The Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, etc

Burgon thought their scholorship worthy of notice, as have practically everyone since. Your is yet another opinion, which is fine. What is also fine is if someone disagrees with you

Translation: "if you disagree with me, you are ignorant".

 

icthus
"It not that I am proclaiming the "genius" of Burgon and Scrivener"
"
Yes you are, corny exclamation marks and all.
now will you answer my question.

 

Natters,

How much TC have you done?

 

Not as much as I would like, but I do have enough to read to last me several years. My approach to textual criticism thus far has been:

1. put ALL the evidence and info on the table
2. read read read
3. in daily reading or in internet discusssions, when a variation in Scripture catches my attention, study it as exhaustively as I can
4. pray for guidance in my studies, but also pray for guidance in how my personal life may be affected
5. keep in mind that we're not going to conclusively solve every single variation, but that God's word is preserved nonetheless

I have been doing this for almost 10 years, just as a "hobby" (i.e. no formal education in this area).

 

Um, the very fact that he wrote "Revision Revised" in response to their work is proof that he noticed them. Disagreed with them strongly, yes, but obviously thought they were worthy enough to notice and respond to.

 

Natters,

I use an MV, however:

1. the textual evidence does not overwhelmingly support MV's
2. many of the "great" TC's are not believers.

Both of those scare me, when we consider disparaging the KJV and its sources. They scare me just as much as claiming that we must be KJVo ...

 

Ichtus
Apparently not...

Anyways, I knew a nun (she died a few years ago) who was a living Hexapla. She knew 6 versions of the complete Bible by heart. That includes the Apocrypha and footnotes covering a bunch of textual variants.
And that's just her recall. Don't get me started on her actual thinking skills.

 

Whatever, icthus. You said they weren't "worthy of notice". Burgon obviously thought they were. Burgon explains why he disagrees with them. Get it? Disagreement. Should I accuse Burgon of being "ignorant" sipmly because he disagreed with W & H? Of course not. Ignorance and disagreement are entirely different things.

When there are two sides to an issue, it is possible to be ignorant yet agree, ignorant yet disagree, be knowledgeable yet agree, or be knowledgeable yet disagree, with one side or the other.

Whether you personally think Westcott and Hort are "worthy" of your notice is utterly irrelevant in my opinion. The fact is, their work and their scholarship, even if you disagree with it, is there to be dealt with. Just because you agree with one side and disagree with the other, that does not mean the other side is therefore ignorant and not-scholary.

You just said my approach to TC "sounds very good". My approach includes putting ALL the evidence on the table. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the work of Westcott and Hort, the work of Burgon, etc., are all part of that evidence. I say keep ALL the evidence on the table. Isn't that what any good investigator would do?

icthus, you're an unusual poster here. Usually those defending the TR do not know their history and related issues as well as you do - obviously you have spent a good deal of time studying the issue. What leaves me puzzled however, is that despite your wealth of factual information, we still have to sometimes spell out simple logic for you.

 

So an investigator should NOT put all the evidence on the table, but only the evidence he already agrees with?

 

Putting up blinders to evidence that appears contrary to your opinion is one way to go about life...

 

Come on. The gospel of Thomas and Bultman's commentaries are not textual evidence of the NT scriptures. Nor would the Book of Mormon and Benny Hinn's sermons be evidence used in textual criticism of the New Testament. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and all other NT manuscripts, as well as the raw information put forth by scholars of all ages (avoiding their biases) would be.

Let's try to be a little realistic, shall we? I don't know anyone involved in TC that uses the gospel of Thomas and Bultman's commentaries to determine what was originally penned in the NT.

 

I consider books like the Gospel of Thomas as evidence of books like the Gospel of Thomas. By those types of books, I suppose you are talking about non-canonical pseudepigripha.

What do they have to do with the Bible and Textual Criticism? Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence of the canon to be considered.