WHy Would Anyone Think That...

[Rippon]

...the writers of the three synoptic gospels would write in almost the same way? They were three different personalities. They would approach the same event or speech a bit differently.

That's one of the problems I have with fans of the TR and Majority Text. They seemingly ignore the smoothing-out between the various Gospel accounts. It seems there was an effort among later scribes to try and harmonize as much as possible. While the older and more reliable manuscript authors didn't fudge and try to match things up almost verbatim with parallel accounts.

Of course it doesn't just occur in the synoptic Gospels only but in other parts of the New Testament. And then,there are those places where a N.T. author is quoting from the O.T. In the TR and M.T. the tendency is to make the New Testament passage match as much as possible with the quote from the O.T. But in reality even Jesus paraphrased a good deal when He made reference to an O.T.citation.

 

[Amy.G]

I've never heard that before. Do you have any examples?

 

[JesusFan]

...the writers of the three synoptic gospels would write in almost the same way? They were three different personalities. They would approach the same event or speech a bit differently.

That's one of the problems I have with fans of the TR and Majority Text. They seemingly ignore the smoothing-out between the various Gospel accounts. It seems there was an effort among later scribes to try and harmonize as much as possible. While the older and more reliable manuscript authors didn't fudge and try to match things up almost verbatim with parallel accounts.

Of course it doesn't just occur in the synoptic Gospels only but in other parts of the New Testament. And then,there are those places where a N.T. author is quoting from the O.T. In the TR and M.T. the tendency is to make the New Testament passage match as much as possible with the quote from the O.T. But in reality even Jesus paraphrased a good deal when He made reference to an O.T.citation.

Were the 3 authors also using the "Q source?"

 

[Baptist4life]

While the older and more reliable manuscript authors..............

Once again you post your opinion like it's a fact.

 

[Logos1560]

Once again you post your opinion like it's a fact.

If so, maybe he has picked it up from KJV-only posters.

 

[JesusFan]

Once again you post your opinion like it's a fact.

Agreed, Rippon should have posted" according to what is commonly accepted by most reputed scholars as being the best/most reliable manuscripts"

(wink wink)

 

[Baptist4life]

Agreed, Rippon should have posted" according to what is commonly accepted by most reputed scholars as being the best/most reliable manuscripts"

(wink wink)

Which again, are only someone's opinions. Look, NNE has the original manuscripts, so stating that one set is more reliable than others was/ is /and always will be, an opinion. At least be honest about it, and quit stating it as FACT. It's not, I don't care how many "scholars" you come up with. You do know there are plenty of "scholars" that think those "scholars" are wrong, don't you?

*wink wink*

 

[JesusFan]

Which again, are only someone's opinions. Look, NNE has the original manuscripts, so stating that one set is more reliable than others was/ is /and always will be, an opinion. At least be honest about it, and quit stating it as FACT. It's not, I don't care how many "scholars" you come up with. You do know there are plenty of "scholars" that think those "scholars" are wrong, don't you?

*wink wink*

Just saying that I agree with you that its a matter of preference/opinion, its just that the majority of modern scholarships would favor the CT approach, but NOT in a way that says MT/BZ would be bad texts, not suitable for using....

 

[plain_n_simple]

WHy Would Anyone Think That...
...the writers of the three synoptic gospels would write in almost the same way? They were three different personalities. They would approach the same event or speech a bit differently.


I don't know unless it's to try and discredit. I believe the four gospels are each man, communing with God in the spirit, and then wrote what they saw. It's an awesome thing.

 

[Amy.G]

I'd still like to see some examples to be able to compare and see with my own eyes how the gospels were changed so as to make individual accounts agree with one another more. So far, it is just opinion.

 

[preachinjesus]

Which again, are only someone's opinions. Look, NNE has the original manuscripts, so stating that one set is more reliable than others was/ is /and always will be, an opinion. At least be honest about it, and quit stating it as FACT. It's not, I don't care how many "scholars" you come up with. You do know there are plenty of "scholars" that think those "scholars" are wrong, don't you?

(emphasis mine)

Actually this statement reflects a lackluster understanding of textual criticism. We do actually with a great deal of certainty that the CT, which has been painstakingly reconstructed over the past 150 years, is within .0005% accuracy to the original text of every New Testament book.

This is not to say the MT is a poor manuscript, it just simply isn't the better one. It is sort of like comparing Brett Favre to Aaron Rogers. In his day Brett Favre did a wonderful job and absolutely was the best option at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. That said, Aaron Rogers is now the better quarterback and, let's be honest, Favre couldn't keep up if he wanted now. Yet comparing both quarterbacks and their strengths during the peak of their careers you can see their legitimacy as quality quarterbacks. It isn't a statement against Favre, or Rogers, to say one works better now than in the past or one was better in the past than now.

The CT is the soundest document you will encounter from a thousand years before or after its time. The textual data we have available in reconstructing it is superior to any other text during that period. We should be thankful for it and for world-class scholars who contribute to its growth and refinement.

 

[Baptist4life]

.......... is within .0005% accuracy to the original text of every New Testament book.

I really don't know how you can make that statement when you don't have the original manuscripts to compare with. You can't. How can you say "this manuscript is closer and more reliable to the original" when you don't HAVE the original.

BTW, your whole football QB analogy makes no sense.

Don't get me wrong. Use whatever version you want. I believe (my OPINION, if you will) that the TR is best. Can I state that as FACT. No. Nor do I try to. Neither should anyone make what is an unprovable statement as FACT.

 

[Amy.G]

I really don't know how you can make that statement when you don't have the original manuscripts to compare with.

I have never understood that either. I also don't understand why God would keep the "best" manuscripts hidden for 1800 years.

 

[John of Japan]

...the writers of the three synoptic gospels would write in almost the same way? They were three different personalities. They would approach the same event or speech a bit differently.

That's one of the problems I have with fans of the TR and Majority Text. They seemingly ignore the smoothing-out between the various Gospel accounts. It seems there was an effort among later scribes to try and harmonize as much as possible. While the older and more reliable manuscript authors didn't fudge and try to match things up almost verbatim with parallel accounts.

Alas, I said I would debate you about Byzantine priority after you did some reading, but I can't let this pass.

There are many places where the Alexandrian CT harmonizes but the Byzantine does not. So what do you do about those cases? Surely then, by your principles here, you should insist on the Byz. reading instead of the CT.

Of course it doesn't just occur in the synoptic Gospels only but in other parts of the New Testament. And then,there are those places where a N.T. author is quoting from the O.T. In the TR and M.T. the tendency is to make the New Testament passage match as much as possible with the quote from the O.T. But in reality even Jesus paraphrased a good deal when He made reference to an O.T.citation.

Please give examples of where Jesus "paraphrased a good deal" when quoting the OT. These general sstatements don't cut it.

 

[John of Japan]

(emphasis mine)

Actually this statement reflects a lackluster understanding of textual criticism. We do actually with a great deal of certainty that the CT, which has been painstakingly reconstructed over the past 150 years, is within .0005% accuracy to the original text of every New Testament book.

Forgive me, but this is a ridiculous statement. You pulled this .0005% statement out your hat, right? There is absolutely no way to ascertain this, and no true textual scholar has ever made a similar statement.

This is not to say the MT is a poor manuscript, it just simply isn't the better one. It is sort of like comparing Brett Favre to Aaron Rogers. In his day Brett Favre did a wonderful job and absolutely was the best option at quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. That said, Aaron Rogers is now the better quarterback and, let's be honest, Favre couldn't keep up if he wanted now. Yet comparing both quarterbacks and their strengths during the peak of their careers you can see their legitimacy as quality quarterbacks. It isn't a statement against Favre, or Rogers, to say one works better now than in the past or one was better in the past than now.

Um, the MT is not a manuscript. And in the opinion of various genuine textual critics the MT/Byzantine IS the better one, the true textform.

The CT is the soundest document you will encounter from a thousand years before or after its time. The textual data we have available in reconstructing it is superior to any other text during that period. We should be thankful for it and for world-class scholars who contribute to its growth and refinement.

Prove this please. I disagree. Convince me that the CT, done by the eclectic method, is better.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Cited From 2011 NIV

Surely then, by your principles here, you should insist on the Byz. reading instead of the CT.

There are places where the Byz. reading is superior to WH or NU. It is not a given that a CT rendering is always the best.

Please give examples of where Jesus "paraphrased a good deal" when quoting the OT. These general statements don't cut it.

It sounds like a good idea for a thread. Also I could focus on paraphrases that Paul made as well.

Here are just a few for now. They are snips --not the entire passages.

Malachi 7:6 : I will send my messenger,who will prepare the way before me.
Jesus quoted it in Matthew 11:10 as:I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way before you.

Psalm 8:2 : Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and avenger.
Jesus put it in a different way in Matthew 21:16: From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise.

Here are some examples from the writer,Matthew -- not Jesus.

Isaiah 42:1 : he will bring justice to the nations
42:4 : In his teachings the islands will put their hope
However, in Matthew 12:21 Matthew wrote: In his name the nations will put their hope.

Zechariah 9:9 : See,your king comes to you,righteous and victorious,lowly and riding on a donkey.
Matthew's paraphrase: See,your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey.

 

[Rippon]

I'd still like to see some examples to be able to compare and see with my own eyes how the gospels were changed so as to make individual accounts agree with one another more. So far, it is just opinion.

Nothing fundamental was changed with respect to altering substantial teaching.

Nonetheless,I'll start with one example for you. I'll be using Philip W. Comfort's book : New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.I will only cite portions of his information.

Matthew 17:21 : WH NU : omit verse
var/TR : add verse
But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting

"The external evidence including this verse is substantial...If the verse was originally part of Matthew's gospel,there is no good reason to explain why it was dropped from so many early and diverse witnesses. Thus, it is far more likely that this added verse was assimilated from Mark 9:29 in its long form... Thus,a scribe took the full verse of Mark 9:29 as presented in his manuscript and inserted it here;most other manuscripts maintained this insertion in the transmission of the text... The verse is included in KJV and NKJV and excluded in all other modern versions except NASB and HCSB which include the verse in brackets." (p.51)

 

[Rippon]

Nothing fundamental was changed with respect to altering substantial teaching.

Nonetheless,I'll start with one example for you. I'll be using Philip W. Comfort's book : New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.I will only cite portions of his information.

Matthew 17:21 : WH NU : omit verse
var/TR : add verse
But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting

"The external evidence against including this verse is substantial...If the verse was originally part of Matthew's gospel,there is no good reason to explain why it was dropped from so many early and diverse witnesses. Thus, it is far more likely that this added verse was assimilated from Mark 9:29 in its long form... Thus,a scribe took the full verse of Mark 9:29 as presented in his manuscript and inserted it here;most other manuscripts maintained this insertion in the transmission of the text... The verse is included in KJV and NKJV and excluded in all other modern versions except NASB and HCSB which include the verse in brackets." (p.51)

I had to make a needed correction in that first sentence.

 

[Rippon]

I have never understood that either. I also don't understand why God would keep the "best" manuscripts hidden for 1800 years.

The Lord has His reasons that mortals cannot quite fathom.

Remember king Josiah? Judah was without the Book of the Law for about 75 years when Hilkiah unearthed it during young King Josiah's reign.

The Lord has His purpose in all of this. But in the end it will all be to His glory.

I believe that even older manuscripts may be found in a few years that would certainly lend even more weight to the superiority of the Critical Texts -- basically Alexandrian.

 

[JesusFan]

Alas, I said I would debate you about Byzantine priority after you did some reading, but I can't let this pass.

There are many places where the Alexandrian CT harmonizes but the Byzantine does not. So what do you do about those cases? Surely then, by your principles here, you should insist on the Byz. reading instead of the CT.

Please give examples of where Jesus "paraphrased a good deal" when quoting the OT. These general sstatements don't cut it.

Only thing ever heard close to that was when the Apostle seem to be using a majority of times while quoting OT references their version of choice, the LXX!