Bibliological lip-service...

Originally posted by Harald:

Can you provide one or two specific examples to substantiate this claim?

What do you mean by the "Received Text," given that there are several of them and that they are all somewhat different? Do you mean the text of Erasmus, which also contains the kinds of alterations and errors that you condemn in your post?

One example of an alteration in Erasmus' text: βιβλιου της ζωης in Rev. 22:19, a reading not found in the text of any pre-Erasmian Greek MS.

One example of an error in Erasmus' text: the word ακαθαρτητος in Rev. 17:4, a mistake which created a new Greek word not found anywhere else in all known Greek literature.

[ February 22, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

This is so true and it is being demonstrated from two sides of hte modern equation: The liberals on teh one side and the KJVOs on the other. It is destructive from both.

This is where you depart into something that cannot be proven, and with respect to my position and the position of the vast majority of evangelicalism, has been demonstrated to be false. If you can find a doctrinal error or factual error in the UBS you will have succeeded where thousands before you have failed. To describe these as "defect and mediocre" texts simply betrays an unfortunate lack of familiarity. Surely you can disagree with it without resorting to making statements that simply aren't true. It is one thing to prefer a certain text over another. It is quite another to describe one as defect and mediocre.

It is a legitimate way to handle translation and most often results in teh clearest communication. If you are to be consistent with your position on plenary inspiration, then you must not translate at all because translation by its nature is the changing of words. DE, while abused by some, is a legitimate method of translation and was used by the KJV translators in many cases.

Your statements on DE are simply not accurate. You should know more about it. It does not deny verbal, plenary inspiration. It is not satanic. That is argumentation of the worst sort.

This is certainly true and it is why a dynamic translation can be an accurate, precise, and faithful translation. Properly done, it is no object of shame.

Why the TR?? It has many questionable readings, some stuff added in with little or no Greek support, and fails to take advantage of numerous textual discoveries. The TR is the text with the least basis for translation in this day and age.

 

John Burgon in his The Revision Revised - 1881 goes into some length as to many of these "defects" and what he loves to call "blunders" of the Wescott and Hort Greek text.

However it is very difficult to have any discussion around this because of the KJVO "blunder" of pointing to the ENGLISH text as the "inspired".

If I had to blame satan for anything it would be the smokescreen of this KJVO blunder which has hijacked the Church into fighting THE RIGHT BATTLE IN THE WRONG BATTLEFIELD

not only that, most of the MV supporters are shell-shock because of the misplaced zeal of the KJVO and put the armour on (and I don't blame them) even when the TRO trumpet (the correct one imo)is blown.

I agree with Harald and in my view, its the Received text Greek upon which we need to focus.

DE _ Personally, I have no problem with dynamic equivalence as long as it is both, dynamic and equivalent (oh and one more thing, does not bear a false witness such as the NWT).

However, (for good or bad) I leave the TR matter alone for the sake of the Church at large.

As many have said, the Word of God is like a lion, we need not defend him, just let him loose.

HankD

 

Thanks for the post Harald, I was not aware of these discrepencies! Very enlightening.

Neal

 

There are problems in evangelicalism to be sure but here, I reference those who believe in inerrancy. I stand with Scripture and its teachings, which happens to be what the majority of conservative evangelicalism holds and has for 100 years.

I agree that there are some bad attempts at DE. But I maintain that without it, translation is impossible. Leland Ryken has some good stuff. This is a new one I don't have. I am familiar with DE and personally, I find it inconceivable that you attack it the way you do. To call it satanic is beyond the pale. It does not deny that the words matter; that is a gross representation. But those words only matter because they convey meaning. If the meaning is not conveyed, than the words are useless.

I don't know of any doctrinal, theological, factual, or scientific errors in it. Examples of bad choices with regards to readings are 1 John 5:7, Col 1:14, Rev 22:19-22, Acts 9:36, and a host of other passages that could be laid out. These passages are no in error; they teach no error. They are simply not likely to be what was originally written and that is a problem for those concerned with accuracy of the text.

As for the perfection of the modern Greek text, you reference someone above who believes that. Who are you talking about?? I have never seen anyone say that at all.

 

RE: 1 John5:7.

Yes this verse is an enigma.

Why? Because it has some of the greatest and incontrovertable support in the witnesses of the Scripture, Just precious little Greek mss support of any kind (although there is some).

Here are some numbers:

NOTE ***** Copied without permission from a paper
by Jesse Boyd "And These Three Are One" (who extracted the data from Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8

I can supply URL reference if any wishes to see the entire work.

 

Harald wrote:

Generally speaking, I'd have to agree with you on this point. However, I do so with a caveat. While I certainly don't believe that each and every one of the textual choices in the NA27 text is correct, overall I believe it is the most accurate text available to us today. And because of its extensive critical apparatus, I'd have to say that the correct reading for each variant is found somewhere -- in the apparatus, if not in the text itself.

Pickering seems to be far too quick to condemn the readings of the NA27 as "errors." The first example he cites is that of Ιουδαιας in Lk. 4:44, which he claims is an error because "Jesus was in Galilee (and continued there), not in Judea, as the context makes clear." However, the BAGD lexicon gives the following definitions for the noun Ιουδαια:

"1. the southern part of Palestine in contrast to Samaria, Galilee, Perea and Idumea, Judea..."

"2. Judea, broadly understood as the region occupied by the people of Israel, Judea =‘land of the Judeans (Jews)’, i.e. Palestine (Nicol. Dam. [I BC]: 90 fgm. 96 Jac. [in Jos., Ant. 14, 9]; Diod. S. 40, 3, 2; Strabo 16, 2, 34; Memnon [I BC / I AD]: 434 fgm. 1, 18, 9 Jac.; Ptolem. 5, 16, 1; cp. 15, 6-8 and Apotelesmatica 2, 3, 29 and 31. Cass. Dio 37, 16; 47, 28; Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9, 1; LXX; EpArist 4 and12; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 200; Joseph.; Just., D. 32, 4...."

Perhaps Luke meant Ιουδαιας in the latter sense, which would mean that Lk. 4:44 could be translated as "and he was preaching in the synagogues of the land of the Jews" or some similar equivalent. Such an interpretation would not be unknown; the KJV renders Ιουδαιας as "Jewry" in Lk. 23:5. At any rate, it's not clear to me that this is an error.

The second example Pickering cites is εκλιποντος in Lk. 23:45, which he asserts is "a scientific error" because "an eclipse of the sun is impossible during a full moon. Jesus was crucified during the Passover, and the Passover is always at full moon." Two comments are in order. First of all, Luke likely intended the verb εκλιποντος to be understood in a metaphorical sense. He uses the same verb elsewhere in his Gospel where it means "to fail." The following verses are instructive:

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye FAIL (εκλιπη), they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (Lk. 16:9, KJV)

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith FAIL (εκλιπη) not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Lk. 22:32, KJV)

At least one modern versions translates the verb in exactly this way at Lk. 23:45:

While the sun's light FAILED (εκλιποντος); and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. (Lk. 23:45, NASB) [NOTE: this should be NRSV, not NASB]

My second comment is to point out that even if εκλιποντος is taken literally, "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). If God can make the sun stand still (Josh. 10:12-13), God can cause an eclipse to happen at any time, even during a full moon. Again, it's not at all clear to me that this is an error either.

[ February 23, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Originally posted by Harald:

They might be, although if they are I haven't found them. Perhaps someone else could answer this?

They certainly do: Variations within the Received Text Tradition

Scrivener's TR was created by taking Beza's 1598 TR and changing it to match the 1611 English KJV where the two disagreed. This method is highly suspect, since it derives a Greek text from an English KJV assumed to be correct in every instance, and then claims autograph originality for that derivative Greek text.

The previously mentioned examples of Rev. 17:4 and Rev. 22:19 are a good start. These are clear errors in the TR, and are easily corrected.

 

Originally posted by HankD:

If you look at the breakdown of the evidence, you'll immediately notice an interesting pattern: it comes exclusively from Western Latin sources. (The alleged patristic citations before Priscillan are uncertain, as is the alleged citation in Gregory). This fact, coupled with the Comma's total absence from the text of every known Greek MS of First John before the 14th century and from every other ancient version (including the earliest, the Coptic and Syriac), suggests the truth -- it was a scribal addition that crept into the Western Latin tradition to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity against its theological detractors. It is extremely unlikely that it was originally part of First John.

 

Yes it has almost Latin authority exclusively with only 8 greek mss and no Greek fathers (except perhaps for Tertullian).
I understand this logic archangel that because its rare in the greek mss and other witnesses it is suspect and its a definite possibility that it is spurious in the realm of the possible.

However, I believe that it dropped out early on in the copying of the greek mss because of the similarities of the two lines... (homeoteluton?) there are three which bear witness in heaven/earth

But it was not left out of the old Itala.
In this case a verse was preserved in a translation (of the ealiest translations extant) and then found its way into the waldenses mss and then through Beza (I believe it was he) into the TR of the KJV.

Granted its a theory but a believable one for me.

I think it's important for people to know the whole story.
Many teachers commit intellectual dishonesty (imo) by not explaining the Latin witnesses (even if the explanation is "hostile", it better than a purposeful gloss).

HankD

[ February 23, 2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Here are a few witnesses for 1 John 5:7

Judge for yourself.

AD 220 Tertullian
The connection, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes a unity of these three, one with another, which three are one --- not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number."

AD 250 Cyprian De catholicae ecclesiae unitare
‘The Lord says I and the Father are one, and likewise IT IS WRITTEN of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.

AD 380 Priscillian Liber Apologeticus
As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth the water , the flesh
And the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in
Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit and these three are one in Christ Jesus”

AD 450 North African author Contra Varimadum
And John the Evangelist says “in the beginning was the word and the word was with God
And God was the word”. And also He says to the Partheans, “there are three who give testimony on earth, the water , the blood and the flesh And the three are in us. And there are three who give
Testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

AD 485 Victor Vitensis Historia persocutionis Africanae Provincia
And in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the testimony of the evangelist John, for he Says “There are three which bear testimony in heaven , the Father , the Word and the Spirit and these three are one”

AD 527 Fulgentius Responsio contra arianos
Therefore in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit we accept the unity of substance, we do not dare confuse the persons, for the blessed John the Apostle gives testimony saying “There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

Other citations of I John 5:7 which identify the verse AS SCRIPTURE:

AD 636 Isidore of Seville.
AD 650 The Leon palimpsest.
AD 850 The Ulmensis MSS.
AD 1120 Waldensian Apostle’s Creed
AD 1150 Codex Demidovianus, Codex Divionensis. Codex Colbertinus
AD 1170 Waldensian old French NT translation (reportedly from greek mss)
Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text, xviii

HankD

 

Are you using the 1977 NASB? My 1995 Update reads "because the sun was obscured." Just wondering!

Neal

 

Originally posted by HankD:

It is not at all clear that Tertullian (who is a Latin Father, and not a Greek Father) is quoting the Comma here. He may have been alluding to I Jn. 5:8 in the Old Latin which reads, et (hi) tres unum sunt ("and the three are one.") Or he may simply have been making his own remarks about the unity of the Trinity. Tertullian's use of the phrase "these three are one" is no more a quotation of the Comma than Chrysostom's use of "the three are one" in the passage below is a quotation of the Comma:

"Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that THE THREE ARE ONE flesh." (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians).

Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its high degree of uncertainty.

Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is uncertain because it is not at all clear whether the words he is actually quoting from First John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it. There are numerous variations of 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the Old Latin texts, both with and without the Comma. The basic reading of the form with the Comma (with some variation) is:

Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater (et) verbum et spiritus, et (hi) tres unum sunt.

"There are three who bear witness on earth, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, [the] Father (and) the Word and the Spirit, and ([the]/these) three are one."

The basic reading of the Old Latin text without the Comma (again, with some variation) is:

Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt.

"There are three who bear witness, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one."

Compare both forms with Cyprian's quotation:

Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.' (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 6).

"The Lord says, 'I and [the] Father are one;' and again of [the] Father, [the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit it is written: 'And [the] three are one.'"

Since the only words Cyprian explicitly quotes from First John following the introductory formula scriptum est ("it is written") are et tres unum sunt ("and [the] three are one"), and since those words appear in forms of the Old Latin text both with and without the Comma, we have no certain way of knowing which form Cyprian knew and used.

Cyprian's alleged citation must also be set aside because of its high degree of uncertainty

Priscillian's citation is the first clear and undisputed example of I Jn. 5:7 appearing in any Latin Father, so the first certain reference to the Comma appears in the late 4th century. The other references in your list are all of Western Latin provenance, which suggests that the Comma was not original to First John, but was later added to some (but not all) Western Latin MSS in the mid- to late-4th century. The alternative is utterly improbable -- that a verse as theologically significant as the Comma was somehow omitted from every known Greek copy and every known ancient version so completely that no trace of it can be found anywhere outside the Latin West before the 7th century.

[ February 23, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Are you using the 1977 NASB? My 1995 Update reads "because the sun was obscured." Just wondering!

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry...that should be NRSV, not NASB. My mistake!