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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        >
                        > Age doesn't mean anything either.

                        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 11 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.