Nestle/Aland, Byzantine Majority Text or Textus Receptus. Which one?

[Biblicist]

Westcott and Hort…both men were members of spiritist societies the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild was partly founded by Fenton Hort. He did not accept fallen spirits as real (which Jesus said were) but himself sought to talk to the spirits of the dead. Here are some quotes from his works…
Paul

By any chance do you happen to own a copy of Thayer's superb but dated Greek Lexicon?

 

[pshun2404]

By any chance do you happen to own a copy of Thayer's superb but dated Greek Lexicon?

Not personally but there is an online version. Why?

 

[Biblicist]

Not personally but there is an online version. Why?

That's okay, my question was somewhat mischievous as the very popular but very dated Thayer's Greek Lexicon was composed by Prof. Thayer who was himself a Unitarian; when I raise this with people who place a lot of emphasis toward the religious viewpoints of the various translators, it can be likened at times to throwing the proverbial cat in amongst the pigeons.

When it comes to the Biblical languages it is a field where surprisingly it does not seem to matter if the researcher is a Christian of high standing, a liberal or even an outright humanist.

As the science is about analysing raw data where they try to establish the earliest and most reliable mss or portion of a mss for a given text, their focus is simply on the retrieving and analysing the data so in the end it seems that their personal religious views probably matter very little.

 

[pshun2404]

That's okay, my question was somewhat mischievous as the very popular but very dated Thayer's Greek Lexicon was composed by Prof. Thayer who was himself a Unitarian; when I raise this with people who place a lot of emphasis toward the religious viewpoints of the various translators, it can be likened at times to throwing the proverbial cat in amongst the pigeons.

When it comes to the Biblical languages it is a field where surprisingly it does not seem to matter if the researcher is a Christian of high standing, a liberal or even an outright humanist.

As the science is about analysing raw data where they try to establish the earliest and most reliable mss or portion of a mss for a given text, their focus is simply on the retrieving and analysing the data so in the end it seems that their personal religious views probably matter very little.

Nonetheless it is a good point regardless if their was a mischievous element. I remember reading somewhere that Thayer was NOT a Unitarian but was trying to be objective attempting to eliminate his personal bias (which of course is a tough one). My own (obviously) would be that next only to scripture, the earliest (Ante-Nicene) fathers who were taught by the Apostles or by those the Apostles themselves taught have the most reliable witness. One could call this a bias I suppose as many follow Augustine, or the Reformers, or the German school of ever thought up new criticisms...

I realize my posts were my opinion but I see many being persuaded by opinion (based only on conjecture and consensus) of some moderns that negate the view held by the disciples of the disciples.

Don't you think Paul, John, and Peter new better what they were teaching than some group of old men trying to teach a gospel of doubt some 1800 years after the facts?

Paul

 

[Biblicist]

Don't you think Paul, John, and Peter new better what they were teaching than some group of old men trying to teach a gospel of doubt some 1800 years after the facts?

Paul

I would be more inclined to say that this 'theology of doubt' started to creep in maybe within a century of the death of the Apostles; though it does seem that the various Galatian churches had a bit of a head start.

From my perspective, I tend to be fairly dismissive of the Church of the Dark Ages where broadly speaking things only seem to change on the surface since the time of the Reformation, where as people often like to say, we are still reforming, though I would see this at least within an Arminian concept of reforming and not a Calvinist understanding.

As I thoroughly enjoy delving into contemporary Full Gospel theology where there are seemingly countless numbers of scholars who are Pentecostal, charismatic or even with those who are deemed to be theologically "open-but-cautious"; I am always fascinated with the amount of detail that these scholars go into regarding the specifics of the ministry of the church of the first century where they endeavour to see where (not if) our current understanding of Biblical ministry might differ from theirs.

Even though this could be maybe a bit arrogant on my part, I tend to see much of the broader ministry with parts of the contemporary Church as being highly dynamic and Christ centred where for a Pentecostal a vibrant faith that is based on the testimony of the Scriptures is paramount.

 

[pshun2404]

Well thank God I am not a Pentecostal then or you would by this have a lower view of me then the lowly one I already deserve (lol)!

Anyhoo! Thanks for sharing your perspective. I think that scholars and clergy (and lay people like myself) that believe in orthodoxy (not necessarily the denomination) and yes even those who are labelled “conservative” by the apostates, hold a high view of scripture (not necessarily as rigid as the fundamentalists). But this high view was the teaching the Apostles (who were taught by Jesus) passed on that was overwhelmingly held by the church from the beginning to at least Nicea (which I would gladly supply many supportive quotes but then I would be falsely accused of quote mining even though the other side quotes each other all the time as alleged authoritative support).

So I am not sure how this exchange between us has helped the discussion, but as for me I believe God, believe Jesus, and thus I believe the Apostles who taught the earliest church. I do not believe those who created the school of ever newer criticisms replacement myths. For example the early church unanimously declare Matthew the author of his gospel and that it was the first one written, AND the fact that we have one fragment of Mark dating to 68 A.D. (which they previously and without evidence claimed was not written till almost 100 years later) does not support the ‘Mark first’ replacement myth. Neither does the fact that Mark is shorter and non-chronological. History tells us why these things with Mark are so. They are Peter’s memoirs (thus non-chronological) when he was in Rome, and Mark was sent away before he finished writing it (thus shorter). Thirdly because Mark says some things similar to Matthew in no wise indicates Matthew borrowed from Mark, but rather either the other way around, or it may well just simply be explained because both Peter and Matthew were alive at the time witnesses to Christ’s teachings and the events generally covered by both. Luke (written later still) borrows from both as well as having conducted interviews with other alive at the time people.

Paul

 

[Biblicist]

Well thank God I am not a Pentecostal then or you would by this have a lower view of me then the lowly one I already deserve (lol)!

Anyhoo! Thanks for sharing your perspective. I think that scholars and clergy (and lay people like myself) that believe in orthodoxy (not necessarily the denomination) and yes even those who are labelled “conservative” by the apostates, hold a high view of scripture (not necessarily as rigid as the fundamentalists). But this high view was the teaching the Apostles (who were taught by Jesus) passed on that was overwhelmingly held by the church from the beginning to at least Nicea (which I would gladly supply many supportive quotes but then I would be falsely accused of quote mining even though the other side quotes each other all the time as alleged authoritative support).

So I am not sure how this exchange between us has helped the discussion, but as for me I believe God, believe Jesus, and thus I believe the Apostles who taught the earliest church. I do not believe those who created the school of ever newer criticisms replacement myths. For example the early church unanimously declare Matthew the author of his gospel and that it was the first one written, AND the fact that we have one fragment of Mark dating to 68 A.D. (which they previously and without evidence claimed was not written till almost 100 years later) does not support the ‘Mark first’ replacement myth. Neither does the fact that Mark is shorter and non-chronological. History tells us why these things with Mark are so. They are Peter’s memoirs (thus non-chronological) when he was in Rome, and Mark was sent away before he finished writing it (thus shorter). Thirdly because Mark says some things similar to Matthew in no wise indicates Matthew borrowed from Mark, but rather either the other way around, or it may well just simply be explained because both Peter and Matthew were alive at the time witnesses to Christ’s teachings and the events generally covered by both. Luke (written later still) borrows from both as well as having conducted interviews with other alive at the time people.

Paul

It could be that we are maybe coming to the same position from different angles?

One of the great joys that I have with looking into the science of Textual criticsm is that it has provided me with a deep confidence that the Greek text (Nestle-Aland) that we currently have is both reliable and strong. I know that there are people out there who try and used this science to disparage the Bible but hey, we even have people who try to use the Bible to disparage the Bible.