THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY

I take it, this means my reply went down a black hole!

 

it's not fair to leave out Dean John Burgon who was their contemporary. Burgon was another one that didn't appear TR-only, let alone KJO.

 

No Bible believing fundamentalist will accept this. Did you actually read the article? It is full of misrepresentations and untruths (read lies). It simply is a very poor attempt to support an untenable position. The sooner we get to biblical doctrine and biblical teaching about the revelation of God to us, the better off we will be.

 

This Little Light, much of the information in the article is correct. The issue is not "which translation" but "which underlying text" is the most representitive of the autographa. Unfortunately there is a large segment of Christendom which will not even consider the Byzantine textform but relies exclusively on the Alexandrian textform. They call this "modern scholarship" but to me that is a misnomer. There is nothing "scholarly" about ignoring 90-95% of the textual evidence in favor of a questionable textform. I believe all the evidence should be weighed, and serioursly examined. However, I have found that trying to explain the Byzantine primacy position is usually a waste of time for most who hold to the Alexandrian position are unwilling to listen, and, when confronted with the evidence, will begin calling you names and misrepresenting your position. The discussion will get very ugly, very quickly.

My choice has been to hold fast to "the faith once delivered to the saints" and allow others to hold to whatever position they find the most comfort in. It is not quite, yet, to the point of "casting pearls before swine" but it is rapidly approaching that point.

Know what you believe and why you believe it, and let the rest of Christendom do the same.

 

Remember though that the eclectic text proponents do not practice the approach you describe here. The eclectic text does not rely exclusively on the Alexandrian text form and this has been demonstrated time and again in here. It does not ignore 90-95% of the texual evidence. If you read the textual apparatus of the eclectic text, you will find every textform represented time and time again. At times it even follows the byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform.

It seems rather to me that the Byzantine position rejects 5% of the evidence out of hand, never giving it serious consideration because it is an "inferior" textform, something that has not been conclusively demonstrated. The TR position ignores even the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts in a number of places.

I agree with Thomas that it is important to know what we believe and why we believe it. It is also equally important not to misrepresent the other side.

We need to remember that this discussion is not about Westcott and Hort, or about Erasmus, or about any such person. It is about we should approach the objective evidence of the preserved texts before us.

As an anecdote of how funny this discussion has become at times, someone (not on this board) once told me that Alexandrian readings had not been preserved. He said the only thing that was preserved as the Word of God was the TR and the KJV. I asked him, "How do we have the alexandrian manuscripts if they have not been preserved?" He never answered ... for obvious reasons. He had been caught in the trap of his own statements. The question is not "what has been preserved" but rather "how do we understand and make decisions between what has been preserved?"

[ March 07, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

That's odd, because one could make the same argument, the other way around. That's what I've seen most of on here.

 

Show me five places in the text of UBS/NA where the Byzantine reading is favored over the Alexandrian reading. Four? Three. Two? One?

 

Who on this forum holds to the Byzantine primacy position and has gotten ugly or engaged in name calling? Point out the post and I will delete it.

 

How does anybody read that diatribe and not lose their lunch, so to speak? Anyone who even mentions Gail Riplinger (God's secretary) in a favorable way should immediately be branded a sensationalist. I am so tired of the KJVO people's illogical conclusions. It is almost as bad as the preterist's eschatology.

Just an example:
Attack Westcott and Hort but defend Erasmus. The did the same type of work. Erasmus was a catholic. Hello!

 

I tend to agree that much of Riplinger's writing is emotional sensationalism, but every now and then she does drop a pearl in her swill. However, just referencing her in a favorable light, as I just did (admittedly a dim light) should not result in my being branded a sensationalist. That would evidence a bias just as illogical as hers.

Well, actually, both of your assertions are incorrect. WH practiced something they call "modern scientific textual criticism" and even they say that Erasmus did not, but merely "passed along" the generally received Greek text of the era 500-1500. And, if Erasmus was still a Catholic when most of his work was being done, somebody forgot to inform Rome. Several months earlier I posted the official RCC position on Erasmus, and it was devastating.

Now for a question. If somebody quoting Riplinger makes them non-creditable due to her errors, should we not apply the same criteria to your statements? If you are incorrect regarding the similarity of the work of Erasmus and WH, and incorrect regarding your assertion that Erasmus remained a (practicing) Catholic until his death (in spite of the fact he was denied a Catholic Mass at his funeral, and he is buried in the Protestant cemetary), does that render all of your posts "sensationalistic" and should thusly be completely ignored? I don't think your statements, even uninformed statements, should be ignored any more than Phil Stringers equally uninformed statements make him sensationalistic and thus worthy of being completely ignored. He did make some good points in the article, didn't he?

 

Wallace says there are at least six. I have not done exhaustive research but here are what appear to be three.

1. Phil 1:14
2. Luke 15:21
3. James 5:4

However, more to the point was your assertion that the eclectic text ignores 95% of the manuscript evidence. To that assertion I ask, If they are ignoring them, why is the textual apparatus and textual commentary chock full (technical Hebrew term) of references to them? The apparatus of the UBS3/4 and the NA27 is full of references to the variants in all textforms. It does not ignore them as you appear to suggest; it rather addresses them -- not, to be sure, with the same approach that you would like but it certainly seems out of line to say that they "ignore" them.

For those interested, Wallace has a good article in JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1994) entitled, "The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods And Critique." It is worth a read.

As for Erasmus and textual criticism, I might also add that Erasmus did practice textual criticism. It was merely without the benefit of the scientific principles of textual transmission that later generations had. Any time you observe two variants and choose one, you are practicing textual criticism. It is impossible to compile a text without. The question must be asked, were Erasmus' decisiom making principle valid or were they invalid? Additionally, we must ask, Did Erasmus possess enough evidence to make a good choice? Kenyon is apparently the only one who argues that he did. Most are in agreement that Erasmus was working from a limited number of manuscripts under the pressure of a time frame for publication. Thus, a good case can be made that that Erasmus' methods were inadequate for the breadth of research and study that is now available.

[ March 07, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

A Catholic writer, Hugh Pope, under an official Roman Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, says

And now, from his own words, regarding salvation:

 

Thomas said

I am surprised Thomas that you don't remember James 5:4, a passage I have pointed out many times.
Aleph and B are relegated to the footnote apparatus in the UBS4 text and the Byz majority reading is in the text with an A rating--meaning that all the critical text editors using their reasoned eclectic intelligence unaminously agreed that the BYZ reading was correct, and that Aleph and B was wrong.

Then there is Philippians 1:14 where the Byzantine reading (omission of tou theou) is in the text, and the reading supported by Aleph and B, and a host of uncials and versions is placed in the footnote.

In Romans 12:14 the omission of humas by P46 and B is rejected by the editors in favor of the longer reading by a host of Byzantines and Aleph.

And how about 1 Corinthians 15:10 where the reading supported by the Byzantines and the corrected Aleph is placed into the text and the reading of the original Aleph, B, D, plus versions and fathers is placed into the footnote.

And then I flip ahead a few pages and discover 2 Corinthians 1:10 where the shorter reading of p46, B and D is rejected by the committee in favor of the longer reading of the vast bulk of Byzantine mss and Aleph.

Now consider 2 Corinthians 1:14 where you see a demonstration that the UBS4 editors do not causually dismiss the Byzantines. They go with the longer reading and give it a C rating which means that the committee deeply struggled with their decision. In favor of the longer reading is Aleph, B, and a strong number of uncials, versions, and fathers, the rejected shorter reading is supported by the Byzantines and P46. The presence of P46 no doubt helped the cause of the shorter reading. But the point is, that if the BYZ readings were longer (in agreement with all the Alexandrians) the editors would no doubt considered it a slam-dunk and rejected the lone P46 as an anomaly. In other words, the Byzantine evidence is very important to the editors of the UBS4 text.

The whole point of reasoned eclecticism is to look at varients in the text with the philosophy of using all evidence to explain which varient best explains the existence of the others. The vast supply of Byzantine evidence is a key piece in the overall puzzle, they are not however, the whole puzzle. They don't even agree amongst themselves in so many cases.

Chick

 

Thanks Chick.

This is an important point. ONce you get inside the Byzantine/Majority family, you still must practice textual criticism on some basis. At places, the Majority text is divided amongst itself and a decision about what are "God's words" must be made by a finite textual editor/committee.

We simply cannot dismiss textual criticism as "of the devil" and "criticizing Scripture" as some such as PCC have done. Textual criticism is a reality of biblical study.

 

If you are refering to the omittion of του Θεου I can't help but think it is somewhat disingenuous to claim UBS/NA follows the Byzantine at this point when, in fact, it is the reading found in D, K, 181, 614, 630, 1739, 1881, 1984, 1985, 2495. To claim this is following the Byzantine against the Alexandrian textform would be incorrect. It is following some of the Alexandrian MSS against other Alexandrian MSS which happen, in this case, to agree with the Byzantine.

Again we see this reading attested to by p75, A, D, L, P, W, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 565, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1242, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174.

The Byzantine reads απεστερημενοσ and UBS reads αφθστερημενοσ. I fail to see where the UBS follows the Byzantine reading.

I have not responded to the rest for it is completely off point. Refering to an alternate reading in a foot note is not the same as prefering that reading in the text. You sound like the KJVOs who criticize the NKJV for its footnotes giving alternate readings from the CT and MT!

[ March 07, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

My point in linking Erasmus with Westcott and Hort was only that they are credited with the ones that the various translations can be traced back to, ie., W&H (most modern versions), Erasmus (KJV and other RT translations). If character and beliefs alone were the issue, someone would have to come up with a whole new underlying text.

 

Thomas said

Thomas, It is just as I have described above. Your statement is simply incorrect if you are talking about the UBS4 text. That is the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, 4th edition, 1993.
The UBS4 on page 782 shows the Byzantine reading απεστερημενοσ in the text and αφθστερημενοσ in the footnote! Are you looking at the UBS4?