Biblical Criticism

[Leaf473]

The Traditional text is what is most quoted by the early Church fathers, and shows the most usage throughout Church history, which is why it makes up the 'majority' of existing Greek manuscripts. Although those Greek texts of the Alexandrian type are older, they are few in number, showing less usage by the Church, and thus less favored.

Okay... but... who decides who's an early Church Father and who's an early church heretic?

They also omit many NT verses and words that exist in the Traditional text.

Well, again, one group is omitting or the other group is adding

See this...

Thanks for the video, but... It's almost 3 hours long? Can you summarize it?

 

[Davy]

Okay... but... who decides who's an early Church Father and who's an early church heretic?

Simple. God's Word as written does. Do you know it? If not, why not?

For example, in the 2nd century A.D., the Gnostics crept into the Christian Church and pushed Greek philosophy joined with Christian doctrine. How would one recognize their false doctrine? For example, they didn't believe Lord Jesus actually died on the cross, but that His disciples took Him down beforehand, and that He married and had children, and had a long life. Which source would you believe if you lived back then, their's or Christ's Apostles of the 1st century A.D.?

The 2nd century A.D. is also when the doctrine called Amillennialism crept into the Church. The Amill theory is a doctrine from men that rejects that there will be a future "thousand years" reign by Christ. Yet a "thousand years" reign is specifically written in God's Word in Revelation 20. So who you gonna' believe?

It all boils down to how knowledgeable we are in God's written Word.

Well, again, one group is omitting or the other group is adding

Thanks for the video, but... It's almost 3 hours long? Can you summarize it?

Can I summarize that video? No, not really. It seems difficult to listen to because it is offering so much documented proof of what they are saying. And that's just the way it is when heeding real scholarship. There's a pay-off for those who stick with it.

 

[Leaf473]

Simple. God's Word as written does. Do you know it? If not, why not?

For example, in the 2nd century A.D., the Gnostics crept into the Christian Church and pushed Greek philosophy joined with Christian doctrine. How would one recognize their false doctrine? For example, they didn't believe Lord Jesus actually died on the cross, but that His disciples took Him down beforehand, and that He married and had children, and had a long life. Which source would you believe if you lived back then, their's or Christ's Apostles of the 1st century A.D.?

The 2nd century A.D. is also when the doctrine called Amillennialism crept into the Church. The Amill theory is a doctrine from men that rejects that there will be a future "thousand years" reign by Christ. Yet a "thousand years" reign is specifically written in God's Word in Revelation 20. So who you gonna' believe?

It all boils down to how knowledgeable we are in God's written Word.


Can I summarize that video? No, not really. It seems difficult to listen to because it is offering so much documented proof of what they are saying. And that's just the way it is when heeding real scholarship. There's a pay-off for those who stick with it.

Well... How about infant baptism? Can someone who endorses that be an early Church Father?

Infant Baptism — Church Fathers

www.churchfathers.org

 

[Davy]

Well... How about infant baptism? Can someone who endorses that be an early Church Father?

Infant Baptism — Church Fathers

www.churchfathers.org

Apostle Paul warned that after he was gone, there would be false doctrine creeping into the Church, and even false ones leading believers astray (see Acts 20). So you should look into that early history if you want to know who had what doctrines in the early Church.

 

[Leaf473]

Apostle Paul warned that after he was gone, there would be false doctrine creeping into the Church, and even false ones leading believers astray (see Acts 20). So you should look into that early history if you want to know who had what doctrines in the early Church.

Well, since the early church fathers sometimes held ideas we might not agree with, maybe their use of the traditional text is not conclusive then.

Have a good one, Davy my man!

 

[Davy]

Well, since the early church fathers sometimes held ideas we might not agree with, maybe their use of the traditional text is not conclusive then.

Have a good one, Davy my man!

That kind of thinking is exactly the problem today. Many just take whatever others say 'hook-line-and-sinker' without checking them out. Those have themselves to blame for their deception.

 

[Leaf473]

That kind of thinking is exactly the problem today. Many just take whatever others say 'hook-line-and-sinker' without checking them out. Those have themselves to blame for their deception.

So... We shouldn't take the early church fathers into account when evaluating the traditional text?

 

[Davy]

So... We shouldn't take the early church fathers into account when evaluating the traditional text?

Many scholars have, so your point is still moot.

My point is, if you study Scripture for yourself and notice one of the early Church fathers strayed on a point, like you've said, then who do YOU believe? I mean, why in the world would you think the Scripture is corrupt just because that one Church father strayed? Origen in Alexandria would be a good example, as he was excommunicated for his heretical over-philosophical-allegorical views of God's Word.

Furthermore as I have said, the Greek Majority texts show the MOST COMMON and WIDEST USAGE, which means that's what the majority of the early Church relied most upon.

 

[Leaf473]

Many scholars have, so your point is still moot.

My point is, if you study Scripture for yourself and notice one of the early Church fathers strayed on a point, like you've said, then who do YOU believe? I mean, why in the world would you think the Scripture is corrupt just because that one Church father strayed? Origen in Alexandria would be a good example, as he was excommunicated for his heretical over-philosophical-allegorical views of God's Word.

Furthermore as I have said, the Greek Majority texts show the MOST COMMON and WIDEST USAGE, which means that's what the majority of the early Church relied most upon.

I'm not sure if I'm following you or not. If we say we should use the majority text because that's what the early church fathers used, but some of those fathers were wrong, then we have to evaluate each father to see if their doctrine was okay before we would count which text they used.

Also, I'm not sure, but are you using the idea that if the majority of the early church endorsed something, then it must be right?

And also, does that hold true today? I think the majority of the church is Catholic / Eastern Orthodox.

Good to hear from you again, my brother

 

[Davy]

I'm not sure if I'm following you or not. If we say we should use the majority text because that's what the early church fathers used, but some of those fathers were wrong, then we have to evaluate each father to see if their doctrine was okay before we would count which text they used.

That still does not work, because of your phrase I put in bold-underline.

I'll give you an example. I often also use the 19th century British Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger's KJV study Bible he put together. His side margin notes are not like modern study Bibles that you can buy based on the denomination doctrines one likes. Bullinger's scholarship was excellent, but was his understanding perfect? No, of course not.

For example, Bullinger, who lived in the late 1880's had fallen into John Darby's false pre-trib rapture theory, as it was very popular in Bullinger's day in Britian. I consider understanding Christ's Olivet discourse about His declaration of His return to gather His Church immediately AFTER... the tribulation as very simple to understand. Jesus didn't pull any punches with that, no parable, just straight up, that He returns AFTER the tribulation, and not before the tribulation.

So Bullinger, having been the excellent Bible scholar of both Hebrew and Greek, how could he miss what Lord Jesus said that He comes after the tribulation??

And since I really like Bullinger's work he did in The Companion Bible (a KJV Bible with study notes) he put together, does that mean I'm going to deem all his work as corrupt? No, of course not. Nor am I going to believe his side margin belief of a pre-trib rapture theory that he stated, because I well understood what my Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27.

Therefore, understand God's Word as written from asking God's help by The Holy Spirit. And 'verify' what others teach. And just because someone may cover a Biblical matter that we don't agree with, that doesn't always mean they are in error, but that it just hasn't yet been revealed to us by The Holy Spirit. However, simple Scripture, like what Jesus showed about the time of His future return to gather His saints, that is not a Scripture to question, because it so direct, and not in parable form.

 

[Leaf473]

That still does not work, because of your phrase I put in bold-underline.

I'll give you an example. I often also use the 19th century British Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger's KJV study Bible he put together. His side margin notes are not like modern study Bibles that you can buy based on the denomination doctrines one likes. Bullinger's scholarship was excellent, but was his understanding perfect? No, of course not.

For example, Bullinger, who lived in the late 1880's had fallen into John Darby's false pre-trib rapture theory, as it was very popular in Bullinger's day in Britian. I consider understanding Christ's Olivet discourse about His declaration of His return to gather His Church immediately AFTER... the tribulation as very simple to understand. Jesus didn't pull any punches with that, no parable, just straight up, that He returns AFTER the tribulation, and not before the tribulation.

So Bullinger, having been the excellent Bible scholar of both Hebrew and Greek, how could he miss what Lord Jesus said that He comes after the tribulation??

And since I really like Bullinger's work he did in The Companion Bible (a KJV Bible with study notes) he put together, does that mean I'm going to deem all his work as corrupt? No, of course not. Nor am I going to believe his side margin belief of a pre-trib rapture theory that he stated, because I well understood what my Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27.

Therefore, understand God's Word as written from asking God's help by The Holy Spirit. And 'verify' what others teach. And just because someone may cover a Biblical matter that we don't agree with, that doesn't always mean they are in error, but that it just hasn't yet been revealed to us by The Holy Spirit. However, simple Scripture, like what Jesus showed about the time of His future return to gather His saints, that is not a Scripture to question, because it so direct, and not in parable form.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not following you. Is the idea that we follow the majority when it comes to which text to use, but not on other things?

 

[Davy]

I'm sorry, but I'm still not following you. Is the idea that we follow the majority when it comes to which text to use, but not on other things?

I don't understand what you are asking. Did you read my previous example in my previous post?

 

[Leaf473]

I don't understand what you are asking. Did you read my previous example in my previous post?

Well, I think we were talking about why use the majority text.

And what I've heard so far, and I could easily be misunderstanding this, is: follow the majority of people, but also realize that they could be wrong.

Is that what you're saying so far?

 

[Davy]

Well, I think we were talking about why use the majority text.

And what I've heard so far, and I could easily be misunderstanding this, is: follow the majority of people, but also realize that they could be wrong.

Is that what you're saying so far?

Nope, not what I have said.

 

[Leaf473]

Nope, not what I have said.

Okay... Well, if you're interested, we can start over, so to speak.

I had asked this

Thanks! You may have talked about this already, but what lead you to believe that the Traditional text is the right one?

And what's your answer, if you still want to talk about it? Is it that the traditional text is the right one because it's what most people use? Or have used in the past?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The Traditional text is what is most quoted by the early Church fathers, and shows the most usage throughout Church history, which is why it makes up the 'majority' of existing Greek manuscripts. Although those Greek texts of the Alexandrian type are older, they are few in number, showing less usage by the Church, and thus less favored. They also omit many NT verses and words that exist in the Traditional text.

Then, we had the discovery of P66 [110-150 C.E.] and P75 [175-225 C.E.], which now shows us that the Alexandrian text-type goes back to an archetype that dates early in the second century.

What Makes the Alexandrian Manuscripts that Make Up All Modern Bibles Superior to the Byzantine Manuscripts of the KJV and NKJV? - Christian Publishing House Blog

In the days of Westcott and Hort, the argument was that the Alexandrian scribes removed what we have in the Byzantine manuscripts, while the other argument was that the Byzantine scribes added and altered. How could we ever solve it once and for all?

christianpublishinghouse.co

 

[Davy]

Then, we had the discovery of P66 [110-150 C.E.] and P75 [175-225 C.E.], which now shows us that the Alexandrian text-type goes back to an archetype that dates early in the second century.

What Makes the Alexandrian Manuscripts that Make Up All Modern Bibles Superior to the Byzantine Manuscripts of the KJV and NKJV? - Christian Publishing House Blog

In the days of Westcott and Hort, the argument was that the Alexandrian scribes removed what we have in the Byzantine manuscripts, while the other argument was that the Byzantine scribes added and altered. How could we ever solve it once and for all?

christianpublishinghouse.co

Oldest still does NOT... mean the best, which was my point.

The most common text used reveals the widest agreement of the early Church on text, and that is why the Traditional Majority Greek text make up the 'majority' of New Testament manuscripts, even though it means today we only have copies that go back to around the 4 century A.D.

 

[Leaf473]

Oldest still does NOT... mean the best, which was my point.

The most common text used reveals the widest agreement of the early Church on text, and that is why the Traditional Majority Greek text make up the 'majority' of New Testament manuscripts, even though it means today we only have copies that go back to around the 4 century A.D.

And that's totally cool

You may just want to be aware that, based on what I've heard,
the most common beliefs
among those people who were mostly using the traditional text
are things today often associated with Catholicism...
infant baptism, Real Presence at the altar... So I've heard.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Oldest still does NOT... mean the best, which was my point.

The most common text used reveals the widest agreement of the early Church on text, and that is why the Traditional Majority Greek text make up the 'majority' of New Testament manuscripts, even though it means today we only have copies that go back to around the 4 century A.D.

And most common in a particular period does not mean the best either.

The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) has its drawbacks.


See Hort's argument on page 71.

1. The Byzantine text-type contains readings combining elements found in earlier text-types.
2. The variants unique to the Byzantine manuscripts are not found in Christian writings before the 4th century.
3. When Byzantine and non-Byzantine readings are compared, the Byzantine can be demonstrated not to represent the original text.

An Introduction to the New Testament

"This second edition of An Introduction to the New Testament provides readers with pertinent material and a helpful framework that will guide them in their understanding of the New Testament texts. Many new and diverse cultural, historical, social-scientific, sociorhetorical, narrative, textual...

books.google.com

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In 1993 the reconstituted PBC published a document entitled The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. In this document the PBC fully endorsed the historical-critical method as "the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts." Nevertheless, as the Commission pointed out in the Introduction to this document, "at the very time when the most prevalent scientific method — the historical-critical method' — is freely practiced in exegesis, it is itself brought into question, to some extent through the rise of 'alternative approaches and methods,'" but also " through the criticisms of many members of the faithful, who judge the method deficient from the point of view of faith," some of whom maintain that "nothing is gained by submitting biblical texts to the demands of scientific method," and who insist that "the result of scientific exegesis is only to provoke perplexity and doubt upon numerous points which hitherto had been accepted without difficulty."

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ex officio President of the PBC, in his Preface to the 1993 document, said that he believed that it would be "very helpful for the important questions about the right way of understanding Holy Scripture" and that it "takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 and advances them in a fruitful way." But he also spoke in this same Preface about "new attempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual interpretation of Scripture." In fact, already in an article published in 19899 Cardinal Ratzinger had called for "a better synthesis between historical and theological methods, between criticism and dogma" and for self-criticism by exegetes of the historical-critical method.

Library : Pontifical Biblical Commission: Yesterday And Today

Pontifical Biblical Commission: Yesterday And Today An overview of the history, status and function of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in the context of changing principles of interpretation.

www.catholicculture.org