Blind Trust

[JM]

You may have missed the Jeff Riddle’s blog about textual criticism and other things, so I just wanted to post a link as an FYI.

Last year Pastor Riddle made a few comments that made it on the radar of Dr. James White, Dr. White responded without ever mentioning Pastor Riddle, but you can still view Dr. White’s responses on YouTube if you like. Personally, I was shocked that Dr. White made a mistake about textual criticism, glossed over it and didn't admit it. Normally I watch Dr. White’s videos and just can’t believe the mastery he has over the original languages and feel he often chips away at my faith in God’s province to secure (anything let alone) the scriptures for the church, so much so I stopped listening to him whenever he brings up textual issues.

Pastor Riddle is a Reformed Baptist who believes in the “traditional text of scripture” but not a wacked out KJVOist. His comments on the textual apparatus have, at least to me, proven that even the smartest scholars are not to be blindly trusted.

Have a listen to #25 - #29 to see what I mean.

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/01/the-vision-12413-brief-guide-to-bible.html#uds-search-results

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[abacabb3]

Can you highlight his mistake?

I pray for James White occasionally, he definitely struggles with pride. He is a good exegete and has a command of Church History. As for textual criticism, I believe he is spot on, having looked at it fairly extensively, so I would like to judge what you are talking about here.

James White and Todd Friel are my most steady diet behind Tim Conway at I'll Be Honest and pastors from churches I used to go that I still listen too (Pastor Spanjer of Affirmation Presbyterian in Somers NY and Pastor Roff of First Presbyterian in Schenectady NY.)

 

[moonbeam]

and feel he often chips away at my faith in God’s province to secure (anything let alone) the scriptures for the church, so much so I stopped listening to him whenever he brings up textual issues.

Just an experiential process…that will eventually end…in the scriptures being even more securely anchored to the bedrock at the bottom of the ocean of opinions…able than…to withstand any tempest…without dragging.

His comments on the textual apparatus have, at least to me, proven that even the smartest scholars are not to be blindly trusted.

Exactly…as for the author of scripture…we can trust Him.

.

 

[AMR]

I prefer the Byzantine manuscript tradition for my New Testament Bible translations, e.g., KJV or NKJV.

I use the two Englishman's Greek and Hebrew concordance volumes often when working with the Hebrew and the Greek. I often work directly with the The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: The Byzantine Greek Text & Verb Parsing and The New Testament in the Original Greek (Greek Edition).

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a KJBOnlyist. In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV. Until that happens, I don’t see the harm in having to bear with a few outdated expressions for what I consider to be the best faithful translation of the inspired Holy Writ.

I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.

For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out, for I believe, and it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history. Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here.

If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views on things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort. Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC-Q.157.

 

[JM]

Off the top of my head…Pastor Riddle mentioned that he believed 1 John 5.7 was scripture and that it had ancient attestation in translations, he even cited Metzger. Riddle also stated that passages that have no attestation such as 2 Pet. 2.10 and another from Acts and Galatians, that were once in the NA27 as conjectures noted by scholars, have now made it into the text of the NA28 as SCRIPTURE. Riddle pointed out that it is inconsistent to deny the validity of 1 John 5.7 based on late Greek MSS evidence if the CT includes conjectures without absolutely NO MSS EVIDENCE. The note from the textual apparatus jumped from a footnote to the biblical text. Dr. White didn’t seem to understand the textual apparatus when he tried to explain how the conjectures were to be used. He seemed confused to what was a variant, a conjecture and how it was to be read. Pastor Riddle explained that few can read biblical Greek fluently and even fewer know how to use the apparatus.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[moonbeam]

Pastor Riddle is a Reformed Baptist who believes in the “traditional text of scripture” but not a wacked out KJVOist.

Good…as for me…i'm a "wacked out"… KJVmostlyist …all of the time.

.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

We're living in the age of Easy Believism.

 

[Striver]

I agree about some of the reservations with Dr. White. I've found myself listening to some episodes and nodding in approbation while other times I've more or less turned the thing off due to some issues in interpretation. It feels that sometimes Dr. White is more about being anti-KJVO than anything, and while I cannot totally fault him for this, I think the Textus Receptus/Majority Text tradition needs to be given a little more credibility as a potential valid strain of the text rather than kinda the black sheep of Bible manuscripts.

There is plausible evidence that perhaps we just don't have earlier copies of the MT. I trust even the eastern church to steward the manuscripts of Holy Scripture better than most academics, though I am decidedly against any anti-intellectualism that you see in most KJVO circles. I do not know how many of you may be members there, but over at Puritan Board, a member by the name of Jerusalem Blade ad some compelling arguments that don't get a ton of airtime in defense of the TR/MT tradition. If anything, the Byzantine tradition had reason and temptation to insert things that may have been more sympathetic to their way of doing church, but that charge cannot be leveled at the manuscripts at all.

I've sort of fallen back to reading the KJV though I am a little nervous to use it or carry it too much in anticipation of being labeled KJVO. There was a study out a couple of years ago that says your brain actually does better when reading Shakespeare as opposed to more modern reading levels, and I believe this.

I really liked how Pastor Riddle calls the ESV what it really is, which is a poser formal equivalence translation. I don't dislike the ESV, but to treat it like it's not a slightly more archaic form of the NIV is a bit much. The only difference, IMHO, between it (ESV) and the NIV is that it uses the older structural form of inverting some of the sentence structure. Otherwise, the actual diction is quite close to the NIV, and there are very many places where they sound exactly alike.

In fact, I think it's interesting that the KJV pedigree draws from both Rome and Constantinople. For Rome, it was the TR Latin tradition taken originally from the Byzantine tradition where it was preserved, then it was translated by the Anglican tradition and finally employed by the Puritans and later Baptists. To be honest, that's a pretty interesting track record, even if it is somewhat anecdotal!

With that said, definitely would like to see more discussion on this. I am an English major guy, so not too much background in textual criticism of this variety, but I know enough to be dangerous. I don't want to empower the KJVO segment, but at the same time, it's been around for 400 years for a reason. I'm just not yet sure we'll say the same about our NIVs and ESVs.

That said, I like the new designation seemingly birthed by a member here: KJVmostlyism. This seems appropriate.

 

[abacabb3]

Off the top of my head…Pastor Riddle mentioned that he believed 1 John 5.7 was scripture and that it had ancient attestation in translations, he even cited Metzger. Riddle also stated that passages that have no attestation such as 2 Pet. 2.10 and another from Acts and Galatians, that were once in the NA27 as conjectures noted by scholars, have now made it into the text of the NA28 as SCRIPTURE. Riddle pointed out that it is inconsistent to deny the validity of 1 John 5.7 based on late Greek MSS evidence if the CT includes conjectures without absolutely NO MSS EVIDENCE. The note from the textual apparatus jumped from a footnote to the biblical text. Dr. White didn’t seem to understand the textual apparatus when he tried to explain how the conjectures were to be used. He seemed confused to what was a variant, a conjecture and how it was to be read. Pastor Riddle explained that few can read biblical Greek fluently and even fewer know how to use the apparatus.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

If you can for my edification, can you tell me what NA27, NA28, and CT are? I presume they are different ancient manuscripts?

Also, is this debate on youtube?

 

[JM]

If you can for my edification, can you tell me what NA27, NA28, and CT are? I presume they are different ancient manuscripts?

Also, is this debate on youtube?

NA = Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: Home

Nestle Aland is a CT (critical text) edition of the New Testament. The # after NA refers to the edition. Nestle Aland #28 is the newest edition of their critical text which includes conjecture by scholars as scripture. So, if someone tells you that 1 John 5.7 is not in the oldest Greek MSS they are being inconsistent. 1 John 5.7 can be traced to the 3rd or 4th century but the NA conjecture goes no further than a modern, unbelieving scholar.

jm
PS: Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert on ancient / Biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. Without putting forth the idea of New Testament eclecticism I’d like to post a quote from one of his recent blog posts about the the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature :

As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

If you can for my edification, can you tell me what NA27, NA28, and CT are? I presume they are different ancient manuscripts?

Also, is this debate on youtube?

i can't answer you on the abbreviation "CT" however, NA27 and NA28 refer to the 27th and 28th (something i wasn't aware existed) of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. It is textually similar...maybe even exactly the same by now...to the United Bible Society 4th edition of the Greek New Testament.

i am not a KJV onlyist. In fact for English reading purposes, i use the 1599 Geneva Bible which was the text brought to North America. However i do NOT believe that the so-called Textus Receptus (which is also the basis for the 1599 Geneva) was a superior Greek Text, neither was the Majourity or ByzantineText from which it's constituent manuscripts came from.

The deciding factor for me was that none of the Ante-Nicean fathers quote from an unambiguous Byzantine text type. To be sure, there are Byzantine readings in the writings of the early church fathers, however they are not uniquely Byzantine readings. The readings in question are also in the Alexandrian and Western families of manuscripts.

To support the idea that the Majourity text is the word of God to the exception of the others is to say that the Christian Church did not have the word of God until the Byzantine text was compiled. Of course that would be utter nonsense.

 

[JM]

The deciding factor for me was that none of the Ante-Nicean fathers quote from an unambiguous Byzantine text type. To be sure, there are Byzantine readings in the writings of the early church fathers, however they are not uniquely Byzantine readings. The readings in question are also in the Alexandrian and Western families of manuscripts.

I think we need to be careful here brother. It was demonstrated that even Dr. White didn’t know how to use the apparatus for the NA…how can we have such blind faith in the modern method of interpreting, especially now that we know the opinions of biblical scholars are being used IN THE TEXT AS IF THEY WERE SCRIPTURE? I know of three places where that has taken place. It was my experience in the Greek Orthodox church, along with the Reformed confessions, that lead me to trust and use the TR. While attending the Greek Orthodox church the church fathers were often cited during Bible studies. The Priest and Cantor both read biblical Greek, they had exhaustive knowledge of the early church fathers and would explain how the modern text differed to the MT and the TR.

Let’s be consistent Reformed presuppoitionalists. It’s not just a matter of evidence but also a matter of presuppositions which leads to a method of how we are to handle scripture.

[/quote]To support the idea that the Majourity text is the word of God to the exception of the others is to say that the Christian Church did not have the word of God until the Byzantine text was compiled. Of course that would be utter nonsense.
[/quote]


You have misunderstood the methodology of those who believe in the Byzantine family of MSS. We have ancient translations in existence that agree with the BT, MT and TR. Now, modern scholarship would claim that since we do not have an ancient Greek copy from this MSS family the church “had to wait for the BT to be compiled.” As if the "oldest is the best." This is just an assumption. We are saying the church has always used this type of text in some form, Latin, Syrian or otherwise.

What is utter nonsense is the inclusion of conjectures from scholars AS SCRIPTURE.



I’m running out of time so I’ll ask you this, can you say along with the Reformed confessions, “the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” LCB 8.14

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

I agree about some of the reservations with Dr. White. I've found myself listening to some episodes and nodding in approbation while other times I've more or less turned the thing off due to some issues in interpretation. It feels that sometimes Dr. White is more about being anti-KJVO than anything, and while I cannot totally fault him for this, I think the Textus Receptus/Majority Text tradition needs to be given a little more credibility as a potential valid strain of the text rather than kinda the black sheep of Bible manuscripts.

There is plausible evidence that perhaps we just don't have earlier copies of the MT. I trust even the eastern church to steward the manuscripts of Holy Scripture better than most academics, though I am decidedly against any anti-intellectualism that you see in most KJVO circles. I do not know how many of you may be members there, but over at Puritan Board, a member by the name of Jerusalem Blade ad some compelling arguments that don't get a ton of airtime in defense of the TR/MT tradition. If anything, the Byzantine tradition had reason and temptation to insert things that may have been more sympathetic to their way of doing church, but that charge cannot be leveled at the manuscripts at all.

I've sort of fallen back to reading the KJV though I am a little nervous to use it or carry it too much in anticipation of being labeled KJVO. There was a study out a couple of years ago that says your brain actually does better when reading Shakespeare as opposed to more modern reading levels, and I believe this.

I really liked how Pastor Riddle calls the ESV what it really is, which is a poser formal equivalence translation. I don't dislike the ESV, but to treat it like it's not a slightly more archaic form of the NIV is a bit much. The only difference, IMHO, between it (ESV) and the NIV is that it uses the older structural form of inverting some of the sentence structure. Otherwise, the actual diction is quite close to the NIV, and there are very many places where they sound exactly alike.

In fact, I think it's interesting that the KJV pedigree draws from both Rome and Constantinople. For Rome, it was the TR Latin tradition taken originally from the Byzantine tradition where it was preserved, then it was translated by the Anglican tradition and finally employed by the Puritans and later Baptists. To be honest, that's a pretty interesting track record, even if it is somewhat anecdotal!

With that said, definitely would like to see more discussion on this. I am an English major guy, so not too much background in textual criticism of this variety, but I know enough to be dangerous. I don't want to empower the KJVO segment, but at the same time, it's been around for 400 years for a reason. I'm just not yet sure we'll say the same about our NIVs and ESVs.

That said, I like the new designation seemingly birthed by a member here: KJVmostlyism. This seems appropriate.

 

[gord44]

There was a study out a couple of years ago that says your brain actually does better when reading Shakespeare as opposed to more modern reading levels, and I believe this.

Sorry to derail but this is an interesting point. I have found the same. Back when I was a Bible reader I found when I read the 1611(?) KJV I would read more carefully and get more out of the text. Recently I have been reading Russian mystical texts. They have been translated to English so the reading is a bit choppy, but I find the retention is simply amazing when I am forced to read carefully.

 

[JM]

Striver’s points are valid and helpful. We should not lump traditional text proponents like the Trinitarian Bible Society in with KJVOist. We should also take time to really consider Dr. White’s arguments in light of scripture and history. The way textual criticism is practiced today and by whom (namely, according to Wallace ‘unbelievers’), is a travesty. I thank God for Dr. White and Dr. Wallace, both are biblically orthodox in all issues except when it comes to the providential preservation of scripture.

Just want to restate: This is not a KJVO issue but an issue of manuscripts (MSS for short). As Bart Ehrman stated, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity” to the New Testament. Kurt Aland wrote that the text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” The issue is about the underlying MSS and the modern philosophy by which scholars “subjectivity” create a biblical text that will be “open to challenge.” Many Reformed brothers and sisters use a Bible translation that is "not a static entity" denying the Reformed confessions.

I wanted to touch on the following point again.

To support the idea that the Majourity text is the word of God to the exception of the others is to say that the Christian Church did not have the word of God until the Byzantine text was compiled. Of course that would be utter nonsense.

If the modern eclectic text or critical text method is correct the opposite would be true. It is often stated that “WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture…” (Chicago Statement of Inerrancy) If that is true, the church has been without an original to examine and therefore without scripture for thousands of years. As Gosden points out, “Could they err or change or be lost, their divine origin would be disapproved and dependence upon them would be misplaced. In such a case there would exist no foundation upon which to build for eternity, no final court of appeal respecting truth and error, no standard of doctrine, no rule of practice, no touchstone of experience.”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Striver]

Well, here is another thought. I know it's been mentioned in past CT discussions that I've been a part of, but are there not portions where educated conjecture has created a portion of Scripture found neither in the CT or MT traditions? I trust these people to be appropriately objective and academic in their approach, but as the Daniel Wallace quote reveals, you have a large number of people who do not believe in the divine inspiration (in any form) of the text making decisions about it.

It's not as though these conjectures are being pulled out of a hat, of course, but in talking presuppositions, a non-Christian will approach Scripture from a different perspective than a Christian. At the practical level, if I do not believe in a divine miracle, then I may be predisposed to favor the non-miraculous reading of the text and that thought may creep into the other period resources I consult to determine the meaning.

Sorry to derail but this is an interesting point. I have found the same. Back when I was a Bible reader I found when I read the 1611(?) KJV I would read more carefully and get more out of the text. Recently I have been reading Russian mystical texts. They have been translated to English so the reading is a bit choppy, but I find the retention is simply amazing when I am forced to read carefully.

This is true for me, and it seems to be for others, but I often find that people who grew up in the KJV tradition still quote from the KJV even when they've moved on to newer versions. Perhaps the KJV is poetry-excessive at times, but it remains memorable. The study - and wish I could find the article right off - simply put forward that dealing with more complex sentence structure and diction simply forces the brain to work harder at retaining the knowledge, thus making it more memorable as your brain devotes the effort to it.

Edit: Found the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...rth-boost-the-brain-new-research-reveals.html

Striver’s points are valid and helpful. We should not lump traditional text proponents like the Trinitarian Bible Society in with KJVOist. We should also take time to really consider Dr. White’s arguments in light of scripture and history. The way textual criticism is practiced today and by whom (namely, according to Wallace ‘unbelievers&#8217, is a travesty. I thank God for Dr. White and Dr. Wallace, both are biblically orthodox in all issues except when it comes to the providential preservation of scripture.

I think this is the crux of the matter. There are educated segments of KJV/TR/MT support that are not KJVO. I realize there is distinction when you begin talking MT and TR, but that is a mute point here. I had my eyes opened to this, when I abandoned the KJV because of the KJVO thought, only to realize that there are legitimate veins of KJV-preferred thought that have a few points.

 

[JM]

I know it's been mentioned in past CT discussions that I've been a part of, but are there not portions where educated conjecture has created a portion of Scripture found neither in the CT or MT traditions? I trust these people to be appropriately objective and academic in their approach, but as the Daniel Wallace quote reveals, you have a large number of people who do not believe in the divine inspiration (in any form) of the text making decisions about it.

The most often used by CT folks is 1 John 5.7. They believe it is an interpolation without any "early" Greek MSS evidence. It doesn't have early Greek MSS evidence but early evidence found in translations from the 3rd or 4th century on. It was also widely believed to be scripture by Luther, Calvin, and the church in general. It has wide attestation and acceptance. Other passages such as the ending of the Gospel of Mark and the woman caught in adultery are often cited as conjectures made by scribes.

It's not as though these conjectures are being pulled out of a hat, of course, but in talking presuppositions, a non-Christian will approach Scripture from a different perspective than a Christian. At the practical level, if I do not believe in a divine miracle, then I may be predisposed to favor the non-miraculous reading of the text and that thought may creep into the other period resources I consult to determine the meaning.

That’s exactly my point and one that I don’t understand how Reformed Christians miss it. Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that “only the originals are inspired.” The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen, becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It denies what scriptures reveals about itself.

Douglas Wilson writes,

“This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it. “

This is true for me, and it seems to be for others, but I often find that people who grew up in the KJV tradition still quote from the KJV even when they've moved on to newer versions. Perhaps the KJV is poetry-excessive at times, but it remains memorable. The study - and wish I could find the article right off - simply put forward that dealing with more complex sentence structure and diction simply forces the brain to work harder at retaining the knowledge, thus making it more memorable as your brain devotes the effort to it.

Edit: Found the article. Shakespeare and Wordsworth boost the brain, new research reveals - Telegraph

I pray the church gathers around an updated translation from the TR.

I think this is the crux of the matter. There are educated segments of KJV/TR/MT support that are not KJVO. I realize there is distinction when you begin talking MT and TR, but that is a mute point here. I had my eyes opened to this, when I abandoned the KJV because of the KJVO thought, only to realize that there are legitimate veins of KJV-preferred thought that have a few points.

I agree. I believe Scrivener noted only 250 differences between the MT and TR. Trinitarian Bible Society had a pdf paper on the issue. Most of differences, off the top of my head, had to do with "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," etc. The same paper listed hundreds of differences between the minority texts

My break is over. I'll try to get back latter tonight and post a link to the paper from TBS.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Source:

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus
Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus
Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus
The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus
The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus
The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus
Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus
Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus
Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus
Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus
The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them)
The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus.

Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

85% of papyri used Textus Receptus, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort
97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 9 manuscripts used text of WH
99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used text WH
100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus.

 

[JM]

Does the Gospel of Mark end at v.8 as the critical text would have us believe? Why do they believe it ends at v.8? Three, only 3 Greek texts are lacking the ending. The doubting scholar assumes that Sinaiticus, Armenian (not Arminian) and Vaticanus that are missing the ending are correct because they are older...

 

[JM]

How many differences are found between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus and Beza texts?
​

[FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana]There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences -- many of which are quite substantial -- between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. Source


[/FONT][/FONT]