Apostates and Heretics behind the texts underlying modern translations

[Jordan Kurecki]

Incorrect opinion.

According to a consistent application of your stated claim, you could not conclude that they were not along the same textual principles as those used by Westcott and Hort.

The textual practices of Erasmus can be used to indicate the principles or rules that he inconsistently followed. The actual changes that he wrote or made to his Greek NT manuscripts can be seen and examined since they still exist in those manuscripts. Also in his annotations, Erasmus did indicate or state some textual principles that he used. He just did not list them all, and did not follow them consistently and justly.

Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31).

Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69).

Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).

This is a smokescreen, Obviously Erasmus had to do some textual criticism when putting out his Greek Textus Receptus seeing as there was no Printed Greek text yet available, that does not however mean that he followed Westcott and Hort’s ridiculous elevation of corrupt manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, or that Erasmus followed other silly principles like “older means better” “the shorter reading is preferred to the longer reading” or “the harder reading is preferred to the easier reading”. Besides the KJV isn’t even translated from Erasmus TR.

Logos do you even know what the methods or principles that Wescott and Hort used in their textual criticism? I would like for you to actually explain Wescott and Hort’s theories and then try to explain to me how Erasmus followed them. Saying they are both textual critics is not sufficient.

 

[Logos1560]

This is a smokescreen, .

Advocating the use of consistent, just measures in agreement with scriptural truths is not a smokescreen.

Perhaps it is your thread that is a smokescreen to try to cover for the lack of any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural case for a KJV-only view.

Are you showing that you are unwilling to apply the exact same measures/standards to the textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the multiple, textually-varying Textus Receptus editions that you seek to demand concerning other textual criticism decisions?

According to what consistent just textual measures, do you advocate acceptance of the readings added to the TR editions from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate?

 

[Yeshua1]

Incorrect opinion.

According to a consistent application of your stated claim, you could not conclude that they were not along the same textual principles as those used by Westcott and Hort.

The textual practices of Erasmus can be used to indicate the principles or rules that he inconsistently followed. The actual changes that he wrote or made to his Greek NT manuscripts can be seen and examined since they still exist in those manuscripts. Also in his annotations, Erasmus did indicate or state some textual principles that he used. He just did not list them all, and did not follow them consistently and justly.

Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31).

Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69).

Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).

How much of a difference then in practice was ewhat he did to what Westcott&Hort?

 

[Logos1560]

that Erasmus followed other silly principles like “older means better” “the shorter reading is preferred to the longer reading” or “the harder reading is preferred to the easier reading”.

Have you read the book Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament in which Jan Krans examines the textual criticism practices of Erasmus?

Jan Krans provided evidence that Erasmus did sometimes follow what would be later called the principle of the harder reading (pp. 40-50).

Jan Krans asserted: "With all the evidence presented here, we conclude that Erasmus understands and applies the principle of the harder reading in an astonishingly 'modern' way" (Beyond What is Written, p. 50).

 

[Yeshua1]

This is a smokescreen, Obviously Erasmus had to do some textual criticism when putting out his Greek Textus Receptus seeing as there was no Printed Greek text yet available, that does not however mean that he followed Westcott and Hort’s ridiculous elevation of corrupt manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, or that Erasmus followed other silly principles like “older means better” “the shorter reading is preferred to the longer reading” or “the harder reading is preferred to the easier reading”. Besides the KJV isn’t even translated from Erasmus TR.

Logos do you even know what the methods or principles that Wescott and Hort used in their textual criticism? I would like for you to actually explain Wescott and Hort’s theories and then try to explain to me how Erasmus followed them. Saying they are both textual critics is not sufficient.

How do you know that all of their theories and practices in constructing their text were bogus and wrong?
Erasmus even consulted and used latin Vulgate, was that proper thing to do?

 

[Logos1560]

Besides the KJV isn’t even translated from Erasmus TR.

Can you demonstrate that your assertion is true? How different were the TR editions of Stephanus and Beza from the TR editions of Erasmus?

KJV-only author Floyd Jones wrote: "Basically it is Erasmus' work which is the foundation of the King James Bible" (Which Version, p. 44). Gail Riplinger acknowledged that one of the works used by the final committee of the KJV translators was “the Greek New Testament of Erasmus” (In Awe, p. 533). In a sermon later transcribed into an article, David O. Fuller stated: “Erasmus was responsible for the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, that Greek text upon which the King James Version is founded” (Flaming Torch, Oct.-Dec., 2004, p. 6). David Cloud wrote: “The Greek Received Text was first published by Desiderius Erasmus” (Faith, p. 145). Ronnie Simpson claimed: “In 1516 Erasmus produced the New Testament in Greek known as the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated” (Twelve Lessons on Canon of the KJV, p. 13). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 47). Yet in a later book, Waite claimed that the KJV is not “based on the Erasmus text” (Foes, p. 113).

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible confirmed that “it was Erasmus’s editions that were to be the parents of the text of the subsequent centuries” (p. 113). This source added that “it is the text descended from Erasmus that is their [KJV translators/revisers] base” (p. 117). C. J. Ellicott maintained that “in the fourth edition of Erasmus we really have the mother-text of our own Authorized Version” (Considerations on the Revision, p. 35).

Henry Fox noted: “The Greek text used by our [KJV] translators was substantially that of Erasmus” (On the Revision, p. 10). Clarence Stuart wrote: “As Beza followed Stephens, and Stephens, in his folio edition, followed almost exclusively Erasmus, the authority for the Greek text in use in 1611 was little else than the fifth edition of Erasmus” (Textual Criticism of the NT, p. 23).

 

[Deadworm]

I have always found it ironic that evangelicals who purport to have the highest view of biblical inspiration have generally preferred the most corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts. Text criticism is the discipline that determines the most accurate text of Scripture. It does this by grouping manuscripts by date, region, and textual family and then examining when, how, and why later changes intruded into the text. It then compares the result with the biblical quotations of early church fathers whose writings precede most of the biblical manuscripts in question. Most fundamentalists who pontificate about this issue have never read a scholarly book on Text Criticism, and so, they are not even intellectually entitled to an opinion.

The OP slams Bruce Metzer, one of the most eminent Text Critics of the 20th century. I was Dr. Metzger's student at Princeton and can attest to his sold integrity and his vibrant evangelical faith. In fact, some of the liberals there perceive him as a hyper-conservative fundamentalist and ridiculed him for this.

Fundamentalists generally seem to live in an ideological thought Ghetto that reads only academically disreputable books and articles that reinforce their myopic closed-minded views. The section on evolution and creationism here shows no evidence of familiarity with the impressive case made by respected secular scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller (btw, a Roman Catholic!). Thus, they need to learn these foundational truths about honest and open intellectual inquiry:

(1) Honest intellectual seekers strives to recognize what they don't know and communicate accordingly.
(2) Honest seekers resist the temptation to read only in-house propaganda about the big questions and straw man arguments that duck the key evidence. Instead, they prefer to read the most reputable exemplars of the views they find threatening and then seek to answer the arguments that reflect the current state of the question.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have always found it ironic that evangelicals who purport to have the highest view of biblical inspiration have generally preferred the most corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts. Text criticism is the discipline that determines the most accurate text of Scripture. It does this by grouping manuscripts by date, region, and textual family and then examining when, how, and why later changes intruded into the text. It then compares the result with the biblical quotations of early church fathers whose writings precede most of the biblical manuscripts in question. Most fundamentalists who pontificate about this issue have never read a scholarly book on Text Criticism, and so, they are not even intellectually entitled to an opinion.

The OP slams Bruce Metzer, one of the most eminent Text Critics of the 20th century. I was Dr. Metzger's student at Princeton and can attest to his sold integrity and his vibrant evangelical faith. In fact, some of the liberals there perceive him as a hyper-conservative fundamentalist and ridiculed him for this.

Fundamentalists generally seem to live in an ideological thought Ghetto that reads only academically disreputable books and articles that reinforce their myopic closed-minded views. The section on evolution and creationism here shows no evidence of familiarity with the impressive case made by respected secular scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller (btw, a Roman Catholic!). Thus, they need to learn these foundational truths about honest and open intellectual inquiry:

(1) Honest intellectual seekers strives to recognize what they don't know and communicate accordingly.
(2) Honest seekers resist the temptation to read only in-house propaganda about the big questions and straw man arguments that duck the key evidence. Instead, they prefer to read the most reputable exemplars of the views they find threatening and then seek to answer the arguments that reflect the current state of the question.

In other words Fundamentalists are stupid. We get it. I am far from a KJVO in fact I use the ESV but this everyone who does not think like me is stupid attitude wears thin quick.

 

[Yeshua1]

In other words Fundamentalists are stupid. We get it. I am far from a KJVO in fact I use the ESV but this everyone who does not think like me is stupid attitude wears thin quick.

No, he is saying that they on a whole are not following up on latest scholarship, and have a closed mind on this textual issue.
I am not saying this is the truth, but what I understand him saying here!

 

[Logos1560]

So then Yeshua, you would contend that only most of the thoughts of God to us will stand for all generations and your position is that we can be content to believe God has not preserved a small percentage of his words?

It would be erroneous KJV-only reasoning which in effect suggests that God has not preserved in the existing original-language manuscripts a small percentage of his actual specific original-language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that conjectures found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts or readings added from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate have to be blindly accepted.

 

[TCassidy]

Obviously Erasmus had to do some textual criticism

But even Westcott says Erasmus did not practice "modern scientific textual criticism" but merely "passed along the universally received text" of the New Testament.

Besides the KJV isn’t even translated from Erasmus TR.

It is, by derivation. The texts of Stevens and others were redacted versions of the text of Erasmus, and the earlier English versions, such as the Bishops' Bible which was the base text for the KJV, were certainly based on the universally received text.

 

[TCassidy]

The darker side of the chief King James Bible translator, Lancelot Andrewes

Does a man's failures in deportment negate his academic achievements?

He may have been a rude and crude man, but his intellect and academics are unassailable.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews was selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, and worked on twelve books, Genesis to 2 Kings. Dr. Andrews spoke almost all of the languages spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his devotions written entirely in Greek.

 

[TCassidy]

They don’t. They are KJV or bust.

Perhaps, but they are not here. Let's stick to what is posted in this thread and leave what was posted on another forum on that forum.

 

[Rob_BW]

Does a man's failures in deportment negate his academic achievements?

He may have been a rude and crude man, but his intellect and academics are unassailable.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews was selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, and worked on twelve books, Genesis to 2 Kings. Dr. Andrews spoke almost all of the languages spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his devotions written entirely in Greek.

I pick on him specifically because of his academic excellence.

 

[Deadworm]

I watched a video on the kJ translators. The video stressed that many of the KJ translators were men of dubious moral reputation, adding that the success of that translate Ion in its day was largely due to the colorful characters who added flair to their translations. The implication was that the translation would have been inferior if the translators had all bee prissy, pretty, sedate clerics.

That said, the KJV is still very corrupt because it could not take into account the earliest and most accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and papyri. Nor did it take into account blblical quotations form ancient church fathers whose writings greatly predate the manuscripts used by the KJ translators.

 

[Rob_BW]

I watched a video on the kJ translators. The video stressed that many of the KJ translators were men of dubious moral reputation, adding that the success of that translate Ion in its day was largely due to the colorful characters who added flair to their translations. The implication was that the translation would have been inferior if the translators had all bee prissy, pretty, sedate clerics.

That said, the KJV is still very corrupt because it could not take into account the earliest and most accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and papyri. Nor did it take into account blblical quotations form ancient church fathers whose writings greatly predate the manuscripts used by the KJ translators.

Interesting notion. A correlation between risk taking behavior, trouble, and great translation?

 

[Deadworm]

Interesting notion. A correlation between risk taking behavior, trouble, and great translation?

Yes, and consider this. The KJV translators used a criterion that modern translators have not used: they wanted their translation to be appealing and poetically endearing to the ear of ordinary people. So they critiqued each other's preliminary translation efforts by having their efforts read out loud to ensure that the wording sufficiently "sings" and flows in an appealing and inspiring way. For example, who among us would rather recite the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm in the more technically accurate versions of modern translations? Even an opponent of the KJV like myself insisted on using the KJV version of these texts when I was a pastor.

An amusing sidelight! I have a doctorate in New Testament, Judaism, and Greco-Roman backgrounds. So when I quote several biblical texts from memory, most assume that this ability derives from my academic studies. Much to my annoyance, I can only quote most texts in the KJV, which I oppose as based on inferior manuscripts! That is because of the childhood memory verses I had to learn for Sunday School. What is interesting is that I memorized them at the last moment and quickly forgot them. But as I grew older and reread those verses, my unconscious childhood memory of them was activated so that the verses now emerged into my conscious memory. I believe that part of the reason why this happened is that the original KJV translators read their preliminary translations aloud to ensure that they were as articulate and memorable as possible.

 

[robycop3]

Jordan, were you present when any of the ancient Scriptural mss. were made. Do you know who wrote each one, when and where? Do you know who all handled them after they were made?

If you can't truthfully answer "Yes" to all those questions, you have no authority nor right to question their work.

Personally, I can't answer "Yes" to any of them, so I accept what GOD has made available to me & thank Him for it.

 

[robycop3]

I watched a video on the kJ translators. The video stressed that many of the KJ translators were men of dubious moral reputation, adding that the success of that translate Ion in its day was largely due to the colorful characters who added flair to their translations. The implication was that the translation would have been inferior if the translators had all bee prissy, pretty, sedate clerics.

That said, the KJV is still very corrupt because it could not take into account the earliest and most accurate Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and papyri. Nor did it take into account blblical quotations form ancient church fathers whose writings greatly predate the manuscripts used by the KJ translators.

I believe the KJV conveys every doctrine & precept GOD wanted us to know, but it does contain its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

God used a king, Henry VIII, to begin the widespread use & readership of His word in English, and I have no reason to believe Henry was a Christian, what with his murders of his wives, etc.

God can use ANYONE for any purpose he intends, evil person or not.

 

[Logos1560]

But even Westcott says Erasmus did not practice "modern scientific textual criticism" but merely "passed along the universally received text" of the New Testament.
.

How were the minority readings, textual conjectures of Erasmus, and readings that Erasmus added to his Greek text as translated from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate part of some "universally received text"?