conglomeration of quotes and links to one author after another, and this post is no exception.
Thanks for the links to Robinson/Pierpont, I have the book here in hard copy and have read the appendix with the defense, where I might note that Robinson characterizes the TR as, "the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts". ........ and ;
"Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. but the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner." (footnote to the preceding sentence) ; "This includes all the various factions which hope to find authority and certainty in a single "providentially preserved" Greek text or English translation (usually the KJV), It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis."
Thanks for the link to Jakob van Bruggen, I will check him out. D.A. Carson wrote an appendix to his "The King James Only Controversy, A Plea For Realism," titled "A Critique of The Identity of the New Testament Text." Carson wrote, "Of the books that have been written in defense of a Textus Receptus type of text, perhaps none is more convincing than The Identity of the New Testament Text." (Wilbur Pickering)
I need to read Pickering, and re-read Carson's rebuttal. Steve, I'm not 'on a mission' with this. I won't be debating with you post after post as some members have. I don't have the knowledge base, nor the stamina.
I must say, with all due respect, believe me, that I always have gotten a kick out of the way Reverend Winzer will answer in these forays with a sentence or two, while predictably you will have multiple paragraphs with many links and quotes. Quite frankly I thought you would thank me for giving you 'grist for your mill' with my question. You've always said you would debate James White in writing but weren't 'fast enough on your feet' to do it mano a mano ....... anyway.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Another gracious response from you, Jimmy, which I appreciate. The excerpt of James White you laboriously typed out (I can relate) is really a very complex matter, and I’m glad I had come across it before in Kurschner and had the time and energy to research and answer it then, so it would not so occupy my time now, seeing as I am busy on another project. (I note that I didn’t answer all the points of White in your quote, though I have elsewhere, such as re Origen, etc.)
I mean, the quoting of White, or Carson, or Kutilek et al and then expecting an answer, well, where will it end? Such a method can go on forever, and I don’t have forever – not in this life! Indeed, I can answer these gentlemen in writing, but again, I am finite and so is my time, and I desire to choose my battles. This thread particularly engaged me as the topic of my faithfulness to the Reformation and its doctrines was questioned, and this provoked me to go into some depth on the topic (aside from the Erasmus business, which I am pursuing privately).
I am aware of the difference in Rev Winzer’s pithy and keenly insightful style of writing (which I highly value most of the time) and my own far more drawn out manner (to put it mildly). I suppose – and this includes my own quoting of others and giving links – the difference is that in this venue I am a teacher, and I use the material of others much as a classroom venue would warrant the assigning of textbooks and essays, for those of a mind to follow along. I write primarily to teach those of like (or enquiring) minds the nature of the textual issues and that a defense of the Traditional Text against current opposing views may be done well and convincingly (to some, at any rate).
If I were in a classroom setting and someone kept quoting from Dr. White’s book and expecting me to answer, I might do it a time or two, but after all, I have my own agenda of topics to explicate and don’t want to spend my time accommodating someone else’s agenda. Actually, at times it has been my specific purpose to deal with an opponent – or an opposing view – to the TR or AV, to demonstrate its defense, while at other times my purpose varies.
I am preparing to do another thread on eschatology, and also getting a book together to publish (I have been prodded on to complete this through being ill recently – and reminded of my mortality!) which I have been working on for years – decades – and want to get print ready. Perhaps I shall start with a Kindle version, and then go to other e-reading formats, and if a print publisher wants it, even better (as I like real books better than e-books). A working title is, A Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Babylon (and Armageddon!).
So time is short, and precious.
I mean, the quoting of White, or Carson, or Kutilek et al and then expecting an answer, well, where will it end? Such a method can go on forever, and I don’t have forever – not in this life! Indeed, I can answer these gentlemen in writing, but again, I am finite and so is my time, and I desire to choose my battles. This thread particularly engaged me as the topic of my faithfulness to the Reformation and its doctrines was questioned, and this provoked me to go into some depth on the topic (aside from the Erasmus business, which I am pursuing privately).
I am aware of the difference in Rev Winzer’s pithy and keenly insightful style of writing (which I highly value most of the time) and my own far more drawn out manner (to put it mildly). I suppose – and this includes my own quoting of others and giving links – the difference is that in this venue I am a teacher, and I use the material of others much as a classroom venue would warrant the assigning of textbooks and essays, for those of a mind to follow along. I write primarily to teach those of like (or enquiring) minds the nature of the textual issues and that a defense of the Traditional Text against current opposing views may be done well and convincingly (to some, at any rate).
If I were in a classroom setting and someone kept quoting from Dr. White’s book and expecting me to answer, I might do it a time or two, but after all, I have my own agenda of topics to explicate and don’t want to spend my time accommodating someone else’s agenda. Actually, at times it has been my specific purpose to deal with an opponent – or an opposing view – to the TR or AV, to demonstrate its defense, while at other times my purpose varies.
I am preparing to do another thread on eschatology, and also getting a book together to publish (I have been prodded on to complete this through being ill recently – and reminded of my mortality!) which I have been working on for years – decades – and want to get print ready. Perhaps I shall start with a Kindle version, and then go to other e-reading formats, and if a print publisher wants it, even better (as I like real books better than e-books). A working title is, A Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Babylon (and Armageddon!).
So time is short, and precious.
Last edited:
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
And thank you for your gracious reply Steve. I had read the thread with your praise to God for healing you from the hep-C. In my younger days I spent too much time on the wild side, and have had too many friends and acquaintances, who succumbed to that disease. It is only by the grace of God that I missed the bullet so to speak. In the early days of the interferon I had friends who went into deep depression through the side effects. Some few survived the ordeal and came out the other side virus free, others were not so fortunate. I am happy for you that you are living to fight another day, and I look forward to your book.
- Status
Similar threads
