Featured Sorenson's new book Neither Oldest Nor Best

Yeah. Nothing "mysterious" about those deaths.

 

I apologize for unwittingly having derailed this thread. My point was that the Sorenson/Cooper conspiracy theories are akin to the Chick/Rivera nonsense. The kernel of truth is that, yes, the Jesuits did attempt to undo the Reformation in England. The fallacy is that they had such influence that they could do so.

The Elizabethan Settlement ensured that the realm would be "Protestant." Catholic priests would be executed if found. And they were. But many non-Anglicans also would be persecuted, for example, Thomas Helwys, who died in prison.

My chief objection is that the KJVO-only folks ignore the reductionism involved in proclaiming that the KJV is a product of pure Christianity. History is much more complicated.

 

Of all the people commenting on this thread I am probably the only one who actually knows David Sorenson. He graduated from the same seminary I attended, and I worked with his younger brother, Steve, when he was in seminary.

David is not strictly KJVO, but is probably somewhere between Byzantine Preferred and TRO. He repeats many of the KJVO criticisms of the NKJV (most of which are, in my opinion, without merit).

However, I would hesitate to call the theory of the late date of Codex Sinaiticus a "myth." Constantine Simonides was a notorious forger in the mid to late 1800s and he did claim to have forged Codex Sinaiticus.

The primary opponent to that claim was a man who, himself, had a vested interest in both Simonides and Codex Sinaiticus (Henry Bradshaw).

Personally I really don't care one way or another. The Alexandrian textform is sufficiently attested to by the manuscript evidence that we pretty much understand its history. It is only those who elevate the Codex above all others, who have a vested interest in its traditional place in the textucopia.

 

What Mr. Bradshaw actually said regarding his "proof" that Simonides didn't forge the Codex was, "I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else" (A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw: Fellow of King's College, p.95)

On the other hand, Fredrick Kenyon, fellow at Oxford and long time curator of the British Museum and expert on bible manuscripts said:

“The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.”

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124.

 

Yes. And he seems to be moving closer to a KJVO position, which is odd considering he is a Central grad.

He thinks all textual criticism is an example of "higher criticism" attacking the very foundations of the faith. He seems to suggest we simply accept what has been passed down through the ages without critical examination. But as all of what has been passed down differs in some way, which readings do we accept without critical examination?

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Westcott and Hort is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a conclusion regarding the original reading. I am not quite at the point where I agree with Pickering (the othe guy, not our old friend) that Family 35 is identical to the autographs, for all practical purposes, but I certainly agree with Pickering that the Byzantine textform is the closest text to the autographs when those rational rules of textual criticism are used.

I agree. Although my final authority is the Byzantine textform (right now Robinson/Pierpont's 2005 edition which Dr. Robinson gifted me with on the occasion of his visit to San Diego several years ago) I still have a NA 27 on the table right beside me as a go to "quick and dirty" Greek NT.

Yes. That is why I included the paragraph by Kenyon regarding Simonides' motive, to get back at Tischendorf for exposing so many of Simonides' forgeries. I agree with Kenyon in that it was a humorous thing to do.

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

 

Even DTS makes an error now and then. (And I am not thoroughly convinced DAW actually believes all the non-sense he says. Some of it is probably to appease his constituency.)

Yep. What seems odd to me is that, if I remember correctly, David's father was Henry Sorenson, one of the first officers of BWM. How did he grow up in a good church, attend a good seminary, and still come to where he is.

I am listening to a message he preached a year or so ago where he says he is not KJVO. He is "Traditional Text Only" and that being TTO leads, not to KJVO, but to "Only King James." I suspect that is a distinction without a difference.

He mentions a bible college in south east Wisconsin. Sound familiar?

Dr. Robinson and I had a rather long discussion about this very thing last November a ETS in San Antonio. Really opened my eyes. Even pointed out which edition of his book was most reliable. I got a lot of good information from Picking Dr. Robinson's brain. Too bad I don't understand all of it.

Yes, he was. He was Dean at Central from 1959 to 1965 then President from 1988 through 1993.

He certainly did bring BWM back to the forefront of Baptist Mission Agencies.

I used UBS3 in Seminary and loved it. Misplaced my copy (with the red plastic cover) many years ago. Now rely on a UBS5 and an NA-27, after Robinson/Pierpont's Byzantine NT, of course.

I know! A lot of it is like an Abbot and Costello routine!

And amen!

 

Except it's not.