An Impossible Challenge for KJVOs

[thankfulttt]

Notice the bold and underlined words. Everything you have is circumstantial, none of it discounts the standard narrative. And as I said before, your physical evidence all comes from Simonides. The "corroboration" neither confirms nor denies your theory.

What is you definition of standard narrative?

Yes it is circumstantial, but where there is smoke there is usually fire.

Look at the men that presented the base for the new translations. Your link to "Dating The Oldest New Testament Manuscripts". It states that all the new translations are based on the work of two men, Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger.

Don't know much about Kurt Aland's views other than he denied the authorship of the Gospels, and he questioned whether 1&2 John and some other books belonged in the Bible.

We know for sure that Bruce Metzger believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis was either a myth, or folk lure.

When Bruce Metzger edited the Readers Digest Bible he left out 40% and did not mark chapters and verses, which makes it difficult to know what he did leave out. Two verses that were missing is Revelation 22:18-19.

Bruce Metzger's protege was Bart Erhman who he co-authored books with.

Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger's work was based mainly on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which was provided by Hort and Tischendorf.

Hort didn't believe that the blood of Christ was sufficient to cover our sins, and was responsible for getting the Unitarian on the translating committee that stated the bible does not support the worship of Christ.

If these are facts, and they are, then they cannot be considered false propaganda.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

What is you definition of standard narrative?

Yes it is circumstantial, but where there is smoke there is usually fire.

Look at the men that presented the base for the new translations. Your link to "Dating The Oldest New Testament Manuscripts". It states that all the new translations are based on the work of two men, Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger.

Don't know much about Kurt Aland's views other than he denied the authorship of the Gospels, and he questioned whether 1&2 John and some other books belonged in the Bible.

We know for sure that Bruce Metzger believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis was either a myth, or folk lure.

When Bruce Metzger edited the Readers Digest Bible he left out 40% and did not mark chapters and verses, which makes it difficult to know what he did leave out. Two verses that were missing is Revelation 22:18-19.

Bruce Metzger's protege was Bart Erhman who he co-authored books with.

Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger's work was based mainly on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which was provided by Hort and Tischendorf.

Hort didn't believe that the blood of Christ was sufficient to cover our sins, and was responsible for getting the Unitarian on the translating committee that stated the bible does not support the worship of Christ.

If these are facts, and they are, then they cannot be considered false propaganda.

Best regards, Terry

1. The standard narrative is that the Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th-5th century text, rediscovered at Mt. Sinai Monastery in the 19th century. You evidence is all accounted for in that narrative, and it makes more sense that a known forger who had a history of failing at passing fake documents as real ones didn't actually forge the Sinaiticus. His other forgeries were spotted before they had any impact, so it makes no sense that a man who couldn't pass a single epistle forgery would be able to pass an entire collection of the Sinaiticus. It is likely, though, that seeing the Sinaiticus, he made note of a few specific identifying marks, because while he may have been a horrible forger, he was a good conman. He probably used the information he knew about the Sinaiticus to bolster his "{reputation" as a forgery artist. His skill was questionable at best.

2. A person's beliefs only has bearing on his ability as a translator if he allows his beliefs to effect his translation. I am an interpreter, and for one assignment, I had to interpret for an independent fundamentalist Baptist church. As an Orthodox Christian, I have major disagreements with Baptist theology, but I laid those aside because, as a professional, the task I was paid to do was to interpret the message. If a translator approaches texts with a professional mindset and only interprets according to the text, then his job is complete.

 

[thankfulttt]

1. The standard narrative is that the Codex Sinaiticus is a 4th-5th century text, rediscovered at Mt. Sinai Monastery in the 19th century. You evidence is all accounted for in that narrative,

So the birthplace of the standard narrative is John Fenton Hort, George Vance Smith, Bruce Metzger?

His skill was questionable at best.

Your source material for this? "Standard narrative" is not source material

2. A person's beliefs only has bearing on his ability as a translator if he allows his beliefs to effect his translation. I am an interpreter, and for one assignment, I had to interpret for an independent fundamentalist Baptist church. As an Orthodox Christian, I have major disagreements with Baptist theology, but I laid those aside because, as a professional, the task I was paid to do was to interpret the message. If a translator approaches texts with a professional mindset and only interprets according to the text, then his job is complete.

But you didn't start out with a plan to eradicate Baptists. You had taken a job, and as a good moral person was fulfilling an agreement. This was not the case with those that set out to eradicate the only English bible that was in current use. John Fenton Hort started out with the idea that the Received Text was vile. He set forth a plan to eradicate it more than twenty years before the Revised Version came to fruition.

Bruce Metzger and the N/A-UBS laid ground rules that assured that no manuscript, no matter how old, that contained the Majority Text, would be used in compiling their text.

Best regards, Terry

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Look at the men that presented the base for the new translations.

No, let’s look at the care and accuracy of their work and the appraisal of it by 99.7% of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.

Well I didn't go to Harvard, or Princeton. Lets just say I am a dummy and let it go at that.

 

[thankfulttt]

No, let’s look at the care and accuracy of their work and the appraisal of it by 99.7% of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.

And they most all quote Bruce Metzger as their main source.

Well I didn't go to Harvard, or Princeton. Lets just say I am a dummy and let it go at that.

True.

Best regards

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And they most all quote Bruce Metzger as their main source.

No, they do not! They cite his excellent work, but the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are their main source. Moreover, they leave his personal business alone.

 

[James Is Back]

Thankfulttt do you even understand the concept of Textual Criticism?

 

[thankfulttt]

Thankfulttt do you even understand the concept of Textual Criticism?

Doesn't it mean to criticize the Received Text?

When you look at these manuscripts that are declared to be the oldest it makes you wonder why men worry so much about grammar and breathings. The words are all capitalized, then run together without any punctuation. Then you have a book that was not completed ending in the middle of a line, and the next book beginning without one space, and starting on the ninth chapter. Then you add to that more than 20,000 errors. On top of that you cannot prove that all the New Testament was written in Greek.

No I don't belong to academia. Nothing wrong with education, but sometimes it makes you wonder.

Best regards, Terry

 

[thankfulttt]

No, they do not! They cite his excellent work, but the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament are their main source. Moreover, they leave his personal business alone.

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

by Peter van Minnen 1990

"Most of the work in textual criticism in the past forty years has been done by Kurt Aland in Münster and Bruce Metzger in Princeton. The latest translations of the New Testament are based on their work."

Don't know who Peter van Minnen is, but I assume he is one of your fellows.

Assuming what you say is true, then we can credit the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus as being the source for the new translations.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

Doesn't it mean to criticize the Received Text?

When you look at these manuscripts that are declared to be the oldest it makes you wonder why men worry so much about grammar and breathings. The words are all capitalized, then run together without any punctuation. Then you have a book that was not completed ending in the middle of a line, and the next book beginning without one space, and starting on the ninth chapter. Then you add to that more than 20,000 errors. On top of that you cannot prove that all the New Testament was written in Greek.

No I don't belong to academia. Nothing wrong with education, but sometimes it makes you wonder.

Best regards, Terry

you started this entire post wrong. Textual criticism approaches every text with critical thinking. It asks the following questions when it approaches all texts in translations:

1. in how many manuscripts does the reading occur?
2. what are the dates for these manuscripts?
3. in what region of the world were these manuscripts found?
4. what could have caused these varying readings?
5. which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings?

​

If a particular text has a more accurate text than others, the translator will use it, whether it comes from the Textus Receptus or from the Majority Text.

 

[sculleywr]

So the birthplace of the standard narrative is John Fenton Hort, George Vance Smith, Bruce Metzger?


Your source material for this? "Standard narrative" is not source material



But you didn't start out with a plan to eradicate Baptists. You had taken a job, and as a good moral person was fulfilling an agreement. This was not the case with those that set out to eradicate the only English bible that was in current use. John Fenton Hort started out with the idea that the Received Text was vile. He set forth a plan to eradicate it more than twenty years before the Revised Version came to fruition.

Bruce Metzger and the N/A-UBS laid ground rules that assured that no manuscript, no matter how old, that contained the Majority Text, would be used in compiling their text.

Best regards, Terry

Ummm, that's actually completely wrong.

Firstly, there isn't a single translation in the English world that uses the Majority text alone. Most use what is called the "Critical/Eclectic" method, selecting based on the questions listed in my last post.

As to Bruce and team wanting to "eradicate the only English Bible of the time", you have no evidence of that.

And the fact that Simonides had little skill with forging is based on the fact that all of his attempts were foiled. People spotted the forgeries before he could profit.

 

[thankfulttt]

Ummm, that's actually completely wrong.

Firstly, there isn't a single translation in the English world that uses the Majority text alone. Most use what is called the "Critical/Eclectic" method, selecting based on the questions listed in my last post.

There is only 1,853 textual differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority text(Bzyantine) in the complete Bible, according to Pickering. While there is 3,036 textual differences between Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus in just the Gospels alone, according to Herman C Hoskier.

So why did they eliminate all the Bzyantine text type from their work?

As to Bruce and team wanting to "eradicate the only English Bible of the time", you have no evidence of that.

Sure we do. That they chose to score all Bzyantine text in a lower category, while at the same time elevating the Alexandrian text type to number one. This assured that no text containing the Textus Receptus text type would be considered.

And the fact that Simonides had little skill with forging is based on the fact that all of his attempts were foiled. People spotted the forgeries before he could profit.

In 1853 the British Library purchased 8 manuscripts from Simonides, being numbers 19386-19393 in the Additional MSS section of the Museum. The Imperial Library at Vienna has two leaves of the Shepherd of Hermas donated to them by Simonides as an example of his work. It was received by the library in 1856.

 

[sculleywr]

There is only 1,853 textual differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority text(Bzyantine) in the complete Bible, according to Pickering. While there is 3,036 textual differences between Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus in just the Gospels alone, according to Herman C Hoskier.

So why did they eliminate all the Bzyantine text type from their work?

They didn't. They used many Byzantine texts. They didn't use ONLY Byzantine texts. And considering that the Textus Receptus is from the 1500s, it's a weak text at best.

Sure we do. That they chose to score all Bzyantine text in a lower category, while at the same time elevating the Alexandrian text type to number one. This assured that no text containing the Textus Receptus text type would be considered.

Wrong. They didn't dole out scores based on "This is Byzantine and this is not." They scored them based on age, veracity, and the amount of cultural effect. And since nobody used the Majority text as the basis of their translation, there is no argument there. The Alexandrian text comes from the same churches from which the canon of Scripture came.

In 1853 the British Library purchased 8 manuscripts from Simonides, being numbers 19386-19393 in the Additional MSS section of the Museum. The Imperial Library at Vienna has two leaves of the Shepherd of Hermas donated to them by Simonides as an example of his work. It was received by the library in 1856.

And they knew it was his own work, not the work of the ancients.

 

[thankfulttt]

They didn't. They used many Byzantine texts. They didn't use ONLY Byzantine texts. And considering that the Textus Receptus is from the 1500s, it's a weak text at best.

If the Alexandrian text differed in any way from the Byzantine, they used the Alexandrian text.

Wrong. They didn't dole out scores based on "This is Byzantine and this is not." They scored them based on age, veracity, and the amount of cultural effect. And since nobody used the Majority text as the basis of their translation, there is no argument there. The Alexandrian text comes from the same churches from which the canon of Scripture came.

Only Alexandrian texts were rated in class one.

And they knew it was his own work, not the work of the ancients.

Of all the manuscripts bought by the British Library Simonides never claimed any of them as his own; but were they?

 

[sculleywr]

If the Alexandrian text differed in any way from the Byzantine, they used the Alexandrian text.



Only Alexandrian texts were rated in class one.

The Alexandrian texts are older, dude. There's a definite reason to use them. However, they only translated one Bible. What about the SAAS? or any number of translations other than that one? There is no one critical text. There is only a method for critically selecting texts based on antiquity and accuracy.

 

[thankfulttt]

The Alexandrian texts are older, dude. There's a definite reason to use them. However, they only translated one Bible. What about the SAAS? or any number of translations other than that one? There is no one critical text. There is only a method for critically selecting texts based on antiquity and accuracy.

They did not consider age in the classification. It only had to be Alexandrian.

They used only Greek manuscripts, which is 20% of all available manuscripts. 19% of the 20% were Alexandrian. That works out to only 3.8% of all available manuscripts. Of the 3.8% the majority are fragments with a few words visible. This is were the material for the new translations came from. They did not consider that any original letter was written in anything but Greek.

 

[sculleywr]

They did not consider age in the classification. It only had to be Alexandrian.

They used only Greek manuscripts, which is 20% of all available manuscripts. 19% of the 20% were Alexandrian. That works out to only 3.8% of all available manuscripts. Of the 3.8% the majority are fragments with a few words visible. This is were the material for the new translations came from. They did not consider that any original letter was written in anything but Greek.

It's your word against every source I can find describing the Critical Method of text selection.

As far as the New Testament goes, the majority of it was originally written in Greek, with portions that MIGHT have been written in Aramaic, though there is no solid evidence to actually state that as solid fact. The Critical Text relies heavily on P45 as well, which includes everything except James, Jude and Revelation.

In either case, not only do you have to establish the existence of errors in the text, you have to show that these errors are actually endangering Christian doctrine. This is harder to do when you're trying to show this to a person who doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura. These errors are only dangerous if you treat the Bible like the Qur'an. I don't treat the Bible that way.

 

[thankfulttt]

It's your word against every source I can find describing the Critical Method of text selection.

You take the text that the King James translators mostly followed and give it a bottom reading of V. You do this if you consider the King James Bible vile, and want to get rid of it. By giving the Alexandrian text a premier rating of I, you assure yourself that only the Alexandrian text will be used in your Greek text.

Text type Catagories

New Testament Manuscripts in Greek are categorized into five groups, according to a scheme introduced in 1981 by Kurt and Barbara Aland in Der Text des Neuen Testaments

1 Description of categories
1.1 Category I – Alexandrian
1.2 Category II – Egyptian
1.3 Category III – Eclectic
1.4 Category IV – Western
1.5 Category V – Byzantine

This is the system the NA/UBS translators used. Then they got to vote on what was actually in the text using the Alexandrian manuscripts.

You don't believe there is any bias here?

As far as the New Testament goes, the majority of it was originally written in Greek, with portions that MIGHT have been written in Aramaic, though there is no solid evidence to actually state that as solid fact. The Critical Text relies heavily on P45 as well, which includes everything except James, Jude and Revelation.

According to Wikipedia this is what P45 contains.

(two of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and 13 of Acts). All of the pages have lacunae(Gaps), with very few lines complete. According to Wikipedia there is only 30 fragmented partial pages.

You state it includes everything except James, Jude and Revelation. Do you have evidence that contradicts Wikipedia? I do not believe everything in Wikipedia, but they are right sometimes.

Best regards Terry

 

[Unix]

thankfulttt, what do You think of Wilbur N. Pickering New Testament Collection (2 vols.)? $21.95 on pre-pub in freeware Bible Study software:

According to Wikipedia this is what P45 contains.

(two of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and 13 of Acts). All of the pages have lacunae(Gaps), with very few lines complete. According to Wikipedia there is only 30 fragmented partial pages.

You state it includes everything except James, Jude and Revelation. Do you have evidence that contradicts Wikipedia?

 

[thankfulttt]

sculleywr,

Here is an an example of the text of Matthew from p45.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._25.41-46.jpg/200px-P45_Matthieu_25.41-46.jpg