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

Erasmus

Expand Messages
  • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
    ... Mr. Evensen, I m not quite sure why you thought it necessary to post such a long post in response to Mr. Kulikovsky. The questions were rather simple -
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 24 8:04 AM
      Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
      >
      > Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > TCers,
      > >
      > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated?
      > >
      > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English
      > > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was
      > > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.

      Mr. Evensen,

      I'm not quite sure why you thought it necessary to post such a long post in response to Mr. Kulikovsky. The
      questions were rather simple - what MSS did Erasmus use, and what was the Greek text behind the KJV. I suspect
      you felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and the KJV translators as scholarly. Was this the case?
      And who denied this? For example:

      > There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the
      > Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source
      > for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text
      > constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephen's editions, in comparison
      > with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not
      > *uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this
      > respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even
      > introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources.
      > In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in
      > complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time.

      The KJV translators have acted as editors (not "textual critics") just as modern-day translators do. No
      problem there. HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical.
      You cannot defend them at this point, since there was (and is) no good reason to depart from the Greek text.


      >
      > It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge,
      > and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the
      > "rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand
      > full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained.

      Oh really?? In total, no more than 10 months could have been devoted by Erasmus, Froben and his associates to
      the task of editing and printing this GNT. Erasmus left Basel for England in March, 1515: two months later he
      returned to Basel where discussions with Froben resume. As late as September 1515 there still were no definite
      plans as to the eventual format of the work. This is rushing Helge, even by the mouth of Erasmus.

      >
      > I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we
      > should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after
      > all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much
      > material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today!

      For example??

      And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out:

      "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so
      little" (p. 752).

      <snip>

      > In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a
      > great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a
      > textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual
      > problems,.....".

      Fine - the Annotations shed light on his ad hoc criticism and text-editing. So? This does not change the fact
      of the MSS he used and how he used them, nor the fact that the entire production took 6-10 months to complete.
      But more on his text later...

      > He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was
      > found in the current Greek MSS.

      Hogwash. You've been reading Hills too long. Please read biography of Erasmus by J. J. Managan and let me
      know where you find ANY reference to a 'common faith' guiding him to do anything. Was it this 'common faith'
      that led him to dedicate his GNT to Leo X, the SAME Pope who condemned Luther??

      > Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus.
      > But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested
      > in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of
      > Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence
      > attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS
      > at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his
      > text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the
      > text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great
      > majority of Greek MSS at his own time.

      I agree (for arguments sake) that subsequent discoveries have demonstrated the Byzantine character of the TR.
      And today, the texts of Hodges/Farstad as well as Robinson/Pierpont agree even more - far more in fact - with
      the great *majority* of MSS than ANY edition of the TR. So why bother with the TR??

      <snip>

      > >From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that
      > Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS".

      How so?? Where does de Jonge state that Erasmus used many MSS (20? 30?) in his first ed? What documentation do
      you have that clearly identifies any other MSS used than the 7 I mentioned?

      > Besides, we know very little
      > with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources
      > used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few".

      And he *may* not have. Enough with these impossible inferences and wild speculation. Don't you have ANY
      documentation whatsoever? Is your entire defense of Erasmus simply a hypothesis based upon a supposition from
      a possible inference??

      > If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve
      > years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical
      > to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond
      > those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage.
      > When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was
      > virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time
      > of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter.
      > He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had
      > there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes
      > and maybe other sources available. He had thoroughly studied the Church
      > Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants.
      >

      Here you are trying to make Erasmus out to be some sort of 16th century Tischendorf, roaming the European
      libraries, collating many MSS and then bringing this mass of variants along with him to Froben's printing
      press. I'm sorry Helge, but this is nothing but wishful thinking. The fact is, his entire apparatus was
      probably no more than 7 Greek MSS, some Latin MSS and whatever notes he may have had of variant readings. His
      GNT bears witness to this. Just as Clark wrote, it took so long to do so little - and the little done was to
      simply make corrections in the margin and/or interlinear of his MSS and bring these MSS to Froben. And that's
      that.

      But in all reality Helge, why bother defending the TR so much?? After all, now that we have those magnificent
      volumes by von Soden (for the NT) and Hoskier (for the Apocalypse), AND we have two critical editions of the
      Byzantine text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont) why bother with the TR at all?? Afetr all, you believe that
      the TR is a good Greek text because of its Byzantine character, no? And what about those wonderful
      non-Byzantine variants in the TR?

      I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why bother with the KJV? But that's another
      story...


      Mike A.
    • Mr. Helge Evensen
      ... My lenghty response to that post was not due to necessity. But the manner in which the questions were formed reflects some widely-held scholarly opinion
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 25 3:12 AM
        Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:
        >
        > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
        > >
        > > Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > > TCers,
        > > >
        > > > Which Greek text(s) were consulted when the KJV was translated?
        > > >
        > > > According to the preface of the KJV, it is a revision of other English
        > > > Bibles like Bishop's, Wycliffe's and The Great Bible and the Greek was
        > > > only consulted, rather than used as a translation basis.
        >
        > Mr. Evensen,
        >
        > I'm not quite sure why you thought it necessary to post such a long post in response to Mr. Kulikovsky. The
        > questions were rather simple - what MSS did Erasmus use, and what was the Greek text behind the KJV. I suspect
        > you felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and the KJV translators as scholarly. Was this the case?

        My lenghty response to that post was not due to necessity. But the manner
        in which the questions were formed reflects some widely-held scholarly
        opinion which, to my mind, is not wholly representative of the actual
        case. Much has been said of Erasmus and the KJV-translators by modern
        scholars, which simply is not based on a thorough investigation of the
        actual statements by Erasmus, nor on the situation in which these
        statements occurred, or on the Annotations to the NT by Erasmus.
        This is demonstrated by the studies by Jonge and others.

        In my opinion, these questions (about Erasmus and the KJV translators)
        should not be quickly answered before the whole picture of the actual
        situation is laid before the questioner. That was the reason for my
        lenghty response.

        You suspect that I "felt it necessary to defend the honour of Erasmus and
        the KJV translators as scholarly". Again, nothing was said due to
        necessity.
        But do you mean to tell me that they were *not* scholarly?? Of course
        not!
        I have learned from reading books and articles that Erasmus was one of
        the most learned and scholarly persons of his time.
        And that the KJV-translators were the most scholarly persons in the
        whole kingdom at the time.
        Is this wrong? Of course not. If it is true then, why can it not be a
        part of the information on the work of these persons?

        It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about
        the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their
        "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance.
        These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated
        by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts.
        The christian seeker of truth needs to be confronted with the *whole*
        picture on this issue.

        > And who denied this? For example:
        >
        > > There *are*, however, _minor_ differences between the TR editions of the
        > > Reformation, but the KJV-translators did not use only _one_ Greek source
        > > for their NT. They used a *variety* of the "TR", namely, a Greek text
        > > constructed on the basis of the Beza and Stephen's editions, in comparison
        > > with other "TR-editions/translations". This also shows that they did not
        > > *uncritically* accept one particular source or just one edition. In this
        > > respect, the KJV-translators functioned as "textual critics". They even
        > > introduced a few readings of minor importance from Latin sources.
        > > In fact, they made their own "TR", their exact NT-basis was not in
        > > complete harmony with *any* printed Greek edition at the time.
        >
        > The KJV translators have acted as editors (not "textual critics") just as modern-day translators do. No problem there.

        Is that to say that translators cannot at times act as textual critics in
        the course of their translation work? Is not critical judgment of
        readings a kind of textual criticism?
        Note that I did not say they *were* textual critics, but that they
        *functioned* as such *in this respect*. They were translators and editors
        but sometimes they made some "critical work" with regard to which
        readings they should adopt into the text. Note also that I placed
        "textual critics" within quotation marks, signifying that they were not
        textual critics in the normal sense. They just *acted* as such in certain
        instances.

        >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical.

        Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was
        undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about
        other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother
        about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical!

        > You cannot defend them at this point, since there was (and is) no good
        > reason to depart from the Greek text.

        That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their
        decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention
        with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a
        later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!).

        Many scholars today make wrong decisions in critical matters, but that
        does not make them "unscholarly" _per se_!

        But as regards departing from the Greek text, let me say this:
        In NT translation, to depart from the Greek text is to depart from the
        original language text. In *Old Testament* translation there is a
        considerable number of instances in which translators depart from the
        OT original language text. I see no reason to depart from the traditional
        Hebrew text as many modern translators have done in several instances. I
        am aware of the so-called problems in the Masoretic Text that "must" be
        solved by consulting the *versions* (especially the LXX). The first OTTC
        work that comes to my mind is that of Ralph Klein (1974). He asserts,
        for example, that several Hebrew passages in 1. Samuel and Jeremiah must
        be corrected in accordance with the LXX, a *version*! Well, is not this
        textual criticism? You may say: "There is *reason* to depart from the
        original language text in those instances!". I would have replied:
        "Other competent scholars disagree!".

        Why is it "lawful" for OT TCers to correct *large passages* of the Hebrew
        text in accordance with the LXX, and "unscholarly" for the KJV
        translators to correct just *very small* portions of the Greek text in
        accordance with the Latin??

        > >
        > > It should be clear today, especially after the studies by Bentley, Jonge,
        > > and others, on Erasmus and his text, that the implications drawn from the
        > > "rushing out" of the first edition of Erasmus, and his use of only a hand
        > > full of late MSS, can no longer be maintained.
        >
        > Oh really?? In total, no more than 10 months could have been devoted by Erasmus, Froben and his associates to
        > the task of editing and printing this GNT. Erasmus left Basel for England in March, 1515: two months later he
        > returned to Basel where discussions with Froben resume. As late as September 1515 there still were no definite
        > plans as to the eventual format of the work. This is rushing Helge, even by the mouth of Erasmus.

        Let me emphasize that the quoted words of mine above do not object
        to the fact that the first Erasmus-edition was "rushed out". I am talking
        about the *implications* drawn from that fact. We cannot any longer
        *imply*, for instance, that just because this edition was prepared in
        a hurry and "rushed" to the press, that its *text* therefore must be
        badly prepared. I do not believe that Erasmus would have sent MSS to the
        printer which did contain a text of which he could not approve. As Jonge
        has stated, he would not have approved of MSS which agreed with the
        Roman Vulgate.

        >
        > >
        > > I think these statements and the investigation by Clark, shows that we
        > > should not be quick to pass judgment on Erasmus` work. It is, after
        > > all, several hundred years since Erasmus prepared his edition, and much
        > > material that was available to Erasmus may not be available at all today!
        >
        > For example??

        What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin
        translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition,
        which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to
        nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history??
        Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the
        details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the
        Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this
        context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the
        above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....".

        >
        > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out:
        >
        > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so
        > little" (p. 752).

        Well, I could not have quoted the whole article in my post.
        I doubt that the comment is so "pertinent" as you suppose. Clark is here
        particularly referring to the notes made by Erasmus in Codex 2. The
        sentence preceding the one you quoted says: "What Erasmus did to the text
        of Codex 2 was too slight to merit much concern or praise".

        My contention is not about how much Erasmus worked with that particular
        MS. If he did little to the text of this MS, it may be due to it being a
        good MS in his judgment. By the way, it is interesting to consider that
        many of the changes he *did* introduce into this MS was supported by
        later discoveries. That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I
        doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern scholars. I think
        that the following statement by Clark is even more "pertinent" to our
        discussion: "....these changes made by Erasmus have in most cases come
        to be supported by later discovery and research, so that as far as
        Erasmus went in editing Codex 2 he merits chiefly commendation
        rather than the customary condemnation" (p.755).

        One must also consider that this MS was not the only one Erasmus sent to
        the printer. I must conclude that the changes Erasmus made are a sign of
        he being in agreement with those part of the text which he did *not*
        change.

        The printer also made changes in the MS. Again in the words of
        Clark: "A revision written in by Erasmus was sometimes disregarded, and
        where Erasmus made no change the printer himself sometimes revised"
        (p.755). He also writes: "It is even possible that the basic text
        prepared by Erasmus was subject to collaborative revision, and that the
        1516 edition was not solely the work of Erasmus" (p.756, also quoted in
        my previous post).

        As I indicated in my previous post, and earlier in this, I admit that
        this final process was done in haste. There is no doubt about that. My
        contention, however, has next to nothing to do with the printing-process,
        or his notes in Codex 2.
        As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication
        of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation,
        that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity
        to gather notes and information on MSS.
        The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or
        the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were
        essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need
        would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts??

        >
        > <snip>
        >
        > > In fact the _Annotations_ can yield a
        > > great deal of information, not only about Erasmus` competence as a
        > > textual critic, but also about his general awareness of textual
        > > problems,.....".
        >
        > Fine - the Annotations shed light on his ad hoc criticism and text-editing. So? This does not change the fact
        > of the MSS he used and how he used them, nor the fact that the entire production took 6-10 months to complete.
        > But more on his text later...

        Note that the words you have responded to above are not mine; I quoted
        J.H.Bentley.

        "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before
        the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he
        "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the
        necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to
        the printer.

        >
        > > He was led by a kind of "common faith" in the traditional text which was
        > > found in the current Greek MSS.
        >
        > Hogwash. You've been reading Hills too long. Please read biography of Erasmus by J. J. Managan and let me
        > know where you find ANY reference to a 'common faith' guiding him to do anything. Was it this 'common faith'
        > that led him to dedicate his GNT to Leo X, the SAME Pope who condemned Luther??

        We all know that "good godly men differ".

        The dedication to Leo had nothing to do with the form of the text.

        >
        > > Often we hear TCers referring to the "few and late MSS" used by Erasmus.
        > > But several of the "late" readings favored by Erasmus have been attested
        > > in subsequent time by far older MSS. Not to mention the great number of
        > > Byzantine MSS that has appeared since the time of Erasmus. This evidence
        > > attests even more to Erasmus` edition(s). Erasmus may have had "few" MSS
        > > at his disposal according to today`s standard, nevertheless his
        > > text was later attested by the great *majority* of MSS! And clearly, the
        > > text he produced from the "few" MSS was even in harmony with the great
        > > majority of Greek MSS at his own time.
        >
        > I agree (for arguments sake) that subsequent discoveries have demonstrated the Byzantine character of the TR.
        > And today, the texts of Hodges/Farstad as well as Robinson/Pierpont agree even more - far more in fact - with
        > the great *majority* of MSS than ANY edition of the TR.

        Praise God that someone did take on themselves to do the painstaking
        work of making the Byzantine text available in a handy format!

        > So why bother with the TR??

        There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the
        basis of both external and internal evidences.

        >
        > <snip>
        >
        > > >From this it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a "truism" that
        > > Erasmus based his first edition on "just a hand full of Greek MSS".
        >
        > How so?? Where does de Jonge state that Erasmus used many MSS (20? 30?)
        > in his first ed?

        I never asserted that he did.

        Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS.
        But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader
        MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS
        sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not.

        > What documentation do
        > you have that clearly identifies any other MSS used than the 7 I > mentioned?

        Again, I did not say that he used other MSS (as far as we know) at the
        time of printing or at the time just prior to the printing of the 1516
        edition.

        >
        > > Besides, we know very little
        > > with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard to all the sources
        > > used by Erasmus. He *may* have used *many* MSS instead of "a few".
        >
        > And he *may* not have.

        Agreed.

        But here again I am not limiting my mention of "MSS used by Erasmus" to
        those he used at the time of printing.

        > Enough with these impossible inferences and wild speculation. Don't you
        > have ANY
        > documentation whatsoever? Is your entire defense of Erasmus simply a hypothesis based upon a supposition from
        > a possible inference??

        Documentation? Well, I did not state anything with any degree of
        *certainty* regarding these matters. I have not tried to prove anything.
        As I said:
        "we know very little with any sufficient degree of certainty with regard
        to all the sources used by Erasmus".

        >
        > > If Erasmus had been working on the text of the NT since 1504, *twelve
        > > years* ahead of the publication of his first edition, it is only logical
        > > to conclude that he must have had knowledge of variants in MSS far beyond
        > > those exhibited in the "few late" MSS he "used" in the final stage.
        > > When Erasmus saw that the Greek MSS he found throughout Europe was
        > > virtually identical in text to the ones at his disposal at the time
        > > of printing, he did not hesitate to use the latter.
        > > He began his work with the printed edition at Basel in 1515, and he had
        > > there five Greek MSS at his disposal. In addition, he must have had notes
        > > and maybe other sources available. He had thoroughly studied the Church
        > > Fathers which had made him well acquainted with textual variants.
        > >
        >
        > Here you are trying to make Erasmus out to be some sort of 16th century Tischendorf, roaming the European
        > libraries, collating many MSS and then bringing this mass of variants along with him to Froben's printing
        > press. I'm sorry Helge, but this is nothing but wishful thinking. The fact is, his entire apparatus was
        > probably no more than 7 Greek MSS, some Latin MSS and whatever notes he may have had of variant readings. His
        > GNT bears witness to this. Just as Clark wrote, it took so long to do so little - and the little done was to
        > simply make corrections in the margin and/or interlinear of his MSS and bring these MSS to Froben. And that's
        > that.

        As stated above, he needed not introduce *many* variants if the great
        majority of the MSS he found throughout Europe was in substantial
        agreement with those he used (and approved of) at the time of printing.
        The notes he may have gathered on his travels did not make their way into
        Codex 2 or the other MSS he sent to the printer, in those instances where
        the notes *agreed* with these MSS.

        > But in all reality Helge, why bother defending the TR so much?? After all, now that we have those magnificent
        > volumes by von Soden (for the NT) and Hoskier (for the Apocalypse), AND we have two critical editions of the
        > Byzantine text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont) why bother with the TR at all?? Afetr all, you believe that
        > the TR is a good Greek text because of its Byzantine character, no? And what about those wonderful
        > non-Byzantine variants in the TR?

        As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on
        TC principles. (If I add an example, I start a new debate; I choose to
        avoid that for now).

        >
        > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why
        > bother with the KJV? But that's another
        > story...

        Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both?
        I also believe that the KJV can be defended against much of the criticism
        brought against it (I hope I do not start a kind of "KJV debate" here).


        Thanks so far....


        --
        - Mr. Helge Evensen
      • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
        Helge, Sorry for the late reply, as I ve been occupied with other responsibilities lately. ... Maybe not wrong per se, but stretched a little... ;-) ...
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 29 12:01 PM
          Helge,

          Sorry for the late reply, as I've been occupied with other responsibilities lately.

          Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:


          > And that the KJV-translators were the most scholarly persons in the
          > whole kingdom at the time.
          > Is this wrong?


          Maybe not wrong per se, but stretched a little... ;-)


          >
          > It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about
          > the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their
          > "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance.
          > These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated
          > by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts.

          Perhaps they use such words because that is the actual case?? For example, Herman C. Hoskier describes MS 57
          (of Rev.) and the edition of Colinaeus as follows:

          So 57 becomes Colinaeus. But whence did Colinaeus draw? No one knows. We can surmise however. From nowhere!
          That is from no MSS. direct. Else his text would not have remained stuffed wih the errors of Erasmus, plus his
          own.

          I don't think Hoskier was an opponant of the Byz txt, yet he still spoke of the errors of Erasmus. And in
          light of the present knowledge of the Byz txt and its history, yes the TR IS an inferior Greek Text. It was
          considered imperfect and in need of revision by Burgon/Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, A. Martin, Hodges, Farstad,
          Robinson, Pierpont among others. No problem there.


          > >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical.
          >
          > Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was
          > undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about
          > other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother
          > about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical!


          I'm not speaking of deciding between variant readings which appear in the margin of the various GNT's they
          were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek text and using the Vulgate as a translation
          base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong.

          >
          > That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their
          > decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention
          > with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a
          > later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!).
          >

          As I asked in my first post, WHO denied the scholarship of the KJV?? And was this ever an issue? No work that
          I have read on the history of English Versions or Text Criticism _ever_ denied the scholarship of the KJV
          translators. Its not a point to contest.


          > What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin
          > translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition,
          > which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to
          > nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history??
          > Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the
          > details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the
          > Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this
          > context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the
          > above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....".

          and

          > As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication
          > of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation,
          > that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity
          > to gather notes and information on MSS.
          > The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or
          > the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were
          > essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need
          > would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts??

          and


          > "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before
          > the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he
          > "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the
          > necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to
          > the printer.
          >

          and

          > Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS.
          > But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader
          > MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS
          > sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not.

          and

          > It is unlikely that all the changes that were later attested by MS discoveries and research, should have
          > been introduced by Erasmus *without* any MS attestation. *Some* of them, of course, *might* have been
          > editorial on the part of Erasmus. But I believe that the likelihood goes in the direction of he having been
          > in possession of MS evidence for most of the changes he introduced.

          Helge I find here a main pillar in your defense of Erasmus. This revision of the Latin text based on Greek MSS
          obviously is important to you. The problem is, your are basing your entire argument on something of which no
          one today knows any details about. We are ignorant of the Greek MSS he used and how he used them. Ignorance
          proves nothing, and all that you can deduce from nothing is nothing.

          You don't know how many MSS Erasmus used, which ones were used, how he used them, and whether or not any of
          the variants he knew of ever made it into Froben's printing shop. Hence these vague statements can be used by
          anyone for anything. They fit well your TR/KJV agenda and you are milking them for all their worth. This is
          your back-door escape out of admitting that the TR is not as good as you wish it were. No wonder you lay so
          much emphasis on these unknown MSS! They are essential to your defense.

          In fact you are simply shifting the burden of proof. Since I am unable to disprove the proposition concerning
          Erasmus' supposed use of many Greek MSS for his 1516 edition (according to you), you are using this as an
          argument that he _did_.

          Hills did the same when he appealed to the providence of God in order to defend non-Byz readings in the TR.
          Since he had no way to defend them, even by his own text-critical principles, he had to find a way to defend
          them at any cost (since this was his agenda). So he appealed to the providence of God (something that could
          not be proved/disproved) and thus was able to "defend" those non-Byz TR readings.

          Since you do not know WHICH Greek MSS he used, HOW he used them, what VARIANTS he noted, and how these
          variants had any influence (if at all) on the first 1516 edition, you can pretty much use this to your agenda
          any way you see fit.

          Whereas my argument from the first was, since we know which MSS he used for his first edition, let's judge his
          work on THAT basis: let us work with what we know rather on what we don't.


          > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out:
          >
          > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so
          > little" (p. 752).

          That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern
          scholars.

          Helge this comment is utterly preposterous. Are you SERIOUSLY contending that Erasmus knew so much on NTTC and
          MS evidence that his method of TC was SO GOOD that today there no equal? Next you will argue that the KJV
          translators were so scholarly and had so mastered Greek and Hebrew that no one has surpassed them in
          scholarship...

          Get real Helge.


          > So why bother with the TR??

          > There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the basis of both external and internal
          > evidences.

          They can be defended only by an application of specially devised criteria (tailor made for the TR) and by an
          ad hoc text critical methodology. However if you can privately email me a few examples I would be much
          obliged.

          > As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on TC principles. (If I add an example,
          > I start a new debate; I choose to avoid that for now).

          Agreed that it will start a new debate, even though I disagree. However can you privately email me some
          examples??

          >
          > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why
          > bother with the KJV? But that's another
          > story...

          > Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both?

          Well Helge, do you read the KJV as well as the Geneva version? Why not? Because the Geneva Bible was good, but
          the KJV better. Ditto for the NKJV. It is more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV
          than the KJV itself. And it is a superior translation (just look at their work with the definite article and
          with verbs - in fact most modern translation, such as ASV, NASV, and RSV are better than the KJV in this
          respect).


          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Mike Arcieri
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        • Mr. Helge Evensen
          Thanks for your reply, Mike. In this post I will try to make my response short. As I can see from your reply, this is as much a problem with our use of words
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 30 12:36 AM
            Thanks for your reply, Mike.

            In this post I will try to make my response short.

            As I can see from your reply, this is as much a problem with our use of
            words as it is a problem with our differing stances.


            Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:


            > >
            > > It is almost "second nature" to many modern scholars to talk about
            > > the so-called "blunders" of Erasmus and the KJV-translators, and their
            > > "inferior" textbase. Therefore it does not hurt with a little balance.
            > > These "established facts" ascertained by modern scholarship are repeated
            > > by bible translators and others as if they were Bible facts.
            >
            > Perhaps they use such words because that is the actual case?? For example, Herman C. Hoskier describes MS 57
            > (of Rev.) and the edition of Colinaeus as follows:
            >
            > So 57 becomes Colinaeus. But whence did Colinaeus draw? No one knows. We can surmise however. From nowhere!
            > That is from no MSS. direct. Else his text would not have remained stuffed wih the errors of Erasmus, plus his
            > own.
            >
            > I don't think Hoskier was an opponant of the Byz txt, yet he still spoke of the errors of Erasmus. And in
            > light of the present knowledge of the Byz txt and its history, yes the TR IS an inferior Greek Text. It was
            > considered imperfect and in need of revision by Burgon/Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, A. Martin, Hodges, Farstad,
            > Robinson, Pierpont among others. No problem there.

            The context in which I stated the above quoted part was that of
            the usually made statements which often are used to reject the TR.
            But I have never seen a *scholarly* refutation of the TR itself. I have,
            however, seen many "refutations" of the opinions of many TR advocates.

            Whether or not there are blunders in the Erasmus edition or the
            subsequent TR editions, was not really my point. I did not even say that
            these "established facts" were *not* facts, but that they were handled as
            they were "Bible facts", that is, they are considered as "truths" by
            which to judge
            the whole TR text, when in reality these "blunders" have very
            little to do with the TR as a whole, since they are a very small part of
            the text. (I am not now talking about non-Byzantine readings, but the
            "blunders" such as the few places in Revelation which Erasmus supposedly
            did not have more than one MS source for, which lacked the six last
            verses of Rev.).
            I meant to say that minor things are used to reject the whole TR text. I
            am not here referring to the Byz-txt advocates who make a very good case
            for the Byz txt based on tc principles. To reject the TR after a careful
            investigation of the MSS is, of course, not the same as rejecting it
            primarily based on the "blunders" of Erasmus or the TR editors.

            >
            > > >HOWEVER they did translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text - _THIS_ WAS uncritical.
            > >
            > > Not necessarily so! The easiest thing for the translators to do was
            > > undoubtedly to just follow the Greek editions and not bother at all about
            > > other alternate readings. To my mind, the fact that they *did* bother
            > > about alternate readings, shows that they were *not* uncritical!
            >
            > I'm not speaking of deciding between variant readings which appear in the margin of the various GNT's they
            > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek text and using the Vulgate as a translation
            > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong.

            When I
            referred to these translators as "critical", I was referring to the work
            they did *textually* with regard to the underlyings texts. That was the
            context of the discussion.
            Besides, I am not able to see what their choice of words with regard to
            the *rendering into English* has to do with being "critical" or
            "uncritical". Has a *rendering* into English influenced by the Latin
            Vulgate *linguistically*, anything at all to do with "rejecting the Greek
            text"?? They did not, of course, use the Vulgate as a "translation base"
            just because they translated under the influence of the Latin as a
            language, which, by the way, was very dominant at their time.
            You called it to "translate from the Vulgate rather than the Greek text".
            To me, this sounds as if you referred to the *textual* issue!

            My point
            was that they chose a *version* instead of the current *Greek* text! As
            far as I can see, this is "critical evaluation", and it shows that they
            did not just accept one edition or even the current Greek text in every
            detail.

            > >
            > > That is not really the issue! Whether or not they were *right* in their
            > > decisions was not my concern in my previous post. The primary intention
            > > with my post was not to *defend* the KJV-translators. I may do so at a
            > > later opportunity. (But not at the cost of being thrown off the list!).
            > >
            >
            > As I asked in my first post, WHO denied the scholarship of the KJV?? And was this ever an issue? No work that
            > I have read on the history of English Versions or Text Criticism _ever_ denied the scholarship of the KJV
            > translators. Its not a point to contest.

            I was not contesting it.
            Initially, I referred to these facts, as part of the
            information in response to the post that started this. I pointed out that
            these facts must be taken into consideration when discussing the work of
            the KJV translators. There is a need for a little balance, since these
            translators so often are objects of groundless criticism. This is a kind
            of modern sport.

            >
            > > What about the Greek MSS which he used when he prepared his Latin
            > > translation, years before the publication of the 1516 edition,
            > > which MSS most scholars acknowledge to know little to
            > > nothing certain about, as regards their existence and history??
            > > Very little att all can be said with any *certainty* with regard to the
            > > details involved in both the preparation and the publication of the
            > > Erasmus-edition. The word "facts" becomes a little too strong in this
            > > context! Note that I did not assert anything with any certainty in the
            > > above quoted statement. I said: "*may* not....".
            >
            > and
            >
            > > As I clearly stated, it is the 10 to 12 years *prior to* the publication
            > > of the 1516 edition, while studying Greek MSS for his Latin translation,
            > > that formed his critical knowledge of readings and gave him opportunity
            > > to gather notes and information on MSS.
            > > The notes he gathered on his travels might not have influenced Codex 2 or
            > > the other codices he sent to the printer much. For if these MSS were
            > > essentially in agreement with those he found in his travels, what need
            > > would there be for introducing many new readings into their texts??
            >
            > and
            >
            > > "The MSS he used"? You mean those he used the last few months before
            > > the publication of the printed edition!? But I am talking about those he
            > > "used" 10 to 12 years before that event. The latter would give him the
            > > necessary information on how to handle those he had available to send to
            > > the printer.
            > >
            >
            > and
            >
            > > Directly Erasmus did not base the 1516 edition on more than a few MSS.
            > > But indirectly, through knowledge of other MSS, it had a far broader
            > > MS base. To say that the Erasmus edition was based on "few and late" MSS
            > > sounds as if it has a weak MS base, which it has not.
            >
            > and
            >
            > > It is unlikely that all the changes that were later attested by MS discoveries and research, should have
            > > been introduced by Erasmus *without* any MS attestation. *Some* of them, of course, *might* have been
            > > editorial on the part of Erasmus. But I believe that the likelihood goes in the direction of he having been
            > > in possession of MS evidence for most of the changes he introduced.
            >
            > Helge I find here a main pillar in your defense of Erasmus. This revision of the Latin text based on Greek MSS
            > obviously is important to you. The problem is, your are basing your entire argument on something of which no
            > one today knows any details about. We are ignorant of the Greek MSS he used and how he used them. Ignorance
            > proves nothing, and all that you can deduce from nothing is nothing.

            As I clearly stated, I have not tried to prove anything. I also clearly
            admitted that we know little to nothing with any certainty with regard to
            the MSS used by Erasmus, especially the MSS used for his Latin.
            On the other hand, many scholars refer to the "weak base" of the Erasmus
            edition or the TR as something sure, even though it cannot be assured.

            I made a point with regard to the Latin translation because
            that translation clearly gives us
            the information that he *must at least* have worked with Greek MSS a long
            time before 1516.
            I am not trying to draw conclusions based on silence. In the first
            place, the fact that Erasmus must have had MSS available for his Latin
            tramslation cannot rightly be regarded as "nothing"!
            I was not giving "information" on these MSS, but only concluded that he
            must have had Greek MSS available in order to do the work, and I
            *suggested* that these MSS may have influenced his Greek text.

            I cannot see why such suggestions are so hard to accept. In TC,
            suggestions are presented all the time, and are considered. For instance,
            a 12th cent. MS may be suggested to be a copy of earlier MSS with such
            or such text, because in itself it testifies to earlier sources. In the
            case of the Erasmus edition, I believe it can rightly be suggested that
            he may have used other sources than those we know of and that they have
            influenced his edition. But, again, nothing can be proved here. And that
            is also the case in many instances of TC work. Much must be worked out
            based on hypotheses. But you may not consider *my* hypotheses as valid,
            and that is, of course, your choice, and your right.

            Please note that I was using expressions like "likelihood", "I believe",
            etc. And even where I have not used such "uncertainty" expressions, the
            context of my discussion is nevertheless clear. The only thing I have
            stated as a fact, is in reality a fact: the fact that Erasmus must have
            had Greek MSS available when he worked on his Latin translation.

            I stated that the TR does not have a weak MS base, but that is referring
            to the "essential TR". As I said, often minor details are used as a
            "spring-board" to reject the TR.

            It should be clear to all by now that I am a TR advocate; and I defend
            that text as the best NT text, even though I have not done that in my
            previous posts. I have restricted myself to informative matters, not
            using space to defend the TR. I would love to do so, and I may at a
            later opportunity. However, I will try not to, and instead use my time to
            complete my book on TC and the TR.

            >
            > You don't know how many MSS Erasmus used, which ones were used, how he used them, and whether or not any of
            > the variants he knew of ever made it into Froben's printing shop.

            I never stated that I *knew* any of this.

            > Hence these vague statements can be used by
            > anyone for anything.

            All things can be used wrongly. However, I did not do that.

            > They fit well your TR/KJV agenda and you are milking them for all their worth. This is
            > your back-door escape out of admitting that the TR is not as good as you wish it were. No wonder you lay so
            > much emphasis on these unknown MSS! They are essential to your defense.

            In fact, I am not dependent on this for my TR stance at all. I discovered
            these facts long time after I was convinced that the TR is the best text.
            I must admit, of course, that I find the information brought to light
            by Jonge and others to be very interesting, and somewhat in favour of my
            TR stance.

            Note also that it is common in TC circles to "milk" the "facts" about
            Erasmus and the TR "for all their worth", as I indicated initially. So,
            if I "milk", I am not the only one.

            > In fact you are simply shifting the burden of proof. Since I am unable to disprove the proposition concerning
            > Erasmus' supposed use of many Greek MSS for his 1516 edition (according to you), you are using this as an
            > argument that he _did_.

            No. See above and my previous post.

            > Hills did the same when he appealed to the providence of God in order to defend non-Byz readings in the TR.
            > Since he had no way to defend them, even by his own text-critical principles, he had to find a way to defend
            > them at any cost (since this was his agenda). So he appealed to the providence of God (something that could
            > not be proved/disproved) and thus was able to "defend" those non-Byz TR readings.

            I do not believe that Hills "found" a way to defend the non-Byz readings
            "at any cost".
            Neither do I believe that "he had no way to defend them". He
            based his arguments and his TC on historical Christian principles.
            And he *did* make a good case for the non-Byz readings. You may differ
            with him, and that is all right. He was a competent scholar and a trained
            textual critic, and so are you (I suppose). You do not agree with Hills.
            That is all right. You disagree with me, and that is all right too.

            > Since you do not know WHICH Greek MSS he used, HOW he used them, what VARIANTS he noted, and how these
            > variants had any influence (if at all) on the first 1516 edition, you can pretty much use this to your agenda
            > any way you see fit.

            I *could* have done so, but I did not do so. And I never stated that I
            *know* anything about the MSS used by Erasmus for his Latin.

            > Whereas my argument from the first was, since we know which MSS he used for his first edition, let's judge his
            > work on THAT basis: let us work with what we know rather on what we don't.

            Is this the way you practice all TC work? Does not TC work at times
            consist in the use of hypotheses, likelihoods and suggestions??

            > > And let me add a pertinent comment by Clark which you left out:
            > >
            > > "The wonder of it is, not that he finished the job so quickly, but rather that he took so long to do so
            > > little" (p. 752).
            >
            > That fact, to me, speaks of a careful criticism, and I doubt that we can find a parellel to this among modern
            > scholars.

            Here something is certainly "left out". (See my original post).
            Are you responding (below) to what I actually wrote in my previous post,
            or are you responding to the above "quote"??

            > Helge this comment is utterly preposterous. Are you SERIOUSLY contending that Erasmus knew so much on NTTC and
            > MS evidence that his method of TC was SO GOOD that today there no equal? Next you will argue that the KJV
            > translators were so scholarly and had so mastered Greek and Hebrew that no one has surpassed them in
            > scholarship...
            >
            > Get real Helge.

            I did not, of course, assert that Erasmus knew more than modern scholars
            about MSS and TC. My point was referring to his critical ability and his
            competence as a scholar, and that this must be taken into consideration
            when judging his text. (Although he did not edit the text of the MSS
            very much, he nevertheless approved or disapproved of MSS).

            >
            > > So why bother with the TR??
            >
            > > There are many non-Byzantine TR readings which can be defended on the basis of both external and internal
            > > evidences.
            >
            > They can be defended only by an application of specially devised criteria (tailor made for the TR) and by an
            > ad hoc text critical methodology. However if you can privately email me a few examples I would be much
            > obliged.

            First, many of the non-Byz readings are found in the eclectic text
            accepted by many TCers today, and are defended on accepted TC principles.
            Second, even if I gave you examples, you could easily refute my
            arguments even if I used accepted TC principles to defend them. This is
            indicated in the fact that different TCers differ as to the use and
            emphasis of the accepted criteria. Just take a look at how many differing
            ideas there exist between TCers regarding the same readings.

            Third, I may call your preferred TC principles "tailor made for the
            Byzantine text", and those of the eclectics "tailor made for their
            purpose", and finally, those of the "Alexandrians", "tailor made for the
            Alexandrian text".

            The principles and canons applied or emphasized will often determine
            the results.

            > > As I said, I believe many of the non-Byz. readings *can* be defended on TC principles. (If I add an example,
            > > I start a new debate; I choose to avoid that for now).
            >
            > Agreed that it will start a new debate, even though I disagree. However can you privately email me some
            > examples??

            Yes, I will do so. But, as I said, many of them are already defended by
            eclectics (and also some by "Alexandrians").

            > >
            > > I would even add, since we now have the NKJV thanks to A. Farstad, why
            > > bother with the KJV? But that's another
            > > story...
            >
            > > Personally I like the KJV best. But why not use both?
            >
            > Well Helge, do you read the KJV as well as the Geneva version? Why not? Because the Geneva Bible was good, but
            > the KJV better.

            In fact, I have a copy of the Geneva Bible and I find it interesting.
            But because of the format of my copy, it is not very handy as a
            Bible for daily use. I agree that the KJV is better, but it does not
            automatically follow that the NKJV is better than the KJV.

            Ditto for the NKJV. It is more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts
            which underlie the KJV
            > than the KJV itself. And it is a superior translation (just look at their work with the definite article and
            > with verbs - in fact most modern translation, such as ASV, NASV, and RSV are better than the KJV in this
            > respect).

            I have found several instances in which the KJV has a better rendering
            than the NKJV. I could have listed them here, but because time does not
            at the present permit me to do so, I must wait for a better opportunity.
            I may send you an off-list message later, with a list of examples.



            Thanks so far.....


            --
            - Mr. Helge Evensen
          • bakker
            ... If the eurodite Rotterdammer were alive today, I speculate he would: 1. reject his Textus Receptus or a mechanically produced Majority Text, when
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 30 2:18 AM
              Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

              >I did not, of course, assert that Erasmus knew more than modern scholars
              >about MSS and TC. My point was referring to his critical ability and his
              >competence as a scholar, and that this must be taken into consideration
              >when judging his text.


              If the eurodite Rotterdammer were alive today, I speculate he would:

              1. reject 'his' Textus Receptus or a mechanically produced Majority Text,
              when confronted with the evidence now available.
              Erasmus was was an open-minded realist, not a dogmatist.

              2. exploit comments by textual critics avant la lettre.
              Erasmus extensively quotes patristic evidence on theological interpretation
              and text-critical issues in his Novum Instrumentum. (However, he
              erroneously latinises the Greek byname of Theophylact of Bulgaria (Ohrid)
              and quotes him as 'Vulgarius' in the editions of 1516 and 1519.)

              3. be with his biting remarks the poltergeist of this list. His
              Annotationes are a TC list avant la byte.


              Dr Michael Bakker

              Slavic Seminar
              University of Amsterdam
            • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
              ... Helge, I think that we ve pretty much debated this as far as it can go. I really don t have anything else to add, unless I start hairsplitting on minor
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 30 12:33 PM
                Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
                >
                > Thanks for your reply, Mike.
                >
                > In this post I will try to make my response short.
                >
                > As I can see from your reply, this is as much a problem with our use of
                > words as it is a problem with our differing stances.
                >

                Helge,

                I think that we've pretty much debated this as far as it can go. I really don't have anything else to add,
                unless I start hairsplitting on minor details. However I will be looking forward to continue this with you
                privately, esp. those places where you feel the TR is better than the Byz txt (and we can add those places
                where you feel the KJV is better than the NKJV). To begin discussing this now would be to get out of place
                with the discussion of Erasmian MSS.

                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Mike Arcieri
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              • Matthew Johnson
                On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: [snip] ... But this is a highly misleading description of what they did. Their translation of charity in
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 30 6:53 PM
                  On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:
                  [snip]

                  > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek
                  > text and using the Vulgate as a translation
                  > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong.

                  But this is a highly misleading description of what they did. Their
                  translation of "charity" in 1 Cor 13 is not "using the Vulgate instead of
                  the MSS", it is using the _example_ of the Vulgate translation to try to
                  solve a difficult translation problem: how to convey the distinction
                  between "agape^" and "philia" in English. The distinction is _similar_
                  (but not the same as) the distinction between "caritas" and "amicitia" in
                  Latin, and that between "love" and "charity" in an earlier form of
                  English. Here, "charity" does not mean almsgiving, but love.

                  [snip]
                  > > So why bother with the TR??

                  The TR is still very worth studying and understanding because it is the
                  text form used by so many men of outstanding scholarship and saintliness
                  for hundreds of years. Its differences from the elusive original text do
                  not detract from its holiness.

                  In fact, as I have hinted before, the widespread acceptance of the TR owes
                  much to the high esteem for Syrian scholars of great holiness, such as St.
                  John Chrysostom, St. Isaac the Syrian, Theodoret (the one from Syria), St.
                  John Climacus, St. Romanus the Melodist... As Syrians, they lived and
                  breathed the Syrian text-form of the Scriptures.

                  Christians in those days were not so obsessed with the original text
                  because they knew they couldn't get it, they made do with what Providence
                  gave them. They did better than many today, despite the "corruptions" of
                  the text-form.

                  Then the Syrian text developed into the "Syro-Byzantine" text, which then
                  gave us the Textus Receptus. The TR is _still_ easier for the average
                  modern man to understand than the Alexandrian text, much as it was easier
                  for people to understand in the days when the text-form evolved.


                  Matthew Johnson
                  Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
                  great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
                • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
                  ... Matthew, First let me assure you that there was no intention on my part to highly mislead anyone. If I initially misunderstood Hlege s argument, then so
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 2, 1997
                    Matthew Johnson wrote:
                    >
                    > On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:
                    > [snip]
                    >
                    > > were working with. I'm speaking about their rejecting the Greek
                    > > text and using the Vulgate as a translation
                    > > base (ex. 'charity' instead of 'love' in 1 Cor. 13). This was wrong.
                    >
                    > But this is a highly misleading description of what they did. Their
                    > translation of "charity" in 1 Cor 13 is not "using the Vulgate instead of
                    > the MSS", it is using the _example_ of the Vulgate translation to try to
                    > solve a difficult translation problem: how to convey the distinction
                    > between "agape^" and "philia" in English.

                    Matthew,

                    First let me assure you that there was no intention on my part to 'highly mislead' anyone. If I initially
                    misunderstood Hlege's argument, then so be it. I responded according to my understanding of Helge's
                    statements.

                    Concerning 'love' rather than 'charity' in 1 Cor. 13. The term charity goes back to Wycliffe trans of
                    1382 (based on the Vulgate). Tyndale changed it to 'love' and so it remained with the Great Bible and Geneva.
                    The Bishop's Bible returned to charity, and since this was the basis for the KJV, the learned men followed
                    suit. But why is 'agape' such a prob in 1 Cor 13 and not elsewhere? Why not translate John 3:16 as "For God so
                    charitied the world..."? What is the problem with translating the verb as 'love'? AND why is this a prob only
                    in 1 Cor. 13?

                    'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today, and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
                    So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

                    > [snip]
                    > > > So why bother with the TR??
                    >
                    > The TR is still very worth studying and understanding because it is the
                    > text form used by so many men of outstanding scholarship and saintliness
                    > for hundreds of years. Its differences from the elusive original text do
                    > not detract from its holiness.

                    Actually Matthew I would go one step further than that and state that it was PRODUCED by great men. I have
                    great respect for Erasmus (as I have come to know him through his correspondence) as well as for the Stephanus
                    family. Now if the correlation between the 'saintliness' of these men and the pedigree of the TR can be
                    established, we can discuss the quality of the TR further...
                  • Robert B. Waltz
                    Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can ignore it. When he makes
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 2, 1997
                      Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and
                      self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can
                      ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual
                      theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that
                      once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave
                      the matter alone.

                      [ ... ]

                      >Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the
                      >above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the
                      >meaning "love" today.

                      True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native
                      speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning
                      of charity is affection rather than almsgiving.

                      >I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find
                      >that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary

                      *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live....

                      >(1987) has this definition of the word "charity":
                      >"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards
                      >other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She
                      >found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_.
                      >1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG
                      >_He is far too proud to accept charity_".

                      The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers
                      this as its first definition:

                      1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.

                      The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
                      and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
                      cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.

                      And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
                      translated into colloquial English, not theological English!

                      [ ... ]

                      >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
                      >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.

                      This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
                      are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
                      consistently. To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
                      can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
                      may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.

                      >The KJV translators had great
                      >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
                      >the particular context.

                      This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.

                      The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
                      greatest ever works of English literature.

                      It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
                      if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
                      is *not in the language modern people speak.*

                      Rant-and-rave mode off.

                      Bob Waltz
                      waltzmn@...
                    • Jim West
                      ... Right after the New Revised English Bible. ... It is absolutely obsolete. ... based on second rate, inferior and much tampered with texts. ... and they did
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 2, 1997
                        At 01:58 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote:

                        >The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
                        >greatest ever works of English literature.

                        Right after the New Revised English Bible.

                        >
                        >It's also obsolete.

                        It is absolutely obsolete.

                        > Even if one ignores its defective text,

                        based on second rate, inferior and much tampered with texts.

                        > even
                        >if one ignores all the things the translators did not know,

                        and they did not know a lot- because they depended more heavily on the work
                        of their predecessors than they did on original translations of their own.

                        > it
                        >is *not in the language modern people speak.*
                        >

                        nor even close. The reason folk are attached to the KJV is because they
                        DONT want to know what the Bible says- so they read an outmoded translation
                        simply to feel good about themselves without any regard for the meaning of
                        the text.

                        >Rant-and-rave mode off.
                        >

                        Why?

                        >Bob Waltz
                        >waltzmn@...


                        JIm

                        +++++++++++++++++++++++
                        Jim West, ThD
                        Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
                        Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
                        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm

                        jwest@...
                      • Mr. Helge Evensen
                        ... Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the above statement is simply not true. The word charity certainly has the meaning
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 2, 1997
                          Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:

                          > 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
                          > and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
                          > So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

                          Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the
                          above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the
                          meaning "love" today.

                          I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find
                          that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
                          (1987) has this definition of the word "charity":
                          "1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards
                          other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She
                          found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_.
                          1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG
                          _He is far too proud to accept charity_".

                          Here we clearly see that the meaning "almsgiving" (money or gifts) is the
                          *secondary* meaning of the word, *not* the primary. Charity is an *act*
                          (or at least shows itself through acts/works). In reality, I do not think
                          it is always possible to separate between charity as almsgiving and
                          charity as "love". It rather seems that it has to do with two (or more)
                          ways of expressing the same thing.

                          What is "love" anyway? Is it not demonstrated by actions? And if we
                          consider the context of 1. Cor.13, we can clearly see that the KJV
                          translators had good reasons for render it "charity" instead of "love".
                          The former is broader in meaning and contains the sense of love _in
                          action_. And that seems to be the primary meaning in 1 Cor.13. That is
                          what the whole chapter is about. In fact, the chapter is in itself a
                          *definition* of what "love" is, especially vv. 4-8. In total, "charity"
                          occurs 28 times in the KJV.

                          The interesting part is that the KJV translators chose this word in
                          this context. They apparently saw the need of emphasizing more clearly
                          the meaning of the Greek word "agape". "Agape" is a Biblical and
                          ecclesiastical word, meaning (in its verb expression) to wish the best of
                          others, to give without limit, show unselfish commitment, etc. I think
                          that the word "agape" (or "agapao") is in its strongest expression in
                          John 3:16: "For so God "loved" the world, that he *gave*....."

                          The Webster Dictionary has another order in the definition of "charity".
                          It says: "1. charitable actions, as almsgiving or performing other
                          benevolent actions of any sort for the needy with no expectation of
                          material reward: _to devote one`s life to charity_.
                          2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: _She asked for
                          work, not charity_. 3. a charitable act of work., etc."

                          Whether we accept the Collins or the Webster definitions, it is grossly
                          inaccurate to say that charity does not mean love today! Charity meant
                          "love" in 1611, and it means "love" today. To accept the word charity
                          is therefore not to "introduce" a "problem in today`s versions", but
                          rather to appreciate a word that is broader and deeper than "love".

                          To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
                          word in all instances is clearly a fallacy. The KJV translators had great
                          sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
                          the particular context.

                          Another thing to consider here is that the word "love" in modern "street"
                          language is encumbered with many wrong ideas, which is certainly not
                          Biblical.

                          I apologize for having gone into these details on a non-tc issue.


                          --
                          - Mr. Helge Evensen
                        • Robert B. Waltz
                          On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ] ... [ ... ] ... The
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jul 3, 1997
                            On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <helevens@...> wrote:

                            [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

                            >Robert B. Waltz wrote:

                            [ ... ]

                            >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
                            >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
                            >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??
                            >
                            >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
                            >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
                            >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
                            >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
                            >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
                            >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
                            >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
                            >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
                            >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).

                            The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they
                            understand it to mean "charity."

                            I do not argue that this is "good" -- in fact, I object to the way
                            certain people use certain words. Very obvious example: "Gay."
                            In my vocabulary, "gay" is a word meaning "chearful," and is applied
                            primarily to ladies -- at least in traditional music. But it has
                            now been -- er -- perverted to mean "homosexual." And for all that
                            I wish it otherwise, when I hear the word "gay," I must usually
                            interpret it as meaning "homosexual," not "cheerful."

                            >I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point.
                            >I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language
                            >Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.

                            But if two dictionaries disagree, should we not investigate further?
                            And we are finding that the English speakers on the list understand
                            the word as "almsgiving."

                            >(Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of
                            >this word?)
                            >
                            >In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not
                            >necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are
                            >*other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain
                            >enough.

                            Not really. My interpretation of the above statement is that we are to
                            speak some sort of code because that's what your dictionary says.

                            [... ]
                            >
                            >Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very
                            >influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern
                            >English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing,
                            >counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?

                            Really? Anybody want to tell me what a "blain" is (Ex. 9:9)? :-)

                            >To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part
                            >of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the
                            >meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not
                            >part of modern English??

                            In my experience, it is not. And my English (unlike my Greek) is
                            quite good.

                            [ ... ]

                            >> The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
                            >> and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
                            >> cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.
                            >
                            >(What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

                            "Ordinary conversation" is anything people say without trying to sound
                            affected.

                            [ ... ]

                            >That is all this dictionary has to say about this word.
                            >Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not
                            >separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all
                            >together.

                            But -- trust me -- most people *don't* speak "Biblical English" in
                            ordinary life, and can't be expected to understand it. Certainly they
                            aren't taught it. In fact, any attempt to teach it in American
                            public schools would be unconstitutional.

                            >But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to
                            >another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced
                            >Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989.
                            >On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English"
                            >(emphasis added).
                            >This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of
                            >students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

                            The ultimate authority, perhaps, is the Oxford English Dictionary.
                            Anybody out there have an OED to check?

                            >When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to
                            >*current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word
                            >charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is:
                            >"_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging
                            >others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a)
                            >(generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc."
                            >
                            >It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the
                            >meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this
                            >meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*.
                            >
                            >> And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
                            >> translated into colloquial English, not theological English!
                            >
                            >It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written
                            >in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor
                            >language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language
                            >to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible.

                            Modern English is fully as capable of translating Greek as the language
                            of the KJV -- which happens to be early Modern English. It merely
                            translates it differently.

                            [ ... ]

                            >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
                            >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
                            >>
                            >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
                            >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
                            >> consistently.
                            >
                            >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
                            >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
                            >existense.

                            But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the
                            KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or
                            tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

                            >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
                            >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
                            >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.
                            >
                            >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
                            >of a group of ordinary words.

                            I see none.

                            It should not be necessary for me to
                            >comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a
                            >little too strong.....)
                            >
                            >> >The KJV translators had great
                            >> >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
                            >> >the particular context.
                            >>
                            >> This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.
                            >
                            >Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.

                            That's *my* point.

                            [ ... ]

                            >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
                            >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
                            >> is *not in the language modern people speak.*
                            >
                            >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
                            >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
                            >which is different from a newspaper?

                            Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not
                            the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism?
                            Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible.
                            But people *do not* understand the KJV.

                            I agree that is regretable; I wish more people could understand
                            Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV. But it is true. We
                            cannot hold back time. We can only bring our translations up to date.

                            -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                            waltzmn@...

                            Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                            Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                            (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                          • Mr. Helge Evensen
                            ... Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing sacrilege against the Holy English Language! ... I guess I could have found more than
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jul 4, 1997
                              Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                              >
                              > Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and
                              > self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can
                              > ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual
                              > theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that
                              > once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave
                              > the matter alone.

                              Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing
                              sacrilege against the Holy English Language!

                              >
                              > >Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the
                              > >above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the
                              > >meaning "love" today.
                              >
                              > True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native
                              > speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning
                              > of charity is affection rather than almsgiving.

                              I guess I could have found more than one if I just sought hard enough
                              for it. However, I am not willing to use the time it would take. I am at
                              a great disadvantage at this point, since I am not a native speaker of
                              English. But your statement above is, in fact, missing the point.
                              Please consider again the statement of Mike to which I responded:

                              > 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
                              > and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
                              > So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

                              This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
                              fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
                              of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
                              a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
                              use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
                              My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
                              blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
                              It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
                              of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).
                              I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point.
                              I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language
                              Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.
                              (Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of
                              this word?)

                              In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not
                              necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are
                              *other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain
                              enough.

                              On the title page of the Collins Dictionary, we read: "HELPING LEARNERS
                              WITH _REAL_ ENGLISH". So the meaning of charity which I referred to is
                              actually REAL ENGLISH. There is more. In the Introduction, we read: "This
                              dictionary is for people who want to *use* modern English. It offers
                              *accurate* and detailed information on the way *modern* English is *used*
                              in *all kinds* of communication. It is a useful guide to *writing* and
                              **speaking** English as well as an aid to reading and *understanding*".
                              "For the first time, a dictionary has been compiled by the *thorough*
                              examination of a *representative* group of English texts, *spoken* and
                              *written*, running to many millions of words. This means that in addition
                              to all the tools of the conventional dictionary makers - wide reading and
                              *experience* of English, other dictionaries and of course eyes and ears -
                              this dictionary is based on *hard*, measurable *evidence*. No major uses
                              are missed, and the number of times a use occurs has a *strong* influence
                              on the *way* the *entries* are *organized*".
                              "The dictionary team has had daily access to about 20 million words,....
                              The words came from books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, leaflets,
                              conversations, radio and television broadcasts.....
                              The aim was to provide a *fair representation* of *contemporary*
                              English" (Introduction, p. xv, emphasis added).

                              Well, if words mean anything, and if the Birmingham University does not
                              lie, I have good reason for trusting the definitions in this dictionary.
                              At least, I think it is fair to conclude that if they list "love" as the
                              *primary* meaning of charity, this meaning can be regarded as one of the
                              *valid* meanings of charity in modern English. If not, Birmingham must
                              have really missed it here and probably in numerous other places.
                              According to the quoted words, this must be a pretty good dictionary. At
                              least, I am not competent to try to correct it.

                              On the front flap, it reads: "An editorial team has worked for seven
                              years using extensive computer facilities to study and analyse the
                              patterns of use in millions of words of text".
                              On the back cover, we find: "It is based on a detailed analysis of how
                              *today`s* English is really *used*" and "90,000 examples taken from the
                              COBUILD database show just how words and phrases are *really* used".
                              (Emphasis added).

                              The thing that called forth my response to Mike was not that he
                              asserted that "love" is not the *primary* meaning of charity, but that
                              it did not have that meaning *at all* today!
                              Note also that I did not say that charity *primarily* means "love" in all
                              situations at all times. I was depending on the order of the listing of
                              the Dictionary.

                              Since you yourself referred to a dictionary in your post, it seems that
                              you think that a dictionary definition carries at least *some* weight.
                              My dictionary disagrees with yours, so what? That fact alone should be
                              enough to admit that "love" *is* a valid meaning of the word charity. It
                              certainly is wrong to conclude blatant that it does not at all have that
                              meaning in modern language. If that was the case, I doubt that any
                              dictionary at all would have given it this definition.

                              Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very
                              influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern
                              English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing,
                              counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?
                              To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part
                              of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the
                              meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not
                              part of modern English??
                              Is not christians who use this word today among native English speakers?

                              > >I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find
                              > >that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
                              >
                              > *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live....

                              That does not make it a non-standard.
                              But it certainly is a standard dictionary at numerous schools and
                              colleges. And since it is based on extensive research and hard evidence,
                              there is no reason to doubt its reliability. Students are using it, and
                              are being formed by it, linguistically.

                              > >(1987) has this definition of the word "charity":
                              > >"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards
                              > >other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She
                              > >found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_.
                              > >1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG
                              > >_He is far too proud to accept charity_".
                              >
                              > The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers
                              > this as its first definition:
                              >
                              > 1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
                              >
                              > The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
                              > and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
                              > cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.

                              (What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

                              As I said earlier, "good godly men differ". And dictionaries differ.
                              We should not forget that there may be a difference between English
                              and American English, and that the KJV is written in *English*. Thus, we
                              may discover that there are slight differences in the definitions
                              between dictionaries intended for use in America and those intended for
                              use in England. But even though your American dictionary did not list
                              "love" as a primary meaning of charity, I have one that does. I am
                              talking about the Webster`s Dictionary of the American Language. That
                              one may be regarded as a standard dictionary, I suppose. (Maybe not by
                              all).
                              On the front cover we find the following announcement:
                              over 50,000 entries
                              derivations
                              **modern definitions**
                              parts of speech
                              syllabized
                              clear type
                              indexed

                              (emphasis added)

                              One of the things I expect to find when I open this dictionary, is
                              *modern definitions* of the English words. I now open it to the word
                              charity; and guess what I find? Yes, you guessed it, here it is:
                              "n. (Bib.) love and goodwill to men; liberality to the poor; leniency
                              in judging others; any act of kindness; alms; a charitable cause or
                              institution".

                              That is all this dictionary has to say about this word.
                              Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not
                              separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all
                              together.

                              But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to
                              another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced
                              Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989.
                              On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English"
                              (emphasis added).
                              This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of
                              students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

                              When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to
                              *current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word
                              charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is:
                              "_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging
                              others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a)
                              (generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc."

                              It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the
                              meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this
                              meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*.

                              > And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
                              > translated into colloquial English, not theological English!

                              It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written
                              in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor
                              language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language
                              to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible. And what *is*
                              "theological English", by the way? 100 years from now, the words of
                              colloquial English may be regarded as "theological language". The best
                              words to use in a translation are those which best transfer to the
                              reader the meaning and riches of the original language words.
                              And English readers may be greatly rewarded by consulting the English
                              dictionaries, and gain an understanding of the *real* meaning of words!

                              It is wonderful that we have dictionaries to help us if we do not have
                              an understanding of the real meanings of the words we are faced with.

                              >
                              > >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
                              > >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
                              >
                              > This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
                              > are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
                              > consistently.

                              Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
                              to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
                              existense.

                              > To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
                              > can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
                              > may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.

                              There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
                              of a group of ordinary words. It should not be necessary for me to
                              comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a
                              little too strong.....)

                              > >The KJV translators had great
                              > >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
                              > >the particular context.
                              >
                              > This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.

                              Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.
                              One of the reasons that the word charity is still in use today and still
                              contains the meaning it had in 1611, is precisely the circumstance that
                              the 1611 version has had greater influence on the English language than
                              any other book.

                              > The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
                              > greatest ever works of English literature.

                              Amen and Amen!!!!

                              >
                              > It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
                              > if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
                              > is *not in the language modern people speak.*

                              I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
                              be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
                              which is different from a newspaper?

                              >
                              > Rant-and-rave mode off.

                              I doubt that, after this post....; you may feel free to turn it *on*
                              again now....


                              --
                              - Mr. Helge Evensen
                            • Mr. Helge Evensen
                              Mr. Waltz, Thanks for your response. It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I am talking about, so I will just briefly end my
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jul 4, 1997
                                Mr. Waltz,

                                Thanks for your response.

                                It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I
                                am talking about, so I will just briefly end my contribution to this
                                debate with the present post. And, admittedly, my limited experience
                                as to the practical use of the English language, naturally hinders me
                                from going further with this.


                                Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                >
                                > On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <helevens@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

                                Fine with me.

                                > >Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                >
                                > [ ... ]
                                >
                                > >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
                                > >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
                                > >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??
                                > >
                                > >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
                                > >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
                                > >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
                                > >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
                                > >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
                                > >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
                                > >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
                                > >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
                                > >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).
                                >
                                > The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they
                                > understand it to mean "charity."

                                What does, for instance, the word "grace" mean in contemporary English
                                language outside "religious talk"? And the word "holy"?
                                If they are not used in the Biblical meaning, is that a reason for
                                avoiding the use of them in modern English translations? If so, not many
                                translators have thought it necessary, for very few translations
                                substitute these words.

                                [.....]

                                > >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
                                > >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
                                > >>
                                > >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
                                > >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
                                > >> consistently.
                                > >
                                > >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
                                > >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
                                > >existense.
                                >
                                > But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the
                                > KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or
                                > tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

                                This is a misunderstanding. I did not *argue* for rendering it
                                inconsistently. I stated what was my *personal* preference
                                with regard to the rendering of AGAPE, and that this view is
                                not the only *valid* one. That is, *other* choices may be *valid*.
                                But despite my own view, it is a fact that one Greek word does not always
                                have to be rendered by the same English word. And that *may* be the case
                                with the word AGAPE. I did *not* state anything conclusive, or that
                                AGAPE *must necessarily* be rendered consistently.
                                Actually, I have not stated that the KJV *always* has the word AGAPE
                                rendered correctly.

                                My argument is that it is wrong to say that the word "charity" does *not
                                at all* have the meaning "love" today. That was my concern in my response
                                to Mike. My personal preference may be the one or the other, but evidence
                                is evidence, and that is what I have presented with regard to the word
                                "charity". And I have not depended on my own opinions, I have cited
                                evidence. If I had *not* found evidence for my statements regarding the
                                word "charity", I would not have bothered this list with my opinions.
                                Because of my limited experience with regard to the English language, it
                                would be impossible for me to argue at all about the uses of that
                                language in everyday talk, if I had not found evidence in dictionaries.
                                If these dictionaries are not representative of the current use of
                                English, that is really not my responsibility. Besides, I never did say
                                that "charity" was used by all in the meaning "love". My only contention
                                is that "charity" still contains the meaning "love", as it is found in
                                the dictionaries which I have consulted.

                                > >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
                                > >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
                                > >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.
                                > >
                                > >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
                                > >of a group of ordinary words.
                                >
                                > I see none.

                                I may add that I have not argued that one is to use the words "love" and
                                "charity" *at random*. The rendering of words must be done carefully,
                                not "at random" (unless you used the expression in the sense of
                                "irregular").

                                > >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
                                > >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
                                > >> is *not in the language modern people speak.*
                                > >
                                > >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
                                > >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
                                > >which is different from a newspaper?
                                >
                                > Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not
                                > the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism?
                                > Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible.
                                > But people *do not* understand the KJV.

                                Yes, I am Protestant. However, I am also "Charis(auto)matic" (that is,
                                one who believes in the "auotomatic" giving of "Grace" to *anyone* who
                                accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour and believes His Holy Word!)


                                [...]
                                >
                                > I wish more people could understand
                                > Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV.

                                I agree.

                                [...]

                                > We can only bring our translations up to date.

                                I clearly disagree with you there, but we cannot continue this debate
                                forever, so enough for now.

                                Thanks so far. God bless.


                                --
                                - Mr. Helge Evensen
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.