A Helpful Article about the Text Forms

[Glenn J. Kerr]

I some reservations and questions about the article By Glenn Kerr.

He quotes William R. Farmer (p.27) several times. Once Farmer says, regarding Sinaiticus ;"...the pages that omit the ending of Mark are not original part of the MS."

Where can this claim be verified? What New Testament textual critics believe that?

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.

Kerr again quotes Farmer (p.29):"But Alexandrian scholars were also guided by other principles in making their omissions...This principle called for the omission of any passage which was regarded as offensive to or unworthy of the gods."

I find the above preposterous. It sounds like the bunk some KJVO folks spew.

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.

On page 30 Kerr says:"Many of the early papyri are from the second century, the period regarded by most as the time of greatest attack on the text of the N.T."

By that I guess he wants the reader to assume that the compilers were copying theological aberrations.

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.

On page 31 Kerr states :"...the vast number of newly discovered Byzantine MSS lie languishing for lack of interest..."

Which ones? Be specific. I'm sure your Byzantine Priority compatriots are eagerly examining them.

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."

Kerr's objectivity is nullified by his words on page 34:"Why defend a text with such lousy credentials and such a lack of historical basis..."

Whew, he doesn't sound like a sound textual critic at all. (Pun intended.)

When all else fails, attack the person.

Kerr's preoccupation with a cloying Egyptianitis is evident throughout, starting with his title. It continues with "Why would he have gone to the puddle of Alexandria for anything? (p.28) "The lure of Egypt"; "But we have to be willing to leave Egypt, as it were." and other annoyances are certainly off-putting.

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

Here is another one to look at, as a good compare and contrast.
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

I quote extensively from this article in my paper.

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

It does seem that those advocating for the Bzt text are seeing those holding with the critical text as holding to the times when "satan" got into corrupting the texts, which is what the KJVO advocate also!

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.

 

[Glenn J. Kerr]

Kerr's preoccupation with a cloying Egyptianitis is evident throughout, starting with his title. It continues with "Why would he have gone to the puddle of Alexandria for anything? (p.28) "The lure of Egypt"; "But we have to be willing to leave Egypt, as it were." and other annoyances are certainly off-putting.

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!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Thanks for posting your article, Glenn.

In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul said the following:

And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit (παράθου) these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)3

This is obviously a very familiar verse, but it has rarely if ever been applied to the transmission of manuscripts. However, it contains an important word related to that subject, the word παράθου (commit). This word, coming from the lemma form παρατίθημι, along with related and similar words παραδίδωμι (deliver, transmit) and παραλαμβάνω (receive) and two noun derivatives παραθήκη (deposit) and παράδοσις (tradition), represents an idea we usually relate to oral teaching and discipleship. It is clear from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that it should not be limited to oral teaching alone: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” The word here for “traditions” is παραδόσεις, “things handed over,” or we might say “things passed on” or “things transmitted.”

I think you make a good point here.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Glenn, you say:

At this point a logical and important question arises: where was the center of Christianity for the first four centuries after Christ? Looking at these maps, it is easy to see that the Adriatic-Aegean area, the home of the Byzantine textform, was the center for Christianity in every way and at every time after the initial migration from Jerusalem to Antioch.

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?

 

[TCassidy]

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?

Uh, Byzantine text. Byzantine Empire. The liturgical/ecclesiastical text of the Eastern Orthodox Church is pretty well attested to.

This reminds me of a debate between a woman who wanted to enroll her daughter in the Boy Scouts and was told she couldn't. She said she had read the charter and bylaws and nowhere did it say it was only for boys. She then challenged the Scout Master to give her one reason, from the charter why her daughter could not be enrolled.

The Scout Master said, "BOY Scouts." End of discussion.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

When you read Burgeon's RevisonRevised, you'll see one of the legs of his critical apparatus is the daily liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Uh, Byzantine text. Byzantine Empire. The liturgical/ecclesiastical text of the Eastern Orthodox Church is pretty well attested to.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Burgeon's beef with Wescott, Hort, et al. was their ignoring readings from the surviving liturgies and ECFs. His position on the liturgies was:

In a world which operated on oral transmission of information, deviations from previous Scripture readings would be noticed by the congregation. ​

When you read Burgeon's RevisonRevised, you'll see one of the legs of his critical apparatus is the daily liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Burgeon's beef with Wescott, Hort, et al. was their ignoring readings from the surviving liturgies and ECFs. His position on the liturgies was:

In a world which operated on oral transmission of information, deviations from previous Scripture readings would be noticed by the congregation. ​

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

 

[TCassidy]

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

Give me a quote from Burgon that supports your assertion.

 

[Yeshua1]

Give me a quote from Burgon that supports your assertion.

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

 

[TCassidy]

Give me a quote from Burgon. Not Gary Hudson. Burgon. John William Burgon.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Uh, Byzantine text. Byzantine Empire. The liturgical/ecclesiastical text of the Eastern Orthodox Church is pretty well attested to.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Give me a quote from Burgon. Not Gary Hudson. Burgon. John William Burgon.

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

 

[TCassidy]

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

One more time. Give me a quote FROM BURGON.

Not what Robert L. Sumner said Burgon said Burgon said.

Not what Doug Kutilek said Burgon said.

What Burgon said.

 

[Logos1560]

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).

 

[TCassidy]

John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and the KJV

Yes. We all know that. Not the point.