How accurate is this chart?

Judging by the site owners' primary beliefs (The Bible to be the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God, preserved pure, accurate and without error in the King James Bible.) I'd say not very accurate.

 

The veracity of the chart has nothing at all to do with who owns the web page. Truth is truth regardless of who believes it or rejects it, and falsehood is falsehood regardless of who accepts or rejects it.

The chart has several weaknesses, not the least of which is explaining the origin of the "Alexandrian Text Line." Note that the "Traditional Text Line" contains the "Original NT manuscripts." I believe the Byzantine text form is the best representitive of the autographa, but I believe it based on years of study of the mss evidence, not on the basis of a chart that starts with an a priori assumption which the author of the chart has failed to support. Note also the "Alexandrian Text Line" just appears, seemingly miraculously, in 200 AD. But the chart does not address the very important issue of "where did the Alexandrian Text Line come from?"

From that point on, the chart is a fair general approximation of the Byzantine text forms descent and the Alexandrian text forms descent, but there is a lot of information missing on both sides of the chart. Not to mention the cross over evidenced by both texts. The "Traditional" line texts show evidence of "Alexandrian" readings, and the "Alexandrian" line texts show evidence of "Traditional" readings.

The chart is a good place to begin your study of the mss evidence, but do not make the mistake of thinking it is the end-all of mss and textual transmission.

 

Stephen asked:

I would like some opinions on how accurate this chart is? http://www.sentex.net/~hark/chart.html

As soon as the author starts sorting manuscripts into "Antiochian" and "Alexandrian" lines, it's a pretty fair guess that the chart is NOT very accurate at all. He is only toeing the KJV-only party line and disseminating its revisionist history.

 

Looks like the chart is standard KJVO propoganda. There is some factual content, and facts are facts. But misrepresentation of the facts are there, too. The totality of the evidence must be weighed. And the a prioriapproach poisons the well. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend it to someone wanting to learn the fundamentals.

 

Dr. Cassidy wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The veracity of the chart has nothing at all to do with who owns the web page. Truth is truth regardless of who believes it or rejects it, and falsehood is falsehood regardless of who accepts or rejects it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. But I do weigh the veracity and testimony of the one asserting the truth or the falsehood. "Character of the witness" does count. I believe you might argue this way, too. On another thread, in response to a link to a posted article written by Edgar Goodspead, you wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago Divinity School, was a thorough going Modernist, and anything he writes should be understood in the context of his unbelief. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not trying to imply that the originator of this chart is an unbeliever as you assert Goodspeed to be. But the principle here is the same: the character of the witness counts. So their overall beliefs do factor into overall trustworthiness and reliability in a sense. It seems that you argued this in that case but are not arguing it here. Am I misunderstanding? I think I've been wrong once or twice before, or so says my wife


[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Tom, the character of the witness does not change the facts. The facts in the chart are correct. If the chart were compiled by the most spiritual man now alive, the errors would still be errors.

Goodspeed was a modernist/liberal and his writings reflect his modernism. I do not assert he was unsaved, for I don't know that, but I do assert he was a modernist. It is the opinions expressed in his writings that are suspect, not the facts. Facts are facts regardless of who is telling them. That is why unsaved sinners can still speak the truth and saved sinners can still speak untruth.

 

I wonder if the chart should have mentioned the Olivetan and Diodati after Waldensian Bibles etc. in the KJV line.

 

They are primarily based on the Byzantine text-form.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Tom, the character of the witness does not change the facts. The facts in the chart are correct. If the chart were compiled by the most spiritual man now alive, the errors would still be errors.

Goodspeed was a modernist/liberal and his writings reflect his modernism. I do not assert he was unsaved, for I don't know that, but I do assert he was a modernist. It is the opinions expressed in his writings that are suspect, not the facts. Facts are facts regardless of who is telling them. That is why unsaved sinners can still speak the truth and saved sinners can still speak untruth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you as far as "truth being truth" and "lies being lies," but the character of the witness does affect opinions and biases. That's why the issue gets raised in a court of law.

As for Goodspeed, I took your term "unbelief" to mean that you were arguing that he was an unbeliever. My mistake.

I simply wrote the query to help clarify two posts that didn't seem to match up. Thank you for the clarification. No need for you to call a lawyer, and I won't call Connie Chung. Agreed?

Sometimes this issue gets raised in the translation debtate by both the KJVO camp and others. Some people dismiss the textual work of Westcott or Hort because of their other beliefs or practices. Some people attack King James or his translators for their beliefs. Both are not necessarily valid arguments because the well isn't necessarily poisoned.
Again, thanks for the clarification.

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Dr. Cassidy:
Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago Divinity School, was a thorough going Modernist, and anything he writes should be understood in the context of his unbelief. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
As for Goodspeed, I took your term "unbelief" to mean that you were arguing that he was an unbeliever. My mistake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Cassidy: Goodspeed was a modernist/liberal and his writings reflect his modernism. I do not assert he was unsaved, for I don't know that, but I do assert he was a modernist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I missing something here?

Doesn't unbelief = unbeliever? Or is this Orwellian Doublespeak??

 

was the Douay Rheims left out as well? it was a distinguished parent of the KJB!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreservedWords:
I wonder if the chart should have mentioned the Olivetan and Diodati after Waldensian Bibles etc. in the KJV line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

&gt;&gt;was the Douay Rheims left out as well? it was a distinguished parent of the KJB!??

It's under the Alexandrian heading, the ninth box down. One could argue that its on the wrong side of the page since it supports 1 John 5:7 and other TR readings.

HankD

 

The Rheims version is based primarily on the Latin Vulgate, which is usually thought of as being based on a Western text-form. Since the Western text-form contains elements of both the Byzantine and Alexandrian text-forms, it could be included in either side. However, it does seem to favor the Alexandrian text-form more often than the Byzantine text-form, so placing it on the right side of the chart is probably correct, but could also be slightly misleading if not footnoted.

 

Dear Thomas, yes, what you say is true, but I thought it strange that a KJVO site would list the Douay-Rheims (DR) as "Alexandrian" because of the support of the following verse (for example) and others:

KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

DRA John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

NIV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

And especially because the DR includes 1 John 5:7.

But you are correct, the DR flip-flops to a non-traditional reading of an important passage such as 1 Timothy 3:16 :

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

DRA 1 Timothy 3:16 And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.


HankD