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

6679Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16

Expand Messages
  • Mr. Helge Evensen
    Aug 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert B. Waltz wrote:
      > On 8/1/99, dd-1@... wrote:
      > >Robert, Denny Diehl here
      > >
      > > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
      > > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
      > > >manuscript.
      > > >
      > > >All I will say on the subject.
      > >
      > >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
      > >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
      > >which are not found in any Greek manuscript?
      > Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion
      > of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two
      > chapters). As a result, there are several readings in there not
      > found in any Greek manuscript. (I don't have a full list, but
      > you could check Hoskier.)
      > In addition, in Phil. 4:3, the TR reads KAI. Metzger reports
      > that this reading is supported only by 462, but according to
      > Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses.

      Not a *very* significant variant, though! :)
      Besides, the evidence is not *clear* at this point!

      > There may be others; I don't know. Hard to tell, given the lack
      > of complete collations. :-)
      > Technically, the Comma *is* found in Greek manuscripts. It's just
      > that the manuscripts (with the exception of 629 and others which
      > have it from the Latin) are generally copies of the TR.

      "Copies of the TR"? What is the evidence for that statement?

      > And since you've gotten me talking anyway, I should make a point
      > here. Helge Evenson makes the argument that the issue is the number
      > of witnesses. Jim West or Philip Wesley Comfort would argue for
      > age.
      > Neither one matters. If majority rule meant anything, the world
      > would be flat and we'd all be pantheists (since, when the human
      > race evolved, people held both opinions :-).

      > Age doesn't mean anything either.


      > What matters is that the majority of manuscripts disagree with
      > the earliest manuscripts. Therefore at least one group must be
      > wrong (they may, be it noted, *both* be wrong, but no more than
      > one group can be right).

      Or maybe the autograph text is found in a *mixture* of two or more
      "groups"? ALL MSS are "mixed" more or less!

      > The tendency is to decide this matter "politically" -- as if
      > manuscripts were people lined up at a polling place. (Not that
      > that means much; generally speaking, the unwashed mass of
      > voters are fools. Consider that, in America, they voted for BOTH
      > Reagan AND Clinton :-).
      > It's not a political matter. It's not a dogmatic manner, either.

      At least, MSS were altered for "dogmatic" reasons!

      > One must, by some *external*, non-political, non-dogmatic means
      > decide between the old manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts.

      The Byz/TR consists of readings found in BOTH old and later MSS!

      > Most textual critics use "internal evidence," and on this basis
      > prefer the text of the older manuscripts. This is *not* universal;
      > Maurice Robinson prefers the majority text based on this sort of
      > reasoning. And, frankly, I have more respect for Robinson (even
      > though his text differs greatly from mine) than I have for
      > Comfort -- whose text more nearly agrees with mine, but for the
      > wrong reasons.
      > But I stress: The matter must be decided based on comparison of
      > the text-types,

      I would rather say: The matter must be decided based on comparison of
      *MSS*! (Even though I do not personally follow that line of thought in my
      own decision of which text to follow! But, at least, I can play around
      with textual criticism, if for no other reason than plain FUN!) :)

      > not comparison of the number, age, or other
      > arbitrary fact about their witnesses. (Surely you wouldn't
      > pick a New Testament text based on the colour of the parchment,
      > would you? Yet that is as valid a basis for discrimination as
      > the others, since it just as completely ignores the text.)
      > I hope that makes sense. This is more time than I was supposed
      > to spend on this subject today. :-)

      Bob, even though I do not agree with you on what text to follow, I
      appreciate all your comments! You are an interesting TC'er.

      - Mr. Helge Evensen
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic