What is Considered best 'proof" The CT is Corrupted/tainted?

[Rippon]

Now to say, as Rippon and his man Philip Comfort do, that the extra words were a later emendation by a scribe, means that The Holy Spirit made a mistake originally which a man had to correct. I do not find that acceptable as a point of view.

No. I think it is much more likely that the error occurred very early on and has been corrected a little later and so the reading in the huge majority of manuscripts is the true one.

It is much more likely that the original reading was in found in the oldest manuscripts that we have. Extra words were added by zealous scribes who thought they were "correcting" the Word of God. There were numerous attempts at "correcting" many other texts in the RT tradition as well.

The Holy Spirit most certainly did not make any mistakes in the original.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is much more likely that the original reading was in found in the oldest manuscripts that we have. Extra words were added by zealous scribes who thought they were "correcting" the Word of God. There were numerous attempts at "correcting" many other texts in the RT tradition as well.

Well Rippon, dear brother, there we shall have to leave it. Neither you nor I was present to see this scribe either accidental leaving something out or zealously putting something in. Doubtless we shall learn the truth in heaven.
However.......

The Holy Spirit most certainly did not make any mistakes in the original.

One thing that we both know is that Christians are named after Christ. Threfore either the Holy Spirit made an error in the C.T. or the C.T. is not the correct reading. I see no other alternative.

BTW, I do not at all mean to suggest that either you or Ann believe that the Bible contains errors. I apologize if that is what I appear to be saying. I am just trying to explain to you the inevitable consequence of supporting the C.T. reading of Eph 3:14-15 which is to impute error to the sacred text.

Steve

 

[InTheLight]

Sorry I didn't get to answering this. Lost track!

I believe I can prove that the NT is inerrant whether you use a CT or MT Greek NT. And the only doctrine, major or minor, that I know of that might be affected depending on which NT you use is snake handling. :laugh:

Having said that, I would say about your last statement that I believe the MT/Byzantine tradition reflects the original mss much better than the CT.

This is the most sensible thing I have ever read regarding CT vs. MT. Thanks!

 

[annsni]

Perhaps I'm explaining this really badly. Let me try again. Here's the NIV reading of Eph 3:14-15 again.

'For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.'

Now the point I'm trying to make is that the whole family in heven and on earth does not derive its name from the Father. Once again, we are Christians, not Fatherians. If that is the genuine reading, then there is a mistake in the Bible.

But when we come to the KJV or NKJV, the verses make perfect sense:-

'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'

Paul is praying to the Father, but the whole family is named after the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse makes perfect sense.

So in other words, Paul is speaking of the term "Christian" here? I do not believe it is speaking of the derogatory term at all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So in other words, Paul is speaking of the term "Christian" here? I do not believe it is speaking of the derogatory term at all.

What else would he be speaking about? And if the term is good enough for Peter to use (1Pet 4:16) and well enough known for King Agrippa to use (Acts 26:28), why wouldn't Paul use it?

Steve

 

[Deacon]

One thing that we both know is that Christians are named after Christ. Threfore either the Holy Spirit made an error in the C.T. or the C.T. is not the correct reading. I see no other alternative.
Steve

Certainly the Critical text could be wrong but I think another reasonable alternative is you don’t understand the Critical text!
If this is the best proof then I think we should all lay down our battle axes and labor with the texts God has preserved for us.


Ephesians 3:14–15 (ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father [Patera],
from whom every family [patria] in heaven and on earth is named,

Seems quite simple to me.
No mistake, Martin

Rob

 

[Jim1999]

This is where it is important to read the entire passage and not just a few verses. The essence of the entire passage is what we are doing in and through Christ. Hence, we can easily apply the name Christian.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

Ephesians 3:14–15 (ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father [Patera],
from whom every family [patria] in heaven and on earth is named,

Seems quite simple to me.
No mistake, Martin

Rob

I just read that point from a book at the local library. Good job.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Ephesians 3:14

"Since there would be no reason for omitting the words,it is all the more probable that the shorter text found in such weighty manuscripts as P46, ABCP,33,81,1739syr,cop is the earlier." Andrew T. Lincoln

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Certainly the Critical text could be wrong but I think another reasonable alternative is you don’t understand the Critical text!
If this is the best proof then I think we should all lay down our battle axes and labor with the texts God has preserved for us.


Ephesians 3:14–15 (ESV)
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father [Patera],
from whom every family [patria] in heaven and on earth is named,

Seems quite simple to me.
No mistake, Martin

Rob

With respect, there is no difference here between the Critical, Majority or Received texts at any point except the omission of the words in question. Yes, pasa patria may mean 'every family' or 'the whole family,' but I think to suppose that Paul is making some sort of pun is very contrived. It is those who are in Christ Jesus who are the family of God (Gal 3:26 etc).

However, I've made my case and clearly it hasn't persuaded everybody, so I shall leave it be. :wavey: except to say

"Since there would be no reason for omitting the words,it is all the more probable that the shorter text found in such weighty manuscripts as P46, ABCP,33,81,1739syr,cop is the earlier." Andrew T. Lincoln

If there is no reason for omitting the words, it is most unlikely that they would have been interpolated. Since the longer reading is found in the huge majority of extant manuscripts, it is all the more probable that it is the correct one.

Steve

 

[jonathan.borland]

"Since there would be no reason for omitting the words,it is all the more probable that the shorter text found in such weighty manuscripts as P46, ABCP,33,81,1739syr,cop is the earlier." Andrew T. Lincoln

This quote merely demonstrates modern commentators' general lack of acquaintance with doing textual criticism first-hand, i.e., their general reliance on the decisions of others without doing their own true textual scholarship as was common in the past.

J. G. Reiche, who arguably produced the most thorough and learned textual commentary ever written on Paul and the Praxapostolos, wrote the following in his Commentarius criticus in N.T. (3 vols.; Göttingae: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1853-1862):

"The many probable reasons on account of which scribes were firmly hesitant regarding these words, and therefore did not receive them, are reasonably understood" (2:155; italics his).

After briefly giving a number of basic reasons, he states in classic German fashion: "Having considered the actual diverse quality of each reading, we will demonstrate with a few words that the common reading rather than the shorter one is more consistent with Paul's style and the character of the passage and not inconsistent with the argument and nature of the entire epistle" (2:156; italics mine). He then proceeds with his "few words" to obliterate the views for the already weak support of the critical text reading over the course of the next 12 pages!

Again, the one or two sentence "defenses" of the critical text readings one often finds in today's commentaries are so humorous that I often read them purely for the entertainment and amusement value they possess. Then I read those old masters who labored over God's Word with a true diligence that escapes too many commentators of our current age.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Rippon]

J. G. Reiche, who arguably produced the most thorough and learned textual commentary ever written on Paul and the Praxapostolos, wrote the following in his Commentarius criticus in N.T. (3 vols.; Göttingae: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1853-1862):

"The many probable reasons on account of which scribes were firmly hesitant regarding these words, and therefore did not receive them, are reasonably understood" (2:155; italics his).

After briefly giving a number of basic reasons, he states in classic German fashion: "Having considered the actual diverse quality of each reading, we will demonstrate with a few words that the common reading rather than the shorter one is more consistent with Paul's style and the character of the passage and not inconsistent with the argument and nature of the entire epistle" (2:156; italics mine). He then proceeds with his "few words" to obliterate the views for the already weak support of the critical text reading over the course of the next 12 pages!

Again, the one or two sentence "defenses" of the critical text readings one often finds in today's commentaries are so humorous that I often read them purely for the entertainment and amusement value they possess. Then I read those old masters who labored over God's Word with a true diligence that escapes too many commentators of our current age.

Jonathan C. Borland

I note he died in 1862 before a lot of ancient manuscripts were discovered.

I also note that you also gave a one or two sentence quote that defends your view.

 

[Rippon]

John Eadie (1810-1872) has something to say about Ephesians 3:14. I'll cite a part of his words on the subjectin his book :The John Eadie Greek Text Commentaries.

The words are wanting in A,B,C,and some of the patristic citations,are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf,and rejected by Ruckert,Harless,Olshausen,Meyer,Steier,Ellicott,and Alford. In this opinion we are inclined to concur...They may have been iinterpolated from the common formula,.. (pages 240.241)