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

tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16

Expand Messages
  • Martin Smart
    Dear list. It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
      Dear list.

      It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only
      position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon
      wrote below might be out of date or even biased.

      Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point
      me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

      Thanks very much,
      Martin Smart



      Burgon:
      "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a
      memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the
      inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
      Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths
      eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of
      godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained
      at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was),
      thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of
      God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO'
      (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which ,
      in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly
      that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An
      archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished
      from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma),
      of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts -
      sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor
      for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the
      absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists
      promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the
      well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly
      to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole
      surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only
      Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217
      c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The
      Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the
      Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to
      make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents
      mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac
      Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for
      musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only
      because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this
      latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a
      single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was
      eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being
      its most strenous advocates.
      It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
      reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of
      chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150
      years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which
      exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common
      archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke
      which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as
      to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke
      in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no
      single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of
      either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS
      represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH.
      Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only
      lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading
      (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
      abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is
      non-existent.

      (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101)


      _______________________________________________________________
      Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
    • Lamerson, Sam
      You might check any technical commentary or gramar on the appropriatness of poetry starting with a relative pronoun. This (starting with a rel. pronoun) is
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
        You might check any technical commentary or gramar on the appropriatness of
        poetry starting with a relative pronoun. This (starting with a rel.
        pronoun) is very common and tells against the argument of Burgeon.

        Blessings,

        Professor Sam Lamerson
        Knox Theological Seminary
        "Where Ministry Comes First!"
        1 800 344-KNOX (5669)
        --------
        From: Martin Smart
        Sent: July 28, 1999 2:49 PM
        To: tc-list@...
        Cc:
        Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16

        Dear list.

        It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only
        position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon
        wrote below might be out of date or even biased.

        Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point
        me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

        Thanks very much,
        Martin Smart



        Burgon:
        "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a
        memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the
        inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
        Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths
        eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of
        godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained

        at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was),
        thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of
        God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO'
        (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which ,

        in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly
        that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An
        archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished
        from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma),

        of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts -
        sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor
        for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the
        absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists
        promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the

        well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly
        to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole
        surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only
        Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217

        c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The
        Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the
        Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to
        make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents
        mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac
        Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for
        musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only
        because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this
        latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a
        single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was
        eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being
        its most strenous advocates.
        It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
        reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of
        chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150
        years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which
        exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common
        archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke
        which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as
        to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke
        in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no
        single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of
        either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS
        represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH.
        Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only
        lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading

        (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
        abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is
        non-existent.

        (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101)


        _______________________________________________________________
        Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
      • Lamerson, Sam
        Sorry for the intrusion but I just noticed that I misspelled appropriateness. I also meant to mention that on this issue the commentary by G. Knight comes
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
          Sorry for the intrusion but I just noticed that I misspelled
          "appropriateness." I also meant to mention that on this issue the
          commentary by G. Knight comes to mind.

          Sam Lamerson
          --------
          From: Martin Smart
          Sent: July 28, 1999 2:49 PM
          To: tc-list@...
          Cc:
          Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16

          Dear list.

          It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only
          position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon
          wrote below might be out of date or even biased.

          Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point
          me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

          Thanks very much,
          Martin Smart



          Burgon:
          "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a
          memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the
          inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
          Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths
          eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of
          godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained

          at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was),
          thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of
          God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO'
          (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which ,

          in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly
          that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An
          archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished
          from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma),

          of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts -
          sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor
          for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the
          absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists
          promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the

          well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly
          to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole
          surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only
          Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217

          c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The
          Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the
          Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to
          make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents
          mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac
          Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for
          musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only
          because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this
          latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a
          single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was
          eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being
          its most strenous advocates.
          It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
          reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of
          chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150
          years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which
          exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common
          archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke
          which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as
          to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke
          in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no
          single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of
          either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS
          represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH.
          Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only
          lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading

          (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
          abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is
          non-existent.

          (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101)


          _______________________________________________________________
          Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
        • Robert B. Waltz
          ... One is tempted to say that any time Burgon expresses an opinion, it is wrong. :-) To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues. Burgon
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
            On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote:

            >Dear list.
            >
            >It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased.
            >
            >Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

            One is tempted to say that any time Burgon expresses an opinion, it is
            wrong. :-) To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues.

            Burgon actually did do useful textual work, in that he examined many
            manuscripts, both of the New Testament itself and of patristic works.
            But his prejudices are so strong that one must examine *everything* for
            motive. :-( Much safer to simply go back and re-examine the evidence.
            So, for instance, the first place to turn in examining a reading like
            this is the UBS commentary. (For all the nasty things we've been
            saying today, this is the only full and modern textual commentary
            in existence.)

            The other thing to do is look at the manuscript evidence as we know it
            today. (In this instance, there isn't all that much new data, but
            usually there is. It's just that the Pastorals are relatively poorly
            represented in our early witnesses.)

            Anyway, the evidence:

            OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127
            QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150
            6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319
            1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz
            geo2 slav
            OS QEOS: 256 (conflation)
            O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly
            a grammatical correction for OS)

            O or OS: most other versions except as cited.

            Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian
            witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the
            members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the
            corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also).
            "O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses.

            Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us
            disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which
            best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which
            doesn't pose any problems.")

            "OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several
            senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative
            pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult
            reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS
            is better attested.

            OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a
            change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS
            requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS).
            To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So
            OS is to be preferred as the middle reading.

            Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon
            has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced
            evidence to support his conclusion.

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

            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)
          • Martin Smart
            From: Robert B. Waltz Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
              From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...>
              Reply-To: tc-list@...
              To: tc-list@...
              Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16
              Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500


              OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a
              change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS
              requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS).
              To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So
              OS is to be preferred as the middle reading.

              Martin:
              Robert, thank you very much. One thing, though is unclear to me. What
              about the horizontal line above the QS? Do you categorize the bar as a
              letter as well which would mean to go from OS to bar-QS would be one change?
              What about the change from a theta to an omnicron? Is that too slight to
              be considered a character change?

              Would this mean that if the original reading was bar-QS it would take two
              changes to get to OS and three to get to hO?

              Martin







              _______________________________________________________________
              Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
            • Robert B. Waltz
              ... The line above QS (nominum sacrum) doesn t count as a change (in my book, anyway), because QS is not a word unless it has the line. If a scribe found QS in
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 28, 1999
                On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote:

                >Robert, thank you very much. One thing, though is unclear to me. What about the horizontal line above the QS? Do you categorize the bar as a letter as well which would mean to go from OS to bar-QS would be one change? What about the change from a theta to an omnicron? Is that too slight to be considered a character change?
                >
                >Would this mean that if the original reading was bar-QS it would take two changes to get to OS and three to get to hO?

                The line above QS (nominum sacrum) doesn't count as a change (in my book,
                anyway), because QS is not a word unless it has the line. If a scribe
                found QS in the text without the line, or read OS as QS without the
                line, he would automatically assume that it was there.

                An English analogy might be something like

                Jim went to the store He bought milk.

                There is no period after "store," but you *know* it's there. Similarly,
                if a scribe read QS with no bar over it, he would read it as QEOS.

                Hope this helps.

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

                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)
              • Byron Knutson
                ... Robert: I m wondering if it is possible that the OS reading is really a scribes shorthand THETA SIGMA (QS) for QEOS which is what it appeared to be to me
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 29, 1999
                  >
                  >From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...>
                  >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500
                  >Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16
                  >

                  >
                  >Anyway, the evidence:
                  >
                  >OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127
                  >QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150
                  > 6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319
                  > 1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz
                  > geo2 slav
                  >OS QEOS: 256 (conflation)
                  >O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly
                  > a grammatical correction for OS)
                  >
                  >O or OS: most other versions except as cited.
                  >

                  Robert:

                  I'm wondering if it is possible that the OS reading is really a scribes
                  shorthand THETA SIGMA (QS) for QEOS which is what it appeared to be to me
                  when I
                  was checking a photocopy I had (I think it was either ALEPH or A, I'll have
                  to go dig it out and look again)?

                  Byron Knutson

                  >Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian
                  >witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the
                  >members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the
                  >corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also).
                  >"O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses.
                  >
                  >Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us
                  >disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which
                  >best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which
                  >doesn't pose any problems.")
                  >
                  >"OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several
                  >senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative
                  >pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult
                  >reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS
                  >is better attested.
                  >
                  >OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a
                  >change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS
                  >requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS).
                  >To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So
                  >OS is to be preferred as the middle reading.
                  >
                  >Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon
                  >has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced
                  >evidence to support his conclusion.
                  >
                  >- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
                  >
                  > 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)
                  >
                  >
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  ... If you look at the list of witnesses, both Aleph and A were corrected -- both originally read OS, both were corrected to QEOS. Again, note that this is a
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 29, 1999
                    On 7/29/99, Byron Knutson wrote:

                    >Robert:
                    >
                    >I'm wondering if it is possible that the OS reading is really a scribes
                    >shorthand THETA SIGMA (QS) for QEOS which is what it appeared to be to me
                    >when I
                    >was checking a photocopy I had (I think it was either ALEPH or A, I'll have
                    >to go dig it out and look again)?

                    If you look at the list of witnesses, both Aleph and A were corrected --
                    both originally read OS, both were corrected to QEOS.

                    Again, note that this is a very trivial change -- simply a matter of
                    adding horizontal lines. At a casual glance, or even a close look
                    in an imperfect reproduction, one might well think that QS was
                    the original reading. To the best of my knowledge, however, everyone
                    agrees that both Aleph* and A* read OS, not QS.

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

                    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)
                  • Robert B. Waltz
                    I m not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one comment: ... Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! An amazing
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                      I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one
                      comment:

                      On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part:


                      >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!

                      Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century!
                      An amazing panoply of non-evidence.

                      Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                      is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                      manuscript.

                      All I will say on the subject.

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

                      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)
                    • dd-1@juno.com
                      Robert, Denny Diehl here ... If you wouldn t mind saying a little more on the subject, besides the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                        Robert, Denny Diehl here

                        >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                        >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                        >manuscript.
                        >
                        >All I will say on the subject.

                        If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
                        the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                        which are not found in any Greek manuscript?

                        Thanks!

                        ___________________________________________________________________
                        Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                        Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                        Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                      • Kevin W. Woodruff
                        The TR has book of life instead of tree of life in Rev 22:19. No other Greek manuscripts have that reading. Erasmus got that reading by back translating
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                          The TR has "book of life" instead of " tree of life" in Rev 22:19. No other
                          Greek manuscripts have that reading. Erasmus got that reading by back
                          translating the Vulgate into Koine Greek (the textual variant in the Vulgate
                          is _libro_ instead of _ligno_)

                          At 01:39 PM 08/01/1999 -0500, you wrote:
                          >Robert, Denny Diehl here
                          >
                          >>Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                          >>is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                          >>manuscript.
                          >>
                          >>All I will say on the subject.
                          >
                          >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
                          >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                          >which are not found in any Greek manuscript?
                          >
                          >Thanks!
                          >
                          >___________________________________________________________________
                          >Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                          >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                          >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                          >
                          >
                          Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
                          Library Director/Reference Librarian
                          Professor of New Testament Greek
                          Cierpke Memorial Library
                          Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
                          1815 Union Ave.
                          Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
                          United States of America
                          423/493-4252 (office)
                          423/698-9447 (home)
                          423/493-4497 (FAX)
                          Cierpke@... (preferred)
                          kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                          http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                        • Mark Proctor
                          I don t believe that Erasmus had a Greek text for the final two chaps of Revelation. He had latin texts for these two chapters, but no Greek mss. What he did
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                            I don't believe that Erasmus had a Greek text for the final two chaps of
                            Revelation. He had latin texts for these two chapters, but no Greek mss.
                            What he did to remedy this problem was translate the Latin into Greek,
                            thereby producing completely unique Gk readings for the final two chaps of
                            the NT.

                            Mark Proctor
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: <dd-1@...>
                            To: <tc-list@...>
                            Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999 1:39 PM
                            Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16


                            > Robert, Denny Diehl here
                            >
                            > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                            > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                            > >manuscript.
                            > >
                            > >All I will say on the subject.
                            >
                            > If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
                            > the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                            > which are not found in any Greek manuscript?
                            >
                            > Thanks!
                            >
                            > ___________________________________________________________________
                            > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                            > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                            > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                            >
                          • Robert B. Waltz
                            ... Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two chapters). As a result, there
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                              On 8/1/99, dd-1@... wrote:

                              >Robert, Denny Diehl here
                              >
                              > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                              > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                              > >manuscript.
                              > >
                              > >All I will say on the subject.
                              >
                              >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
                              >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                              >which are not found in any Greek manuscript?

                              Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion
                              of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two
                              chapters). As a result, there are several readings in there not
                              found in any Greek manuscript. (I don't have a full list, but
                              you could check Hoskier.)

                              In addition, in Phil. 4:3, the TR reads KAI. Metzger reports
                              that this reading is supported only by 462, but according to
                              Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses.

                              There may be others; I don't know. Hard to tell, given the lack
                              of complete collations. :-)

                              Technically, the Comma *is* found in Greek manuscripts. It's just
                              that the manuscripts (with the exception of 629 and others which
                              have it from the Latin) are generally copies of the TR.

                              And since you've gotten me talking anyway, I should make a point
                              here. Helge Evenson makes the argument that the issue is the number
                              of witnesses. Jim West or Philip Wesley Comfort would argue for
                              age.

                              Neither one matters. If majority rule meant anything, the world
                              would be flat and we'd all be pantheists (since, when the human
                              race evolved, people held both opinions :-).

                              Age doesn't mean anything either.

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

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

                              It's not a political matter. It's not a dogmatic manner, either.
                              One must, by some *external*, non-political, non-dogmatic means
                              decide between the old manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts.

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

                              But I stress: The matter must be decided based on comparison of
                              the text-types, not comparison of the number, age, or other
                              arbitrary fact about their witnesses. (Surely you wouldn't
                              pick a New Testament text based on the colour of the parchment,
                              would you? Yet that is as valid a basis for discrimination as
                              the others, since it just as completely ignores the text.)

                              I hope that makes sense. This is more time than I was supposed
                              to spend on this subject today. :-)

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

                              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
                              ... wrote below mi (....) ... views? ... *That* is *your* opinion ! Maybe it s wrong, too. :-) ... Modern TC after Burgon s time is FULL of rhetoric , only
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                                Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                >
                                > On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote:
                                >
                                > >Dear list.
                                > >
                                > >It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon
                                wrote below mi (....)
                                > >
                                > >Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his
                                views?
                                >
                                > One is tempted to say that any time Burgon expresses an opinion, it is
                                > wrong. :-)

                                *That* is *your* "opinion"! Maybe it's wrong, too. :-)

                                > To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues.

                                Modern TC after Burgon's time is FULL of "rhetoric", only that THIS kind
                                of "rhetoric" is regarded as "scientific" by those that use it! :) So
                                it's really your "rhetoric" against Burgon's!

                                > Burgon actually did do useful textual work, in that he examined many
                                > manuscripts, both of the New Testament itself and of patristic works.

                                For this reason he was a well competent authority on the text of MSS!
                                Modern TC at large does not acknowledge this, and it's a shame indeed!

                                > But his prejudices are so strong that one must examine *everything* for
                                > motive. :-(

                                Prejudices against the Byzantine Text/TR are behind very much of modern
                                TC's "axioms" with regard to the Text of the NT!

                                > Much safer to simply go back and re-examine the evidence.

                                Which Burgon DID! He re-examined it after Hort, Tischendorf and others
                                had "examined" it! Wilbur Pickering, who has thoroughly studied all of
                                Burgon's books on TC, writes: "A grammatical anomaly is introduced.
                                "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in flesh", is
                                worse in Greek than it is in English. "Mystery" is neuter in gender while
                                "godliness" is feminine, but "who" is masculine! .. In an effort to
                                explain the "who" it is commonly argued that the second half of verse 16
                                was a direct quote from a hymn, but where is the evidence for this claim?
                                Without evidence this claim begs the question. ... "Who" is nonsensical,
                                so most modern versions that follow UBS here take evasive action: NEB and
                                NASB have "he who"; Phillips has "the one"; RSV, Jerusalem, TEV and NIV
                                render "he". Berkeley actually has "who"! The Latin reading, "the
                                mystery...that", at least makes sense. The true reading, as attested by
                                over 98% of the Greek MSS, is "God". .... a copyist could be
                                momentarily distracted and forget to add the cross strokes. [] The
                                reading "who" can be explained by an easy transcriptional error. The
                                reading "that" would be an obvious solution to a copyist faced with the
                                nonsensical "who"." ("What Difference Does it Make?", paper, MTS, p.9).

                                Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!

                                > So, for instance, the first place to turn in examining a reading like
                                > this is the UBS commentary.

                                As for "prejudice" and "rhetoric", there is a lot of it in this volume!
                                But, of course, its basic reasoning is in harmony with the already
                                established TC canons and is therefore worthy of a hearing among TCers!

                                > (For all the nasty things we've been
                                > saying today, this is the only full and modern textual commentary
                                > in existence.)

                                That's a shame!

                                >
                                > The other thing to do is look at the manuscript evidence as we know it
                                > today. (In this instance, there isn't all that much new data, but
                                > usually there is. It's just that the Pastorals are relatively poorly
                                > represented in our early witnesses.)
                                >
                                > Anyway, the evidence:
                                >
                                > OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127
                                > QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150
                                > 6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319
                                > 1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz
                                > geo2 slav
                                > OS QEOS: 256 (conflation)
                                > O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly
                                > a grammatical correction for OS)
                                >
                                > O or OS: most other versions except as cited.
                                >
                                > Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian
                                > witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the
                                > members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the
                                > corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also).
                                > "O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses.

                                The corrections of Aleph, A, C, D in this instance should NOT be ignored!
                                They testify to the existence of the Byz reading at the time of the
                                correction, and to these scribes' awareness of the Byz reading! Maybe
                                they had *good reasons* for making the correction. This correction shows
                                that the scribes doing it did not approve of those MSS's original
                                reading! Isn't this, then, as good an evidence as a MS dating from the
                                time of the correction?? If so, we have four more ancient witnesses to
                                the Byz reading. (I may be wrong about "*ancient* witnesses" as I do not
                                know the DATE of the corrections. Maybe some could halp me dating
                                these!? Of course, even MSS of the 10th century are regarded as
                                "ancient", though not among the "most ancient".)

                                >
                                > Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us
                                > disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which
                                > best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which
                                > doesn't pose any problems.")
                                >
                                > "OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several
                                > senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative
                                > pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult
                                > reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS
                                > is better attested.
                                >
                                > OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a
                                > change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS
                                > requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS).
                                > To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So
                                > OS is to be preferred as the middle reading.
                                >
                                > Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon
                                > has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced
                                > evidence to support his conclusion.

                                Is 98% of the Greek MSS "forced evidence"?
                                A *better* example of "forced evidence" is pointed out, again, by
                                Pickering: "Metzger [in his "Textual Commentary", on the Pericope
                                Adulterae, John.7:53-8:11] ... claims that "the style and vocabulary of
                                the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel" --
                                but, wouldn't the native speakers of Greek at that time have
                                been in a better position than modern critics to notice something like
                                that? So how could they allow such an "extraneous" passage to be forced
                                into the text? I submit that the evident answer is that they did not; it
                                was there all the time." (paper, p.9).

                                It should be clear to anyone familiar with Burgon's writings and modern
                                TC, that it is not a matter of Burgon being "rhetoric" (even though he
                                *is*) and modern TC using only "hard facts"; rather, it is a matter of
                                different ways of expression and argumentation, both being equally
                                "subjective"! Just because some theories are more "established" than
                                others does not make them truer!

                                Please do not think that I am out to start a "majority text debate", for
                                I am not! :-)


                                -----

                                Mr. Helge Evensen
                              • Dave Washburn
                                ... Actually, it was only the last 10 verses of Revelation. The one ms he possessed had part of the last page broken off. Dave Washburn
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 1, 1999
                                  > I don't believe that Erasmus had a Greek text for the final two chaps of
                                  > Revelation. He had latin texts for these two chapters, but no Greek mss.
                                  > What he did to remedy this problem was translate the Latin into Greek,
                                  > thereby producing completely unique Gk readings for the final two chaps of
                                  > the NT.

                                  Actually, it was only the last 10 verses of Revelation. The one ms
                                  he possessed had part of the last page broken off.

                                  Dave Washburn
                                  http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                                  A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                                • U.B.Schmid
                                  ... I would be greatful to see evidence not rhetorics, i.e. P66 has nothing to do with the Pastoral Epistles. Moreover, where is the specific patristic and/or
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
                                    Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
                                    > Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one
                                    > > comment:
                                    > >
                                    > > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part:
                                    > >
                                    > > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!
                                    > >
                                    > > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century!
                                    > > An amazing panoply of non-evidence.
                                    >
                                    > OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional
                                    > evidence. :-)
                                    > Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the
                                    > Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-)

                                    I would be greatful to see evidence not rhetorics, i.e. P66 has nothing to do
                                    with the Pastoral Epistles. Moreover, where is the specific patristic and/or
                                    versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 that you are invoking?

                                    > >
                                    > > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                                    > > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                                    > > manuscript.
                                    >
                                    > Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which
                                    > scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings!
                                    > (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used
                                    > to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek
                                    > manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED
                                    > form!

                                    Scholars usually don't *trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings". Moreover,
                                    viewing the TR as just another NT Ms means:
                                    a) it certainly doesn't represent the majority of witnesses at every single
                                    place of variation;
                                    b) it contains errors as every single NT Ms I know of does;
                                    b) if "error free" is required, as people defending the TR sometimes claim, the
                                    TR is way beyond *real* Mss' human proportions.

                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Dr. Ulrich Schmid
                                    U.B.Schmid@...
                                  • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                    ... OK, then, let s shift evidence and look at patristic and versional evidence. :-) Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
                                      Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one
                                      > comment:
                                      >
                                      > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part:
                                      >
                                      > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!
                                      >
                                      > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century!
                                      > An amazing panoply of non-evidence.

                                      OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional
                                      evidence. :-)
                                      Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the
                                      Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-)

                                      >
                                      > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                                      > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                                      > manuscript.

                                      Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which
                                      scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings!
                                      (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used
                                      to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek
                                      manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED
                                      form! But I do not trust in only one TR edition but in a variety of TR's
                                      and other evidences besides these, as found in the text of the TBS 1976
                                      edition of the "TR". In turn, this is to trust in the decisions of the
                                      many competent scholars who produced the TEXT of the KJV!! I shall say
                                      nothing of my belief in providential preservation..... :-)

                                      >
                                      > All I will say on the subject.

                                      Why?
                                      No person discussing the text of the NT on a *TC-list* should be afraid
                                      of discussing the Byz/TR text since this text/these texts represent the
                                      MAJORITY of the available MSS! What kind of "TC" list would *that* be?
                                      BTW, I do not think that you are "afraid", though! :-)


                                      --
                                      - Mr. Helge Evensen
                                    • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                      ... Not a *very* significant variant, though! :) Besides, the evidence is not *clear* at this point! ... Copies of the TR ? What is the evidence for that
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
                                        Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                        >
                                        > On 8/1/99, dd-1@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > >Robert, Denny Diehl here
                                        > >
                                        > > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                                        > > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                                        > > >manuscript.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >All I will say on the subject.
                                        > >
                                        > >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides
                                        > >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings
                                        > >which are not found in any Greek manuscript?
                                        >
                                        > Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion
                                        > of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two
                                        > chapters). As a result, there are several readings in there not
                                        > found in any Greek manuscript. (I don't have a full list, but
                                        > you could check Hoskier.)
                                        >
                                        > In addition, in Phil. 4:3, the TR reads KAI. Metzger reports
                                        > that this reading is supported only by 462, but according to
                                        > Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses.

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

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

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

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

                                        >
                                        > Age doesn't mean anything either.

                                        AMEN!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                        --
                                        - Mr. Helge Evensen
                                      • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                        ... I wasn t talking about evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 in that particular statement about P66 but evidence for the Byz txt in general! Of course I know that P66
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
                                          U.B.Schmid wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
                                          > > Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one
                                          > > > comment:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence!
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century!
                                          > > > An amazing panoply of non-evidence.
                                          > >
                                          > > OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional
                                          > > evidence. :-)
                                          > > Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the
                                          > > Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-)
                                          >
                                          > I would be greatful to see evidence not rhetorics, i.e. P66 has nothing to do
                                          > with the Pastoral Epistles. Moreover, where is the specific patristic and/or
                                          > versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 that you are invoking?

                                          I wasn't talking about evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 in that particular
                                          statement about P66 but evidence for the Byz txt in general! Of course I
                                          know that P66 does not contain the Pastorals. So maybe I shouldn' have
                                          added that comment, since it did not concern 1 Tim 3,16.
                                          As to "the specific patristic and/or versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16"
                                          just read Burgon's own 70+ pages dissertation on it in his "Revision
                                          Revised"! It's loaded with various kinds of evidence! You know Burgon! :)
                                          Not just "rhetoric"!
                                          Among other things, he states: "But I am prepared to show that Gregory of
                                          Nyssa (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22
                                          places, knew of no other reading but THEOS" (Revision Revised, p.456).
                                          On pp. 461-462 he states: "....a famous Epistle purporting to have been
                                          addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. ....
                                          the epistle must needs have been written by *somebody*: that it may
                                          safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses
                                          to THEOS EPHANERWTHE.....".

                                          But still, 98% of the *MSS*, even though not among the "most ancient",
                                          *is* strong evidence! And the 98% MSS is not just copies of each other!

                                          > > >
                                          > > > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version
                                          > > > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek
                                          > > > manuscript.
                                          > >
                                          > > Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which
                                          > > scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings!
                                          > > (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used
                                          > > to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek
                                          > > manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED
                                          > > form!
                                          >
                                          > Scholars usually don't *trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings".

                                          I didn't say they "*trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings", but:
                                          "all of the ancient MSS which scholars *trust* in, WHICH CONTAIN
                                          multitudes of "singular" readings!" (emphasis added)
                                          There is a difference between trusting in singular readings and trusting
                                          in MSS which CONTAIN singular readings.

                                          > Moreover,
                                          > viewing the TR as just another NT Ms means:
                                          > a) it certainly doesn't represent the majority of witnesses at every single
                                          > place of variation;

                                          Right. I never said it did! No MS does!

                                          > b) it contains errors as every single NT Ms I know of does;

                                          Especially the first edition of Erasmus. "My TR" is not that one, but
                                          rather the later "refined" and corrected editions!

                                          > b) if "error free" is required, as people defending the TR sometimes claim, the
                                          > TR is way beyond *real* Mss' human proportions.

                                          The TR is providential preserved, not referring to just one printing, but
                                          to the development which resulted in such editions as Stephens and Beza
                                          (though they are not "error free"!). Only the TBS 1976 edition is "error
                                          free"! :-) :-)
                                          To believe in a God-preserved text is not the same as believing in "error
                                          free" MSS or editions!

                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------------
                                          > Dr. Ulrich Schmid
                                          > U.B.Schmid@...


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