The Fable of the Faulty

[Logos1560]

Did Alfred Martin suggest that the preserved text had some imperfections or faults or that it was faulty?

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173). Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

Would D. A. Waite agree with these clear statements by Alfred Martin as favorably edited and reprinted by David Otis Fuller, who was a member of the Organizing Committee which established the Dean Burgon Society as well as being one of its first two vice-presidents (Dean Burgon News, January, 1979, pp. 1, 6)? David Cloud asserted that “Fuller was a co-founder of the Dean Burgon Society with Donald Waite” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 4).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you are offended. That is sad, but it is irrelevant. When someone becomes offended in a textual debate, it usually means one thing. They cannot answer the actual question.

Well I'm sad that you are saddened, but that is irrelevant too. What was the question that you think I can't answer?

Your length and your offense do not answer the question. I asked for specific textual evidence. You have provided commentary, but not the readings, not the manuscripts, and not the witnesses that support your claim. Truth is not established by volume or emotion. Truth is established by evidence.

If you want to engage the point, present the specific textual data. If you only react, you are not interacting with the argument.

What on earth are you talking about? Why not read my post #3 and 4 again? Are you confusing me with someone else? I was not engaging at all with your argument; I was engaging with the title of the thread.

 

[Logos1560]

Jack Moorman, Forever Settled.

Jack Moorman is a KJV-only author, whose books have been published by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today and Dean Burgon Society.

Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible. Collingswood: The Bible for Today, n. d.
Moorman, J. A. When the KJV Departs from the “Majority Text.” Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society, 2010.


J. A. Moorman asserted: “We do not expect to find the Traditional Text in the Latin Vulgate, for that version was locked away in Catholic churches, kept from the people, and read by only a very few priests” (When the KJV Departs from the "Majority Text", p. 9). J. A. Moorman claimed: “Certainly in Revelation, and to a extent in the rest of the New Testament, we must occasionally look to the Latin West for corroboration on a disputed Greek reading” (When the KJV Departs, p. 43).
Some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate were added to the Greek Textus Receptus by Erasmus. Does Jack Moorman in effect suggest that the Greek NT manuscripts in the preserved stream were faulty or flawed in some places so that some readings were restored from Jerome's Latin Vulgate?

J. A. Moorman claimed that the KJV “identifies perfectly in its underlying Text the true, inspired, preserved and once delivered (Jude 3) Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words of Scripture” (When the KJV Departs, p. 44).

J. A. Moorman asserted: “Von Soden did not collate anything approaching a majority of the manuscripts” (When the KJV Departs, p. 150), but he admitted that this source “provides more MS information than any other” (p, 21).

 

[Logos1560]

Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.

Wilbur Pickering wrote: "As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult to achieve -- the semantic areas of the words simply do not match, or only in part)" (God Has Preserved His Text, p. 19).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231). 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). Pickering maintained that “a typical ‘Byzantine’ MS will have 3-5 variants per page” (p. 92).


Wilbur Pickering asked: “Since our understanding is condemned to be imperfect in any case, is it really necessary to have a perfect Text?” ((Identity of NT Text II, p. 160). Again he asked: “why has God allowed errors to get into the Text, or why does He permit faulty interpretation?” (p. 161). Wilbur Pickering asserted that “in the first place the whole point of having a human race apparently involves giving us the ability and freedom to sin and taking the consequences” and “in the second place normal and daily use does not require a superlative degree of precision--in any event we have more of God’s Truth than we can possibly appropriate” (p. 161).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Wilbur Pickering wrote:

J. A. Moorman asserted

I appreciate the quotations you have provided from Moorman and Pickering. They were careful scholars, and I respect their work. But none of these citations answer the point I raised. They are secondary commentary, not textual evidence. When I ask for proof, I am asking for the specific reading, the specific manuscript, and the specific witness. A scholar’s opinion about the text is not the same thing as the text itself.

Your quotations from Moorman concern his views on the Latin Vulgate, Erasmus, and the printed TR editions. I do not dispute that the printed TR contains places that need correction. Burgon acknowledged that. Scrivener acknowledged that. Pickering acknowledged that. Van Bruggen acknowledged that. Their point was that in some places the printed TR strayed from the preserved stream, the Traditional Text, and needed to be corrected back to the preserved text. I agree with that. My position has always been acceptance of the preserved text, the Traditional Text, over the reconstructed text used by modern English versions. It is a matter of preserved versus reconstructed. None of that is in question.

Your quotations from Pickering concern translation difficulty, manuscript grouping, and his views on the nature of the Byzantine tradition. Again, these are opinions about the text, not the text itself. They do not provide a reading, a manuscript, or a witness.

The question I asked was different. I asked for textual evidence. I asked for the reading, the manuscript, and the witness. You have provided commentary about the text, but you have not provided the textual data that would demonstrate a specific corruption in the preserved stream.

My position is simple. Textual claims must be supported by textual evidence. Commentary, no matter how respected, is not the same thing as a manuscript reading. If you present the reading, the manuscript, and the witness, I will engage it directly. If you present commentary or interpretation, I will treat it as commentary, not as evidence.

Preserved vs Reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the positive claim. You are using the fallacy of trying to reverse the burden of proof instead of backing up your own positive assertions.

In every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative--in this case the KJV-only pure preserved stream claim.

Charles Sweet wrote: “Where a person who makes an allegation [of fact] is bound to prove it, the burden or onus of proof (onus probandi) is said to rest on him. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute” (Dictionary of English Law, p. 649).

John William Burgon also noted: "It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue" (Last Twelve Verses, p. 15; Unholy Hands, Vol. I, p. C-9).

John S. Hart asserted: “The burden of proof rests naturally with the affirmative” (Manual of Composition, p. 316).

Ralph Thomas wrote: “Burden of proof rests upon the fundamental logical principle that he who asserts must prove” (Manual of Debate, p. 29). Ralph Thomas also maintained: “One is never obliged to prove the negative of an assertion” (p. 30). Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Charles Sweet wrote:

John William Burgon also noted

John S. Hart asserted:

Ralph Thomas wrote:

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote:, J. A. Moorman asserted, Wilbur Pickering asserted:

More opinions. Quote Stacking. Noise.

 

[Logos1560]

More opinions. Quote Stacking. Noise.

The documented evidence presented is stronger than your unsupported opinions and your use of fallacies such as the fallacy of false dilemma. You try to dismiss sound reasoning so you can cling to your unsound reasoning.


There would be at least three or four positions and perhaps more while you seem to use the fallacy of false dilemma to try to limit it to two. Typical KJV-only reasoning also depends upon use of the fallacy of false dilemma. Again you argue for your position using the same argument as KJV-only authors. It does not logically and scripturally follow that when believers disagree with your unproven position that they must accept the one claimed alterative that you offer. The one alterative offered by you may be an over-generalization and straw man that paints a very exaggerated, distorted and even false picture of the actual positions held by believers who disagree with your unsound reasoning involving use of fallacies.

Four possible varying texts on which Bible translations could be made are at least these four. There are English Bible translations in existence from these four varying texts.

Traditional Text or Byzantine Majority Text,
Textus Receptus text
Syriac Peshitta text
Critical Text

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The documented evidence presented is stronger than your unsupported opinions and your use of fallacies such as the fallacy of false dilemma. You try to dismiss sound reasoning so you can cling to your unsound reasoning.


There would be at least three or four positions and perhaps more while you seem to use the fallacy of false dilemma to try to limit it to two. Typical KJV-only reasoning also depends upon use of the fallacy of false dilemma. Again you argue for your position using the same argument as KJV-only authors. It does not logically and scripturally follow that when believers disagree with your unproven position that they must accept the one claimed alterative that you offer. The one alterative offered by you may be an over-generalization and straw man that paints a very exaggerated, distorted and even false picture of the actual positions held by believers who disagree with your unsound reasoning involving use of fallacies.

Four possible varying texts on which Bible translations could be made are at least these four. There are English Bible translations in existence from these four varying texts.

Traditional Text or Byzantine Majority Text,
Textus Receptus text
Syriac Peshitta text
Critical Text

The documented evidence? Quote stacking is not textual evidence. Present the reading, present the primary sources. I have not limited anything to two positions. I have stated one position. Preserved underlying text. That is not KJV-only. You keep assigning a label I have not claimed. I have acknowledged English translations based on the Byzantine/Majority textform. Acknowledging is not the same as advocating.

My argument has been consistent. The preserved stream is the standard. Translations should follow it. That is preserved text only, not KJV-only.

PTO - Preserved Text Only

 

[Logos1560]

I have not limited anything to two positions. I have stated one position.

My argument has been consistent.

In more than one post, you limited it to two positions: Traditional Text vs Critical Text. You have not been consistent.

I have not asserted that you claim the label KJV-only. I have soundly demonstrated your use of KJV-only arguments. When you display KJV-only reasoning in your posts, I accurately identify that reasoning as KJV-only.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors. Their replies are not at the level of meaningful discussion. Their replies are at the level of “You, you, you… BAD MAN!”. It is time to call it quits and all go home. End of thread encountered.

 

[Logos1560]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors. Their replies are not at the level of meaningful discussion.

Are you running away after your inconsistencies were exposed? You have not exposed any failed arguments on my part so your assertion is not true.

You do not engage in meaningful serious discussion. Your incorrect repeated "quote-stacking" allegation to divert from the evidence was not meaningful, sound discussion.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Are you running away after your inconsistencies were exposed? You have not exposed any failed arguments on my part so your assertion is not true.

You do not engage in meaningful serious discussion. Your incorrect repeated "quote-stacking" allegation to divert from the evidence was not meaningful, sound discussion.

He got taken to the woodshed and now he's running home.

 

[Logos1560]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors.

Has it now become clear that my position is closer to that of John William Burgon's than Anthony Pritchard's is? Has it become clear that my position is closer to a Traditional Text view than his vague preserved text view is? A preserved text argument is the KJV-only view's argument. In his earlier posts, Anthony Pritchard did not identify his view as being for the Traditional Text. Was that perhaps because he did not want to upset or offend any KJV-only advocates? Is his inconsistency in now asserting that his KJV-only preserved text argument was supposed to be a Traditional text argument indicated? Would his demonstrated inconsistencies provide evidence for the observation that he seemed to be trying to be both not KJV-only and KJV-only? His use of the same fallacies used in KJV-only arguments do not clearly indicate any rejection of KJV-only reasoning on his part. His linguistic argument against modern translations and his advocating of Early Modern English would also be a typical KJV-only argument.

Has he condemned the few reconstructed textual conjectures in the imperfect Textus Receptus editions that were sometimes followed in the KJV? Does he suggest that the KJV was wrong to not follow the Traditional Byzantine Majority Text in as many as 1800 places? Has he acknowledged any errors of translation in the KJV? In what posts, has he refuted or condemned erroneous KJV-only reasoning?

Instead of his repeated two options: "Preserved vs Reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text", he now inconsistently says his position is Preserved Text Only. Was the exposure of his demonstrated inconsistencies the reason that he is calling it "quits"?

In my opinion, the demonstrated inconsistencies in Anthony Pritchard's claims and his own assertion claiming that my points or arguments for a preserved Traditional text view have supposedly failed would lead to the logical conclusion that he is saying that he in effect defeated his own position or he in effect exposed his own arguments as failures. Has he been unable to see that he has been attacking the position that he claims to hold when he attacks mine?

 

[Logos1560]

I do not dispute that the printed TR contains places that need correction. Burgon acknowledged that. Scrivener acknowledged that. Pickering acknowledged that. Van Bruggen acknowledged that. Their point was that in some places the printed TR strayed from the preserved stream, the Traditional Text, and needed to be corrected back to the preserved text. I agree with that. My position has always been acceptance of the preserved text, the Traditional Text, over the reconstructed text used by modern English versions. It is a matter of preserved versus reconstructed.

[Bold type added by this poster to point out the specific aspects of your post to which I am responding.]

Where does John William Burgon refer to a "preserved stream"? John William Burgon did not use a "stream" argument concerning preservation. Where did Pickering use a "stream" argument concerning preservation? Burgon and Pickering did not refer to the Traditional Text as "the preserved stream." The preserved stream argument is a typical KJV-only argument. Is inconsistency being demonstrated again in your arguments?

Seeming to contradict his own claims about “a type of text known as the Traditional Text,” D. A. Waite had asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). D. A. Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50). Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121).

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42).

D. A. Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72).

After referring to “the overwhelming evidence of the two routes in textual history,” H. D. Williams asserted: “One route is like a river and wherever you sample along the river, the many samples are the same, whether it is the Received Greek, The Textus Receptus, or Hebrew Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 82). D. A. Waite asserted: "The Traditional Text (the Textus Receptus) is like a river; wherever you take a sample, it is virtually the same text" (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 81).

KJV-only author D. A. Waite used the term "the traditional text" in his efforts to defend his form of a KJV-only view. D. A. Waite even seems inconsistently to contradict some of his other statements about each Greek manuscript being like an orphaned child as in this case he seemed to use a "stream" [river] argument.

 

[Logos1560]

The Fable of the Faulty Preserved Text

The claim that the preserved text is faulty is repeated without evidence.

Is the claim of a completely separate pure preserved stream or river made and repeated without evidence, making it a fable?

Is there overwhelming evidence of two completely separate streams in textual history?

Is preserved text your repeated category assignment that you present without the sounded evidence to back it up?

 

[Logos1560]

Preserved vs Reconstructed. Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

Do you claim the entire or whole Critical Text is reconstructed?

If your term reconstructed does not concern the whole or entire Critical text, what portion, part, or percentage of the Critical Text do you claim to be reconstructed?

What portion, part, or percentage of a text has to have been reconstructed for you to identify or label it as reconstructed?