Do you consider the Nestle-Aland God's word as well?
Sent from my LGLK430 using Tapatalk
-
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!
The real TR
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
Do you consider the Nestle-Aland God's word as well?
Sent from my LGLK430 using Tapatalk
Actually, sometimes there is proof and/or reason to believe. I believe the Alexandrian mss removed the longer ending of Mark, and I have reasons to believe that. It may have been an accidental deletion, but I have reason to believe it happened. You have to believe either that words or verses or even passages were left out (Alexandrian and Westcott/Hort non-interpolations in the Western texts) or that they were added (Byz. or Western).
It is well known that Marcion deleted major portions of the NT for his personal anti-semetic cult.
Yes. Just missing some words and verses. :type:
In light of the post of mine you replied to, are you implying that Nestle-Aland uses Marcion texts????
Nobody gives Marcion's work any credibility
Marcion's work is disproven by other manuscripts on both sides of his work. None of the Gnostic gospels are used in the Nestle-Aland.
We discussed the long ending of Mark before. I have no issue with "I believe". I respect your belief. I don't what I would call "proof", but a logical thought process, that is understandable. I disagree with you, but don't deny you have reasons for your belief.
Sent from my LGLK430 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, I'm not suggesting that any Greek NT used Marcion texts. I'm simply saying that there are provable omissions from the NT in church history, so we can't count such omissions out completely.
Of course not. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks they were.
Thank you.
It should be considered such along with the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, Edwin Palmer's Greek N.T and others.
I will pick up where John left off.
The term TR is a very flexible term used by the early translators and textual critics to refer to the most prolific of the Greek New Testament texts, the Byzantine textform (and it seems obvious to me that is due to the Byzantine Empire as being the largest Greek speaking empire in the history of the world - it stands to reason that the Greek speaking world would copy more Greek manuscripts than the Coptic or Aramaic or Latin speaking world).
The term "TR" when used correctly refers to the "text commonly received by all" down through the known ages of European history. The term is not correctly used when limited to a single text, or even the plethora of texts of Erasmus, Robert Estienne (known as Stephanus), Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, Theodore Beza, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, and, of course, F. H. A. Scrivener.
Contextually virtually all textual critics consider the TR to be a representative example of the Byzantine Textform. The Majority Text of Hodges & Farstad and the Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform of Robinson & Pierpont are other representative examples of that textform. (In the interests of complete disclosure my preference for the Byzantine Textform of Robinson & Pierpont is enhanced by my friendship with Maurice Robinson and the opportunity to sit in a Denny's in San Diego and pick his brain for about 4 hours.)
So, back to stilllearning's belief in the absolute perfection and inerrancy of the TR.
I would have to ask "Which TR?"
There are over 35 different TRs that have been printed since Erasmus first printed his first edition in 1516 and all of them are different from each other. Which one do you nominate for the perfect inerrant one and what criteria do you use to select that, and only that, edition?
And, if you pick Scrivener's TR, bear in mind that it did not exist until the late 19th century (1882) so it cannot be the TR that underlies the KJV.
And, in fact, the KJV is a revision of the Bishop's Bible, using the Greek texts of both Beza and Stephens, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which was based on the Matthew bible, which is just a Tyndale Bible with minor editing, which was based on the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament.
So, again, which of these TRs do you nominate as the perfect, preserved, inerrant text and why do you think it meets your criteria (whatever that is)?
The term TR is a very flexible term used by the early translators and textual critics to refer to the most prolific of the Greek New Testament texts, the Byzantine textform (and it seems obvious to me that is due to the Byzantine Empire as being the largest Greek speaking empire in the history of the world - it stands to reason that the Greek speaking world would copy more Greek manuscripts than the Coptic or Aramaic or Latin speaking world).
The term "TR" when used correctly refers to the "text commonly received by all" down through the known ages of European history. The term is not correctly used when limited to a single text, or even the plethora of texts of Erasmus, Robert Estienne (known as Stephanus), Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, Theodore Beza, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, and, of course, F. H. A. Scrivener.
Contextually virtually all textual critics consider the TR to be a representative example of the Byzantine Textform. The Majority Text of Hodges & Farstad and the Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform of Robinson & Pierpont are other representative examples of that textform. (In the interests of complete disclosure my preference for the Byzantine Textform of Robinson & Pierpont is enhanced by my friendship with Maurice Robinson and the opportunity to sit in a Denny's in San Diego and pick his brain for about 4 hours.)
So, back to stilllearning's belief in the absolute perfection and inerrancy of the TR.
I would have to ask "Which TR?"
There are over 35 different TRs that have been printed since Erasmus first printed his first edition in 1516 and all of them are different from each other. Which one do you nominate for the perfect inerrant one and what criteria do you use to select that, and only that, edition?
And, if you pick Scrivener's TR, bear in mind that it did not exist until the late 19th century (1882) so it cannot be the TR that underlies the KJV.
And, in fact, the KJV is a revision of the Bishop's Bible, using the Greek texts of both Beza and Stephens, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which was based on the Matthew bible, which is just a Tyndale Bible with minor editing, which was based on the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament.
So, again, which of these TRs do you nominate as the perfect, preserved, inerrant text and why do you think it meets your criteria (whatever that is)?
The terms "additions" and "subtractions" implies a deliberate act.
Nobody added to the Byzantine textform any more than they deleted from the Alexandrian textform. There are variants with very well understood causes such as dittography and haplography.
Some actions may have been deliberate. Such as harmonization. Being deliberate doesn't mean it was ill intended. The scribe may have thought the previous scribe left something out. "Matthew has it, so Mark should have it as well. The guy before me must have made a mistake". That could be a legitimate thought of a scribe working on the gospels. No ill intent. He thought he was fixing it. Subtractions would be "honest mistakes". Same words, or similar words on the same page and you lose your location. I would wouldn't call subtractions deliberate. Additions could be, but that doesn't mean the are I'll intended.
I am a fan of the C.T. but I do not think the Byzantine Text I'll intended. The scribes, and the later textual scholars on both sides are doing and have done what they believe is correct. The same doctrines are developed from either text. Neither is trying to sabotage anything or lead anyone astray.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
I like that. I actually wish NT textual criticism used those terms.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
So long as it is understood that this post is pure conjecture, I don't have any problems with it. We simply have no idea what went on the minds of the various scribes. Personally, I think it is vastly more probable that a scribe would accidentally leave something out than that he would deliberately put something in, even with the best of motives. But I really don't know, any more than you do.
Well said. And pietistic expansion was also a factor in the additions made to the Byz. text.
And your evidence for this? Did you interview the scribes?
You can attribute it to my keen powers of observation if you wish.:laugh:
I am running late, but check out 1 Cor. 6:20 and John 7:39 for two examples.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello again John
I apologize for the delay in getting back to this thread, but to say that a lot of things are going on in my life right now, would be a great understatement.
------------------------
For sure, my “choice of words”, could have been better in my OP. If I had used the word “similar” rather than “exact”, for instance. But now that I have explained what I meant by exact, maybe we can go on.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another point to be discussed....
I said, in my OP....
And you responded with.....
I think what I said in my paragraph makes a significant point: Because of the “assumptions” people today, are making about the motives of the translators of the KJB.
Once again, when I said.... “therefore IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS”, I was also making a reference to “my belief” that 400 years ago people weren’t stupid, therefore it is was an accepted fact, that the Alexandrian family of mss, were “corrupted”, and were therefore deliberately overlooked by the translators of the KJB.
Now I carefully reviewed you response to this paragraph in my OP, and found that you somewhat agree with my assessment,(in short, you said my statement was correct). All you could say, in casting doubt upon it was,
This explains why, most of them would not “write down that this was a reason”!
I truly regret that I only have the time to cover your response “one paragraph at a time”, but just like everyone else, my life is very busy.
Oh, by the way, please do not misunderstand. When I stated above, that “...you said my statement was correct”, this was not an attempted to be provocative or to put words into your mouth. This is just the way I interpret your response to my statements in this paragraph.
If I am miss-reading you, PLEASE let me know!
See you later
I apologize for the delay in getting back to this thread, but to say that a lot of things are going on in my life right now, would be a great understatement.
------------------------
For sure, my “choice of words”, could have been better in my OP. If I had used the word “similar” rather than “exact”, for instance. But now that I have explained what I meant by exact, maybe we can go on.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another point to be discussed....
I said, in my OP....
And you responded with.....
------------------------
I think what I said in my paragraph makes a significant point: Because of the “assumptions” people today, are making about the motives of the translators of the KJB.
Once again, when I said.... “therefore IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS”, I was also making a reference to “my belief” that 400 years ago people weren’t stupid, therefore it is was an accepted fact, that the Alexandrian family of mss, were “corrupted”, and were therefore deliberately overlooked by the translators of the KJB.
Now I carefully reviewed you response to this paragraph in my OP, and found that you somewhat agree with my assessment,(in short, you said my statement was correct). All you could say, in casting doubt upon it was,
I contend, that it was not a “stretch”, to come to this conclusion. I say that because these were honorable men(such as myself); And when they were backed into a corner and asked if they believed that the “Alexandrian family of mss” were God’s Word or not, they responded in the same way that I am forced to respond, when I am asked if the NIV is God’s Word!
This explains why, most of them would not “write down that this was a reason”!
I truly regret that I only have the time to cover your response “one paragraph at a time”, but just like everyone else, my life is very busy.
Oh, by the way, please do not misunderstand. When I stated above, that “...you said my statement was correct”, this was not an attempted to be provocative or to put words into your mouth. This is just the way I interpret your response to my statements in this paragraph.
If I am miss-reading you, PLEASE let me know!
See you later
Unless you have direct information regarding this, your assertions are also assumptions as to the motivation and thinking behind the translators of the TR.
I truly regret that I only have the time to cover your response “one paragraph at a time”, but just like everyone else, my life is very busy.
Can I ask this: Did the translators of the TR have the Alexandrian texts when they were at work?