My Problems With MV's

[paidagogos]

Illustration of persumptive smugness

Moises Silva illustrates your criticism in his classes to show how your kind of thinking is not correct. If you were to read him he describes how it is done.

[snip]

Not true. Apparently, you made a very poor and wrong assumption that I had not read Silva. However, I find Silva's illustration lacking. It is just that--an illustration, not proof or even strong evidence. It was a neat hat trick, nothing more. Obviously, one needs a more scientific and controlled statistical study to validate critical methodology.

Why don't you set up an experiment involving numerous iterations of the copying process with multiple errors? Can you design such an experiment? I would like to see what textual criticism can do under controlled conditions. Textual criticism had its origin in the same intellectual foment that produced the higher criticism, modernism and liberalism. It was generally held that the lower criticism, textual criticism, was based on scientific methodology. If so, let's test it.

 

[paidagogos]

You have have not hidden your opinion and the fingerprint of your bias is imbedded throughout your 13 "ideas for critique". For example, it is clearly evident in your Number 4. Let's look at your statement in three parts --

Would you care to state my bias? How do you know? My stated purpose was get some new dialogue going? Did it ever occur that I might propose ideas to generate comment?

Until we see some objective data (ie. Barna-like) that multiple versions are directly the root problem or specifically the primary cause for any lower esteem of the Scriptures, this stands as merely an opinion.

How did man ever know anything before the age of polls? Today, we live and die by the polls. What's wrong with observation and reasoning?

There were several translations and dozens of editions before 1611, and over a 100 versions before 1881 (I am assuming that the "modern" era approximately begins with the RV). How could ALL of the those be the Word of God? They do not read the same; I have found the early Bible texts to be at least as diverse as so-called "MVs". So just as the OP had done, this question is unfairly cast only at contemporary versions. Are there more "MVs" now than ever before? Certainly. But I believe that this is mostly a result of modern publishing technology, just as there are more books of every kind now (are new Bibles in disproportion to the expanding media market?). Well, just read the C.S. Lewis quote below all my posts.

Yes, and many of the translations failed to be accepted by the Believing Church.

Again, this is an unsupported opinion. My personal experience was that I was gifted my first Bibles (that is, I didn't choose them myself). The next Bible that I did choose for myself was a decision made prior to my awareness of 'translation issues' (so "prejudice" really played no role). It is my opinion that the vast majority of 'Christians' are ignorant of the differences in versions and the theological implications. But if not their own, whose authority should determine an individual's Bible choice?

So what? I thought that I was proposing, not proving, ideas for discussion. The whole point is how people choose. Like choosing doctors, my premise is that choices are made more according to what we like more than what is best. What do you think? Why? What are the ramifications? (Hint: If people choose what they like, would not human nature tend to choose the most agreeable form?)

 

[franklinmonroe]

From what I've read of the Wycliffe, Tyndale, & Geneva seemed to look alot like the Kjv and nasb except for spelling type differences. I haven't read these older ones alot but just wanted to ask someone who is more knowledeable in this area about whether there as many as differences like the ones between say the Kjv, Nasb and the Tniv or Nlt? I do preach from the KJV out of preference but I do use nasb, nkjv, Net(awesome notes) etc for study.

Hi steveo! Of course if the KJV has actually borrowed approximately 80% of Tyndale (mostly indirectly through Geneva) then they would look very similar; but there are also many differences.

I'm no expert but as I spend time in the early English versions I find considerable differences. For example, just two topics below this one (at the current time) I started a thread showing a KJV translation in Revelation 16:5 that is different than all other English texts preceding it. Going down the topic list a bit further I started a discussion of James 4:6 where the Tyndale, Matthew's, and Coverdale Bibles do not have the entire phrase found in the Bishops', Geneva, and KJV. The Great (Parker) Bible includes an additional translation of a phrase from the Latin text at Acts 23:25 which is not included in other Protestant Bibles.

Tyndale minuses some verses á la "MVs": Mark 11:26, and Luke 17:36 (Tyndale has a verse 36 which actually corresponds with verse 37 of the KJV). Also, he completely lacks Revelation 21:26 (his verse 26 corresponds with KJV verse 27). Some include the book subscriptions of the Pauline corpus (AV1611, Bishops', Geneva, Matthew's), and some seem not to include these words (Coverdale, Wycliffe).

The Geneva Bible includes The Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles (not in the separate Apocrypha section); and the first edition of Coverdale had Baruch between Lamentations & Ezekiel (not with the rest of the apocryphal books). So differences can be noticed on all levels: individual words, phrases, whole verses, and even book.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Would you care to state my bias? How do you know? My stated purpose was get some new dialogue going? Did it ever occur that I might propose ideas to generate comment?...

Well, you begin with "There are, IMHO, many general problems with MVs as a class..." Many of these so-called "problems" are just unsubstantiated opinions which you state as if they were a fact. If you are playing the role of a 'devils advocate' then you may not actually believe these to all be true; but there seems to be enough evidence to betray your real feelings (see below).

... What's wrong with observation and reasoning?...

Nothing. My observations and reasoning has led me to different conclusions so far.

... Yes, and many of the translations failed to be accepted by the Believing Church. So what?...

Your bias is shown here twofold: first, by attempting to make this an "MV" issue when it is clearly not; and second, by implying that the Church explicitly rejected the early English Bibles (and then intentionally "validated" the KJV).

... The whole point is how people choose. Like choosing doctors, my premise is that choices are made more according to what we like more than what is best. What do you think? Why? What are the ramifications? (Hint: If people choose what they like, would not human nature tend to choose the most agreeable form?)

As I alluded to before, I don't think that people are that conscience when selecting a Bible. I think you are giving them mostly undeserved credit.

 

[steveo]

Hi steveo! Of course if the KJV has actually borrowed approximately 80% of Tyndale (mostly indirectly through Geneva) then they would look very similar; but there are also many differences.

I'm no expert but as I spend time in the early English versions I find considerable differences. For example, just two topics below this one (at the current time) I started a thread showing a KJV translation in Revelation 16:5 that is different than all other English texts preceding it. Going down the topic list a bit further I started a discussion of James 4:6 where the Tyndale, Matthew's, and Coverdale Bibles do not have the entire phrase found in the Bishops', Geneva, and KJV. The Great (Parker) Bible includes an additional translation of a phrase from the Latin text at Acts 23:25 which is not included in other Protestant Bibles.

Tyndale minuses some verses á la "MVs": Mark 11:26, and Luke 17:36 (Tyndale has a verse 36 which actually corresponds with verse 37 of the KJV). Also, he completely lacks Revelation 21:26 (his verse 26 corresponds with KJV verse 27). Some include the book subscriptions of the Pauline corpus (AV1611, Bishops', Geneva, Matthew's), and some seem not to include these words (Coverdale, Wycliffe).

The Geneva Bible includes The Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles (not in the separate Apocrypha section); and the first edition of Coverdale had Baruch between Lamentations & Ezekiel (not with the rest of the apocryphal books). So differences can be noticed on all levels: individual words, phrases, whole verses, and even book.

Thanks! This helps alot. If they were identical except for spelling etc.. I would say there would be a stronger case for the line of Tyndale, Geneva, KJV etc(TR). It takes all my time just to read and study the translations I have.

 

[gb93433]

Not true. Apparently, you made a very poor and wrong assumption that I had not read Silva. However, I find Silva's illustration lacking. It is just that--an illustration, not proof or even strong evidence. It was a neat hat trick, nothing more. Obviously, one needs a more scientific and controlled statistical study to validate critical methodology.

Why don't you set up an experiment involving numerous iterations of the copying process with multiple errors? Can you design such an experiment? I would like to see what textual criticism can do under controlled conditions. Textual criticism had its origin in the same intellectual foment that produced the higher criticism, modernism and liberalism. It was generally held that the lower criticism, textual criticism, was based on scientific methodology. If so, let's test it.

Using your rationale try proving the Bible ever existed by using the true experimental method.

I have not worked with any manuscripts and am no expert in that area. All I know is what I have read in books and the photostat copies I have seen. I have read a few of Metzger's books on the subject. So I have no first hand knowledge. Have you actually worked with any manuscripts? Don't you think manuscripts can be dated well by the material used in the writing ink and material that the text was written on? Is that not scientific?

 

[paidagogos]

Whoa!

Using your rationale try proving the Bible ever existed by using the true experimental method.

I have not worked with any manuscripts and am no expert in that area. All I know is what I have read in books and the photostat copies I have seen. I have read a few of Metzger's books on the subject. So I have no first hand knowledge. Have you actually worked with any manuscripts? Don't you think manuscripts can be dated well by the material used in the writing ink and material that the text was written on? Is that not scientific?

Whoa! Somehow, we didn't connect. I am not an expert in manuscripts or textual criticism, but I am thoroughly conversant with research design. Like you, my knowledge and experience of manuscripts comes from secondary sources (i.e. books, images of manuscripts, etc.)

My suggestion, however, is to test the methodology of textual criticism by replicating it in a controlled environment. This could be easily done with classes of Greek students at various seminaries making copies form copies. After say twenty-five generations, let a group of professional textual critics try to restore the original text. There are numerous hypotheses to be tested including restoring the original text and determining the copy families. Silva's little illustration falls far short of experimental rigor.

As for age determination (i.e. dating by physical data, etc.), this is relevant only if age is a controlling factor (i.e. older is better). This has been variously argued but it is still inconclusive and subject to questioning.

One major point is that whereas textual criticism was born in a fever of scientism and flavored with scientific credibility, it has never been tested, much less established, by rigorous experimental design.

gb93433, I respect you as a thinker and a man of learning. Thus, I expect you to see the broader debate apart from the Ruckmanites. I'm a skeptic of everything that I was taught in school. However, I never question the veracity of Scripture, although I question all inferences and interpretations, because I have accepted its authority by faith a priori.

IMHO, there is something wrong when even proponents uncritically accept MVs without question. I think this is a closed (perhaps gullible :laugh: ) mind.

 

[gb93433]

My suggestion, however, is to test the methodology of textual criticism by replicating it in a controlled environment. This could be easily done with classes of Greek students at various seminaries making copies form copies. After say twenty-five generations, let a group of professional textual critics try to restore the original text. There are numerous hypotheses to be tested including restoring the original text and determining the copy families. Silva's little illustration falls far short of experimental rigor.

I really do not know that much about what Silva claims to be able to do. I understand it to a degree but not that well so that I would feel comfortable in explaining it to someone else. My understanding is that Silva has done the thing you suggest with his students and claims that it works.

As for age determination (i.e. dating by physical data, etc.), this is relevant only if age is a controlling factor (i.e. older is better). This has been variously argued but it is still inconclusive and subject to questioning.

One major point is that whereas textual criticism was born in a fever of scientism and flavored with scientific credibility, it has never been tested, much less established, by rigorous experimental design.

It seems to me that from what I have read that much of textual criticism is more of a historical approach than scientific. I cannot think of anything I have read by Metzger or Aland that I remember talking about a scientific approach.

gb93433, I respect you as a thinker and a man of learning. Thus, I expect you to see the broader debate apart from the Ruckmanites. I'm a skeptic of everything that I was taught in school. However, I never question the veracity of Scripture, although I question all inferences and interpretations, because I have accepted its authority by faith a priori.

While I agree with you in so many ways it seems there is a point when we are incapable of knowing everything and we must trust the people involved in this kind of work. I do not have any problem asking questions and trying my best to verify or deny their work. I was fortunate that I had excellent Greek and Hebrew professors whom I felt were godly men and who loved God. My opinion is that they were the kind of people who studied well in an effort to get at the truth and teach us well so that we would follow scripture and not be willing to just accept what people told us. While I was quite confident that I knew where they stood theologically they also pointed us to historical documents and the text of scripture. They said little about their interpretation and led us along the way to see it for ourselves as we studied the text. There was always discussion in class among the students and professor and among each other. There were numerous times when we had translated and studied passages only to realize the nonsense I had heard in the past form a pulpit somewhere.

I am with you in that I do not even consider the thought of questioning the truth of scripture. At times I have not felt comfortable with what I have read. That has encouraged me to study the historical context in an effort to better understand the message. I would think that you have experienced many of the same things I have as I interact with people who are easily satisfied with ignorance. When I pastored I got tired of hearing people tell me that I helped them and they liked my sermons, but they would also tell me to tell them what they needed to know instead of leading them through how I arrived at a particular interpretation. They wanted the short version and were not much interested in knowing the details.

One of my friends majored in classical studies at USC. I hear many of the same things form him that I heard in seminary about Greek and languages.

I understand why you would be skeptical. I think that is good because it makes you dig deeper than those who just swallow things that are thrown at them. don't you think that being somewhat skeptical has a lot to do with the way God has gifted you? I would think that kind of skepticism would make you a person who is not satisfied with less than studying and doing your best job teaching. I like listening to teachers who are well prepared.

IMHO, there is something wrong when even proponents uncritically accept MVs without question.

I agree. I think that kind of attitude is in every area of society. From what I have read among old documents it has also been around since man was created. Too often Americans are gullible and accept things without any verification. A friend of mine pastors in Germany and he told me that it is not unusual for the people to question him. He found that to be very different than what he experienced here. He said at first it caught him by surprise but now he likes it.

I believe that is a person is well prepared and his theology is sound then it will hold up under scrutiny. I teach at a university and love it when students bring new experiences to class. I must be humble enough to listen and let them talk. One of the other professors and myself came to the conclusion that we could not possibly know more than 5% of the field we are in. The field we are in is constantly changing all the time. When students bring new information and experiences, all of us learn more than we already knew. Today a student gave a presentation on a particular subject that I tend to know a lot about, but I had never heard of one part of the presentation he was giving. I would have been stupid to not listen to him and ask him questions about his research.

I believe that if we are to know the Bible well and live the Christian life well then we must never be threatened by someone who may correct us because if we are right we will be strengthened and if we are wrong we will be corrected and learn. There was a time when you responded to a post of mine and made me think about what I wrote. I was better off for it. It has helped me to be more gracious to people.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Thanks! This helps alot. If they were identical except for spelling etc.. I would say there would be a stronger case for the line of Tyndale, Geneva, KJV etc(TR)...

You're welcome, steveo.

In addition, the potential for differences among early English Bibles in the Old Testament (& Apocrypha) was even greater: Wycliffe & Douay-Rheims are based entirely on the Latin Vulgate; Myles Coverdale may have utilized Tyndale’s published Pentateuch & Jonah, plus Latin, Luther's Bible & Zwingli's Zurich Bible (Swiss-German); John Rogers' (with efforts found in the Matthew's Bible, its revision the Great Bible, and the 'pirated' Taverner's Bible) used Tyndale's incomplete translation of the Masoretic Text and filled the gaps with Coverdale's work (Rogers' Prayer of Manasses was probably his own translation from a French source). Geneva was the first to have a complete OT directly translated from the Hebrew.

Also, the Geneva Bible's original NT (Whittingham's work) was later replaced by Thomson's revision. Editions of all Bibles abounded with changes.

So, considering the similar base of sources available and a common translational methodology (formal) at that time, there are a surprising number of differences found in the early English versions.

 

[Salamander]

Well, if you read from the OP's posts, he's saying that by MVs using the term "father" for Joseph, it denies the Deity of Jesus.

No, it denotes the words of Mary showing parental order in his humanity. But that is from my "vile mouth".

 

[annsni]

No, it denotes the words of Mary showing parental order in his humanity. But that is from my "vile mouth".

OK - No need to get your boxers in a bunch. I wasn't speaking to you about any of this as far as I remember. My post was in response to paidagogos.

And I stand corrected. It was not the OP who brought up the idea of Joseph being Jesus' father but it was "because of grace"

what abouit the versions that remove the need for salvation prior to baptism, or where Joseph is referred to as the Father of our Lord? Are they casting doubt on the Virgin birth or are they just making the Bible easier to understand?

This was post #71. Mary called Joseph Jesus' father because he was. He was not the biological father but he was Jesus' legal father just as my daddy is my legal father.

 

[Salamander]

OK - No need to get your boxers in a bunch. I wasn't speaking to you about any of this as far as I remember. My post was in response to paidagogos.

And I stand corrected. It was not the OP who brought up the idea of Joseph being Jesus' father but it was "because of grace"



This was post #71. Mary called Joseph Jesus' father because he was. He was not the biological father but he was Jesus' legal father just as my daddy is my legal father.

OK, but since you went there, about my boxers being in a bunch, have you ever considerd that I am also naked underneath my clothes?:laugh:

Thank God for clothes!

That IS from my "vile mouth"

 

[annsni]

OK, but since you went there, about my boxers being in a bunch, have you ever considerd that I am also naked underneath my clothes?:laugh:

Thank God for clothes!

That IS from my "vile mouth"

**sticking my fingers in my ears and singing "LALALALALALALALA - I can't hear you!!"**

MAN, I hope I don't have nightmares...

 

[Rippon]

OK, but since you went there, about my boxers being in a bunch, have you ever considerd that I am also naked underneath my clothes?:laugh:

Thank God for clothes!

I don't get the connection between MV's and BVD's.

 

[rbell]

I don't get the connection between MV's and BVD's.

It has about as much in common as fruits of the spirit and fruit of the loom.

 

[gb93433]

Thank God for clothes!

If you lived where I do you would definitely find them nice. On Monday we are supposed to have a high of -6° F and a low of -14°F

 

[paidagogos]

Blindness of experts..................

I really do not know that much about what Silva claims to be able to do. I understand it to a degree but not that well so that I would feel comfortable in explaining it to someone else. My understanding is that Silva has done the thing you suggest with his students and claims that it works.


It seems to me that from what I have read that much of textual criticism is more of a historical approach than scientific. I cannot think of anything I have read by Metzger or Aland that I remember talking about a scientific approach.


While I agree with you in so many ways it seems there is a point when we are incapable of knowing everything and we must trust the people involved in this kind of work. I do not have any problem asking questions and trying my best to verify or deny their work. I was fortunate that I had excellent Greek and Hebrew professors whom I felt were godly men and who loved God. My opinion is that they were the kind of people who studied well in an effort to get at the truth and teach us well so that we would follow scripture and not be willing to just accept what people told us. While I was quite confident that I knew where they stood theologically they also pointed us to historical documents and the text of scripture. They said little about their interpretation and led us along the way to see it for ourselves as we studied the text. There was always discussion in class among the students and professor and among each other. There were numerous times when we had translated and studied passages only to realize the nonsense I had heard in the past form a pulpit somewhere.

I am with you in that I do not even consider the thought of questioning the truth of scripture. At times I have not felt comfortable with what I have read. That has encouraged me to study the historical context in an effort to better understand the message. I would think that you have experienced many of the same things I have as I interact with people who are easily satisfied with ignorance. When I pastored I got tired of hearing people tell me that I helped them and they liked my sermons, but they would also tell me to tell them what they needed to know instead of leading them through how I arrived at a particular interpretation. They wanted the short version and were not much interested in knowing the details.

One of my friends majored in classical studies at USC. I hear many of the same things form him that I heard in seminary about Greek and languages.

I understand why you would be skeptical. I think that is good because it makes you dig deeper than those who just swallow things that are thrown at them. don't you think that being somewhat skeptical has a lot to do with the way God has gifted you? I would think that kind of skepticism would make you a person who is not satisfied with less than studying and doing your best job teaching. I like listening to teachers who are well prepared.


I agree. I think that kind of attitude is in every area of society. From what I have read among old documents it has also been around since man was created. Too often Americans are gullible and accept things without any verification. A friend of mine pastors in Germany and he told me that it is not unusual for the people to question him. He found that to be very different than what he experienced here. He said at first it caught him by surprise but now he likes it.

I believe that is a person is well prepared and his theology is sound then it will hold up under scrutiny. I teach at a university and love it when students bring new experiences to class. I must be humble enough to listen and let them talk. One of the other professors and myself came to the conclusion that we could not possibly know more than 5% of the field we are in. The field we are in is constantly changing all the time. When students bring new information and experiences, all of us learn more than we already knew. Today a student gave a presentation on a particular subject that I tend to know a lot about, but I had never heard of one part of the presentation he was giving. I would have been stupid to not listen to him and ask him questions about his research.

I believe that if we are to know the Bible well and live the Christian life well then we must never be threatened by someone who may correct us because if we are right we will be strengthened and if we are wrong we will be corrected and learn. There was a time when you responded to a post of mine and made me think about what I wrote. I was better off for it. It has helped me to be more gracious to people.

I think we have substantial agreement and common ground between us. I have no argument with your points, which are well taken, except for minor details, which are not worth debating. However, I'll make two casual observations and invite your comment.

Silva, who was a couple years ahead of me in school, is probably, IMHO, one of the leading American experts in language issues, now that Metzger is deceased. On the other hand, experts tend to have tunnel vision. They tend to view the world through the narrow confines of their own disciplines. Whereas Silva is a tremendous Greek and Biblical scholar, his use of a pseudo-scientific experiment is weak and less than convincing. Which brings me to my premise that experts need the criticism of others outside their discipline to keep things in perspective. Within a discipline, it is easy to create a self-justifying circle.

 

[gb93433]

Silva, who was a couple years ahead of me in school, is probably, IMHO, one of the leading American experts in language issues, now that Metzger is deceased. On the other hand, experts tend to have tunnel vision. They tend to view the world through the narrow confines of their own disciplines. Whereas Silva is a tremendous Greek and Biblical scholar, his use of a pseudo-scientific experiment is weak and less than convincing. Which brings me to my premise that experts need the criticism of others outside their discipline to keep things in perspective. Within a discipline, it is easy to create a self-justifying circle.

I agree that people can be highly focused on what they believe is right and possibly be wrong. I have seen that among people who do not even realize it. Cetainly that can be tested in the arena of experts but even the experts are not always right.

I take the position that if we get one thing from 50 people then we will have 50 things that we would not have had if we did not learn. As I get older I am learning to ask more questions and reserve judgment instead of making statements so quickly. I am not always very good at it, but as I do I am seeeing God open doors. When the doors open then I can ask questions and find out more. Sometimes I get a nice surprise. When I get the opportunity to ask questions then I also get the opportunity to get to know that person and listen to them. I also get the opportunity to ask questions in an effort to persuade them to my point of view. Sometimes I am wrong and get my point of view tested.

In essence what I am saying is that there are times when others will not see things the way we see them and we may be standing alone but right. Two years ago I submitted a paper for review and got the summary of the reviews back and was shocked. I felt as though the reviewers had no clue as to what I was talking about and that they were quite ignorant on the subject and a few other areas of the paper. Even the editor wrote me and said that he could not understand what the delay was. The fact was that the research in that area was very new and had started in 2004. My paper was early in 2005. I went to one of the officers in the organization and asked some questions of him. When I did then I really know that they knew almost nothing about the subject partly because it was so new. I am not always so quick to think that peer review is always best. It can be wrong, and it can be right, depending on the reviewers. Sometimes there is a political football that readers are unaware of. Recently I saw a new journal arise out of those who were tired of the ignorance and politicians in my field involved in an organization that most us were a part of. It was very difficult for those on the outside to get published because they were not in the inner circle. I went to a presentation of a paper and it was an absolute joke. I refuted that paper with one question I asked.

 

[Rippon]

In essence what I am saying is that When I did then I really know that they knew almost nothing about the subject partly because it was so new.

HUH?!

"In essence" I think Sal's underwear may have more to do with the OP then your rambling.

 

[gb93433]

HUH?!

"In essence" I think Sal's underwear may have more to do with the OP then your rambling.

If it is possible perhaps you could peruse some of the issues paidagogos has raised and offer an intelligent contribution.