Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[The Biblicist]

Now GB, since you pointed me to this great site, can you help? (The Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts) I am looking for the passage in the 19th Chapter of Matthew we have been discussing, in the translation of Erasmus. Since I cannot read the GK, how do I know what page it might be found on?

Here is the link to start with http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/ErasmusNovumInstrumentum

I have the Majority text with apparatus for alternative readings. Your choice reading in Matthew 19:17 is not found in the Majority Text group but in the Vaticanus and Siniaticus texts.

The edition of Eramus was used shortly after its publication by William Tydale and you can find it in Tyndale's translation as follows:

17 He sayde vnto him: why callest thou me good? there is none good but one and that is God. But yf thou wylt entre in to lyfe kepe the commaundementes.

 

[The Biblicist]

One thing that that is at the heart of my own confusion, is the things I have heard before by others but never took the time to check it out myself. I have the term "Majority text" used to describe the KJ Text as well as to describe the Erasmus text and the Stephanus text. In reality, that well may not be the case. Does the term 'Majority text' pre-date the text called the 'Majority text' established on or around 1982? Has the TR ever been denoted as the Majority text?

Eramus used all the available evidence when he made his edition of the Greek Text. Since that time, much other materials were found after the KJV was in print.

There is now over 5000 various source materials that scholars use to translate the scriptures.

Within this 5000 the majority come from the Byzantine or Greek speaking empire while the minority come from Italy, Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula.

The Byzantine (Greek speaking) Majority are far more unified with each other than the minority group.

The TR and King James are based upon the Majority tradition or the Byzantine group.

 

[gb93433]

Now GB, since you pointed me to this great site, can you help? (The Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts) I am looking for the passage in the 19th Chapter of Matthew we have been discussing, in the translation of Erasmus. Since I cannot read the GK, how do I know what page it might be found on?

Here is the link to start with http://www.csntm.org/printedbook/viewbook/ErasmusNovumInstrumentum

I am not quite sure what you are trying to do. Unless you have a good handle on the subject of textual criticism I would think it would be very difficult to evaluate the textual variants.

 

[gb93433]

There is a good website on Textual Criticism at http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GB: I am not quite sure what you are trying to do. Unless you have a good handle on the subject of textual criticism I would think it would be very difficult to evaluate the textual variants.

HP: Remember, it was experts who designed and built the Titanic. :tonofbricks:

Seriously, I have no idea why I am fascinated or exploring a subject I have no expertise in. I feel I am smart enough to at least recognize, with the many helps available, whether or not a text says something or it is an interpolation.

My wife is watching a movie about special needs kids that got to go to space camp. My imagination is relatively good, so who knows what might come out of my exploration of the GK manuscripts and texts. :smilewinkgrin:

In the text of Erasmus I do not see it divided into chapters and verses, so I could use some help finding the right photocopy of the page with Matthew 19:16-17 on it. I may not find anything interesting and again I might. I have no agenda, just exploring for the moment. :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Eramus used all the available evidence when he made his edition of the Greek Text. Since that time, .......

HP: Thanks Biblicist. So, if I am understanding you correctly, the KJ was based on texts from this group, although the ones actually used were in a very small number of Byzantine texts, correct?

This whole majority thing, if one is simply limiting the scope of ones manuscripts to mostly Byzantine texts, seems to me, as a casual observer, as somewhat self-serving. I could see the term 'Majority text' as being realistic if all texts were involved, and out of them all the Byzantine texts were the majority, but that to me, at this early juncture in my study, may not have been, or may not be, the case. Am I making any sense?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I have the Majority text...

HP: Is there more than one text that lays claim to being a 'Majority text?'

 

[DHK]

HP: Is there more than one text that lays claim to being a 'Majority text?'

Take a look at this article by Dr. D. A. Waite:

Dr. Donald Waite is a Baptist scholar who has written in the defense of the Received Text for many years. He is President of the Dean Burgon Society and Director of Bible for Today ministries. He has earned a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin; a Th.M. with high honors in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis; an M.A. and Ph.D. in Speech; a Th.D. with honors in Bible Exposition; and he holds both New Jersey and Pennsylvania teacher certificates in Greek and Language Arts. He taught Greek, Hebrew, Bible, Speech, and English for more than 35 years in nine schools. He has produced more than 700 studies on the Bible and other subjects. The following study is a summary of Waite's book Defending the King James Bible,

That is who he is. The article is here:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/waite-fourfold1.html

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks DHK. I read your article by Dr. Donald Waite.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is said that the Majority text has only been available since 1982. How could the KJV be seen as Biblicist states, "in the Majority tradition?"

I am not saying that it is not. I am simply asking questions.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

It is said that the Majority text has only been available since 1982. How could the KJV be seen as Biblicist states, "in the Majority tradition?"

I am not saying that it is not. I am simply asking questions.:thumbsup:

The Majority text refers to all the ancient manuscripts and other readings of scriptures found in various ancient writings that has only been recently brought together as one volume by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad.

So the 1982 date only refers to the compilation into one volume with apparatus at the bottom to shew differences between Majority text readings and difference between the Majority Text as a class of ancient manuscripts and the Minority texts (basically consisting of three primary ancient texts - Sinaticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian, etc.).

It is called the Majority Text because it consists of about 96% of the over 5000 available textual evidences whereas the critical text or minority text class consists about 4%. Hence, the Greek texts used to translate the KJV was representative of this 96% or the Majority class of evidence.

 

[DHK]

It is said that the Majority text has only been available since 1982. How could the KJV be seen as Biblicist states, "in the Majority tradition?"

I am not saying that it is not. I am simply asking questions.:thumbsup:

The KJV was translated from the majority text in what year?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: It is called the Majority Text because it consists of about 96% of the over 5000 available textual evidences whereas the critical text or minority text class consists about 4%. Hence, the Greek texts used to translate the KJV was representative of this 96% or the Majority class of evidence.

HP: I can appreciate this explanation. Thank you.

The following is not to show forth that something Biblicist said is in any way wrong, for he is just repeating and explaining how those trying to align a certain translation with the majority text accomplish it by way of stating percentages of agreement. If I take any issue, it is with the manner in which they accomplish these statistical percentages, and not with anything that Biblicist stated for clarity to my question.

I have to wonder about the many percentages that so many make reference to in relationship to percentage of manuscripts being in agreement a particular translation. It is my understanding that of these 5000 or so available textual evidences, that many are mere fragments and by no means contain the whole of the New Testament text. I could see where certain fragments might support the basic renderings in translations that in reality are far from each other. I could see the possibility of two competing translations, due to the fact that in these small amount of textual evidence taken from a fragment, might in fact support both competing translations. Because of fragment has a rendering consistent with a certain translation, that by no means, IMHO with the evidence I have seen so far, indicates that the majority of the translation would have agreed with the rest of the text omitted by the fragment. So again I see these percentages as somewhat of a snow job. In reality, when only a fragment exists, no percentage could be attached to any translation in relationship to that fragment except if the percentage was limited to speaking of the passage in the fragment and the very same passage noted in the fragment.

That is what I am not seeing done by the percentages when I read them in most cases. If a fragment agrees with a certain text, they automatically take that agreement with the fragment(s), as being considered as a percentage of its over all agreement with a translation.

Let me explain one other way. Say a fragment consists in reality of only one 10,000th of the overall complete text that would exist if the whole text belonging to that fragment was available. The portion of the fragment would only represent a miniscule percentage of agreement in reality, where as, if I am understanding the many authors that I've read correctly using percentages, the fragment is represented as if though it represented a text in complete agreement with whatever translation it's being compared to.

I was told many years ago in one of my Algebra classes, that when someone starts mentioning percentages look out, you most likely are receiving a snow job. I cannot help but think that many authors use such percentages in relationship to text fragments in a way that is in reality very misleading , giving support and agreement between a fragment and a text when in reality the rest of the text not available in the fragment, may prove just the opposite in reality in relationship to the overall text if it were available.

Am I making any sense? Do you believe my point is valid or invalid, and why?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I probably should comments some on the site concerning the KJV and the article by Dr. D.A. Waite. One issue I would clearly take issue with is under the section #4 entitled "The King James Bible has Superior Theology." In this section he tries to show different verses mentioned in the King James version as compared to the "B" (Vatican, Aleph (Sinai), and others. While I completely see the differences he brings to light I do not necessarily follow his conclusions as being logically assumed. This is especially brought to light in #5 where he looks at John 7:8. "Go ye up to this feast: I go not up yet under this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

Here he makes mention that these other text mention leave out the word "yet." Dr.Waite suggests that this makes out the Lord Jesus Christ to be a liar because he went up later to the feast in question. I feel such comments as Dr. Waite mentions here clearly takes away from or diminishes his credibility to reason justly. I cannot see any logical reason to arrive at any such conclusion as Dr. Waite sets forth suggesting that these other text take away from or change any biblical doctrine by their elimination of the word "yet.".

When an author draws such unfounded conclusions it makes me wonder as to his objectivity in other areas as well. The lesson I take from this for myself is to be careful not to try and tear down another's opinions by the use of such means. Again to do so would be to take the risk of discrediting other things that will may be the truth in the eyes of others due to a personal indiscretion or lack of fair objectivity on my part. I think he was trying so hard to discredit those texts mentioned that he fell into the trap of overstating his argument to the point of discrediting his other points that will may have had some validity to them.

In the other verses mentioned, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the scribes responsible for the texts underlying the KJV could have in reality added those words, stated by Dr. Waite as left out, in order to add clarity. Those words could have been in essence interpolations by scribes and not in reality in that original documents. I certainly would not make doctrine out of either position. Because something in the KJV state something more clearly or more verbose than does another given text, that is not reason to believe that such words have been maliciously stricken or corrupted from the original text as Dr. Waite seems to imply may well be the case.

Knowing full well how some good intentioned scribes could well have added much clarity to the original Greek texts, as well as other texts over the many years they were transcribed by so many different men, I can see where some weight might possibly be given in certain cases to the shorter text as compared to a longer text. I do not know how far I would take that argument or if I would apply it in every place that some of the newer versions do, but in fairness I can see some clear logical legitimacy in such an argument that Dr. Waite seems to disparage. Again I'm not taking sides one way or the other, I am just saying the 'shorter' argument disparaged by Dr. Waite could well have some reasonable validity in some cases at least.

 

[gb93433]

DHK, I probably should comments some on the site concerning the KJV and the article by Dr. D.A. Waite. One issue I would clearly take issue with is under the section #4 entitled "The King James Bible has Superior Theology."

Superior theology by Anglicans who are pedobaptists? This is a great example of hermeneutics being filtered through their systematic theology.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

While we are on this discussion I would like to address one other point of textual criticism. It is suggested by many men, including Dr. Waite, that if a translation of a text is shown to possibly leave out words that another translation has, that it takes away from the weight of certain doctrines. There is a problem to that logic.

I have to admit I have in the past clearly been an advocate of such a position. While I would admit that that possibly could be the case, I do not believe it has to be the case or is always the case. Many doctrines and theological notions are clearly understood via God-given reason, and need no such direct support from Scripture necessarily for the position to be understood as true by the honest seeking heart, and one willing to listen and heed one's conscience.

The problem with the notion suggested by Dr. Waite another's, in my mind has been clarified by conversing with so many on so many different topics and Scriptures on forums such as this. Of a truth, nothing can be clearer in my mind than the fact that in spite of what the Scriptures say some man will not recognize the truth no matter how many times it's expounded upon, or how many times is listed in even the KJV Scripture. Let me give you a prime example. I have in the past been very critical of new versions that leave out except by some side notation, the last half of the first verse in chapter 8 of Romans. The whole verse reads in the KJV "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

I have completely avoided in my personal study, and have led my family away from the use of such translations, that left out the second half of that first verse. In fairness, there are other verses as well, and even some complete verses that have been left out, that I felt should be in Scripture just as the KJV presented them. I was of the opinion that when you take out portions of Scripture such as we find in the last half of the verse in Romans eight verse one, that the doctrine of the necessity of a holy walk with God was diminished by such an omission. For the first time in my adult life I have had to stare the plain facts in the face, that more than any omission from any Greek text, a man's heart is the most responsible for the changing of the word of God, more so than any translator or scribe of any particular text.

Take this verse for instance. What I have had to conclude, is that the very men that would so vehemently oppose the least omission from the KJV, in practice often deny the very truth they fight so hard to see included in the Bible. I cannot tell you the times that I have heard men, particularly from Baptist persuasions, tell others plainly that there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, period. They deny that anything a man that was has anything to do with his salvation. They deny that anything a man does as a believer should in any way inject doubt into one's mind as to one's right standing with God. So try as they may to see that every jot and tittle of the KJV remains intact as the gospel truth, in practicality they deny the very truths plainly written in such verses.

It would not make one iota difference in my theology, if in fact I had never read the second half of Romans chapter 8 verse one. My conscious alone would testify to the fact that if indeed I am not walking according to the Spirit there is condemnation. The texts that leave out the last half of that verse could well be closer to the actual words written in the original texts, than the words we read in the last half of the King James version. Of a truth, those words in the last half of that first verse in chapter 8 do not by themselves establish the doctrine that sin produces condemnation in the life of a unbeliever as well as a believer. Of a truth, when the heart is set upon justifying their own selfish actions, regardless of the testimony of one's conscience, no Scripture can in and of itself, no addition to or subtractions from the word of God can in and of itself, change the opinions of such a person. They are deceived with or without the last half of verse one chapter 8 of Romans. Of a truth protecting the validity of every jot and tittle of the KJV, will never shed light of truth upon a heart bent on selfishness.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GB, of a truth, education and specialized expertise do not always end in a better understanding. Doctrinal prejudice has an uncanny way of overriding wisdom, even from the best of sources.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://images.csntm.org/PublishedWorks/Erasmus_1516/Erasmus1516_0023a.jpg

Getting back to the topic at hand, I finally found Matthew 19: 16 and 17 in the above link. That was no small chore trying to find a particular verse with chapters and verses not marked in this Erasmus addition. Having found it at this link on approximately line 22, I am uncertain still, not understanding the Greek language, the order of the words. It would appear to me that there have been changes even from this text of Erasmus, with translations said to be following the text of Erasmus.

Now for all you Greek scholars on the list here is my question. Here is a question I've asked before but received no answer that I can recall. What is the correct rendering of this text in the Greek? Should teacher precede or follow after the word good if it is to be rendered "good teacher?' If the text reads "teacher good" could not this rightfully translated to mean "teacher of good " as some have suggested? If not, is there a rule in the Greek language that specifies that the word 'good' as found in the Greek text is indeed an adjective that modifies the noun teacher, and excludes the possibility that the word teacher is a noun and the word 'good' following it, has in reality the same effect as the prepositional phrase in the English language, 'of good?'

 

[The Biblicist]

http://images.csntm.org/PublishedWorks/Erasmus_1516/Erasmus1516_0023a.jpg

Getting back to the topic at hand, I finally found Matthew 19: 16 and 17 in the above link. That was no small chore trying to find a particular verse with chapters and verses not marked in this Erasmus addition. Having found it at this link on approximately line 22, I am uncertain still, not understanding the Greek language, the order of the words. It would appear to me that there have been changes even from this text of Erasmus, with translations said to be following the text of Erasmus.

Now for all you Greek scholars on the list here is my question. Here is a question I've asked before but received no answer that I can recall. What is the correct rendering of this text in the Greek? Should teacher precede or follow after the word good if it is to be rendered "good teacher?' If the text reads "teacher good" could not this rightfully translated to mean "teacher of good " as some have suggested? If not, is there a rule in the Greek language that specifies that the word 'good' as found in the Greek text is indeed an adjective that modifies the noun teacher, and excludes the possibility that the word teacher is a noun and the word 'good' following it, has in reality the same effect as the prepositional phrase in the English language, 'of good?'

Greek words do not have to be arranged in a certain order. The suffixes on Greek words tell you how they are used and what order they relate to other Greek words. These suffixes are called "case" endings in regard to nouns; adjectives and participles and in regard to verbs they are declensions(first, second or third person, masculine, feminine, neuter).

So it really does not matter if the word "teacher" precedes or follows.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: I can appreciate this explanation. Thank you.

The following is not to show forth that something Biblicist said is in any way wrong, for he is just repeating and explaining how those trying to align a certain translation with the majority text accomplish it by way of stating percentages of agreement. If I take any issue, it is with the manner in which they accomplish these statistical percentages, and not with anything that Biblicist stated for clarity to my question.

I have to wonder about the many percentages that so many make reference to in relationship to percentage of manuscripts being in agreement a particular translation. It is my understanding that of these 5000 or so available textual evidences, that many are mere fragments and by no means contain the whole of the New Testament text. I could see where certain fragments might support the basic renderings in translations that in reality are far from each other. I could see the possibility of two competing translations, due to the fact that in these small amount of textual evidence taken from a fragment, might in fact support both competing translations. Because of fragment has a rendering consistent with a certain translation, that by no means, IMHO with the evidence I have seen so far, indicates that the majority of the translation would have agreed with the rest of the text omitted by the fragment. So again I see these percentages as somewhat of a snow job. In reality, when only a fragment exists, no percentage could be attached to any translation in relationship to that fragment except if the percentage was limited to speaking of the passage in the fragment and the very same passage noted in the fragment.

That is what I am not seeing done by the percentages when I read them in most cases. If a fragment agrees with a certain text, they automatically take that agreement with the fragment(s), as being considered as a percentage of its over all agreement with a translation.

Let me explain one other way. Say a fragment consists in reality of only one 10,000th of the overall complete text that would exist if the whole text belonging to that fragment was available. The portion of the fragment would only represent a miniscule percentage of agreement in reality, where as, if I am understanding the many authors that I've read correctly using percentages, the fragment is represented as if though it represented a text in complete agreement with whatever translation it's being compared to.

I was told many years ago in one of my Algebra classes, that when someone starts mentioning percentages look out, you most likely are receiving a snow job. I cannot help but think that many authors use such percentages in relationship to text fragments in a way that is in reality very misleading , giving support and agreement between a fragment and a text when in reality the rest of the text not available in the fragment, may prove just the opposite in reality in relationship to the overall text if it were available.

Am I making any sense? Do you believe my point is valid or invalid, and why?

There are four classes in which all fragments, quotations, codices, manuscripts. etc., fall into.

There are readings that fit one class of manuscripts represented by three in the Western group- (Vaticanus, Siniatics, Alexandrian) or there are readings that agree with the Byzantine or Eastern class of manuscripts. Then there are those readings that are neutral where both classes agree with each other. Then there is the fourth class of readings that are unique that do not agree with either Western or Eastern classes.

These unique readings are primariily found in the Vaticanus, Sinatic and Alexanderian manuscriptures - Hence, the greatest contradictions are found in this class of manuscripts.

There are also readings commonly found in the Vaticanus, Sinatic and Alexandrian that oppose the readings found in the greater source of copies found in the byzantine class.

Thus when you take the neutral class (found in both major classes) with the number of readings found in the Byzantine that oppose readings common to the Vaticanus, Sinatic and Alexandrian - this is where the percentage 96% versus 4% occurs.

Therefore the Byzantine copies, fragments, Lectionaries, etc. vastly outnumber Western class (Alxeandrian, Vaticanus, Sinaticus).

The Western Class contains the most diverse readings within its own tradition while the Eastern Class (Byzantine) contains the greatest unity between its vast amount of materials.

Some have estimated that the Western Class have about 5,000 disagreements within the gospel accounts alone. The vast majority of these differences are merely minor differences as word order, or the loss of a definite article or tense issues. However, this class contains some of the greatest differences such as half of Mark 16 missing and a large chunck of John 8 missing as well as an array of different terms in different readings of the same text.