Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] A catalogue of error and irrelevancies...

Expand Messages
  • forisraelssake
    ... even offered an acknowledgment of their error, much less provided this list with an apology.... This is untrue and the list knows it. That Mr Letis can
    Message 1 of 16 , May 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Theodore Letis
      <bucerian@y...> wrote:
      > So far as I am concerned these two individuals--neither of whom have
      even offered an acknowledgment of their error, much less provided this
      list with an apology....


      This is untrue and the list knows it. That Mr Letis can fail even at
      the basic task of reading all the posts from this e-group is not my
      responsibility. I recognized my factual error and admitted I was
      mislead by common recapitulations of the Tischendorf story that do not
      admit that the LXX fragments Tish. saved were found in the Sinaiticus
      bundle 15 yrs later.

      And for the record, my name is C. Tylor, not C. Taylor.
    • forisraelssake
      ... the doctrinal influence of text critical practice--which White raises with such certainty--by the world s leading authority on the subject, comes to just
      Message 2 of 16 , May 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > This, the most important book ever written on the very subject of
        the doctrinal influence of text critical practice--which White raises
        with such certainty--by the world's leading authority on the subject,
        comes to just the opposite conclusion to which White himself arrives!
        Professor Ehrman would remind White that,
        >
        > The textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of
        many of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New
        Testament: the birth naratives of Matthew and Luke, the prologue of
        the Fourth Gospel, the baptismal accounts of the Synoptics, the
        passion narratives, and other familiar passages in Acts, Paul,
        Hebrews, and the Catholic epistles. In some instances, the
        interpretations of these passages were understood by scribes who
        "read" their interpretations not only out of the text but actually
        into it, as they modified the words in accordance with what they were
        taken to mean…. Naturally, the same data relate to the basic doctrinal
        concerns of early Christians—theologians and, presumably, laypersons
        alike: Was Jesus the Messiah, predicted in the Old Testament? Was
        Joseph his father? Was Jesus born as a human? Was he tempted? Was he
        able to sin? Was he adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism? At
        his resurrection? Or was he himself God? Was Jesus one person
        > or two persons? Did he have a physical body after his resurrection?
        And many others. The ways scribes answered these questions affected
        the way they transcribed their texts. And the way they transcribed
        their texts has affected, to some degree, the way modern exegetes and
        theologians have answered these questions (pp. 276; 281-82, n. 11).
        >
        > This puts White's confident assertion that no doctrine is ever
        affected by text criticism in a very dim light indeed.
        >


        Dr Erhman is a liberal of liberal in this field. He is no Christian,
        rejects the Trinity and the definition of Chalcedon, and doubts or
        repudiates the historicity of the bible.

        He did write all these things, no doubt. And it may be convenient for
        traditional text defenders like Letis to simply carry over the logic
        of his 'orthodox corruption' theses into their own rear guard defenses
        of the bible qua textus receptus, but the larger context of Erhman's
        ideas has to be measured.

        Was Joseph his father? You have to understand the context of this: The
        Sinaitic Syriac ms alone indicates that Joseph was the father of Jesus
        ("Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is
        called the Christ"). Although much discussed, this reading has not
        been found in any Greek witnesses. B. M. Metzger suggests that it was
        produced by a careless scribe who simply reproduced the set formula of
        the preceding lines in the genealogy (TCGNT 6).

        Hence Dr Letis is building his whole case about how "different
        manuscripts" corrupt or modify doctrines of the Protestant Churches by
        appealing to a bizarre reading found in a single manuscript of a
        foreign language version, a codex that incidentally still does include
        the rest of Matt 1 and Luke 2 (so the context of the corruption found
        in Syr(S) is greatly mitigated).

        In fact all the other examples Erhman lists are of much the same
        nature. It is quite right to make a case for the theologically
        motivated corruption of the scriptures (in both directions, orthodox
        and unorthdox although mainly orthodox) at the hands of scribes, but
        there is a big difference between than and saying something to the
        effect that Reformation & Protestant doctrines become assaulted or
        doubtsome once we go beyond the Scrivener Textus Receptus and consider
        other variants.


        As to my own opinion, I disagree with both Tim and Theodore on this.
        Tim up to now has de-emphasized theologically-motivated readings as
        being present and at least theoretically of being important in the
        real world in situations where the church needs one variant to preach
        and teach (and rebuke) from, while Letis on the other hand has
        emphasized them to such an absurd level that the presence of the
        obviously corrupt variant of Matt 1:16 in the Sinaitic Syriac
        manuscript calls into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth
        in ALL the manuscripts and therefore apparently we have a duty to hold
        to the Textus Receptus forever and never revise it! Or something like
        that anyway.

        --Chris
        RPNA
      • timmopussycat
        ... Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not because such have not
        Message 3 of 16 , May 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
          <c_tylor@y...> wrote:

          >
          > As to my own opinion, I disagree with both Tim and Theodore on this.
          > Tim up to now has de-emphasized theologically-motivated readings as
          > being present and at least theoretically of being important in the
          > real world in situations where the church needs one variant to preach
          > and teach (and rebuke) from,

          Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to
          say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not because
          such have not occurred, but because they form a secondary dimension to
          the problem, and not its primary one which is the differences in texts.
        • forisraelssake
          ... because ... to ... texts. Chris-True, I sometimes am careless in my words toward you in that you and I seem to hold similar positions in this whole
          Message 4 of 16 , May 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to
            > say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not
            because
            > such have not occurred, but because they form a secondary dimension
            to
            > the problem, and not its primary one which is the differences in
            texts.

            Chris-True, I sometimes am careless in my words toward you in that you
            and I seem to hold similar positions in this whole business (if we
            find Kurt Aland type views more plausible than Maurice Robinson type
            views), and the only striking difference between us being mainly that
            I hold to a Presbyterian formalized super-structure of government and
            discipline imposed on this topic. I'll try to be more careful in
            future posts.

            I have to admit though, that while I find Aland type reconstructions
            of the original text more plausible, I still a great deal of healthy
            respect for Robinson's position, and frankly, I am skeptical of both
            positions even if one of them sounds like it probably has to be the
            right approach. Defaulting to the Scrivener Textus Receptus,
            fortunately is a pretty sane approach in the interim. That NT text was
            (in a strong legal and theological sense) 'good enough' for the
            Reformed Church of Scotland and the Westminster Assembly, which means
            it is good enough now, even while recognizing at a meta-textual level
            the obvious godliness of revising out scribal corruptions/variants. I
            simply am not learned enough to know which greater 'meta' position is
            right, so in the interim, it's the TR for me. :)

            Chris
            Montreal, QC
            Member: RPNA http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/
          • Theodore Letis
            My highest accolades for honesty and principled behavior on this point. Let us now build on the common pool of factual data that all share in common and
            Message 5 of 16 , May 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              My highest accolades for honesty and principled behavior on this point. Let us now build on the common pool of factual data that all share in common and account for why two separate communities come to two separate conclusions about this data, i.e., the contemporary status quo of the discipline of N.T. text criticism (two schools, rigorous and reasoned eclecticism); and the Majority Text defenders. It is within the latter school that I place my own position, but prefer to call it the Ecclesiastical Text School since this actually accounts for why this text is in the majority, a point our Baptist Fundamentalist Brethren who prefer to merely call it the "majority text," would rather not draw attention to.
               
              Theodore P. Letis

              timmopussycat <timmopussycat@...> wrote:
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Theodore Letis
              <bucerian@y...> wrote:

              Instead, I provided irrefutable evidence that both Reformed Baptist
              Tim, and C. Taylor stated an error about a very common-place fact
              within the history of N.T. text criticism, namely, that Tischendorf
              DID NOT claim to have rescued the O.T. portion of Codex Aleph
              (Sinaiticus) from the fire. Instead, I documented that he most
              certainly DID save the O.T. portion of this manuscript--according to
              Tischendorf's testimony.

              Tim-And you are in fact correct on this point. My apologies to the
              list.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

            • Theodore Letis
              So what, the vast majority of those who worked on the UBS4 and Nestle/Aland27 are as well--so what s your point!? You accept their textual decisions as founf
              Message 6 of 16 , May 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                So what, the vast majority of those who worked on the UBS4 and Nestle/Aland27 are as well--so what's your point!? You accept their textual decisions as founf in the NIV/TNIV/ESV/NASB so why this big protest when Prof. tells the truth about doctrine being affected by textual choices? This is a mere red herring, meant to take attention away from a real authority in the field, when your amateur opinion has already proven to lead folks astray here on this list with careless error. How dare you challenge someone who earned his doctorate at the feet of perhaps the world's most well respected N.T. text criticism, Prof. Bruce Metzger. You certainly do not even have the basic facts in order on this subject, why should anyone on this list listen to you discounting the opinion of one who is a master of the subject such as Prof. Ehrman? Your opinion certainly carries no weight with me. The simple facts of the matter are that Warfieldians in this field of text criticism (those who claim the only final authority are the lost "inerrant autographs" which neither the UBS, nor N/A claim to have reconstructed, much less would they claim their texts are "inerrant"), are a slim minority who engage in special pleading when they claim no doctrine is at stake, when the real authorities in the field say exactly the opposite. What you are is a mere ill-informed propagandist for these Evangelicals and their publishing empire, hell-bent on pushing either the NIV or the TNIV or the ESV on what remains of confessional Christianity, but thank God most on this list know exactly what the "Knight of Malta" Roman Catholic Rupert Murdoch and his Zondervan Corporation are up to. Let us listen to text critics when they are real authorities in the field, rather than to propagandists for Murdoch, who hardly have their facts in order at any rate.
                 
                Theodore P. Letis

                forisraelssake <c_tylor@...> wrote:


                Dr Erhman is a liberal

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.