Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

OOPS! I see that I was mistaken about JoJ's position concerning his prefered text.

I strongly prefer the Traditional Text types as well.

HankD

 

Thought so! :thumbs::thumbs:

 

Well, that was certainly conducive to intelligent discussion.

 

Seems everyone's agreed with you on that point.

Based on the postings from at least three other folks over the last several pages, there seems to be a contention that advocating for the Received Text isn't necessarily "committed to the traditions of men," but rather an examination that it may actually be as good as, if not better, than the Critical Text. You can't simply argue away someone's use of a set of manuscripts because you don't like it. You'll need to actually provide the current examinations that prove that the set you like is, in fact, better and superior to others.

See answer to your second point. You'll need to address posts from JoJ, jbh, HankD, and possibly one or two others regarding the manuscripts.

 

To clarify: my position is Byzantine priority, not TR-only. My statement was that the TR is better than the CT, not that I advocated only the TR. I stand by that.

You know, you really need to quit making such incendiary posts (against Don again) if you truly want people to debate you. Just saying.

Next time please source the exact article. I looked up "textual criticism" first since you didn't proper source. As for the article itself, Wikipedia is famous for getting it wrong, so that no reputable grad school/seminary will accept Wikipedia as a source. They get it wrong here too. The eclectic school does NOT go back to the 19th century. It is a change from the Westcott/Hort theory, which was basically Alexandrian priority, since they called the Alexandrian their "Neutral Text." And there are other errors in the article. But I digress.

If you will look back I posted something very relevant to the issue of the CT vs. the Byzantine back on p. 10--

JoJ in #98--And I strongly disagree that the Critical Text is "much better" than the TR. Are you familiar at all with Ernst Colwell's or Maurice Robinson's work? Mainline textual critics are starting to agree with these men that the "shorter is better" canon must go. In which case the whole critical text, eclectic method is up in the air, and the Byzantine text type is closer to the originals than the Alexandrian or Western text types on which the eclectics base the UBS/Nestle-Aland texts.

 

I'll allow others to show me that you're correct; but the way I see it, you made the following statement:

I thought I was responding to that statement, referencing comments directly related to what you posted. If that's "obstructionist," well, we have a difference in opinion on what the definition of "obstructionist" is -- which, by the way, is at the heart of most of your discussions on this board (i.e., difference in opinion on translations and versions).

See, the heart of your debate (as I identified many pages ago) hinges on everyone accepting your initial premise; and your initial premise lies on acceptance that one text is more correct than others. This has been proven throughout this thread by the discussions regarding translations of certain passages, and the more recent discussions regarding the Critical Text vice other texts. Anyone reading through these pages will find where respondents have identified that they disagree with how you're interpreting a passage, but they're ready to continue on with the discussion; and instead, you respond with an insulting "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of response, and then re-submit your original argument.

As far as your referencing Wikipedia; my first response is to direct you to the Peshitta, which Syriac scholars agree was translated from the original Greek language manuscripts; and bears 108 agreements with the TR, while only having 65 agreements with the Codex Vaticanus.

Why is the Critical Text so much superior to the TR when it makes such an obvious error in Mark 1:2, when the passage clearly references multiple prophets, thereby making the TR more correct than the Critical Text?

These are only two of a multiple amount of arguments that we could discuss for days, and 20 more pages. But the point shouldn't be your condescension of others using anything besides your preferred text of choice; it should be your first statement, that we should all refer to the original language copy whenever possible -- and that was agreed to many, many pages ago.

 

Would say that while the CT might reflect closest to the original manuscripts , the other main Greek texts used such as MT/BYZ etc would also be quite close to the originals, and unless one is a real greek specialist, any version translated in an accurate fashion would be good to use for reading/studying purposes!

 

If anyone is interested in factual research concerning papyri discoveries as related to the Traditional Text types vs. Alexandrian there is at least one publication:

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism; Harry A. Sturz, Biblical Viewpoints Publications, 2002. Thesis(Th. D) - Grace Theological Seminaty 1967.

Dr. Strurz uses papyri/Alexandrian manuscript comparisons to show that the W&H "Byzantine conflation" theory is not historically or logically reasonable and that the Traditional Texts types are independent of all other texts since many of the earliest papyri manuscripts texts (e.g. p66, p75) contain some of these supposed conflations which pre-date or are contemporary with the W&H favored Alexandrian texts.

The book contains many of the comparison charts and collation lists.

You will have to read the book to take the path of his conclusion.


HankD

 

Name me one single scholarly source who says this.

 

Think that the high lighted area not necessary, as generally what we believe as regards the Bible refers to the original manuscripts, and that we just tend to say that it is infallible source for faith and practice...

English version used does not really matter as long as done accurately reflecting the original texts!

 

Very good. I applaud your diligence.

Notice however that this source does not say what Wikipedia did. It is true that, as this source says, the principles of W&H were used in creating the modern eclectic system (of which there are two main versions). However, that is not the same as saying that they invented the eclectic system. The very fact that their name for the Alexandrian text type was the "Neutral Text" disproves Wikipedia. Their method was an Alexandrian priority method, not an eclectic method. I suggest for full information you read Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, for full information. Or for a less complicated view, Dr. Black's New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide, will get you going.

 

still would hold to regardless of how one views the 'correct" Greek text based upon ones textual criticism methods used toevaluate the various Texts...

That whether one sees the CT/MT/Byz texts, that one will have a reliable english version of the Bible to study from!

 

A friend of mine who is a well know scholar of NT textual criticism writes me concerning this, "Actually WH spoke strongly against the leading principle of modern reasoned or even rigorous eclecticism, which was the use of internal evidence; rather, they based their system almost exclusively on external criteria, rejecting most internal criteria as too subjective."

He then quotes from W/H's Greek NT (the digital version of their "Introduction" volume), so he was not able to give page numbers):

Now Van, though you usually disagree with me (since I'm a "know it all":tongue3, surely you're not going to disagree with a noted textual critic on this.