How can there be A "Correct greek text" Since We have No originals?

[Yeshua1]

to my understanding, one of the major flaws in the KJVO position is their views regarding that ONLY the TR is the "correct" greek text, while the MT/CT etc are not!

problem is since ONLY the originals can claim to be the "correct" greek texts, isn't it a case that one can feel and prove that a Greek text is superior to another one, but that NONE can be seen as being THE greek text?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Oh Boy!!!!

to my understanding, one of the major flaws in the KJVO position is their views regarding that ONLY the TR is the "correct" greek text, while the MT/CT etc are not!

problem is since ONLY the originals can claim to be the "correct" greek texts, isn't it a case that one can feel and prove that a Greek text is superior to another one, but that NONE can be seen as being THE greek text?

THIS oughta be an interesting "can of worms":laugh::smilewinkgrin: I can't wait!

Bro.Greg

 

[John of Japan]

to my understanding, one of the major flaws in the KJVO position is their views regarding that ONLY the TR is the "correct" greek text, while the MT/CT etc are not!

problem is since ONLY the originals can claim to be the "correct" greek texts, isn't it a case that one can feel and prove that a Greek text is superior to another one, but that NONE can be seen as being THE greek text?

The theological basis for the movement is the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture as delineated by Edward Hills. Hills was a Th. D. in textual criticism from Harvard with one of his readers being liberal textual critic Kirsopp Lake. Edward Hills wrote two books on the subject (The King James Version Defended in 1956, and Believing Bible Study in 1967), in which he developed a doctrine of preservation based on what he called the logic of faith. The logic of faith taught that preservation was accomplished by God through the priesthood of the believer, therefore the traditional texts were the preserved texts. He went so far as to endorse the TR, but I don't think he was TR-only, and he wasn't KJVO. He discussed the Byzantine text in general positively.

There were two authors in 1970 who I consider the impetus for the KJVO movement. Peter Ruckman was influenced greatly by Hills (though Hills would have rejected Ruckman's position) and quoted from him extensively in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. David Otis Fuller had a chapter by him in Which Bible?

 

[Jim1999]

I think the KJV only movement started alongside the battle against liberalism. All through my younger years most Baptist preachers used the KJV, promoted it against the RSV, the Bible of the liberals. We didn't argue about the differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge versions, which had minor differences.

In the 40's and 50's, if a man preached from the RSV, his gospel was suspect, as was his Bible teaching. I remember some very strong battles over one verse...."A virgin shall conceived...." The conservatives inisted "maiden" was incorrect and "virgin" was the only interpretation.

The truth, in my mind, is that to-day, the best Bible is the one in your hands right now. Compare it with other translations, combined with the best hermeneutics, the results will be, God's Word in truth.

I still use my 1945 Cambridge version of the King James translation, but I also compare about 8 translations before I preach.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Logos1560]

varying TR editions

to my understanding, one of the major flaws in the KJVO position is their views regarding that ONLY the TR is the "correct" greek text

Some assume that the Textus Receptus is one consistent text in all its editions when it was not. I have read that there are twenty or so varying editions of the Textus Receptus.

There are the five different editions of Erasmus.

There is the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot that some identify as TR.


D. A. Waite wrote: “The Complutensian Polyglot (1522) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 47). Scrivener indicated that the Complutensian edition differs from that of the 1624 Elzevir in 2,780 places (Introduction, II, p. 180).

There is the edition by Simon Colinaeus.

In 1534, Simon Colinaeus produced an edition of the Greek text that was "an eclectic mixture of the Complutensian and Erasmian" (Scrivener, Plain Introduction, II, p. 188). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible maintained that “the 1534 Paris Greek Testament produced by Simon de Colines, stepfather of Robert Estienne, came nearer to a critical edition, using Erasmus, the Complutensian text, and unnamed manuscript sources which obviously furnished some good readings” (p. 199). Scrivener's book cited Mill as observing that "in about 150 places Colinaeus deserts both [the Complutensian and Erasmian], and that his variations are usually supported by the evidence of known codices" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 188). Tregelles noted that in some places the edition of Colinaeus was based on manuscripts that the editor had examined (Account of Printed Text, p. 30). Tregelles pointed out that Colinaeus did not include 1 John 5:7 in his text (p. 30).

There are the editions by Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503-1559).

There are one or two editions by Henry Stephens, Robert's son.

Edwin Rumball-Petre asserted that Henry Stephens would later edit his own edition of the Greek N. T. printed in 1576 that “differs from both Beza and Robert Stephens” (Rare Bibles, p. 35). Henry Stephens also produced another edition of his Greek N. T. in 1587.

There are several editions by Theodore Beza.

There is also the later 1880’s edition compiled by Scrivener.

 

[Logos1560]

to my understanding, one of the major flaws in the KJVO position is their views regarding that ONLY the TR is the "correct" greek text

I do not know that many KJV-only advocates actually accept the Textus Receptus as being a correct enough Greek text to be used to try or evaluate the KJV.

The only TR edition that some KJV-only advocates actually accept is the later 1880's edition by Scrivener that was not actually available to the KJV translators. D. A. Waite claimed: "The text which underlies our King James Bible was a text that Dr. Frederick Scrivener put out" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 74). In its definition for Textus Receptus, one KJV-only book stated: “The editions of Scrivener in 1881 and thereafter represent the exact Greek text underlying the King James Version of the Bible and the preserved autographa” ((Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 13).

It is unlikely that any KJV-only advocates would even accept the authority of Scrivener's edition if it is used to point out any possible translators' errors in the KJV.

The KJV-only view seems to leave a 1,400 year gap between the originals and what they claim is the perfect Word of God in Greek. In essence, the KJV-only view seems to defend a specific and unique text first established in 1611. This 1611 text is not every-word completely identical to that found in any single manuscript or in any text-type or type of text, including the traditional Greek or Byzantine text.

 

[humblethinker]

Logos1560, Jim1999, John of Japan, et al, :love2::thumbsup:

Let all of this sink in kjvo folks... :flower::flower: truth... Good as fresh air is to breathing, clean cold water is to drinking, the wind against our wings is to flying... It's a scary thing to consider that one has been so wrong for so much of their life... but there is life after kjvo-ism, and it is good.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not know that many KJV-only advocates actually accept the Textus Receptus as being a correct enough Greek text to be used to try or evaluate the KJV.

The only TR edition that some KJV-only advocates actually accept is the later 1880's edition by Scrivener that was not actually available to the KJV translators. D. A. Waite claimed: "The text which underlies our King James Bible was a text that Dr. Frederick Scrivener put out" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 74). In its definition for Textus Receptus, one KJV-only book stated: “The editions of Scrivener in 1881 and thereafter represent the exact Greek text underlying the King James Version of the Bible and the preserved autographa” ((Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 13).

It is unlikely that any KJV-only advocates would even accept the authority of Scrivener's edition if it is used to point out any possible translators' errors in the KJV.

The KJV-only view seems to leave a 1,400 year gap between the originals and what they claim is the perfect Word of God in Greek. In essence, the KJV-only view seems to defend a specific and unique text first established in 1611. This 1611 text is not every-word completely identical to that found in any single manuscript or in any text-type or type of text, including the traditional Greek or Byzantine text.

So they would claim ONLY the particular greek text used by translators would be the 'correct" text?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Hello Baptistboarders!

With the disclaimer that I'm engaging in this thread as a devil's advocate for the sake of argument, since I'm writing an academic paper on this topic . . .

Who's to say that the New Testament, in whole or in part, is not simply the man-made product of the early winners of the cult that came to be called orthodox Christianity? In places where all Greek manuscripts agree, we may only assume that we have what these powerful cult-leaders wanted us to have. Where the Greek manuscripts disagree, we may either have a corruption of this orthodox text, or we may have a chance to get behind the veneer of the final orthodox redaction and actually arrive at the original text, such as in Mark 16:9-20, where only 2 Greek manuscripts preserve the original non-ending and all other 1600 or so Greek witnesses reflect the manipulated monolithic text of the orthodox. Or in Mark 1:41, where only 1 Greek manuscript out of 1500 or so gets behind the grand scheme of the orthodox to give us the original reading, "Jesus was indignant" (see the NIV 2011).

The hyped-up Josh McDowell argument of thousands of Greek manuscripts going back to the 2nd century is therefore completely fallacious, since all of them may only reflect this orthodox-manipulated and -corrupted text, except perhaps in only a relatively few places, which themselves may only be corruptions of the orthodox text and not remnants of the original texts that survived the onslaughts of the orthodox who were powerful enough to overturn completely the Greek manuscript tradition at will.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Yeshua1]

Hello Baptistboarders!

With the disclaimer that I'm engaging in this thread as a devil's advocate for the sake of argument, since I'm writing an academic paper on this topic . . .

Who's to say that the New Testament, in whole or in part, is not simply the man-made product of the early winners of the cult that came to be called orthodox Christianity? In places where all Greek manuscripts agree, we may only assume that we have what these powerful cult-leaders wanted us to have. Where the Greek manuscripts disagree, we may either have a corruption of this orthodox text, or we may have a chance to get behind the veneer of the final orthodox redaction and actually arrive at the original text, such as in Mark 16:9-20, where only 2 Greek manuscripts preserve the original non-ending and all other 1600 or so Greek witnesses reflect the manipulated monolithic text of the orthodox. Or in Mark 1:41, where only 1 Greek manuscript out of 1500 or so gets behind the grand scheme of the orthodox to give us the original reading, "Jesus was indignant" (see the NIV 2011).

The hyped-up Josh McDowell argument of thousands of Greek manuscripts going back to the 2nd century is therefore completely fallacious, since all of them may only reflect this orthodox-manipulated and -corrupted text, except perhaps in only a relatively few places, which themselves may only be corruptions of the orthodox text and not remnants of the original texts that survived the onslaughts of the orthodox who were powerful enough to overturn completely the Greek manuscript tradition at will.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

Are you Bart Erdmans?

there were NO competing sects and groups jockeying to force the debate in early church, for the holy Spreiit had given the revealtion of the scriptures thru the Apostles of Christ, and he made sure the originals were completelt freed from errors, and the Apsotolic Church received them as the very word of God, same as the OT scriptures!

 

[humblethinker]

Hello Baptistboarders!

With the disclaimer that I'm engaging in this thread as a devil's advocate for the sake of argument, since I'm writing an academic paper on this topic . . .

Who's to say that the New Testament, in whole or in part, is not simply the man-made product of the early winners of the cult that came to be called orthodox Christianity? In places where all Greek manuscripts agree, we may only assume that we have what these powerful cult-leaders wanted us to have. Where the Greek manuscripts disagree, we may either have a corruption of this orthodox text, or we may have a chance to get behind the veneer of the final orthodox redaction and actually arrive at the original text, such as in Mark 16:9-20, where only 2 Greek manuscripts preserve the original non-ending and all other 1600 or so Greek witnesses reflect the manipulated monolithic text of the orthodox. Or in Mark 1:41, where only 1 Greek manuscript out of 1500 or so gets behind the grand scheme of the orthodox to give us the original reading, "Jesus was indignant" (see the NIV 2011).

The hyped-up Josh McDowell argument of thousands of Greek manuscripts going back to the 2nd century is therefore completely fallacious, since all of them may only reflect this orthodox-manipulated and -corrupted text, except perhaps in only a relatively few places, which themselves may only be corruptions of the orthodox text and not remnants of the original texts that survived the onslaughts of the orthodox who were powerful enough to overturn completely the Greek manuscript tradition at will.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

I like your questions and would like to see it addressed but I don't think it will get much traction here nested in this current thread. Such a bold idea needs to have it's own thread.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A Question...

Hello Baptistboarders!

"With the disclaimer that I'm engaging in this thread as a devil's advocate for the sake of argument, since I'm writing an academic paper on this topic . . .

Who's to say that the New Testament, in whole or in part, is not simply the man-made product of the early winners of the cult that came to be called orthodox Christianity? In places where all Greek manuscripts agree, we may only assume that we have what these powerful cult-leaders wanted us to have.........."

Jonathan C. Borland

I may have a simple mind that is not able to grasp "complex" arguments....(IF that is true then I can live in the comfort of the idea that "ignorance is bliss":tongue3: AND FAR LESS CONFUSING!) but I would like to know to WHOM Mr. Borland is referring when he speaks of "the cult that came to be called ORTHODOX(caps mine)Christianity." I have always believed that traditional Bible-Believers in the church age were "orthodox" Christians. Is he playing some kind of cute word game here? Sometimes it seems one can educate oneself right OUT of any common sense.....(or the truth).

Bro.Greg

 

[humblethinker]

I may have a simple mind that is not able to grasp "complex" arguments....(IF that is true then I can live in the comfort of the idea that "ignorance is bliss":tongue3: AND FAR LESS CONFUSING!) but I would like to know to WHOM Mr. Borland is referring when he speaks of "the cult that came to be called ORTHODOX(caps mine)Christianity." I have always believed that traditional Bible-Believers in the church age were "orthodox" Christians. Is he playing some kind of cute word game here? Sometimes it seems one can educate oneself right OUT of any common sense.....(or the truth).

Bro.Greg

Bro Greg, I believe he is talking about the idea that Bart Ehrman has espoused and promoted.

From Wikipedia: Much of Ehrman's writing concentrates on various aspects of Walter Bauer's thesis that Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and coined the term "Proto-orthodox Christianity" to describe the Christianity that existed before theological consensus or orthodoxy was established.[3] In his writings, Ehrman attempts to show that from the time of the Church Fathers it was those denounced as heretics (Marcion, for example) who were charged with tampering with the biblical manuscripts. Ehrman theorizes that it was actually more often the orthodox that corrupted the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints.​

I find it an interesting topic but do not agree with Ehrman's conclusions, which seems to be, basically, that there is no way of knowing what is the 'legitimate' faith: did Jesus resurrect?, is God a trinity? can we have reasonable (or any?) confidence that we have God's word? There are several debates on youtube which can be viewed. I've watch him and Dan Wallace debate. Ehrman is a very bright person... I'm just not sure what has caused him to turn as he has.

Stay close to Jesus! If we can focus on loving God and loving others I think everything else will work out alright regardless of a lack of certainty. Besides, we don't get life or security from the correctness of our beliefs but from a relationship with Him.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello Baptistboarders!

With the disclaimer that I'm engaging in this thread as a devil's advocate for the sake of argument, since I'm writing an academic paper on this topic . . .

Who's to say that the New Testament, in whole or in part, is not simply the man-made product of the early winners of the cult that came to be called orthodox Christianity? In places where all Greek manuscripts agree, we may only assume that we have what these powerful cult-leaders wanted us to have. Where the Greek manuscripts disagree, we may either have a corruption of this orthodox text, or we may have a chance to get behind the veneer of the final orthodox redaction and actually arrive at the original text, such as in Mark 16:9-20, where only 2 Greek manuscripts preserve the original non-ending and all other 1600 or so Greek witnesses reflect the manipulated monolithic text of the orthodox. Or in Mark 1:41, where only 1 Greek manuscript out of 1500 or so gets behind the grand scheme of the orthodox to give us the original reading, "Jesus was indignant" (see the NIV 2011).

The hyped-up Josh McDowell argument of thousands of Greek manuscripts going back to the 2nd century is therefore completely fallacious, since all of them may only reflect this orthodox-manipulated and -corrupted text, except perhaps in only a relatively few places, which themselves may only be corruptions of the orthodox text and not remnants of the original texts that survived the onslaughts of the orthodox who were powerful enough to overturn completely the Greek manuscript tradition at will.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

If this were true there would be a much wider disagreement in the text types. Even with the Western there is not that much disagreement. Every single doctrine of the faith can be taught from a Bible put together from any of the mss (with the possible exception of snake handling :smilewinkgrin. Plus, every name of Christ is there no matter what mss you use.

Plus, there would be a history of your "what if" story. There's a history extant of Marcion and his mess, but not of your proposed scenario.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Greetings, John!

For the sake of argument (i.e., the following is not really my position):

Take the ending of Mark, for example. What most scholars tell us is that the original strands in the Greek manuscript tradition survive in just 2 Greek manuscripts out of 1600 or so. That is, 99.9 percent of the Greek manuscripts reflects a wholesale fabrication of 174 words! The obvious conclusion is this: There were people powerful enough to completely overturn the Greek manuscript tradition of the NT. When all Greek manuscripts agree, then, there is the good chance that we only have what these powerful people (perhaps so-called apostles or sub-apostles) wanted us to have, but we can have no assurance that it is original.

In the case of Mark, the originators of the NT from which all (or 99.9 percent of) subsequent copies derive wanted to make sure that there were eyewitnesses in that account, just as they had also pulled off in the other accounts. If this ending is a relatively "late" addition to the Gospel of Mark, and it was able to resist the "original" Greek story everywhere except in two manuscripts, what about "early" additions and changes to the Gospels? Surely they left no trace. Whatever original strands that may have been floating around have surely been snuffed out just as completely as the writings of Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, and others who disagreed with the text of the Christian establishment.

What is your best response to this argument from the state of the manuscript tradition?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[TCGreek]

I exult in the providence of the Almighty.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I exult in the providence of the Almighty.

Is the providence in which you exult compatible with the 99.9 or even 100 percent corruptibility of entire passages in the transmitted Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, or even the entire Greek New Testament? Explain.

 

[John of Japan]

Greetings, John!

For the sake of argument (i.e., the following is not really my position):

Take the ending of Mark, for example. What most scholars tell us is that the original strands in the Greek manuscript tradition survive in just 2 Greek manuscripts out of 1600 or so. That is, 99.9 percent of the Greek manuscripts reflects a wholesale fabrication of 174 words! The obvious conclusion is this: There were people powerful enough to completely overturn the Greek manuscript tradition of the NT. When all Greek manuscripts agree, then, there is the good chance that we only have what these powerful people (perhaps so-called apostles or sub-apostles) wanted us to have, but we can have no assurance that it is original.

In the case of Mark, the originators of the NT from which all (or 99.9 percent of) subsequent copies derive wanted to make sure that there were eyewitnesses in that account, just as they had also pulled off in the other accounts. If this ending is a relatively "late" addition to the Gospel of Mark, and it was able to resist the "original" Greek story everywhere except in two manuscripts, what about "early" additions and changes to the Gospels? Surely they left no trace. Whatever original strands that may have been floating around have surely been snuffed out just as completely as the writings of Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, and others who disagreed with the text of the Christian establishment.

What is your best response to this argument from the state of the manuscript tradition?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

Hi, Jon.

This is an argument with no basis in history. As you know, W & H postulated a recension by Lucian of Antioch with no historical evidence: nothing from the church fathers, nothing from the church history of Eusebius, etc. There has been little evidence (maybe none) since then to prove such a recension. It is more logical to conclude that Mark's ending is logical, since the shorter endings have so little mss support, making the shorter endings either (1) an unsuccessful attempt to revise the text for whatever reason, or (2) a seen need to add an ending to the abrupt close of certain mss without the longer ending. Either way, the longer ending is genuine.

The original argument for preservation before the KJVO movement (which I date from 1970) was that the multitude of mss, and the great agreement between them, was proof of the superiority of the Bible as God's Word over secular documents such as Homer's poetry (only 8 mss, was it?), and the providential preservation of His Word by God. W. A. Criswell had a chapter in A Coffer of Jewels About our Infallible Eternal Word, the Bible (ed. by John R. Rice, 1963) entitled, "The Preservation of the Word of God." In it he discusses how we have so many ancient mss, how almost the entire NT can be reproduced from the church fathers (something no other ancient Greek document can claim), the vast agreement between the mss, etc.

I think these arguments still holds water.

 

[John of Japan]

Are you Bart Erdmans?

there were NO competing sects and groups jockeying to force the debate in early church, for the holy Spreiit had given the revealtion of the scriptures thru the Apostles of Christ, and he made sure the originals were completelt freed from errors, and the Apsotolic Church received them as the very word of God, same as the OT scriptures!

Actually, it didn't take long for heresies to arise, as witness the need of Galatians to combat the Judaizers, the heresies mentioned in the book of Revelation, and the writing of the epistles of John to combat Gnosticism (some say). But if you mean that in general believers were united in their faith, I agree.

 

[humblethinker]

Hi, Jon.

This is an argument with no basis in history. As you know, W & H postulated a recension by Lucian of Antioch with no historical evidence: nothing from the church fathers, nothing from the church history of Eusebius, etc. There has been little evidence (maybe none) since then to prove such a recension. It is more logical to conclude that Mark's ending is logical, since the shorter endings have so little mss support, making the shorter endings either (1) an unsuccessful attempt to revise the text for whatever reason, or (2) a seen need to add an ending to the abrupt close of certain mss without the longer ending. Either way, the longer ending is genuine.

The original argument for preservation before the KJVO movement (which I date from 1970) was that the multitude of mss, and the great agreement between them, was proof of the superiority of the Bible as God's Word over secular documents such as Homer's poetry (only 8 mss, was it?), and the providential preservation of His Word by God. W. A. Criswell had a chapter in A Coffer of Jewels About our Infallible Eternal Word, the Bible (ed. by John R. Rice, 1963) entitled, "The Preservation of the Word of God." In it he discusses how we have so many ancient mss, how almost the entire NT can be reproduced from the church fathers (something no other ancient Greek document can claim), the vast agreement between the mss, etc.

I think these arguments still holds water.

Thank you JoJ. I think we should all return to such a pre-KJVO argument for the superiority of New Testament scripture. The KJVO argument is, imo, Bart Ehrman's argument turned inside out, so to speak. Basically, extreme KJVO creates a house of cards ideology: if one card is difficient or removed then it all cones crashing down. I had a kjvo friend tell me that if kjvo wasn't God's word then it is nothing more than 'Shakespeare' and he will loose ALL confidence! This seems to be what Ehrman wants us all to accept, that since there was corruption, even if not on the level that he proposes, that we believers, if we are to maintain our intellectual honesty, that we MUST think of New Testament scripture as nothing more than 'Shakespeare' therefore not worthy of our trust. Imo, it is because of intellectual honesty that I hold the scripture in such high esteem.