Differences between the TR and Alexandrian

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Every person gets a hears something being spoken of by some great 4 to 6 degree holding professor and automatically, it has to be right.

Stop and think folks. What are the colleges producing today? People who do their term papers by copying and pasting an article that a past professor or student already was graded on. There is no real study for self.

Maybe some need to stop practicing the Doctor role without a license and become patients, putting themselves in the hands of the Doctors who have spent long hours in the Word, and on their knees in prayer.

Great another anti-education IFB.

 

[DeclareHim]

So doc do you feel that Revelation in the TR is a great text?

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
So doc do you feel that Revelation in the TR is a great text?

"A great text" is subjective to ones personal ideals, and also their opinions of modern TC. My point was that the reformation translators translated what was written in the TR accurately from the Greek into English.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
So doc do you feel that Revelation in the TR is a great text?

I don't believe the TR is a great text. It is a flawed representitive of the Byzantine textform which I consider most likely to reflect the autographa. But I think the TR is probably less flawed than most of the representitives of the Alexandrian textform.

 

[Boanerges]

Any opinions on the OP Dr C?

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
A great text" is subjective to ones personal ideals, and also their opinions of modern TC. My point was that the reformation translators translated what was written in the TR accurately from the Greek into English.

Then I would completely agree with that conclusion. My point was the fact the TR is not a very good text in Revelation.

 

[Eliyahu]

I have noticed TR reflects mostly MT,but it differs from MT from time to time, not so often. However, mostly TR has the just reason to quit from its friends of Majority. Behind such choice, I believe that the absolute majority of Latin texts preserved by the true believers were supporting those minorities.
Here we are talking about some verses where TR has the weakest postion, but if we check with all NT verses, it will be apparent that Alexandrian texts lose the ground.
I have never seen any Bible which reflects entirely the Oldest, the Best manuscript or text like B or Aleph. Aleph itself seems to be the most erroeous. If CT likes the Oldest- the Best, why don't they delete out John 8:1-11 in their Bible? Is that addition? What about Eph 3:9 (through Jesus Christ)? I think the game between CT and TR is over. We can think about that between MT and TR, about why TR deviated from MT in some verses, which happened in 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, John 17:12, and several verses in Revelation.
Apparently Eagle doesn't make sense in Rev 8:13 where TR states angel, also TR was correct in Rev 5:7.

 

[DeclareHim]

How can angel be the right rendering in Revelation 8:13 when no manuscript contains that reading? I guess it's just another precious gem lost from all the Greek manuscripts huh?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
Any opinions on the OP Dr C?

The manuscript evidence seems to suggest that "His name and the name of His Father" is the more likely reading.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
How can angel be the right rendering in Revelation 8:13 when no manuscript contains that reading? I guess it's just another precious gem lost from all the Greek manuscripts huh?

Who told you "no manuscript contains that reading?" Whoever told you that gave you false information! Von Soden lists two of his "K" manuscripts, (d) and (e) as reading "aggelou.

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
How can angel be the right rendering in Revelation 8:13 when no manuscript contains that reading? I guess it's just another precious gem lost from all the Greek manuscripts huh?

Who told you "no manuscript contains that reading?" Whoever told you that gave you false information! Von Soden lists two of his "K" manuscripts, (d) and (e) as reading "aggelou.

</font>[/QUOTE]You know Dr C, you are rapidly becoming a TC "myth buster" Maybe you can get a TV show on TBN...just kidding.

 

[Boanerges]

Double post...again...duh

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
You know Dr C, you are rapidly becoming a TC "myth buster" Maybe you can get a TV show on TBN...just kidding.

Me? On TBN? Perish the thought!

But, seriously, I have heard these "myths" repeated over and over again to the point where it seems people are actually accepting them as fact and it goes against my pedagogic nature to allow such myths to stand unchallenged. .

The most probable reason that the reading of Von Soden's K (d) and (e) manuscripts made its way into the TR is that they are all part of the Andreas manuscript subset from which 1r descends. Hodges and Farstad, and, of course, Schmid (who H&F were probably following), place them in their "Me" group, a subset of the Andreas text containing such manuscripts as 181, 598, 2026, 2028, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2038, 2044, 2052, 2054, 2056, 2057, 2059, 2060, 2065, 2068, 2069, 2081, 2083, 2186, 2286, and 2302. The H&F "M" group is their nomenclature for Von Soden's "K" group. The fact that each succeeding generation tends to rename/renumber the manuscript evidence contributes greatly to the confusion.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
How can angel be the right rendering in Revelation 8:13 when no manuscript contains that reading? I guess it's just another precious gem lost from all the Greek manuscripts huh?

There are manuscripts with angel on Rev 8:13. I don't know the numbers but my book shows Md, Me, and TR, and therefore there must be some good numbers with it. Dr. Cassidy may assist on this.
I can hardly imagine the eagle speaking in the turmoil.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
There are manuscripts with angel on Rev 8:13. I don't know the numbers but my book shows Md, Me, and TR, and therefore there must be some good numbers with it. Dr. Cassidy may assist on this.
I can hardly imagine the eagle speaking in the turmoil.

Yea but can you imagine the world following a "beast" . Obviously Revelation is full of symbolism and to say it didn't use it here is not only crazy with so little mss support but also pretending you know how the Word of God ought read.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
Well, actually, that "fact" is not all that "proven." It has been alleged that Erasmus translated the last 6 verses from the Vulgate into Greek because those verses were missing from manusrcript 1r. However, if we examine the evidence we find some overwhelming discrepencies. The first of which is that the Vulgate reads amen veni Domine Iesu in Revelation 22:20 but the TR reads Amen. Nai, erchou, kurie Iesou. Now, anyone who can read both Latin and Greek will notice immediately that, either Erasmus was really stupid (while, at the same time being one of the greatest scholars and thinkers of his day), or he didn't translate that passage from the Vulgate into Greek!

In fact one of the greatest textual scholars in the field of textual criticism, Herman C. Hoskier, states that Erasmus got the reading from manuscript 141 which reads exactly as the TR. (Herman C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2, London, Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929, page 644.)

You're misrepresenting the facts again Doc. Here is the true explanation of what Herman Hoskier really said:

I knew these were going to come up, since just about every KJVO under the sun seems to "know" something about them. Of course, what they "know" is so distorted as to be unrecognizable when compared with the facts....

The information regarding these MSS comes from the *necromancer* Herman C. Hoskier, in his 2-vol. book, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.

MS 296 = Hoskier's 57
MS 2049 = Hoskier's 141
MS 2067 = Hoskier's 119.

The *dates* of these MSS are the following (from the official registry of NT MSS found in the Kurzgefasste Liste):

MS 296 = 16th century.
MS 2049 = 16th century
MS 2067 = 15th century.

Of these, Hoskier (the necromancer) himself admits that MS 296 is a handwritten "copy of Colinaeus' edition", i.e. a copy of a *printed* Greek NT, published in 1534, and thus of no value as a "witness" to the Greek NT text in manuscript form.

Hoskier (the necromancer) equally admits (despite all the "spin" and distortion put forth by a bevy of KJVO defenders) that MS 2049 according to his best estimation is merely a copy of Erasmus' 3rd or 4th printed edition, and thus equally of no value as a supposed "manuscript witness" to the Greek NT text.

Finally, Hoskier (the necromancer), while acknowledging the main text of MS 2067 to date from the 15th century, admits that "a late [= post-16th century] third hand" has made marginal additions, among which is the reading "book" in 22:19 (Hoskier's MS 119*** = 3rd hand). Hoskier *further* lists all readings of MS 119 or its correctors that he considers "older readings" -- and the reading in 22:19 is *not* one of those listed.

Bottom line once more: These "MSS" are *not* valid witnesses to the text of Rev 22:19, but have their source in printed editions.

Facts are stubborn things, and get in the way of most good arguments.

All Credit to Euthymius.

 

[DeclareHim]

Perhaps those who think Erasmus is *the* authority on this matter should consider his own words: "I do not take on the task of pointing out where the Greek text should be trusted and where not, but that I reserve all of this for the Roman Pontiff" (Collected works of Erasmus, vol.72, p.345, discussing this passage, Rev 22:19).

Again credit to: Euthymius

 

[DeclareHim]

So again my point is simply the TR is a horrible representation of the Byzantine text especially in Revelation.

I presume that Holland was unaware that, when Erasmus admitted back-translating from the Latin Vulgate, he *also* admitted that, in the case of the two final verses of Rev 22, he did *not* rely on the Vulgate, but on the *commentary* of Lorenzo de Valla. As noted by Franz Delitzsch, Erasmus had stated that "his source was Valla's _Adnotationes_, which commentary closes with these words: "Graece non solum ante verbum venio [= Greek ERCOMAI] est etiam [= Greek NAI]: sed et ante verbum veni [= Greek ERCOU], which being translated is "The Greek not only has NAI preceding ERCOMAI, but also preceding ERCOU." Delitzsch continues, "Erasmus was only able to back-translate this verse by use of Valla, since the NAI did not occur in the Vulgate." (F. Delitzsch, _Handschriftenliche Funde_, Leipzig, 1861, p.57).

As noted previously, this is simply false, and a matter of oft-repeated KJVO spin, taking Hoskier out of context (and in the process being willing to trust a New Age reincarnation- and universal salvation-believing necromancer while vilifying Westcott and Hort for far less supposed "occultic" involvment).

&lt;In fact, Erasmus used erchou in Re 22:7,12; and even in Re 22:20.&gt;

Another falsehood. TR of Rev 22:7, 12 has ERCOMAI and *not* ERCOU. Rev 22:20 has ERCOU, but this was *not* due to the Vulgate, but — for that particular verse — Valla's commentary which, as noted above., read the final command as "verbum veni", which allowed the *option* of rendering by *either* Greek ERCOU or ELTHE.

Credit: Euthymius

 

[TCassidy]

I am not sure who this anonymous "Euthymius" is, but I don't put a lot of confidence in anonymous name-callers and slanders. As to Hoskier's 141 (2049), every catalog lists it as a 16th century Byzantine copy of Revelation. The assertion that it may may have been a hard written copy of a printed text is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quite frankly, with all the name calling and ad hominem he engages in I would not place a lot of confidence in his neutrality. Accusing Hoskier of being a necromancer is as stupid as the KJVOs accusing Hort of the same fault!

Now, if you have something to offer that is your own, and not borrowed from anonymous internet source, please feel free to offer it. If not just admit you over-stated your case and move on.

 

[DeclareHim]

Well since I'm 18 and have not yet been to Seminary I do fairly rely on others. BTW you relied on Hoskier first I'm just letting everyone know Hoskier discredited all three mss you claim that he claimed were proof that Erasmus didn't copy from the Latin. The fact is Erasmus did copy from the Latin. Period. The person was addressing a KJVO Ruckmanite using your same ridiculous arguement.