• 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!

Preserved Text Only

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
I do not respond to every member. If a person’s replies are driven by personal hostility rather than substance, there is nothing productive to answer. In those cases, silence is not avoidance; it is simply recognizing that no meaningful exchange is possible.
 
Last edited:

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My argument is that the preserved stream represents continuity, while the critical text represents reconstruction.
That may be your argument, but you do not prove your argument to be correct. You try to dismiss and ignore the facts and the substance that conflict with it. Clear documented evidence was presented that contradict your preserved line claims concerning the Syriac Peshitta and the Waldensian translations.

My replies to you are not driven by personal hostility as you incorrectly try to suggest.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta have added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta.

Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61). Edward Andrews wrote: “The textual character of the Peshitta New Testament frequently aligns with the Alexandrian textual tradition preserved in early Greek witnesses such as P66 (125-150 C. E.) and P75 (175-225 C.E.), and later in Codex Vaticanus (300-330 C.E.)” (Syriac Bible, pp. 12-13). Edward Andrews asserted: “The Peshitta frequently corroborates early documentary readings preserved in Alexandrian witnesses, especially in places where later Byzantine copying expanded the text” (p. 93).

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible, Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "Isaiah the prophet" and J. W. Etheridge has “Eshaia the prophet” at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have “Bethany” and Etheridge has “Bethania” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock and Kiraz have “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders” and Etheridge has “presbyters” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock, Lamsa, and Kiraz have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These five English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible’s NT have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrases "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV. At Acts 14:10, the Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz has the phrases “in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.”

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible, Bauscher’s translation, and Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.” Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108). In Edward Miller's Textual Commentary, the Peshitta, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions are listed as not having this clause along with many Greek manuscripts (p. 75). Edward F. Hills listed this clause "raise the dead" in his list of readings where Erasmus followed the Latin Vulgate, and he also noted that this clause "is omitted by the majority of Greek manuscripts" (KJV Defended, p. 200).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If a person’s replies are driven by personal hostility rather than substance, there is nothing productive to answer.
Plenty of substance has been provided that directly relate to or refute some of your unproven claims and your use of a typical KJV-only argument [the two lines of Bibles argument]. You may take it personally and become hostile towards me, but that does not at all suggest that my relies to you are supposedly driven by personal hostility.

Harry Sturz asserted that “He [God] did not stipulate in the Scriptures that He would keep Christian scribes from error or that the text-type with the most copies would be the best text" (Byzantine Text-Type, p. 38). Harry Sturz noted: "To present preservation as a necessary corollary of inspiration, then to imply that preservation of the Scripture must be as faithful and precise as inspiration of the Scriptures, appears to be taking a position that is both unscriptural and impossible to demonstrate" (p. 37). Harry Sturz observed: “Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger in making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this” (p. 38). Harry Sturz contended: “If providential preservation of the Scriptures is tied to inspiration, is placed on a level with inspiration, and is understood to mean that not one jot or tittle shall pass out of the Byzantine text-type, the theory is on shaky ground due to the fact that even the Byzantine with its high degree of homogeneity is composite” (p. 39).

Wilbur Pickering noted that those “who has collated any number of MS have all demonstrated that the Byzantine bulk of MSS is by no means monolithic. There are any number of streams and rivulets. (Recall that F. Wisse posited thirty-four groups within the Byzantine bulk, with seventy subgroups.)” (God Has Preserved, p. 245). Stephen Brown observed: “The Byzantine texttype in particular can be broken into a number of groups, showing it to be anything but monolithic” (McCollum, Solid Rock Greek NT, p. 715). KJV-only author Floyd Jones acknowledged: “Numerous studies have demonstrated that the mass of Byzantine MSS are not monolithic; there are many distinct strands or strains of transmission, seemingly independent” (Which Version, 21st edition, p. 253). Frederick Scrivener, who collated several Byzantine manuscripts, noted: “I see no cause for believing such supposed Byzantine standard text had any existence, save in the imagination of certain modern theorists” (Full and Exact Collation, p. lxvii).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged: "There are some readings on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow" (KJV Defended, p. 224; Text, pp. 371-372).

D. A. Carson asserted: “The argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically fallacious” (KJV Debate, p. 68). D. A. Carson observed: “There is only a difference of degree between the textual variants that exist within one textual tradition and the textual variants found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition be admitted” (p. 69). Ryan Wettlaufer asserted: “Clearly the TR/KJV tradition is incapable of offering any one text that could fulfil the doctrinal idea of a single preserved version of the Scriptures” (No Longer Written, p. 49).

Harry Sturz asked: "If providential preservation is put on the same level with inspiration, how does it come about that the Byzantine text is composite, i.e., how could the text have differences within it? Furthermore, being composite, how is one to know what the providentially preserved reading is?" (Byzantine Text-Type, p. 43). Harry Sturz asserted: “Providential preservation, then, has not operated on a level with inspiration and been confined to one text-type. If the chain of argument had been correct, there could be no deviation” (p. 44). Harry Sturz affirmed: “Though the Byzantine text is a highly homogeneous text, it is also composite; i.e., it is made up of distinguishable strands” (p. 94). Frederick Nolan, a defender of the Received Text, wrote: "The general and doctrinal integrity of the Sacred Canon being preserved from corruption, there exists no obvious or necessary cause, that the text should be preserved immaculate" (An Inquiry, p. 310).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction.

Here is more evidence concerning the Syriac Peshitta and also concerning KJV-only claims about the full title "Lord Jesus Christ."

Does claiming that the full name "Lord Jesus Christ" glorifies Jesus more suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong when He "moved" or "inspired" men to write "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "Lord," or "Lord Jesus" many times in the New Testament? If it can be contended that certain verses must have the full title "Lord Jesus Christ" or else they deny the deity of Christ, the same demand may be made with respect to every other verse with part of that title.

KJV-only advocates clearly promoted the claim that the KJV honors Jesus more as one of the main reasons for their view. If they have failed to be consistent in this most important claim, the case for their view must be very weak. A few more examples will demonstrate again the lack of consistency in the KJV-only view. At 1 Thessalonians 4:2c, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Taverner's, Great, and Whittingham's all have "Lord Jesus Christ" while the KJV has only "Lord Jesus." Where the KJV has "Christ" at 1 Corinthians 1:6, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' have "Jesus Christ." Do these early Bibles honor Christ more than the KJV here? Does the KJV deny the deity of Christ by removing "Christ" from the "Lord Jesus" here as KJV-only advocates claim if the same thing is done in modern translations? The fact that KJV-only claims cannot be applied consistently indicates that they are invalid.

KJV-only authors list the Syriac Peshitta on their line of good Bibles. If the English translation of the Peshitta by George Lamsa is an accurate one, this Bible has the Lord Jesus Christ several times where the KJV does not. Some examples are Acts 1:1, 3:6, 5:42, 8:12, 14:10, 19:5, 21:13, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Ephesians 1:15, Philippians 2:19, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, and 1 Peter 1:13. At Romans 3:26, the Lamsa Bible has "Lord Jesus Christ," Wycliffe's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, and Douay-Rheims have "Jesus Christ," but the KJV has only "Jesus." Based on a consistent application of the claims of some KJV-only advocates, does this English translation of the Peshitta honor the Lord Jesus Christ more than the KJV?

Are these differences due to omissions in the TR or additions in the Peshitta or both? If the Peshitta that is placed on the preserved line and that is considered a good example of the Byzantine text has additions, does that suggest the possibility that the Textus Receptus could have additions?
 
Top