Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
While I agre that both sides of the issue should be examined, when one examines the history of German Rationalism, one can easily see why supportive verses for the major doctrines of the Scriptures have suffered many omissions. Hence, the only way the Alexandrian texts can be consideredore accurate, is if one has the same distaste for the sacred texts, as did Westcott and Hort.
Jack
See, I agreed with you up until this point.
I used to agree on the Western/Byzantine text, but since reading Gordon Fee's 1966 thesis "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism", I disagree.
And I disagree on the MT. (Majority Text)
A majority voted for our president, and see what that got us.
A majority isn't always the right way to go.
Israel found that out.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Neither do I condemn those who use other versions. I simply state that after many years of study and research, I have come to the conviction that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV for English speaking people.
KJOism is based upon lies and libelous slander. Indeed, advocates for KJOism appear to enjoy trying to out do each other in telling the most libelous lies about Westcott and Hort. Anyone who desires to know the truth about Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their love for the Bible can learn the truth by tossing into the garbage KJO propaganda and reading what they themselves wrote about the Bible.
KJOism is based upon lies and libelous slander. Indeed, advocates for KJOism appear to enjoy trying to out do each other in telling the most libelous lies about Westcott and Hort. Anyone who desires to know the truth about Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their love for the Bible can learn the truth by tossing into the garbage KJO propaganda and reading what they themselves wrote about the Bible.
God has perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV for English speaking people.
many of the minority witnesses disagree with each other that you should be wary when they contradict each other so much. I brought to the table how some versins have corrupted the important John 1:1-18 text. I mean the fact that Westcott and Hort have monegenes theos(only begotten god) instead of monogenes huois (only begotten son), show they are following a variant that is made by gnostics to suit gnostic heresy. You can clearly see that n the Greek versions. John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis If your bible is missing John 24:40, it is also a Gnostic corruption, in fact a lot of the corruptions found in the W&H are of the Gnostic variety, because that is basically what they were.See, I agreed with you up until this point.
I used to agree on the Western/Byzantine text, but since reading Gordon Fee's 1966 thesis "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism", I disagree.
And I disagree on the MT. (Majority Text)
A majority voted for our president, and see what that got us.
A majority isn't always the right way to go.
Israel found that out.
God Bless
Till all are one.
In addition to these Greek witnesses are manuscripts of the early Versions of the NT; by the end of the 2nd century, the NT had already been translated into Latin (of which we have thousands of copies through the Middle Ages) and Syriac, somewhat later into Coptic, and eventually into Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and other
languages. These versions can indicate the form of the text in the time and place the translations were originally made. So too, the quotations of the church fathers can be used to reconstruct the forms of the text available to them. Such Patristic sources are particularly useful for understanding how the text was transmitted regionally, since in many instances we know exactly when and where the fathers
were living.
From this mass of evidence scholars work to determine both the original form of the text and the alterations made in the course of its transmission. The difficulty of the task, in part, is that none of our primary witnesses, the Greek manuscripts, is in complete agreement with another. Sometimes the disagreements are extremely minor
and of very little moment, involving such things as differences of spelling. But at times they are of supreme importance: today there is widespread agreement, e.g., that the story of the woman taken in adultery ( John 7:528:11) was not originally part of the Fourth Gospel
but was added by later scribes; the same can be said of the final 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:920). In many instances, however, the surviving witnesses are so significantly divided that scholars cannot agree concerning the original form of the text. Did the voice at Jesus baptism in Luke originally say You are my beloved
son in whom I am well pleased, or did it say You are my son; today I have begotten you (Luke 3:22)? In Luke, did Jesus pray for his enemies forgiveness during his crucifixion (Luke 23:34) or not? Did the Prologue of Johns Gospel end by calling Jesus the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father or the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father ( John 1:18)? Scholars continue to debate
scores of such differences among our manuscripts.
Methods of Textual Criticism
In deciding which form of the text is original, most scholars apply an eclectic method, which appeals, on a case-by-case basis, to a number of different criteria that are traditionally categorized either as external (those based on the kinds of manuscripts that support one reading or another) or internal (those based on the likelihood
that a reading goes back either to the original author or to an error introduced by a scribe). To be sure, there continue to be proponents of the Majority text, who claim that the form of text found in the majority of surviving witnesses is always, or nearly always, to be preferred (an emphasis almost exclusively on one kind of external evidence); and there are others who maintain that since all of the manuscripts contain mistakes, it is wrong to consider the manuscripts at all when deciding what the authors originally wrote (emphasizing internal evidence). The majority of scholars, however, continue to adjudicate the differences among manuscripts by considering the
whole range of surviving evidence.
Number of Supporting Witnesses.
A reading found more frequently among our manuscripts may, theoretically, have a superior claim to being
the original. Although widely favored by advocates of the Majority text, this principle is nonetheless discounted by most other scholars, and for fairly compelling reasons. For if, hypothetically, one manuscript of the 2nd century was copied three times, and another was copied 300 times, this would not mean that the latter was more accurate (and its copyists would have no way of knowing); it would
simply mean that it was copied more often. The number of surviving witnesses, therefore, actually tells us little about the original text.
Age of Supporting Witnesses.
More important, obviously, than the number of surviving witnesses for any particular reading is the age of its
supporting manuscripts. In general, earlier manuscripts will be less likely to contain errors, since they have not passed through as many hands. This criterion is not foolproof either, however, since a 7th century manuscript could, conceivably, have been copied from an exemplar of the 2nd century, whereas a 6th-century manuscript (which is therefore older) could have been copied from one of the
5th century.
You do have to wonder why the majority text is around if is was a fabrication, considering what most scholars believe about the general start date of their use being the 2nd century, which mean it is close enough to the autographs to be checked against them, whereas the Western types are generally considered to have started around the 4th century, which ironically makes the Byzantine type the older type, even the though actual manuscripts Western type are older.The MSS within the cone represent the "normal" transmission. To the left I have plotted some possible representatives of what we might style the "irresponsible" transmission of the text—the copyists produced poor copies through incompetence or carelessness but did not make deliberate changes. To the right I have plotted some possible representatives of what we might style the "fabricated" transmission of the text—the scribes made deliberate changes in the text (for whatever reasons), producing fabricated copies, not true copies. I am well aware that the MSS plotted on the figure above contain both careless and deliberate errors, in different proportions (7Q5,4,8 and P52 are too fragmentary to permit the classification of their errors as deliberate rather than careless), so that any classification such as I attempt here must be relative and gives a distorted picture. Still, I venture to insist that ignorance, carelessness, officiousness and malice all left their mark upon the transmission of the New Testament text, and we must take account of them in any attempt to reconstruct the history of that transmission.
As the figure suggests, I argue that Diocletian's campaign had a purifying effect upon the stream of transmission. In order to withstand torture rather than give up your MS(S), you would have to be a truly committed believer, the sort of person who would want good copies of the Scriptures. Thus it was probably the more contaminated MSS that were destroyed, in the main, leaving the purer MSS to replenish the earth (please see the section, "Imperial repression of the N.T." in Chapter six).
Another consideration suggests itself—if, as reported, the Diocletian campaign was most fierce and effective in the Byzantine area, the numerical advantage of the "Byzantine" text-type over the "Western" and "Alexandrian" would have been reduced, giving the latter a chance to forge ahead. But it did not happen. The Church, in the main, refused to propagate those forms of the Greek text.
What we find upon consulting the witnesses is just such a picture. We have the Majority Text (Aland), or the Traditional Text (Burgon), dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways. We have already seen that the notion of "text-types" and recensions, as defined and used by Hort and his followers, is gratuitous. Epp's notion of "streams" fares no better. There is just one stream, with a number of small eddies along the edges.[39] When I say the Majority Text dominates the stream, I mean it is represented in about 95% of the MSS.[40]
Actually, such a statement is not altogether satisfactory because it does not allow for the mixture or shifting affinities encountered within individual MSS. A better, though more cumbersome, way to describe the situation would be something like this: 100% of the MSS agree as to, say, 50% of the Text; 99% agree as to another 40%; over 95% agree as to another 4%; over 90% agree as to another 2%; over 80% agree as to another 2%; only for 2% or so of the Text do less than 80% of the MSS agree, and most of those cases occur in Revelation.[41] And the membership of the dissenting group varies from reading to reading. (I will of course be reminded that witnesses are to be weighed, not counted; I will come to that presently, so please bear with me.) Still, with the above reservation, one may reasonably speak of up to 95% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority text-type.
I see no way of accounting for a 95% (or 90%) domination unless that text goes back to the Autographs. Hort saw the problem and invented a revision. Sturz seems not to have seen the problem. He demonstrates that the "Byzantine text-type" is early and independent of the "Western" and "Alexandrian text-types," and like von Soden, wishes to treat them as three equal witnesses.[42] But if the three "text-types" were equal, how ever could the so-called "Byzantine" gain a 90-95% preponderance?
The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75,B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who."[43] So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.
It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem. How is it to be explained if it does not reflect the Original? Hort's notion of a Lucianic revision has been abandoned by most scholars because of the total lack of historical evidence. The eclecticists are not even trying. The "process" view has not been articulated in sufficient detail to permit refutation, but on the face of it that view is flatly contradicted by the argument from statistical probability.[44] How could any amount of "process" bridge the gap between B or Aleph and the TR?
But there is a more basic problem with the process view. Hort saw clearly, and correctly, that the Majority Text must have a common archetype. Recall that Hort's genealogical method was based on community of error. On the hypothesis that the Majority Text is a late and inferior text form, the large mass of common readings which distinguish it from the so-called "Western" or "Alexandrian text-types" must be errors (which was precisely Hort's contention) and such an agreement in error would have to have a common source. The process view fails completely to account for such an agreement in error (on that hypothesis).
Hort saw the need for a common source and posited a Lucianic revision. Scholars now generally recognize that the "Byzantine text-type" must date back at least into the second century. But what chance would the original "Byzantine" document, the archetype, have of gaining currency when appeal to the Autographs was still possible?
Candidly, there is only one reasonable explanation for the Majority Text that has so far been advanced—it is the result of an essentially normal process of transmission and the common source for its consensus is the Autographs. Down through the centuries of copying, the original text has always been reflected with a high degree of accuracy in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The history of the text presented in this chapter not only accounts nicely for the Majority Text, it also accounts for the inconsistent minority of MSS. They are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the text, reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence upon such aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical/eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament, and the modern translations based upon them.]
What is the authentic New Testament text?
The above link is a continuation from my previous link, but this is from a book quoted by one of the main participants.
You do have to wonder why the majority text is around if is was a fabrication, considering what most scholars believe about the general start date of their use being the 2nd century, which mean it is close enough to the autographs to be checked against them, whereas the Western types are generally considered to have started around the 4th century, which ironically makes the Byzantine type the older type, even the though actual manuscripts Western type are older.
A small piece of advise: Read what Westcott and Hort wrote (yourself), before suggesting others do so ... This is a case where you are committing 'debate suicide' by making such a suggestion, without reading what they wrote to each other on this matter.
Jack
Just for the record, I have both read, and researched much on this matter, by those who stand for, and against; and then drew my own conclusions. It does not take much understanding in theology to figure out that Origin, Semler, Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort, had beliefs not supported by the Scriptures. When ones theology does not align with scripture, does one have the right to be a 'critic' of the Scripture?
Jack
The following links provide needed reference material.
Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L., Sometime Bishop of Durham:Amazon:Books
Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort:Amazon:Books
Use the above material to check the following:
Westcott and Hort Exposed...FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS!
Jack
In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.
This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.
Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.
This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of Its History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.
Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.
Westcotts son refers to his fathers life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Bensons son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescotts son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.
Source: Jesus is saviour.com
Sorry if I don't find Gail Riplinger and Jesus is Savior reliable resources. Both are heavy KJVO's with no Textual Criticism education. In fact they're nothing but bandwagon jumpers who jump on the KJVO bandwagon without doing any research and exegesis on their part.
You want to learn about Westcott and Hort go here. More reliable info then those two are:
westcotthort.com
Actually a member here Kiwimac runs that site.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?