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 12:00 AM
    • 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
      ... 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 2 of 19 , Aug 3 9:50 PM
      • 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.