Fundamental View of the Bible

[HankD]

Actually, words can only be archaic in their own language, i.e. koine Greek to modern Greek. So no, words in the TR are not archaic. They are completely consistent with 1st century AD Greek documents, just as are any Alexandrian manuscripts. But I realize you were just feeding off Van's ignorance. (And he insinuated I was ignorant early in this thread. :tongue3

However, "archaic Form or use of a form which is obsolete or belongs recognizbly to an older stage of a language: e.g. the syntax of
God Save the Queen! or the use of words like hereafter in legal documents" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, ed. by P. H. Matthews, p. 25).

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.

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

 

[John of Japan]

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:

 

[Van]

I think there must be a bowel obstruction in this thread. My point is that when we say we believe in the "Bible", we should make clear:

1) Are we referring to the original lanuage copy or some translated version. We should refer to the original lanuage copy.

2) We should identify which version of the original language copy we accept. I accept the Critical Text. Now if a person is so committed to the traditions of men, they can put in their "Bible doctrine statement" the Textus Receptus version of the Original Langage copy, fine. This thread as nothing to do with advocating for or against the KJV.

3) For a person to say the TR is the best available inspired words of God makes no sense to me. Rather than advocating scripture alone, it is advocating scripture as understood traditionally.

 

[Don]

I think there must be a bowel obstruction in this thread.

Well, that was certainly conducive to intelligent discussion.

 

[Don]

My point is that when we say we believe in the "Bible", we should make clear:

1) Are we referring to the original lanuage copy or some translated version. We should refer to the original lanuage copy.

Seems everyone's agreed with you on that point.

2) We should identify which version of the original language copy we accept. I accept the Critical Text. Now if a person is so committed to the traditions of men, they can put in their "Bible doctrine statement" the Textus Receptus version of the Original Langage copy, fine. This thread as nothing to do with advocating for or against the KJV.

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.

3) For a person to say the TR is the best available inspired words of God makes no sense to me. Rather than advocating scripture alone, it is advocating scripture as understood traditionally.

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.

 

[Van]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by Don.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by Don.

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.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

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.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions.

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.

 

[Don]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by Don.

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

3) For a person to say the TR is the best available inspired words of God makes no sense to me. Rather than advocating scripture alone, it is advocating scripture as understood traditionally.

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.

 

[Van]

Just a little background, the TR is the 1550 version, Westcott/Horton is the 1880's version and the CT is the 1993 NA27/UBS4. WH is a very good text. The TR is not. They differ about 1800 times. Now it is possible the TR is superior to the WH in some of these cases, but I am sure a study would show that in the majority of cases the WH agrees more closely with the CT text over and against the TR.

Next, JOJ to the contrary, the WH starts the eclectic school in the late 19th century according to some sources. The much maligned Wikipedia says "Eclecticism refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original." And that is what WH did over and against the 1550 TR.

Now back to the subject.

It seems to agreed the our fundamental bible doctrine statements that adorn our local church constitutions may need to be revised to either replace archaic words or explain them.

Next, it appears also that many but not all posters agree that we should clearly define inspired scripture as the original language words.

And finally it appears we agree that the version of the original language words we believe come closest to the original, whether the 1550 TR, the 1880's WH, or the 1993 CT should be included.

Folks it was like pulling teeth but I think we got there, because tradition should not replace truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Van]

Reply to Jesus one.

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!

I agree, with the exception of the 1550 TR. The sad truth is most this Byzantine priority preference discussion is actually driven by a desire for the King James Translation. Just like in the abortion debate, those believing in the mother's right to murder her unborn child try to shift the topic to a woman's reproductive rights. Here, rather than try to justify clinging to an archaic translation, traditionalists sidetrack discussion into obscure generalizations.

 

[John of Japan]

Next, JOJ to the contrary, the WH starts the eclectic school in the late 19th century according to some sources.

Name me one single scholarly source who says this.

 

[Van]

"All of the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is thus without error. It is the very Word of God. It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God. The doctrine of inspiration is the first principle from which all biblical doctrines are derived. Its truth is revealed to man by God."

And here is how I believe these ideas should be revised:

Scripture is given by God inspiring the very words of the original authors and is therefore the message of God without error and is the only basis of faith and practice. We believe the best representation of the NT original autographs is the 1993 NA27/UBS4 Critical Text. [Alternately a local church could say the 1550 TR or the WH or any other published version using a specific reference.] This copy is our best effort to preserve the Word of God and is completely trustworthy, having removed what we believe were some of the corruptions that occurred during the transmission of the text over the intervening years since the originals were first written. This original language text is superior to any translation, because translation is imperfect. However, any of the more literal translations is fully suitable for study, instruction, and growth, such as the NET, the HCSB, the NKJV or the NASB95. However, since all these contain some poor choices, a comparison of the various translations seems sound for study.

The above I believe actually represents the fundamental Baptist view of scripture alone.

 

[Yeshua1]

"All of the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is thus without error. It is the very Word of God. It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God. The doctrine of inspiration is the first principle from which all biblical doctrines are derived. Its truth is revealed to man by God."

And here is how I believe these ideas should be revised:

Scripture is given by God inspiring the very words of the original authors and is therefore the message of God without error and is the only basis of faith and practice. We believe the best representation of the NT original autographs is the 1993 NA27/UBS4 Critical Text. [Alternately a local church could say the 1550 TR or the WH or any other published version using a specific reference.] This copy is our best effort to preserve the Word of God and is completely trustworthy, having removed what we believe were some of the corruptions that occurred during the transmission of the text over the intervening years since the originals were first written. This original language text is superior to any translation, because translation is imperfect. However, any of the more literal translations is fully suitable for study, instruction, and growth, such as the NET, the HCSB, the NKJV or the NASB95. However, since all these contain some poor choices, a comparison of the various translations seems sound for study.The above I believe actually represents the fundamental Baptist view of scripture alone.

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!

 

[Van]

I disagree, we need to say what we believe and know what we believe, this generalization view allows any sort of view to be said to conform to what we actually believe.

 

[Van]

The Oxford Handbook on Bible studies says the following:

"B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, however, became probably the most well known systematizers of the principles of textual criticism when they published their Greek New Testament and principles of textual criticism in 1881- a system still used widely in creating today's eclectic text: that is, one that collates a number of manuscripts, rather than relying exclusively on one.

Nevertheless, they relied heavily upon codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against which readings in other manuscripts were assessed.

In 1898, Eberhard Nestle created a completely eclectic text by collating the readings of Westcott and Hort's, Tischendorf's and at first Richard Weymouth's and later Bernhard Weiss's editions...."

 

[John of Japan]

The Oxford Handbook on Bible studies says the following:

"B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, however, became probably the most well known systematizers of the principles of textual criticism when they published their Greek New Testament and principles of textual criticism in 1881- a system still used widely in creating today's eclectic text: that is, one that collates a number of manuscripts, rather than relying exclusively on one.

Nevertheless, they relied heavily upon codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against which readings in other manuscripts were assessed.

In 1898, Eberhard Nestle created a completely eclectic text by collating the readings of Westcott and Hort's, Tischendorf's and at first Richard Weymouth's and later Bernhard Weiss's editions...."

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[John of Japan]

The Oxford Handbook on Bible studies says the following:

"B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, however, became probably the most well known systematizers of the principles of textual criticism when they published their Greek New Testament and principles of textual criticism in 1881- a system still used widely in creating today's eclectic text: that is, one that collates a number of manuscripts, rather than relying exclusively on one.

Nevertheless, they relied heavily upon codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against which readings in other manuscripts were assessed.

In 1898, Eberhard Nestle created a completely eclectic text by collating the readings of Westcott and Hort's, Tischendorf's and at first Richard Weymouth's and later Bernhard Weiss's editions...."

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):

"Documentary attestation has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour as against internal evidence."

And "Internal Evidence ... carries us but a little way towards the recovery of an ancient text .... The number of variations in which it can be trusted to supply by itself a direct and immediate decision is relatively very small."

"The limitation to Internal Evidence of Readings follows naturally from the impulse to deal conclusively at once with each variation as it comes in its turn before a reader or commentator or editor: yet a moment's consideration of the process of transmission shews how precarious it is to attempt to judge which of two or more readings is the most likely to be right ...; in other words, ... to ignore the relative antecedent credibility of witnesses, and trust exclusively to our own inward power of singling out the true readings from among their counterfeits, wherever we see them."

"Nor is it of much avail to allow supposed or ascertained excellence of particular documents ... or to mix evidence of this kind at random or at pleasure with Internal Evidence of Readings assumed in practice if not in theory as the primary guide. The comparative trustworthiness of documentary authorities [is] ... much less likely to be misinterpreted by personal surmises."

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.