Featured The real TR

Well, Maurice A. Robinson, JoJ's hero, has said:

"Manuscripts must be weighted and not merely counted."

"The Byzantine-priority position is often caricatured as only interested in the weight of numbers and simple 'nose-counting' of MSS when attempting to restore the original form of the NT text."

It looks like you are counting noses Steve.

He also has said :"It is important to seek out readings with demonstratable antiquity."

My belief is that normally the earlier a given MSS,Codex or Unicial is --the better. It is closer to the original than the bulk of works that are found after the 10th century. That just makes sense to me. How my stance can be considered unreasonable by others will remain a mystery.

 

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with looking at the quality of the MSS as well as the number. That would cause problems for Sinaiticus. With regard to antiquity, yes, if you have two texts saying different things, then the older manuscript might be given extra weight, but there's no certainty about it, as a moment's thought will reveal.

However, if you take a verse like 1 Tim. 3:16, 98.5% of the extant MSS (so I'm told) say 'God,' while the 1.5% make no real sense. 'Beyond all controversy, the mystery of godliness is great. Who was revealed in a body.' But the very reason that the N.U. people prefer 'who' is because it is the 'harder' (in other words the most ridiculous) reading. Is that any way to judge the word of God?

 

Extra weight should be given to a number of the oldest works rather than a bunch of very late ones.

I will give the NIV reading for that section of the verse:
"Beyond all question , the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,"
There is no version that I know of which words it the way you have it rendered.

The pronoun "he" is used in most English Bible translations such as NIV,ESV,HCSB,ISV,Net, GWT,CEB,NRSV,Goodspeed etc.

The NASB has "he who"

Well, as I just told you "he" is used in most of them, not "who."

And you still insist on framing things in a way that is not representative of the "N.U.people" Steve.

Back on 3/1/2012 you put it this way:"the most bizarre and ridiculous one."

And before that you had said :"the most unlikely and unfeasible reading." (6/16/2011)

Please furnish documentation that supports your claim from those who do not share your textual proclivity.

 

I now have in my formerly nicotine-stained hands...(wait a minute --that's Rush's line --I have never smoked) a book which I value greatly. It's called How To Choose a Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss. Yes, I have mentioned them before.

"...quantity counts for very little, and quality (and age) count for everything. Indeed, the great majority orf manuscripts (known collectively as the Majority Text) reflect an accumulation of centuries of copying errors, which have made their way into these later manuscripts. So the greater value lies with the manuscripts that are demonstrably earlier; and this is especially so when the same reading is found in a cross-section of early witnesses that are widely dispersed geographically. For example, when a reading (variant) is found in early manuscripts that come from the western part of the Roman empire as well as early manuscripts that come from the eastern churches, we can assume that both readings independently go back to an even earlier common source." (p.113)

 

The Greek word is 'Hos' which means 'who.' One solitary manuscript (D, I think) has 'Ho' meaning 'he.' The C.T. is such an unsatisfactory rendering that the translation are obliged to muck about with it. But again, that may be the very reason that Aland, Metzger & Co. prefer it.

 

No, not D. A,C,F,G,33 and 365 all have it. Hardly just one manuscript.

You apparently didn't notice the NIV rendering which I gave.

Something considered "unsatisfying" is hardly the criteria for determining authenticity.

 

I am staring at a UBS 4th Edn. Testament, dated 1993. I'm sure there are newer ones but that's what I've got. The apparatus shows that the texts that you list above give Ὃς. 'hos,' which means 'who.' One solitary MS (D) gives Ὃ, which could mean 'he' but in fact you don't need a pronoun for 'he' in Greek; you just use the verb in the 3rd person singular. Around 350 MSS give Θεὸς, 'theos,' meaning God. So when the modern translations translate as 'he' they are following one solitary MS. Is that clear?

Well I did see that: "Beyond all question , the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,"
I leave aside the fact that there is no word for 'true' and no word for 'springs' in the Greek. It is the word 'appeared' which is particularly bad. The Greek word φανερoo phaneroo means to make known or to reveal. εφανερώθη, 'ephanerothe' is the aorist indicative passive- 'He (or more accurately, 'God') was revealed' or 'manifested.' The language is that of the stage. Someone is waiting in the wings, behind the curtain. When he is revealed, it is not the start of his existence. He was always there. When the NIV says 'appeared,' all that is lost. He might have 'appeared' out of thin air. The NIV is not the worst translation in the world, but it is a downgrade from the best.

I did not say 'unsatisfying;' I said 'unsatisfactory.' That is not the same thing.

 

Well, that means about four posters or so, at most.

See if you can make your position clear in English.

 

Or 'Jos,' who.

I was mistaken when I said it meant 'he'.

But according to the NET note, as the source of my info,"D and the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun" Jo, meaning 'which.'

However, the Greek which means "who" is found in Aleph,A,C,F,G,33,365,pe,Did and Epiph per the Net notes.

Scribes wanted to clarify the text, so they took the liberty to change the English equivalent of 'who' to 'God.' They might have been very sincere, but they did indeed change the original.

There is a distinction, but the result is the same. You are not satisfied.

 

TCassidy nailed it. There is no evidence whatsoever of a Byzantine recension.

W/H describe their view on pp. 132-139 in Vol. II of their 1886 two volume set, Vol. I being their Greek NT. They postulate the recension early on, but don't postulate Lucian until p. 139, where they say, "Of known names his has a better claim than any other to be associated with with the early Syrian (Byzantine--JJ) revision." So without any proof of such a revision, they then suggest (with no proof) a possible editor.

By the way, the W/H presupposition was that the Alexandrian text type was closes to the original. They went so far as to call it the "Neutral text"!

Alas, since W/H, authors with a prejudice for the Alexandrian have been taking their speculation as fact--again with no historical evidence.

 

Easy to write, but without the least shred of evidence.
In the Greek MSS, Θεὸς is often abbreviated to Θς. You can see how easy it is for an inattentive scribe to leave out a stroke of the pen and end up with Ὃς. That is a far more likely scenario and explains why 98.5% of the MSS get it right- they had better scribes!

 

Later tonight, I will share a number of quotes to bolster my view that hos was supplanted in favor of theos in 1 Timothy 3:16. There is too much weight against your position.

 

Do so by all means, but quotes without evidence are not going to convince me, nor, I suspect, others.
What real evidence can you supply for a reason why 98.5% of the manuscripts have got it wrong, and we should rely on the 1.5%?

 

My internet access is not up to snuff --and in addition, so much is censored that I am not able to do a proper search. I wanted to get some nice quotes from men such as : Keith Elliot, Donald Guthrie, D.A Carson, Doug Moo, Michael Kruger, Andreas Kostenberger and many others. So, in the meantime the following will have to do.It's a quote from Ellicott's Commentary (Charles Ellicott 1819-1905)

"Here, in the most ancient authorities, the word 'God' does not occur...The substitution can be traced to no special doctrinal prejudice, but is owing, probably, to a well-meant correction of early scribes...the oldest MSS., with scarcely an exception, contain the more difficult reading, 'He who.' "

 

Why bother to post it? It's just the same old stuff. The guy gives his opinion but he can't provide any proof, but the 98.5% gets dismissed and the 1.5% gets approved. FWIW, Sinaiticus doesn't have the Pastoral Epistles, and the Byzantine text is supported by Pseudo-Dionysius, Apollinarius, Diodore, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Theodoret and Chrysostom.

 

You refer to Ellicott as "this guy" LOL. He was a respected scholar of both the Old Testament and the New.

Of course it does. You are quite mistaken.