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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          >
          > Age doesn't mean anything either.

          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 4 of 19 , Aug 3, 1999
          • 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.