The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[OzSpen]

never mind. its just not worth it

You did mind by at least this kind of reply.

Your message to me at #774 was:

God Bless

Till all are one​

That cannot be achieved with a 'never mind ... just not worth it' attitude to me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Since Bruce Metzger is theologically liberal and a disciple of Westcott & Hort, you can certainly expect him to promote the errors of W&H. They concocted a fantastic theory which was a complete fabrication.

Seems like you are pushing another agenda and your language of 'complete fabrication' sure sounds like extremist language - hyperbole.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since Bruce Metzger is theologically liberal and a disciple of Westcott & Hort, you can certainly expect him to promote the errors of W&H. They concocted a fantastic theory which was a complete fabrication. Burgon exposed their lies and Metzger simply ignored Burgon and Scrivener. Scrivener wrote the textbook on textual criticism (of which I have a copy) and confirmed Burgon's conclusions. Read and study The Revision Revised (1883) as well as A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener (1894) and you will discover that Metzger and his allies have been leading people down the garden path.

I also have a photo copy of Scrivener's book. (Vol.1 and Vol. 2)

I disagree, in that if we follow that line of thought, "Scrivener wrote the textbook on textual criticism", one would say that all research in the area of "textual criticism" should have stopped altogether in 1894!

As late as 1894, there were roughly some 3700 MSS to have known that existed.

We now know that there are some 5700 MSS.

So how can one say that Scrivener's work is "the textbook on textual criticism"?

And that everybody since then, are essentially "liberals".

We also know that even though Scrivener was aware of "variants", in some places he "improvised".

For example, in Heb.10:23, instead of using "pistos" Scrivener went with elpidos. However, the word pistos was documented by earlier commentators as being extant in the manuscripts of their day.

Thank God for men like E.Colwell, J. Hernandez, and others who dare to think outside "the textbook on textual criticism"

But it is also funny to note that since 1894, it is now know that as many as 18 editors are known to have made corrections to the Codex "D".

"One scribe is responsible for the initial text of Codex Bezae. Eighteen other scribes are involved in corrections and/or lextionary notes, ranging in date from the fifth to seventh centuries (and the supplemental material in the ninth centuries."

-Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi, Bezae, Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Gregory Scott Paulson, A dissertation submitted to the University of Edinburg, Newollege in the Candidacy for the degrtee of Doctor of Philosophy, Edinburg, UK, 2013, Chapter Five, Codex Bezae, 5.1.1 The Scribe, Correctors, and Bazae's Provenance, p83, (n11-Parker, Codex Bezae, 48-49)

The Codex Bezae was used primarily for what book of the Bible?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

If "Scrivener's Introduction is the textbook on textual criticism", then it reminds me of a quote from the movie "Planet of the Apes:

"Why must knowledge stand still?"

Given that one statement, then thank God medical science did not follow it. If they had, we'd still be having barbers "bloodletting".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Job8]

Seems like you are pushing another agenda and your language of 'complete fabrication' sure sounds like extremist language - hyperbole.

Why not study The Revision Revised for yourself and discover that "complete fabrication" is precise and accurate? Burgon had some even stronger words, and he spoke from firsthand knowledge. Both he and Scrivener actually collated manuscripts, unlike many today.

You will also note in The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur N. Pickering that many scholars such as Hoskier, Colwell, Zuntz and others have confirmed what Burgon and Scrivener had already pointed out -- that the theory of Westcott and Hort is "made up of a series of PURELY GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTIONS" and "is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands" (The Revision Revised, p. 277).

And in response to Deacon Dean, while knowledge does not stand still, there has been nothing since the 19th century to prove that the TR is not the most reliable text. And that's the bottom line. Yet even today (with revisions such as the ESV) the ideas of W&H, Nestle, Aland, etc. continue to prevail in spite of the fact that they have no foundation whatsoever. Which shows that ultimately this is a spiritual battle.

 

[mikedsjr]

Job8 , what do you get out of the kjv and believe I don't from my ESV? For you to have such a stance, you must have a dividing line of belief between who is and isn't a Christian.

 

[OzSpen]

Why not study The Revision Revised for yourself and discover that "complete fabrication" is precise and accurate? Burgon had some even stronger words, and he spoke from firsthand knowledge. Both he and Scrivener actually collated manuscripts, unlike many today.

You will also note in The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur N. Pickering that many scholars such as Hoskier, Colwell, Zuntz and others have confirmed what Burgon and Scrivener had already pointed out -- that the theory of Westcott and Hort is "made up of a series of PURELY GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTIONS" and "is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands" (The Revision Revised, p. 277).

And in response to Deacon Dean, while knowledge does not stand still, there has been nothing since the 19th century to prove that the TR is not the most reliable text. And that's the bottom line. Yet even today (with revisions such as the ESV) the ideas of W&H, Nestle, Aland, etc. continue to prevail in spite of the fact that they have no foundation whatsoever. Which shows that ultimately this is a spiritual battle.

I have already studied that and have come to different conclusion to yours. I do not support the superiority of the Textus Receptus and I do not support your name calling of the theory of Westcott & Hort as containing 'purely gratuitous assumptions'.

Seems like you have concluded that the assumptions of Burgon and Scrivener are more to your liking. I disagree.

 

[OzSpen]

If "Scrivener's Introduction is the textbook on textual criticism", then it reminds me of a quote from the movie "Planet of the Apes:

"Why must knowledge stand still?"

Given that one statement, then thank God medical science did not follow it. If they had, we'd still be having barbers "bloodletting".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Well said, Dean!

 

[DeaconDean]

Why not study The Revision Revised for yourself and discover that "complete fabrication" is precise and accurate? Burgon had some even stronger words, and he spoke from firsthand knowledge. Both he and Scrivener actually collated manuscripts, unlike many today.

You will also note in The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur N. Pickering that many scholars such as Hoskier, Colwell, Zuntz and others have confirmed what Burgon and Scrivener had already pointed out -- that the theory of Westcott and Hort is "made up of a series of PURELY GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTIONS" and "is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands" (The Revision Revised, p. 277).

And in response to Deacon Dean, while knowledge does not stand still, there has been nothing since the 19th century to prove that the TR is not the most reliable text. And that's the bottom line. Yet even today (with revisions such as the ESV) the ideas of W&H, Nestle, Aland, etc. continue to prevail in spite of the fact that they have no foundation whatsoever. Which shows that ultimately this is a spiritual battle.

You know, its funny.

Wilber Pickering and others, such as Zane Hodges are well know for their stance on The Byzantine Text and KJV Only.

Would it help to say that I have Wilber Pickering's dissertation? And that I don't agree with it?

Would it also help to say that Zane Hodges has been taken to task in debates that can be found on the internet by Gordon Fee?

Suffice to say, anybody who disagrees with the TR or the Byzantine text, or men like Colwell, Hernandez, or others who have paved the way in studies on "Scribal Habits", can and most likely be labled "liberals".

It's not a "spiritual" battle, its a battle of shaking the "status quo".

And...its shows the KJV onlyism battle is alive and doing quite well in the 21st century.

IMHO, this is just like the scribes and Pharisees of the first century. Saying don't for answers outside what we tell you, we have the truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

You know, its funny.

Wilber Pickering and others, such as Zane Hodges are well know for their stance on The Byzantine Text and KJV Only.

Would it help to say that I have Wilber Pickering's dissertation? And that I don't agree with it?

Would it also help to say that Zane Hodges has been taken to task in debates that can be found on the internet by Gordon Fee?

Suffice to say, anybody who disagrees with the TR or the Byzantine text, or men like Colwell, Hernandez, or others who have paved the way in studies on "Scribal Habits", can and most likely be labled "liberals".

It's not a "spiritual" battle, its a battle of shaking the "status quo".

And...its shows the KJV onlyism battle is alive and doing quite well in the 21st century.

IMHO, this is just like the scribes and Pharisees of the first century. Saying don't for answers outside what we tell you, we have the truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

That's an excellent observation. Thanks for this insight that you've shared.

 

[DeaconDean]

That's an excellent observation. Thanks for this insight that you've shared.

My biggest problem with Wilber Pickering is, reading his dissertation, he really don't address textual criticism per se.

He does, however, attack the methods, rather having us stay "in the dark" so to speak.

Here is what Pickering argues for, basically, he would discard any Alexandrian text because of the shorter text. (cf Pickering,The Identity of the New Testament Text, pp. 79-83).

He says: "the fullness‘ of the Traditional Text, rather than a proof of inferiority, emerges as a point in its favor." Ibid pp. 83

Not once does he suggest that the shorter reading is at times to be preferred or that the Byzantine text-type contains shorter readings.

"Gordon Fee, who is widely recognized as a competent scholar in the field of textual criticism, has subjected Pickering's work to a close examination in a series of articles, and Fee's articles should be read by any student who has read Pickering's book. In my opinion, Fee shows that Pickering's arguments are badly flawed. This view of Pickering's work is also shared by the one scholar who might have been willing and able to defend it successfully, Maurice Robinson."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

Funny also is the statement Pickering said in his article on Burgeon:

"God has preserved the text of the New Testament in a very pure form and it has been readily available to His followers in every age throughout 1900 years."

https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism#_ftn47

The article goes further to say:

"There are two fundamental problems with this view.

First, assuming that the majority text (as opposed to the TR) is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.48 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings which have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings which depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.49 Many of these passages are theologically significant texts.50 Yet virtually no one had access to any other text from 1516 to 1881, a period of over 350 years. In light of this, it is difficult to understand what Pickering means when he says that this pure text “has been readily available to [God’s] followers in every age throughout 1900 years.”51

48 Pickering states, “In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus have been the best available up to now. In 1982 Thomas Nelson Publishers brought out a critical edition of the Traditional Text (Majority, “Byzantine”) under the editorship of Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and others which while not definitive will prove to be very close to the final product, I believe. In it we have an excellent interim Greek Text to use until the full and final story can be told” (Identity, 150).

49 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 100.

50 Cf., in particular, 1 John 5:7–8 and Rev. 22:19.

51 To be sure, Pickering was unaware that there would be that many differences between the TR and Majority Text when he wrote this note. Originally, his estimate was between 500 and 1,000 differences (“Burgon,” 120). But in light of the 2,000 differences, “purity” becomes such an elastic term that, in the least, it is removed from being a doctrinal consideration.

https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism

Further, Maurice Robinson says:

"Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner."

Maurice Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority

One could say, he argues against Pickering saying:

"The Byzantine-priority principles reflect a "reasoned transmissionalism" which evaluates internal and external evidence in the light of transmissional probabilities. This approach emphasizes the effect of scribal habits in preserving, altering, or otherwise corrupting the text, the recognition of transmissional development leading to family and texttype groupings, and the ongoing maintenance of the text in its general integrity as demonstrated within our critical apparatuses."

Ibid, point 25

Pickering would have no part of this.

I don't see how anybody except the most serious of the KJV onlyists can take Wilber Pickering seriously.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

My biggest problem with Wilber Pickering is, reading his dissertation, he really don't address textual criticism per se.

He does, however, attack the methods, rather having us stay "in the dark" so to speak.

Here is what Pickering argues for, basically, he would discard any Alexandrian text because of the shorter text. (cf Pickering,The Identity of the New Testament Text, pp. 79-83).

He says: "the fullness‘ of the Traditional Text, rather than a proof of inferiority, emerges as a point in its favor." Ibid pp. 83

Not once does he suggest that the shorter reading is at times to be preferred or that the Byzantine text-type contains shorter readings.

"Gordon Fee, who is widely recognized as a competent scholar in the field of textual criticism, has subjected Pickering's work to a close examination in a series of articles, and Fee's articles should be read by any student who has read Pickering's book. In my opinion, Fee shows that Pickering's arguments are badly flawed. This view of Pickering's work is also shared by the one scholar who might have been willing and able to defend it successfully, Maurice Robinson."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

Funny also is the statement Pickering said in his article on Burgeon:

"God has preserved the text of the New Testament in a very pure form and it has been readily available to His followers in every age throughout 1900 years."

https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism#_ftn47

The article goes further to say:

"There are two fundamental problems with this view.

First, assuming that the majority text (as opposed to the TR) is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.48 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings which have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings which depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.49 Many of these passages are theologically significant texts.50 Yet virtually no one had access to any other text from 1516 to 1881, a period of over 350 years. In light of this, it is difficult to understand what Pickering means when he says that this pure text “has been readily available to [God’s] followers in every age throughout 1900 years.”51

48 Pickering states, “In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus have been the best available up to now. In 1982 Thomas Nelson Publishers brought out a critical edition of the Traditional Text (Majority, “Byzantine”) under the editorship of Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and others which while not definitive will prove to be very close to the final product, I believe. In it we have an excellent interim Greek Text to use until the full and final story can be told” (Identity, 150).

49 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 100.

50 Cf., in particular, 1 John 5:7–8 and Rev. 22:19.

51 To be sure, Pickering was unaware that there would be that many differences between the TR and Majority Text when he wrote this note. Originally, his estimate was between 500 and 1,000 differences (“Burgon,” 120). But in light of the 2,000 differences, “purity” becomes such an elastic term that, in the least, it is removed from being a doctrinal consideration.

https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism

Further, Maurice Robinson says:

"Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner."

Maurice Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority

One could say, he argues against Pickering saying:

"The Byzantine-priority principles reflect a "reasoned transmissionalism" which evaluates internal and external evidence in the light of transmissional probabilities. This approach emphasizes the effect of scribal habits in preserving, altering, or otherwise corrupting the text, the recognition of transmissional development leading to family and texttype groupings, and the ongoing maintenance of the text in its general integrity as demonstrated within our critical apparatuses."

Ibid, point 25

Pickering would have no part of this.

I don't see how anybody except the most serious of the KJV onlyists can take Wilber Pickering seriously.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

Again, you have articulated a summary of the issues well between the Byzantine text-type underlying the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Greek NT, vs the earlier Alexandrian text-type.

There are practical issues that I encounter with KJVers and their promotion of the TR. They use the later TR as the standard by which to judge what has been excluded from the Alexandrian type - and they use Rev 22:19 to support their views. Interestingly, some of them forget about Rev 22:18. However, we know in context that Rev 22:18-19 refers to the Book of Revelation only.

It gets to the point where one cannot have a rational conversation with them about textual criticism without accusations about Bruce Metzger not being a Christian and the 'demonic' influence of Westcott & Hort.

I wonder what they think of Gordon Fee, a contemporary Pentecostal evangelical, and his extensive work on exegesis of the NT and textual criticism.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

Again, you have articulated a summary of the issues well between the Byzantine text-type underlying the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Greek NT, vs the earlier Alexandrian text-type.

There are practical issues that I encounter with KJVers and their promotion of the TR. They use the later TR as the standard by which to judge what has been excluded from the Alexandrian type - and they use Rev 22:19 to support their views. Interestingly, some of them forget about Rev 22:18. However, we know in context that Rev 22:18-19 refers to the Book of Revelation only.

It gets to the point where one cannot have a rational conversation with them about textual criticism without accusations about Bruce Metzger not being a Christian and the 'demonic' influence of Westcott & Hort.

I wonder what they think of Gordon Fee, a contemporary Pentecostal evangelical, and his extensive work on exegesis of the NT and textual criticism.

Oz

I have found Gordon Fee's dissertation "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism" very "enlightening". (Have you read this one?)

And, I have found G. S. Paulson's dissertation on the first five Codex's in the Gospel of Matthew to be very good also. (Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew)

I have also turned my attention to other areas that include "Scribal Habits" which also play into this.

It really is a shame that some would have go back some hundred and twenty years and stay there.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was taught to read all I could get my hands on. Even to read those who I disagree with, that way I could come to my own conclusions.

One of the hardest things for me to do was to read Pickering's dissertation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

I have found Gordon Fee's dissertation "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism" very "enlightening". (Have you read this one?)

And, I have found G. S. Paulson's dissertation on the first five Codex's in the Gospel of Matthew to be very good also. (Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew)

I have also turned my attention to other areas that include "Scribal Habits" which also play into this.

It really is a shame that some would have go back some hundred and twenty years and stay there.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No, I haven't read Fee's dissertation. I admire his work, have his commentaries on 1 Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, God's Empowering Presence, etc.

My dissertation topic has been on the historical Jesus and J D Crossan's postmodern and other presuppositions on Jesus' resurrection. That has occupied most of my study time over the last 5 years (dissertation-only in the British system).

I come to forums like this for some lighter discussion. Working on methodology, analysis of presuppositions, etc has been a hard slog but it is now over and I have to work on lots of journal articles and a book based on some aspects of the thesis.

However, textual criticism (TC) is an area I have paid some attention to, but need more. Folks at my local church level have no interest in TC so it's a lonely experience to even begin discussion with them. Even my pastor is a TR advocate, but he does use the NIV, NASB and ESV for some of his supportive Bible references in his sermons. He's an excellent expositor.

What are driving your present interests in this TC area?

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

No, I haven't read Fee's dissertation. I admire his work, have his commentaries on 1 Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, God's Empowering Presence, etc.

My dissertation topic has been on the historical Jesus and J D Crossan's postmodern and other presuppositions on Jesus' resurrection. That has occupied most of my study time over the last 5 years (dissertation-only in the British system).

I come to forums like this for some lighter discussion. Working on methodology, analysis of presuppositions, etc has been a hard slog but it is now over and I have to work on lots of journal articles and a book based on some aspects of the thesis.

However, textual criticism (TC) is an area I have paid some attention to, but need more. Folks at my local church level have no interest in TC so it's a lonely experience to even begin discussion with them. Even my pastor is a TR advocate, but he does use the NIV, NASB and ESV for some of his supportive Bible references in his sermons. He's an excellent expositor.

What are driving your present interests in this TC area?

Oz

Basically, it started out as an argument against the KJVO crowd, but it has grown.

It first started when I took Greek and started comparing it against the KJV.

Here is a like to Fee's dissertation: http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1806

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

Basically, it started out as an argument against the KJVO crowd, but it has grown.

It first started when I took Greek and started comparing it against the KJV.

Here is a like to Fee's dissertation: http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1806

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thanks Dean for the link. Unfortunately, I'm not able to connect. It timed out. But that may have more to do with my provider who has 'shaped' my internet use as I've reached my peak limit for the month with 12 days to go before it renews. I've been having trouble in the last couple of days with my provider.

I'll keep a note of where to locate it. I note that it is on Dr Larry Hurtado's blog page. It was August 1975 that I took my first stumbling Introduction to Greek course at Regent College, Vancouver, Canada with Hurtado as the teacher. For me that has precious memories from 40 years ago.

Oz

 

[FredVB]

We don't have access to the autographa (perhaps we would worship them if we had them). We only have access to copies of the autographa. My son was in London recently for work and he visited the British Museum where he saw one of those copies, portion of Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from the middle of the 4th century.
Much of the preservation is in scraps (portions) of MSS copies. The late Bruce Metzger, one of the finest textual examiners and critics of the 20th century, has noted that there are 'approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the new Testament'. Two of the most important papyrus manuscripts of the NT are those by Chester Beatty of London, now in the Beatty Museum in Dublin, and Martin Bodmer of Geneva.
P45, the first of the Chester Beatty biblical papyri, comprise portions of 30 leaves of papyri. Originally, the codex consisted of 220 leaves (10 x 8 inches), containing 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts. 'Today Matthew and John are the least well preserved' (Metzger 1992:36-37).
Various types of text are in Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Koine or Byzantine forms of the text.
It's amazing that God has preserved these texts in this fashion so that we can arrive at Septuagint (LXX) OT and Greek NT texts that led to other ancient and now modern translations.

Yes, it is really showing God's work, such preservation would not be expected, nor is it seen with any other ancient works anywhere near the times in which the Bible was written. As I was saying, the testimony to what the original writings, the autographa, were saying is preserved. This did not mean the autographa are still available to us, clearly they are not. But what was said in them is preserved with such testimony to them, from all the manuscripts. Certainly this miraculous circumstance of all manuscripts goes way beyond the Textus Receptus.

 

[Goodbook]

I dont know if the ten commandments are still written on stone somwhere but presumbaly they were in the ark of covenant which has now mysteriously disappeared. Im sure they are preserved somewhere that people dont know about.

 

[mikedsjr]

I dont know if the ten commandments are still written on stone somwhere but presumbaly they were in the ark of covenant which has now mysteriously disappeared. Im sure they are preserved somewhere that people dont know about.

I know where the ark will return. In the Temple in Heaven (Rev 11:19). So it could already be there in heaven with the ark.