Featured A Helpful Article about the Text Forms

This is a well-known fact that is mentioned in most books that touch on the subject. It is discussed in detail in James Snapp Jr.'s article cited in my paper, and Maurice Robinson has commented on it in his chapter in the "Perspectives" book on the ending of Mark.

The fact that you find it preposterous says nothing about its accuracy. Most KJVO people do not know enough to quote something as scholarly as Farmer's book.

I want the reader to know the facts, not assume anything. Copying errors cover the gamut of possibilities, from simple omissions, spelling variations, harmonizations, to more extensive editing and reworking.

A comment like this simply shows a lack of awareness of the basic facts of textual criticism, as do most of the comments you have made. For specifics, look at the standard works on text cataloguing such as the pages in the UBS Greek NT, and also read Frederic Wisse's "The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence, as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke."

When all else fails, attack the person.

 

I quote extensively from this article in my paper.

 

I don't think all of those who advocate for the Byzantine text fit into any category other than advocating for the Byzantine text. My own understanding of the issue of "corruption" is that every MS tradition shows some degree of "corruption" because of the fact of human error. The word "corruption" has a loaded meaning to most people, but in the context of textual criticism it just means mistakes, of varying degrees of seriousness. There is "corruption" in the Byzantine family, but there is also significantly much more consistency, which is why in the textual apparatus of most Greek NTs the Byzantine text is indicated by a siglum rather than by individual MSS.

 

Mr. Rippon, my apologies for the "annoyances" of my rhetoric. Sometimes the facts are so obvious that a little fun-poking seems in order. I did make a conscious effort to tone down the rhetoric, and left out a number of things from the first drafts. At least I did not find your "cloying Egyptianitis" annoying!

 

Thanks for posting your article, Glenn.

I think you make a good point here.

 

I do think the geographic fact is often neglected in talks about the text of the NT. But others before Westcott-Hort did make this a part of their reconstruction of the history of the text, such as Scholz in 1830, and others before him.

 

Glenn, you say:

How do you prove that mss of the Byz type are actually from the area you mention, and that what they are now is what they were in the 2nd-5th centuries?

 

I am just suggesting that as Christians, regardless if we advocate the priority of the MT/CT/Bzt/Tr, we are all committed to seeing the scriptures as being the very word of God into us for today.
We can prefer a Greek text, or a version, but we do not need to get upset and rail on each either, as better to focus that upon those like a Bart ehrmans, who now denies the scripture he once upheld!

 

he also had a real beef with those who held to the KJVO of that time!

 

The New Covenant Christian Ministries - Why Dean Burgon would NOT join "The Dean Burgon Society" - New Covenant Church of God

 

Many would argue, usually from patristic quotations, that there is no evidence that the Byz text as known today was the text of anyone before the 4th century, much less of most or all, and even after that for some time it was, in terms of variations, only gradually adopted, i.e., 70-80 percent Byz is about the best one gets with any author before the 7th century.

 

www.biblicalevangelist.org/index.php?id=656&issue=Volume+39%2C...1
His quote is in the main text!

 

John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and the KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269).

For example, John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.).

In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).