Pastor Bob supposedly quoted the following sources, claiming that “At least two early translations point to the use of the Received Text as early as A.D. 150's”:
(1) ‘The Itala Version - According to Fredrick H. Scrivener, "The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157." A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 2d ed., 1874, 2:43’
(2) ‘The Peshitta - According to Dr.s Westcott and Hort, "a translation of the New Testament into Syrian [the Peshitta Version] was made in A.D. 150." Introduction to the New Testament pg. 143. Even Hort acknowledged that this translation paralleled the Received Text’
Since I happen to have both these sources, let me state right here that *neither* of these sources contain the quotes cited. Therefore, whatever Pastor Bob’s secondary or tertiary sources might be, they are **dead wrong**.
================
(1) First of all, Scrivener, 2:43 *cannot* be the 2nd edition of 1874, since that edition is only a single volume! The purported reference has to be to the 4th edition of 1894, his only edition that appeared in 2 volumes.
However, neither in his 2nd edition discussion of the Old Latin or Itala (2nd ed. pp 299-303), nor in the 4th edition discussion of the same (4th ed., pp. 2:41-45 is there **ANY** mention of either AD 157, translation from the “received text”, or any mention of the Waldensians!
Therefore, I must ask: what bruised-reed secondary erroneous source are you relying upon for your information? I will entertain at least one ultimate-source guess: the Seventh-Day Adventist writer Benjamin Wilkinson, in his book _Our Authorized Bible Vindicated_ (what a surprise -- not!).
Yet even in Wilkinson’s original edition (1930, p. 35), and D. O. Fuller’s “edited” version of Wilkinson in _Which Bible?_ (p.208) Wilkinson only *mentioned* Scrivener 2:43 in a footnote, and *never* actually quoted Scrivener (but then, why should he, since Scrivener in *no* way supported his contentions?).
Wilkinson’s *actual* text reads as follows:
"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D. ... The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D."
While this might look familiar, it still is not identical with the misquoted form you cited. But note in particular that Wilkinson did *not* say “translated from the Received Text”, but only “from the Greek”. As noted, Wilkinson’s statement is *not at all* supported by his reference to Scrivener 2:43.
(2) Westcott and Hort’s Introduction p.143 does not even discuss the Peshitta. but discusses “Relics of pre-Syrian texts in cursives” (by “pre-Syrian” they are not talking about the Syriac version, but Greek Byzantine type of MSS).
The Syriac Peshitta version is discussed by W-H on p. 84, and there they most certainly do *not* claim it was “ a translation of the New Testament into Syrian ... made in A.D. 150,” but instead say “External evidence as to its date and history is entirely wanting: but there is no reason to doubt that it is at least as old as the Latin version” -- by which they mean 4th century AD, since in context they are not speaking about the Old Latin version.
But let me guess again as to the intermediate secondary source: Wilkinson? Certainly, although as distorted by the tertiary source as was the Scrivener matter. Wilkinson (1930, p. 25) references W-H p. 143 (what a surprise --not!), and Wilkinson’s main text says:
“It is generally admitted, that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 A.D. This version is known as the Peshitto ... This Bible even to-day generally follows the Received Text.”
Of course, the W-H footnote reference points to a page that says *nothing* of the kind, and is just another part and parcel of the utterly false information that Wilkinson spews forth and is picked up by all and sundry KJVOs. The bruised reed is looking more and more bruised....
Wherever the tertiary citations came from, they ultimately derive from Wilkinson (no surprise), and are *totally unsupported* by the supposed referenced footnotes.
Shoddy and inaccurate information derived from questionable secondary or tertiary sources is worse than useless when trying to establish a point, and one would be the wiser not to lean on such bruised-reed sources. But unfortunately this tends to be the tendency among KJVO advocates....
