-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
MIS-information Is Ancient History
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Because Scrivener and Burgon were contemporaries who agreed that the determination of the Canon of Scripture as well as the identification and preservation of the Text were both functions of the believing Apostolic Church of Europe and Asia Minor. They both felt that the North African Church was not a good choice when it came to mss witnesses for textual corrections.
Burgon and Scrivener were both astonished at not only the disagreement of Aleph and B with the Byzantine texts but between themselves (Aleph and B) a disagreement rarely found in the Byzantine (although it does exist in isolated cases). In addition they both commented on the quality of the Alexandrian texts which had so many amendations, ink splotches, erasures and corrections in some places as to be illegible.
Therefore they felt it was a mistake to give so much weight to these 2 MSS in opposition to the thousands of "apostolic witnesses" including Church Fathers.
The Scrivener Text brings together a blend of the 3 TR's present at the time of the translation of the AV representimg the TR choices of the AV translators. The differences representing a fraction of 1% of the volume of words.
Burgon asks the question (paraphrase) : why did God wait 15 centuries after identifying the Canon of Scripture through the Tradition of the Apostolic Church to then tell us that the Traditional Text of that Canon of Scripture might not be the right one?
HankD
Archangel7
New Member
85% of 88 papyrus fragments agreed with the TR/KJV.
15% of 88 papyrus fragments agreed with the W/H text/MVs. </font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken... 0% of papyri have a Byzantine or KJV or TR text. What is your source for the numbers you cite?
The fact is that *all* MSS of *every* kind agree around 85-90% of the time. It's the 10-15% where they *disagree* (the textual variants) which is significant for determining the text type of any given MS. When you compare the patterns of textual variation in the early papyri, you'll discover that *none* of them has a Byzantine or KJV or TR text.
timothy 1769
New Member
Thanks HankD.
Maybe I'm not getting it, but why do you prefer the Scrivener TR over the modern Majority Text? Weren't they both more or less preserved in the Apostolic Churches of Europe and Asia Minor?
I understand they are very close, much closer to each other than either is to the generally accepted Critical Text.
Maybe I'm not getting it, but why do you prefer the Scrivener TR over the modern Majority Text? Weren't they both more or less preserved in the Apostolic Churches of Europe and Asia Minor?
I understand they are very close, much closer to each other than either is to the generally accepted Critical Text.
timothy 1769
New Member
HankD,
Thanks. How do you think the KJV translators were able to piece together the correct NT text to translate?
Thanks. How do you think the KJV translators were able to piece together the correct NT text to translate?
skanwmatos
New Member
They used that terrible, yes, even Satanic, textual criticism! They took all of the available texts, versions, and manuscript evidence they had at their disposal, and critically examined that evidence to try to determine the best translation of historically accepted readings found in all that huge body of evidence.
They even produced extensive critical notes regarding their word choices and the source texts during the final review process at Stationers' Hall. It was thought those notes had perished in the Great London fire of 1629, but Gustavus Paine published a photograph of some notes in his book, "The Learned Man" in 1959. Ward Allen, now professor emeritus of English, Auburn University, saw that picture and traced it to manuscript c.c.c. 312 in the Fullman Collection, Bodleian Library, Corpus Cristi College, Oxford University. He was given permission to photograph the 39 pages of hand written notes (attributed to John Bois) covering Romans through Revelation. He translated them and published them in a side-by-side format with the original photocopies in 1969 through Vanderbilt University Press.
In that excellent book we discover that the KJV translators were not as cock-sure of themselves as most KJVOs are today. For instance, the note on Hebrews Chapter 4 and verse 1 reads "A.D. (Andrew Downes, Professor of Greek at Cambridge University) against Beza denies that kataleipomenhs epaggelias can rightly be translated, forsaking the promise; to which we have all agreed." Thus they changed the reading in the final draft to "a promise being left."
85% of 88 papyrus fragments agreed with the TR/KJV.
15% of 88 papyrus fragments agreed with the W/H text/MVs. [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken... 0% of papyri have a Byzantine or KJV or TR text. What is your source for the numbers you cite?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
No, 85% of 88 payprus fragments supported the TR/KJV.
15% of them supported the W/H text/MVs.
Alright, 4 papyri, for example, are MV's favorite MSS. They supported the TR 139 times! They supported Vaticanus MS 124 times; they supported the Sinaiticus 60 times!
Archangel7
New Member
Which four papyri? In what places do they support the TR? (Remember, *all* MSS "support" each other in 85-90% of the time regardless of their text type!) How were the percentages calculated? And once again, what is the source for your figures?
"support" can also mean before or after remedying the obvious (mis-spellings, h.t. even dialect differences, etc) are dealt with.
Look at the differences in the NT quotes of the OT prophets, God's inspired "support" appears to have a much wider scope of tolerance than most of us FE conservatives would be willing to brave. But then again He is God and we aren't, so that doesn't give us carte blanche to change His word.
There must be a reason for these differences and why God allowed them and I don't mean a "humanistic" explanation but a divine reason.
Because if we believe that they are both inspired (and I do) though they be "different" and therefore "not the same" then why can't we (generic "we") not extend that to modern translations? Even the "meanest" (in the words of the KJB translators) of them?
KJVO?
HankD
Look at the differences in the NT quotes of the OT prophets, God's inspired "support" appears to have a much wider scope of tolerance than most of us FE conservatives would be willing to brave. But then again He is God and we aren't, so that doesn't give us carte blanche to change His word.
There must be a reason for these differences and why God allowed them and I don't mean a "humanistic" explanation but a divine reason.
Because if we believe that they are both inspired (and I do) though they be "different" and therefore "not the same" then why can't we (generic "we") not extend that to modern translations? Even the "meanest" (in the words of the KJB translators) of them?
KJVO?
HankD
paidagogos
Active Member
Hank, I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that we extend inspiration to the modern translations or tolerance/acceptance?
You do raise an interesting point though. Assuming that you believe in inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, we must define a these terms. Does plenary verbal inspiration give significance to things such as minor words (i.e. articles, prepositions, etc.), number, gender, etc. We know that it does in some cases as Paul pointed out the significance of seed as opposed to seeds. However, does it necessarily follow that all aspects are significant everywhere? After all, God allowed the different styles of the writers to come through. Furthermore, can Scripture be inerrant if there are variants among the MSS. Does the debate over the inclusion or exclusion of one word make it error-ridden? In other words, is a one-to-one correspondence with the original autographs necessary for preservation, inspiration, and inerrancy?
What do you think? Or perhaps, do you think?
Originally posted by paidagogos:
Hank, I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that we extend inspiration to the modern translations or tolerance/acceptance?
I can't answer for Hank, of course, but I can answer for myself.
I believe God inspired every valid Bible translation in any language to the same degree. There's not one bit of evidence that He inspired one more than another.
You do raise an interesting point though. Assuming that you believe in inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, we must define a these terms. Does plenary verbal inspiration give significance to things such as minor words (i.e. articles, prepositions, etc.), number, gender, etc.
I will say, YES, to the point that language differences allow.
We know that it does in some cases as Paul pointed out the significance of seed as opposed to seeds. However, does it necessarily follow that all aspects are significant everywhere?
Again, it boils down to language differences. If a Japanese BV were to be translated into English, literally as possible, the resulting work wouldn't match any already-existing English BV. Likewise, any translation of any English BV into Japanese wouldn't match any Japanese version translated from the Greek & Hebrew mss.
After all, God allowed the different styles of the writers to come through. Furthermore, can Scripture be inerrant if there are variants among the MSS. Does the debate over the inclusion or exclusion of one word make it error-ridden? In other words, is a one-to-one correspondence with the original autographs necessary for preservation, inspiration, and inerrancy?
I would say that anything less than a literal, honest-as-possible translation is incorrect. However, the translators must sometimes add words for clarity for Greek or hebrew words that have no exact English equivalent, and I'd venture to say it's the same for other languages.
I know of no English BV-even the YLT-that doesn't have words added for clarity. Where problems often arise is over the proper definition of a word with multiple meanings, with no guidance from context about which definition to use. However, where the KJV uses "Easter" in Acts 12:4 or adds "the image of" in Romans 11:4, there's no justification found for this change in Acts or this addition in Romans. Sure, I realize that Easter and Passover were sometimes used interchangeably, but the AV translators indicated they knew the difference in their "List of Holy Days" where they included and defined Easter as the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus. And I believe Paul knew Baal had images, but neither he nor God, when speaking to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:18, mentions THE IMAGE OF Baal in any known ms. While the addition of those words doesn't alter the message of the verse one peep, it reveals the human touch to the word of God when translated, in the same manner as do the individual writing styles of the men who first wrote the Scriptures.
What do you think? Or perhaps, do you think?
I think sometimes we have "Much Ado About Nothing" from every side in the versions discussions. KJVO is proven false by much more basic facts than what's written in long individual discourses about single words or phrases.
Hank, I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that we extend inspiration to the modern translations or tolerance/acceptance?
I can't answer for Hank, of course, but I can answer for myself.
I believe God inspired every valid Bible translation in any language to the same degree. There's not one bit of evidence that He inspired one more than another.
You do raise an interesting point though. Assuming that you believe in inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, we must define a these terms. Does plenary verbal inspiration give significance to things such as minor words (i.e. articles, prepositions, etc.), number, gender, etc.
I will say, YES, to the point that language differences allow.
We know that it does in some cases as Paul pointed out the significance of seed as opposed to seeds. However, does it necessarily follow that all aspects are significant everywhere?
Again, it boils down to language differences. If a Japanese BV were to be translated into English, literally as possible, the resulting work wouldn't match any already-existing English BV. Likewise, any translation of any English BV into Japanese wouldn't match any Japanese version translated from the Greek & Hebrew mss.
After all, God allowed the different styles of the writers to come through. Furthermore, can Scripture be inerrant if there are variants among the MSS. Does the debate over the inclusion or exclusion of one word make it error-ridden? In other words, is a one-to-one correspondence with the original autographs necessary for preservation, inspiration, and inerrancy?
I would say that anything less than a literal, honest-as-possible translation is incorrect. However, the translators must sometimes add words for clarity for Greek or hebrew words that have no exact English equivalent, and I'd venture to say it's the same for other languages.
I know of no English BV-even the YLT-that doesn't have words added for clarity. Where problems often arise is over the proper definition of a word with multiple meanings, with no guidance from context about which definition to use. However, where the KJV uses "Easter" in Acts 12:4 or adds "the image of" in Romans 11:4, there's no justification found for this change in Acts or this addition in Romans. Sure, I realize that Easter and Passover were sometimes used interchangeably, but the AV translators indicated they knew the difference in their "List of Holy Days" where they included and defined Easter as the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus. And I believe Paul knew Baal had images, but neither he nor God, when speaking to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:18, mentions THE IMAGE OF Baal in any known ms. While the addition of those words doesn't alter the message of the verse one peep, it reveals the human touch to the word of God when translated, in the same manner as do the individual writing styles of the men who first wrote the Scriptures.
What do you think? Or perhaps, do you think?
I think sometimes we have "Much Ado About Nothing" from every side in the versions discussions. KJVO is proven false by much more basic facts than what's written in long individual discourses about single words or phrases.