The real TR

[McCree79]

, 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.

These same people believed the world was flat still. This was because they didn't have all the information.

The Byzantine Text didn't become the "Majority" until the 8th century. When Jerome was looking for Greek manuscripts to guide his update of the Latin, he could only find a few that contained the long ending of Mark. Almost all that he could find were Alexandrian in type. According to Jerome, it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel—almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage.”*

The only reason the Byzantine became the Majority Greek, is because the west stopped making copies and switched to Latin. Therefore the East, who used the Greek, kept producing the Byzantine Greek and eventually over took it in number. Plus the Muslims burning tons of Christian materials didn't help the Alexandrian text numbers.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

These same people believed the world was flat still. This was because they didn't have all the information.

That's hardly a parallel.

The Byzantine Text didn't become the "Majority" until the 8th century. When Jerome was looking for Greek manuscripts to guide his update of the Latin, he could only find a few that contained the long ending of Mark. Almost all that he could find were Alexandrian in type. According to Jerome, it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel—almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage.”*

Would you care to source this quote? And Eusebius was a historian, not a Bible scholar.

Whether or not Jerome could find copies with the LE of Mark is moot. Jerome considered it to be Scripture, as is evidenced by the fact that he included it in the Vulgate and quoted Mark 16:14 as Scripture in "Against the Pelagians, Book II."

The only reason the Byzantine became the Majority Greek, is because the west stopped making copies and switched to Latin. Therefore the East, who used the Greek, kept producing the Byzantine Greek and eventually over took it in number. Plus the Muslims burning tons of Christian materials didn't help the Alexandrian text numbers.

This is inaccurate. There were Latin translations from the very earliest times, and Greek was used in the Western empire all along.

The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Sorry, but this is historically inaccurate. First of all, there were few Alexandrian mss available in 1611. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not available. Secondly, there was no realization among scholars in 1611 that there were multiple text types. So there could be no realization that "the Alexandrian familly of mss were 'corrupt,'" as you say. There might have been the opinion of some that a particular ms was corrupt, though I don't know of any sources from that time period that prove this, do you?

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 have a problem with saying that the critical Greek text is not the Word of God. Consider. I'll not take time to look up the figures right now, but if there is a 5% difference in the texts, then a critical Greek text is 95% the Word of God, is it not? Thus, it really bothers me when folk say that any Greek text or mss is not the Word of God. If the critical text is not the Word of God, then I did not have the Word of God for the 33 years I served God in Japan, since all we had in Japanese was a Bible from the critical texts.

I have read through the NIV, and compared much of it to the Greek. I think it has many errors of translation, and I do not use it, teach or preach from it, or recommend it. But I will not say it was from Satan or any such thing. It is the Word of God to the exact extent it correctly translates the originals, whatever that extent may be. So when the NIV says "God is love" in 1 John 4:8, exactly like the KJV, how is the NIV not the Word of God?

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

See you next time.

 

[McCree79]

That's hardly a parallel.

Would you care to source this quote? And Eusebius was a historian, not a Bible scholar.

Michael W. Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,”*Themelios8:2 (1983): 17.

Whether or not Jerome could find copies with the LE of Mark is moot.

....No it is very much the point. It Greek witness was weak at the time. It was just being introduced through tradtion and had not taken hold yet.

This is inaccurate. There were Latin translations from the very earliest times, and Greek was used in the Western empire all along.

Innocent III banned the use of all none Latin Bibles. Greek could be used, why produce it? Latin was the dominate translation of the West.

The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.[/QUOTE]



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

That's hardly a parallel.

Would you care to source this quote? And Eusebius was a historian, not a Bible scholar.

Whether or not Jerome could find copies with the LE of Mark is moot. Jerome considered it to be Scripture, as is evidenced by the fact that he included it in the Vulgate and quoted Mark 16:14 as Scripture in "Against the Pelagians, Book II."

This is inaccurate. There were Latin translations from the very earliest times, and Greek was used in the Western empire all along.

****sorry I messed up your quote....sorry if any misrepresentation took place*****


The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.[/QUOTE]
Not Until the 8th century they didn't.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

1 Cor. 6:20. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body [and in your spirit which are God's]'

John 7:39b. '.......For the [Holy] Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

The words in brackets have been excised by inattentive scribes in a tiny number of texts. That is the obvious explanation. They are present in around 95% of the extant mss. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that these words have been added. It's just what you have read somewhere from someone who is relying on secular methods of textual analysis, which are themselves without any real foundation.

 

[John of Japan]

Michael W. Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,”*Themelios8:2 (1983): 17.

Thank you.

....No it is very much the point. It Greek witness was weak at the time. It was just being introduced through tradtion and had not taken hold yet.

Then why did Jerome, who was very familiar with the Greek mss of his time, consider the LE to be Scripture?

And to say it "had not taken hold yet" is untrue. It did not have to "take hold." It was already there from the 1st century originals. It was the Latin Bible which had to "take hold," and it did not do so until well after Jerome did his Vulgate, which was not until the 5th century.

Innocent III banned the use of all none Latin Bibles. Greek could be used, why produce it? Latin was the dominate translation of the West.

Um, Innocent III lived 1161-1216, and was pope from 1198. So he is a 13th century dude, and by that time the Byzantine was already the Majority.

 

[John of Japan]

Not Until the 8th century they didn't.

I disagree. There were Byzantine exemplars all along, and it is impossible to prove anything different.

 

[McCree79]

Thank you.

Then why did Jerome, who was very familiar with the Greek mss of his time, consider the LE to be Scripture?

Because it was in the Latin he was updating, was it not? Prehaps not from a comment you make lower. He wasn't looking for changes, just an update to make it more beautiful. I can remember Jerome's quote, but he wanted to improve the Latin usage. Not write a version with new Scripture.

And to say it "had not taken hold yet" is untrue. It did not have to "take hold." It was already there from the 1st century originals.

Do you have there 1st century originals? If so you could help us by disturbing
If not, how do you know that when the ancient manuscripts do not have it?

Um, Innocent III lived 1161-1216, and was pope from 1198. So he is a 13th century dude, and by that time the Byzantine was already the Majority.

Your right between the 4th and 5th century the RCC used the emperors Greek(Byzantine) didn't they. 604AD they switched to Latin(Roman Cannon). A century later the Byzantine becomes the Greek Majority text. That makes sense. The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing. Only the East maintained there Byzantine usage.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

stilllearning, are you going to answer my question?

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)?

 

[John of Japan]

Because it was in the Latin he was updating, was it not? Prehaps not from a comment you make lower. He wasn't looking for changes, just an update to make it more beautiful. I can remember Jerome's quote, but he wanted to improve the Latin usage. Not write a version with new Scripture.

Nevertheless, Jerome clearly used the Greek and Hebrew. That is unarguable. And he did not believe in the authority of any translation over the originals. That is clear from his writings and from the fact that Jerome took the time and trouble to learn Hebrew. Again, Augustine attacked Jerome for diverging from the Septuagint, since Jerome held the Hebrew OT to be authoritative.

Do you have there 1st century originals? If so you could help us by disturbing
If not, how do you know that when the ancient manuscripts do not have it?

You missed my point, which was that the Greek NT did not have to become authoritative, since it was authoritative from the start. As a translator, I can assure you that any translator knows that his original text is to take priority--or you get fired!

Other than that, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this statement.

Your right between the 4th and 5th century the RCC used the emperors Greek(Byzantine) didn't they. 604AD they switched to Latin(Roman Cannon). A century later the Byzantine becomes the Greek Majority text. That makes sense. The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing. Only the East maintained there Byzantine usage.

Do you have a source for these statements? I'm the church history teacher here and I don't remember reading about this 604 AD stuff.

And what does this mean: "The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing."????

 

[TCassidy]

When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating:

"Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes."

It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of (Latin) manuscripts existed that had been "altered," "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time.

The Pope refused and Jerome's Vulgate ended up being a revision of the Old Latin texts.

 

[McCree79]

You missed my point, which was that the Greek NT did not have to become authoritative, since it was authoritative from the start. As a translator, I can assure you that any translator knows that his original text is to take priority--or you get fired!

I think Scripture is authoritative, whether it be C.T. or Majority.

Do you have a source for these statements? I'm the church history teacher here and I don't remember reading about this 604 AD stuff.

It was an article from Catholicism.org. When I read it again.....the paragraph earlier it states it was the Latin Mass Cannon. The Catholic encyclopedia indicates the Latin Bible was widely used throughout the Roman church in the 800's. 700's It was atleast heavy in Spain.
"least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church" http://www.catholic.org/search/?q=Latin+bible

And what does this mean: "The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing."????

.....wow....huge typo. " dealing " should be "declining". As the Latin sxripture grew in the West, the demand for Greek dropped.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the person commissioning the translation stating: It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of (Latin) manuscripts existed that had been "altered," "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time.

The Pope refused and Jerome's Vulgate ended up being a revision of the Old Latin texts.

Yes, for several hundred years, Jerome's was viewed as garbage.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Why we are talking about Jerome, Philip Comfort makes this statement about Jerome on the Byzantine (Lucian text)....going to use Dropbox.....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2to5kzeumn83n0x/Screenshot_2015-09-04-17-26-39.png?dl=0

The new Holman Bible dictionary make a similar claim about Lucian being the Father of the Byzantine Text.

Of course, I know many dispute the claims.


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Of course, I know many dispute the claims.

Yes. Anybody who knows what he's talking about refutes the claim.

Lucian is commonly credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint.

Jerome mentions that copies of his work on the Greek Old Testament were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea"

He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew and the resulting manuscript was popular in Syria and Asia Minor.

The problem is that some very uninformed people read that Lucian did a critical recension of the Greek and their lack of critical reading skills causes them to assume, wrongly, that the Greek being referred to was the Greek New Testament.

Of course, the truth is that what was being talked about was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly (and incorrectly) called the Septuagint.

There is no evidence at all, anywhere, that Lucian was engaged in a recension of the New Testament. Even Bruce Metzger says there is not one scrap of evidence to support a Lucian recension of the Greek New Testament.

 

[McCree79]

Yes. Anybody who knows what he's talking about refutes the claim.

Lucian is commonly credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint.

Jerome mentions that copies of his work on the Greek Old Testament were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea"

He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew and the resulting manuscript was popular in Syria and Asia Minor.

The problem is that some very uninformed people read that Lucian did a critical recension of the Greek and their lack of critical reading skills causes them to assume, wrongly, that the Greek being referred to was the Greek New Testament.

Of course, the truth is that what was being talked about was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly (and incorrectly) called the Septuagint.

There is no evidence at all, anywhere, that Lucian was engaged in a recension of the New Testament. Even Bruce Metzger says there is not one scrap of evidence to support a Lucian recension of the Greek New Testament.

I don't disagree with anything you said.

I do however find it interesting that so many sources today still cite it. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia hints at it(citing Dr. Hort, then gives a counter argument. Holman, Britannica and others will state it without counter argument. Hort had a theory, which was interesting....but it is just a theory.

I apologize to the OP....I should have started a new thread on this topic. I still may. JofJ probably knows more of Hort's claim and can shed more light on it.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

1 Cor. 6:20. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body [and in your spirit which are God's]'

John 7:39b. '.......For the [Holy] Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

The words in brackets have been excised by inattentive scribes in a tiny number of texts. That is the obvious explanation.

On the contrary Steve, the words in brackets were added by zealous scribes who wanted to embellish what they thought were weaknesses in the exemplar. That is the obvious explanation. That wanted to massage the message. They were not evil to do so --just unethical.

 

[rsr]

Yes, for several hundred years, Jerome's was viewed as garbage.

I think that is overstating the reaction a bit. Yes, any new translation is going to raise hackles, and given that copying manuscripts was a time-consuming (and expensive) task, it would take a long time for the new translation to be disseminated. Yet, despite objections, such as came from Augustine, it would spread because it was endorsed by the bishop of Rome.

An exception was his Psalms, which took much longer to win acceptance because the Psalms were so familiar to the congregations. Jerome had to include his translation in an appendix, and it only gradually was adopted. This is much like as in the Anglican church; although the Book of Common Prayer eventually adopted KJV readings for most of the text, for about three centuries it maintained the Coverdale Psalms as the standard reading. Since the Anglican church has not seen fit to adopt a new prayer universal prayer book, the Coverdale Psalms remain in use.

 

[Rippon]

Taken from Stanley E. Porter's How We Got The New Testament:Text, Transmission,Translation

"The Syrian text, which reflects fourth-century revision by Lucian, is a mixed text that is the furthest from the originals. Westcott and Hort were able to show that the Syrian text often combined readings from earlier texts, and no church father from before AD 320 has a distinctly Syrian reading. This text was the one used in the Byzantine empire; it is found in the Gospels portion of Codex Alexandrinus (02 A), later majuscules, and most minuscules, and it is the textual basis of the Textus Receptus." (p.46)