A Helpful Article about the Text Forms

[Mark Corbett]

I saw in the comments on "The KJVO Movement is Headed Down" thread that many of you are interested in issues related to the best form of the Greek text.

This reminded me that just about a month ago, a friend of mine sent me an unpublished (but possibly to be published) article on this topic. Now, I know only a tiny bit about this, not nearly enough to have a confident informed opinion of my own. But the friend who sent me the article is Tim Friberg, who is known world wide for the excellent resources he has produced which help pastors and teachers like myself study the Greek text. Tim has written his own articles on text forms, but he seems to think this one is even better than his own (which means it must really be good, imo).

I have attached the article to this post. The author has given permission to me and to you and to everyone to read and share this. Tim gave this brief bio of the author:

Glenn J. Kerr, translation resource consultant for Bibles International, part of Baptist Mid-Missions, has worked for 22 years with translation projects involving over 30 people-groups in various parts of the world. He has an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies from UW-Madison, has done graduate studies in linguistics at Michigan State University, and is currently working on doctoral studies.

Enjoy! Don't expect me to engage much in any discussion, as this area is interesting to me yet outside my area of focus.

 

[rlvaughn]

I have downloaded to read later. Thanks.

 

[Deacon]

We need a "Thank you" button!

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Good article! It articulates the 'Byzantine Priority position very well.

 

[BlueMoon]

I've downloaded it to read most of it later. However, reading the first eight pages, I think it is a great article. Especially, since I agree with his view on the Byzantine Priority position. Thank you for providing it!

 

[Yeshua1]

I saw in the comments on "The KJVO Movement is Headed Down" thread that many of you are interested in issues related to the best form of the Greek text.

This reminded me that just about a month ago, a friend of mine sent me an unpublished (but possibly to be published) article on this topic. Now, I know only a tiny bit about this, not nearly enough to have a confident informed opinion of my own. But the friend who sent me the article is Tim Friberg, who is known world wide for the excellent resources he has produced which help pastors and teachers like myself study the Greek text. Tim has written his own articles on text forms, but he seems to think this one is even better than his own (which means it must really be good, imo).

I have attached the article to this post. The author has given permission to me and to you and to everyone to read and share this. Tim gave this brief bio of the author:

Glenn J. Kerr, translation resource consultant for Bibles International, part of Baptist Mid-Missions, has worked for 22 years with translation projects involving over 30 people-groups in various parts of the world. He has an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies from UW-Madison, has done graduate studies in linguistics at Michigan State University, and is currently working on doctoral studies.

Enjoy! Don't expect me to engage much in any discussion, as this area is interesting to me yet outside my area of focus.

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

 

[Mark Corbett]

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

Thanks for sharing this. I still don't know enough to have a confident, informed opinion on this matter, but it helps to see the other view.

 

[TCassidy]

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

That title is based on a false premise. No competent textual critic claims the MT is identical to the autographs. Even the most radical of the MT proponents, Wilbur Pickering, says only that Family 35 has a demonstrable archetypal form in all 27 books. His later works do seem to indicate he equates Family 35 with the autographs, but there is no unbroken line of transmission to substantiate that assertion.

 

[Rippon]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

That title is based on a false premise. No competent textual critic claims the MT is identical to the autographs. Even the most radical of the MT proponents, Wilbur Pickering, says only that Family 35 has a demonstrable archetypal form in all 27 books. His later works do seem to indicate he equates Family 35 with the autographs, but there is no unbroken line of transmission to substantiate that assertion.

There are no originals available, so there would be no perfect copies of them available.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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!

 

[rlvaughn]

There are no originals available, so there would be no perfect copies of them available.

As stated this is not a logical conclusion. It is not that there could be "no perfect copies" available just because the originals aren't available -- it is that there is no way to compare them to demonstrate the fact.

 

[Rippon]

As stated this is not a logical conclusion. It is not that there could be "no perfect copies" available just because the originals aren't available -- it is that there is no way to compare them to demonstrate the fact.

But it can't be stated as fact.

 

[Yeshua1]

As stated this is not a logical conclusion. It is not that there could be "no perfect copies" available just because the originals aren't available -- it is that there is no way to compare them to demonstrate the fact.

There can only be perfect copies if God intended that to be, and do not think that He kept intact 100% the Originals to us for today, but that does not mean that we do not have essentially the eord of God to us today!

 

[rlvaughn]

Yeshua1, my only point is that your second statement is not a logical conclusion that flows from the first statement.

 

[Yeshua1]

That title is based on a false premise. No competent textual critic claims the MT is identical to the autographs. Even the most radical of the MT proponents, Wilbur Pickering, says only that Family 35 has a demonstrable archetypal form in all 27 books. His later works do seem to indicate he equates Family 35 with the autographs, but there is no unbroken line of transmission to substantiate that assertion.

Another helpful link on this issue
How We Got the Bible

 

[TCassidy]

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'm sorry, but that is the stupidest, and most non-factual, thing I have ever read on this forum. (And I have read some really stupid things on this forum.)

 

[TCassidy]

Yeshua1, my only point is that your second statement is not a logical conclusion that flows from the first statement.

Yeshua1 being illogical? Say it isn't so! LOL!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm sorry, but that is the stupidest, and most non-factual, thing I have ever read on this forum. (And I have read some really stupid things on this forum.)

Are you denying that those holding to KJVO would see the early copies as somehow all getting corrupted, andjust those iaway from Alexandria avoided that fate?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1 being illogical? Say it isn't so! LOL!

You might not like my views, but they are not illogical!