Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Bill,
I certainly do not mean to marginalize you; the reason I mentioned James White´s book is because in your first post in the thread you said, "œWhite did a decent job in "˜KJVO Controversy´ of listing five different levels of "˜KJVO,´ but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those"¦" I have indicated a few times here and elsewhere I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here),
<blockquote> "œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>
It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy" on this I wished to learn of so I might interact with him.
To the contrary, Bill, I see you have read a good deal on the subject. And White also must be dealt with on a scholarly level, to do him justice.
Re your quote of Edward Miller, his remarks in the Introduction to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels are familiar to me. Twice above I referred folks (via a link) to an article by Dr. Thomas Cassidy dealing precisely with this issue. I realize reading all the links and referrals listed in these posts takes a bit of time, but it is important if we are taking, as you suggest, the scholarly as opposed to the popular approach in this discussion. At the commencement of Cassidy´s address he states,
<blockquote>There is no doubt that Dean Burgon made statements concerning the Textus Receptus, and its need for editing and revision. Edward Miller, writing in the Introduction (Page 5) of Dean Burgon's posthumously published The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Published by the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108) states, "œFirst, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision."
This statement, reiterated elsewhere in Dean Burgon's writings, begs the question, "œDid Dean John William Burgon advocate revising the Textus Receptus, and if so, on what basis?" And, "œWhat Greek Text would Dean Burgon advocate today as the preserved Greek text?"</blockquote>
During the course of this thread we have identified a number of Greek editions of the NT within what has been called the Textus Receptus "œfamily": Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir (each of these having more than one edition), all of them similar but with variations. Clearly the translators of the 1611 King James picked and chose from these (and other MSS.) in the rendering of their English version.
Cassidy says of this,
<blockquote>So we must ask ourselves, "œIs the King James Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and if so, which edition?"
The answer is, no. The King James Bible is not based on any single edition of the Textus Receptus, but is based on the Traditional Texts as they have been Providentially preserved down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history.</blockquote>
He then goes into a discussion of Erasmus, as well as the texts he had access to, topics loaded with much disinformation. (As an aside here, David Cloud´s book, Myths About The Modern Versions, has excellent chapters on these topics, Erasmus and the manuscripts available both to the editors and to the translators, loaded with important historical data.) Cassidy continues,
<blockquote>Is the Textus Receptus identical to the Traditional Text?
Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision.</blockquote>
Which brings us to Dr. Cassidy´s concluding question:
<blockquote>Is the Traditional Text best represented today by any single "œTextus Receptus?"
At the time of Dean Burgon's sudden death in 1888, no Textus Receptus was identical to the readings of the King James Bible, nor the Traditional or Byzantine Manuscript tradition. The Dean, in response to the need for an unassailable Greek Text in the Byzantine tradition, encouraged his colleague F.H.A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, to edit a Greek Text with textual apparatus which would show the textual basis for every word in the King James Bible New Testament. Mr. Scrivener began this work in 1881, largely spurred on by the publication of the Greek Text of the New Testament according to Westcott and Hort.
Scrivener's final edition appeared in 1894, and continues to be published by the Trinitarian Bible Society today as the "œTextus Receptus." In this publication, Scrivener states that he has managed to trace the origin of almost every word of the King James New Testament where it departs from the Textus Receptus (about 190 instances of varying degree if we use Beza's 1598 edition as the base line). Of these 190 instances, Scrivener was able to trace, working from a copy of the Translation Committee's notes found in the private library of the Secretary to the Final Revision Committee, all but about a dozen variants. The official minutes of those historic meetings were apparently destroyed in the London fire of 1629. However, in 1964 Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois´s original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "œTranslating For King James," and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
We must note that Burgon called for 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone, while Scrivener made only about 250 changes in the entire New Testament. Does this fact suggest that Burgon would not accept Scriveners text? Perhaps not. Burgon's suggestion of 150 changes in the Gospel of Matthew may have included changes in the chapter and verse structure which was added to the Greek New Testament by Stephens. The anecdote has often been told that Stephens did much of his work while traveling on horse back, and the jolting may have caused more than one slip of the pen! This can be easily demonstrated by looking at Acts chapter 21 and 22. Chapter 21 does not complete the paragraph, or even the sentence! The chapter division comes right in the middle of the sentence which begins in 21:40 and ends in 22:1! Perhaps it was just such chapter and verse divisions which Burgon included in his 150 suggested changes.
We can now see that even though Dean Burgon did call for a revision of the Textus Receptus as it existed in his day, the present Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society under the name "œTextus Receptus" reflects the revision of the older Greek Texts which went by the same name, and now much more closely follows the manuscript tradition of the Traditional Texts of the Byzantine Manuscript Evidence.
Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek. As this Greek Text is the direct result of Dean Burgon's desire to see the Textus Receptus revised to more closely reflect the Traditional Text of the Byzantine Manuscripts, it is my assertion that the Dean, were he alive today, would agree with our position, and deem the Textus Receptus of today to be the authoritative Greek Text.
Which brings us to our concluding point. What about those readings in the King James Bible which depart not only from the majority of Textus Receptus readings, but also from all known Greek manuscript evidence? Where do those readings come from, and how can their authority be confirmed?
The title page to the original King James Version of 1611 contains the following statement: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties speciall Comandment."
It has been supposed that the reference to the "former translations" meant only the English translations of Tyndale and others. However, I believe, judging from the notes left by the Translation Committees, that this reference also includes the Vernaculars in Latin, Syriac, and the older European language Bibles used by the Waldenses, Vaudois, and other historic New Testament churches.
It is this reliance on the oldest known vernaculars that has made the King James Bible so reliable, and able to meet every test of accuracy. The Old Latin and Old Peshitta were very early translations of the New Testament dating to as early as the mid-second century (about 150 A.D.). It has been noted that readings occur in the King James Bible that are without Greek manuscript support, and I believe those readings can be traced to the earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta.
Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed! The Old Latin and Old Syriac are strong indications that the readings in question are, in fact, authoritative, and being closest to the autographs, best reflect their readings. These vernacular readings are supported by the evidence from the early church Patriarchs, as well as from the Lexionaries, or daily scripture lessons read in the churches. It is unfortunate that the Critical Text proponents have failed to take this telling evidence into consideration, as it constitutes, in my opinion, the Best Evidence for the authority of these readings.
Think about it.</blockquote>
I quoted a good part of Dr. Cassidy´s address as it seemed it was being glossing over just when this information was most needed in our discussion. If anyone thinks this does not tie up the loose ends in our previous talking about the various editions comprising the TR and the KJV, and what amounts to Burgon´s concern for this "œunsettled" Textus Receptus or Traditional Text, please bring forward your objections now.
------------
Bill, I do not have an internet connection at the time I am writing this, so I will have to get the Letis pdf you gave a link to and comment on it shortly.
You said,
<blockquote>Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.
I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).
But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.</blockquote>
Thank you for saying that "œrestoration" may well be part of the preservation process "“ I cannot see it as being any other way! "“ but I do not see how you can then say, "œone cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at "˜restoration´ by Westcott and Hort [W&H] in terms of the issue of restoration." What W&H did was not restore, but replace, on a massive scale. And their replacing involved omissions of words that numbered in the many thousands.
You say,
<blockquote>But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611.</blockquote>
Is it unfair to say the readings of the genuine autographs have always been preserved "“ have never been lost "“ although a few of them were not restored until the compilation of the settled text by the 1611 translators, even as happened in Old Testament times under Ezra, who brought the text back into its intact form? (I do not equate the 1611 men with the same level of inspiration given Ezra!) This matter of preservation is a nuanced business, and I fear hasty hands have clouded things over, which you rightly object to. Nor can I presume to answer all the question involved in this, though I seek to unearth as much data as I can, even from the writings of the opponents of my position, for much knowledge is to be gained even from them.
I will post this now, download the Letis piece you reference, and will continue later.
Your brother in the Truth,
Steve
I certainly do not mean to marginalize you; the reason I mentioned James White´s book is because in your first post in the thread you said, "œWhite did a decent job in "˜KJVO Controversy´ of listing five different levels of "˜KJVO,´ but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those"¦" I have indicated a few times here and elsewhere I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here),
<blockquote> "œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>
It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy" on this I wished to learn of so I might interact with him.
To the contrary, Bill, I see you have read a good deal on the subject. And White also must be dealt with on a scholarly level, to do him justice.
Re your quote of Edward Miller, his remarks in the Introduction to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels are familiar to me. Twice above I referred folks (via a link) to an article by Dr. Thomas Cassidy dealing precisely with this issue. I realize reading all the links and referrals listed in these posts takes a bit of time, but it is important if we are taking, as you suggest, the scholarly as opposed to the popular approach in this discussion. At the commencement of Cassidy´s address he states,
<blockquote>There is no doubt that Dean Burgon made statements concerning the Textus Receptus, and its need for editing and revision. Edward Miller, writing in the Introduction (Page 5) of Dean Burgon's posthumously published The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Published by the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108) states, "œFirst, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision."
This statement, reiterated elsewhere in Dean Burgon's writings, begs the question, "œDid Dean John William Burgon advocate revising the Textus Receptus, and if so, on what basis?" And, "œWhat Greek Text would Dean Burgon advocate today as the preserved Greek text?"</blockquote>
During the course of this thread we have identified a number of Greek editions of the NT within what has been called the Textus Receptus "œfamily": Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir (each of these having more than one edition), all of them similar but with variations. Clearly the translators of the 1611 King James picked and chose from these (and other MSS.) in the rendering of their English version.
Cassidy says of this,
<blockquote>So we must ask ourselves, "œIs the King James Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and if so, which edition?"
The answer is, no. The King James Bible is not based on any single edition of the Textus Receptus, but is based on the Traditional Texts as they have been Providentially preserved down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history.</blockquote>
He then goes into a discussion of Erasmus, as well as the texts he had access to, topics loaded with much disinformation. (As an aside here, David Cloud´s book, Myths About The Modern Versions, has excellent chapters on these topics, Erasmus and the manuscripts available both to the editors and to the translators, loaded with important historical data.) Cassidy continues,
<blockquote>Is the Textus Receptus identical to the Traditional Text?
Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision.</blockquote>
Which brings us to Dr. Cassidy´s concluding question:
<blockquote>Is the Traditional Text best represented today by any single "œTextus Receptus?"
At the time of Dean Burgon's sudden death in 1888, no Textus Receptus was identical to the readings of the King James Bible, nor the Traditional or Byzantine Manuscript tradition. The Dean, in response to the need for an unassailable Greek Text in the Byzantine tradition, encouraged his colleague F.H.A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, to edit a Greek Text with textual apparatus which would show the textual basis for every word in the King James Bible New Testament. Mr. Scrivener began this work in 1881, largely spurred on by the publication of the Greek Text of the New Testament according to Westcott and Hort.
Scrivener's final edition appeared in 1894, and continues to be published by the Trinitarian Bible Society today as the "œTextus Receptus." In this publication, Scrivener states that he has managed to trace the origin of almost every word of the King James New Testament where it departs from the Textus Receptus (about 190 instances of varying degree if we use Beza's 1598 edition as the base line). Of these 190 instances, Scrivener was able to trace, working from a copy of the Translation Committee's notes found in the private library of the Secretary to the Final Revision Committee, all but about a dozen variants. The official minutes of those historic meetings were apparently destroyed in the London fire of 1629. However, in 1964 Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois´s original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "œTranslating For King James," and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
We must note that Burgon called for 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone, while Scrivener made only about 250 changes in the entire New Testament. Does this fact suggest that Burgon would not accept Scriveners text? Perhaps not. Burgon's suggestion of 150 changes in the Gospel of Matthew may have included changes in the chapter and verse structure which was added to the Greek New Testament by Stephens. The anecdote has often been told that Stephens did much of his work while traveling on horse back, and the jolting may have caused more than one slip of the pen! This can be easily demonstrated by looking at Acts chapter 21 and 22. Chapter 21 does not complete the paragraph, or even the sentence! The chapter division comes right in the middle of the sentence which begins in 21:40 and ends in 22:1! Perhaps it was just such chapter and verse divisions which Burgon included in his 150 suggested changes.
We can now see that even though Dean Burgon did call for a revision of the Textus Receptus as it existed in his day, the present Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society under the name "œTextus Receptus" reflects the revision of the older Greek Texts which went by the same name, and now much more closely follows the manuscript tradition of the Traditional Texts of the Byzantine Manuscript Evidence.
Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek. As this Greek Text is the direct result of Dean Burgon's desire to see the Textus Receptus revised to more closely reflect the Traditional Text of the Byzantine Manuscripts, it is my assertion that the Dean, were he alive today, would agree with our position, and deem the Textus Receptus of today to be the authoritative Greek Text.
Which brings us to our concluding point. What about those readings in the King James Bible which depart not only from the majority of Textus Receptus readings, but also from all known Greek manuscript evidence? Where do those readings come from, and how can their authority be confirmed?
The title page to the original King James Version of 1611 contains the following statement: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties speciall Comandment."
It has been supposed that the reference to the "former translations" meant only the English translations of Tyndale and others. However, I believe, judging from the notes left by the Translation Committees, that this reference also includes the Vernaculars in Latin, Syriac, and the older European language Bibles used by the Waldenses, Vaudois, and other historic New Testament churches.
It is this reliance on the oldest known vernaculars that has made the King James Bible so reliable, and able to meet every test of accuracy. The Old Latin and Old Peshitta were very early translations of the New Testament dating to as early as the mid-second century (about 150 A.D.). It has been noted that readings occur in the King James Bible that are without Greek manuscript support, and I believe those readings can be traced to the earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta.
Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed! The Old Latin and Old Syriac are strong indications that the readings in question are, in fact, authoritative, and being closest to the autographs, best reflect their readings. These vernacular readings are supported by the evidence from the early church Patriarchs, as well as from the Lexionaries, or daily scripture lessons read in the churches. It is unfortunate that the Critical Text proponents have failed to take this telling evidence into consideration, as it constitutes, in my opinion, the Best Evidence for the authority of these readings.
Think about it.</blockquote>
I quoted a good part of Dr. Cassidy´s address as it seemed it was being glossing over just when this information was most needed in our discussion. If anyone thinks this does not tie up the loose ends in our previous talking about the various editions comprising the TR and the KJV, and what amounts to Burgon´s concern for this "œunsettled" Textus Receptus or Traditional Text, please bring forward your objections now.
------------
Bill, I do not have an internet connection at the time I am writing this, so I will have to get the Letis pdf you gave a link to and comment on it shortly.
You said,
<blockquote>Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.
I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).
But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.</blockquote>
Thank you for saying that "œrestoration" may well be part of the preservation process "“ I cannot see it as being any other way! "“ but I do not see how you can then say, "œone cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at "˜restoration´ by Westcott and Hort [W&H] in terms of the issue of restoration." What W&H did was not restore, but replace, on a massive scale. And their replacing involved omissions of words that numbered in the many thousands.
You say,
<blockquote>But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611.</blockquote>
Is it unfair to say the readings of the genuine autographs have always been preserved "“ have never been lost "“ although a few of them were not restored until the compilation of the settled text by the 1611 translators, even as happened in Old Testament times under Ezra, who brought the text back into its intact form? (I do not equate the 1611 men with the same level of inspiration given Ezra!) This matter of preservation is a nuanced business, and I fear hasty hands have clouded things over, which you rightly object to. Nor can I presume to answer all the question involved in this, though I seek to unearth as much data as I can, even from the writings of the opponents of my position, for much knowledge is to be gained even from them.
I will post this now, download the Letis piece you reference, and will continue later.
Your brother in the Truth,
Steve
