Subject: Canons of Criticism

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:29:59 -0700

Helge,

Awhile ago you penned the following:

> Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4? 
> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:29:25 -0700 
> From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Since my method of how to determine the original readings differs from
> that of Dr. Robinson, I would not evaluate the situation in the same
> manner he does. Thus his appeal to the low quantity of external
> evidence in favour of the TR reading and his majority text method
> is not necessarily convincing from my point of view.

For clarification, what exactly is your _method_ for determining the _Original Text_??
I ask simply because of the many TR/KJV defenders that "use" some textual canons in defending the TR, no one 
(to my knoledge) has actually stated what the several "Canons" are, and how they are to be used. Tks.

Mike A.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 04:20:26 -0700

> (to my knoledge) has actually stated what the several "Canons" are, and how they are to be used. Tks.

Dear Mike,

I will be glad to answer your question and explain my method of how to
determine the original readings. (Please understand that the following
comments are not intended as a contribution to the textual debate. They
are only to be regarded as my answer to your question. I apologize for
the lenght of my "answer").

First, let me warn that my method does not concur with the normal methods
and principles of "established" modern textual criticism.
And please note that I did not say that I used any of the established TC
canons for determining the original readings (although some of them _may_
be used in certain cases). Therefore, I am well aware that I place myself
under your as well as others' criticism at the outset. Note also that I
did not mention "canons" of any sort. I am talking about a *method*. And
that method I will explain below.

As you may have expected, I appeal to the later works of Dr. Edward Hills
in my evaluation of the NT text, that is his two books "Believing Bible
Study" and "The KJV Defended". These works, I believe, represent a sound
*method* of how to determine the readings of the autograph text. I know
of course that Hills is criticized for *beginning* with the
presupposition that the TR is the original text. But the fact is that he
didn't. What I mean is that he came to his conclusion after several
years of textual work. He finally found himself unable to continue to
support the naturalistic method of textual criticism.
Hills cannot be blamed for not knowing the facts of textual criticism. He
was well competent to pass judgment in textual matters. He was in fact a
trained textual critic. I am not an expert myself, so I appeal to *his*
"theories" of criticism rather than those of other scholars who hold to a
naturalistic view of the text.

I suspect that you yourself are following certain main rules in your own
textual criticism made up by other scholars. Thus, the difference between
you and me consists in following the methods, theories or conclusions of
different scholars. You may assert that your method is "better" or "more
scientific", etc. but you cannot *prove* yours to be better than mine. So
it is a matter of preference and following dissimilar *methods*!

The word "naturalistic" leads me to my main point here: I believe, as
Hills did, that the original readings cannot be determined by way of
naturalistic science, because it leaves out the supernatural aspect and
the providence of God in the copying-process.
Established NT textual criticism uses fundamentally the same principles
in determining the text as those used in the textual criticism of other
ancient books. Since the Bible is divine (which no other book is) I
believe we cannot give naturalistic principles first priority when we
shall determine what the original God-inspired readings are. I do not
say, however, that none of the established TC principles can be useful in
textual work. But in determining the original readings, I do not think
they can be relied on.

At the same time, there is room for textual criticism within the TR text.
That is, we must determine what readings to follow in those few places
where the TR editions differ from each other. Here too, I believe Hills'
method is sound. (See "The KJV Defended", pp.221-223).

In his "KJV Defended", Hills stated the following at the very beginning
of the book:
        "The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the
doctrine of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the
Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not
so believe. The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken
beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a
minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor
as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as
that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to
be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in _his_
treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make
_his_ New Testament textual criticism _different_ from that of other
ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.
        Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism,
the _consistently Christian_ method and the _naturalistic_ method. These
two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and
the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these
materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the
materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the
doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the
Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in
accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more
than a human book.
        Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very
little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament
textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite
content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort" (p.3).

My reason for quoting this much of Hills, is that I feel his statements
here accurately represent my own view on the matter. In fact, I have
gotten my view mainly from Hills. (You guessed it!). Generally, I agree
with Hills in his overall position.

I am not saying that all those who use the naturalistic method of textual
criticism are unbelievers or unorthodox; neither did Hills assert such a
thing. The *method* is meant, not the *persons* who use the method! The
method itself is clearly an inheritance from unbelieving scribes and
scholars in the past, though.

I believe the above statements by Dr. Hills lay a good foundation for a
sound *method* of textual criticism.

Hills explains throughout his book *why* the traditional text/TR is the
text which best meets the requirements of the Biblical promise of
providential preservation. So there's no use for me to go through that
here. (I'm sure you have read Hills' works). I will just remind you of
Hills' logic (which I believe is sound) by giving one quote from "The KJV
Defended":
        "If we believe in the providential preservation of the New
Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the
Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the
Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has
circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give
the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament
text ceased with the invention of printing" (p.192).

After having established the traditional text as the true text by appeal
to the doctrine of providential preservation, we must turn to the area of
textual criticism of that text. I do not use "canons" here. Who said I
*had* to? My TC is taking other things into consideration, namely the
Biblical teaching of preservation. To my mind, the logical conclusion
with regard to the promise of preservation is that God's preserved word
is to be found in a time honored traditional text. The Lord Jesus Christ
has promised to always preserve His Word in the New Testament church. And
the only unbroken historical textual tradition is to be found in the
traditional text.

When I say "the traditional text", I mean the Byzantine text *and* the
TR. They are *both* "traditional", unlike the Egyptian and the other text
types. And I believe that the TR is the complete restoration of the true
text, as I have already indicated above. The minor textual differences
that still remain between the witnesses (printed editions) of the "true"
text, is a matter for textual criticism. And consistent Christian textual
criticism does not necessarily *choose* between *readings* in the
different TR editions. Rather it finds the true text in the *current*
edition of the TR. Hills also appealed to the KJV-text as the
God-approved text in his decision as to what edition of the TR to follow
(KJVD, p.223).

On pages 111-112 in his KJVD Hills lists six principles of a consistent
Christian method of NT textual criticism. These are introduced by the
following words: "For a believer,....the only alternative is to follow a
consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism in which
all the princoples are derived from the Bible itself and none is borrowed
from the textual criticism of other ancient books". The six principles
can be summarized thus:
1) The OT text preserved by the OT priesthood, scribes and scholars
2) The NT text preserved by the universal NT priesthood of believers
3) The Traditional Text, found in the majority of MSS, is the True NT
text, because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal
priesthood
4) The first printed text of the Greek NT represents a forward step in
the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors
of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek text were corrected
by the providence of God.......
5) Through the usage of Bible-believing protestants God placed the stamp
of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Received
text
6) The KJV is an accurate translation of the TR and God placed the stamp
of His approval on it through the long continued usage.......and it
should therefore be defended today by Bible-believing Christians

(The above is just an abbreviated summary)

I am, of course, well aware that the method described above is completely
unacceptable in most textual criticism circles. But this method is
accepted, in slightly varied forms, among several scholars and other
modern theologians. To mention two of them, John H. Skilton and Henry
Morris. I may also add the syriac scholar Peter Johnston, professor
Theodore Letis and George W. Anderson. But I do not expect that Hills'
method will be accepted by most modern text critics, since their whole
approach to the NT text is based on the naturalistic method, not on the
believing principle. Hills' method is usually regarded as either
"unscholarly" or "unscientific", even though he was a trained textual
critic and a competent scholar himself. His method is not tolerated as
valid because it does not conform to the naturalistic principles
generally accepted.

What then about the majority text principle?
I do not count either MSS nor scholars in order to find the true NT text.
So the "majority principle" does not impress me all that much. What
matters in my judgment is which text is *traditional*?. At the same time
I *do* believe that the number of MSS is of importance. For if a textform
is "traditional", it is usually found in a majority of MSS. But if a
certain reading can be traced down through history, I am ready to regard
that reading a "traditional". I do not think the majority principle can
be decisive in every case. (And even most Byz txt advocates do not think
that the majority principle is sufficient in every case. For instance, if
a reading does not have continuity, it is suspected). For the simple
reason that I follow a method which leads me to interpret the Biblical
doctrine of providential preservation to mean that the traditional text
which is now current (and has been since the MS tradition ceased, i.e.
when it shifted from handwritten copies to printed copies) is the text
that is providential preserved up to this day.

You may say: "Why not choose the latest editions of the Byzantine text,
i.e. the H/F and R/P text editions, since they represent the traditional
text found in the Greek MSS?". But these editions are not "traditional".
The Byzantine text ceased to be "traditional" after the invention of
printing, just shortly after the publication of Erasmus' printed edition.
The recent printed editions of the Byz text do not, therefore, represent
an unbroken and historical continued tradition.

By way of conclusion, let me add this:
I am willing to consider textual theories and preferences other than my
own, and to evaluate the cons and pros of the competing theories and
views, and even to *test* the _possibility_ of other readings' primacy
over those of the TR.
Therefore, I do not see textual criticism and textual theories and canons
of criticism as useless. But my conviction that the TR is the
God-preserved text stands, as long as there is no other convincing
Biblical and consistent Christian alternative to replace it. As I see it,
naturalistic textual criticism is not a sound tool in evaluating the NT
text. It may be scientific, but that does not make it fit for use in
determining the original readings.

I am well aware that you will sharply disagree with me in what I have
written above. I do not try to convince you in any way. I have just tried
to answer your question and to explain my position.
As you certainly have noted, I do not find it easy to give a brief
answer.

I hope this has clarified for you my position.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:18:05 -0700

I've been doing a lot of reading for my disseration's first chapter
the last several weeks, and several works deal at length with the form
of citations which appear in Luke-Acts, with arguments being made about
how closely Luke adhered to the text of the Septuagint.  I would have
thought that, given that we don't have any LXX MSS that old, and that
there were appraently competing version of the LXX (the one relfected in
Siniacicus, Aquila, etc.) that it owuld be essentially impossible to
state that there was such a thing even as "the text" of the Septuagint
in the 1st century CE.  Rather, there wer texts and it is imposible at
this distance to state, when Luke or any other NT author "quotes the
Scriptures of Israel, which, if any Greek transaltion he might have been
using.  Is this an accurate assessnebt if tge textual data or am I being
toio pessimistic?  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
University of Bristol
(living in California)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:18:39 -0400 (EDT)

The following is also a long response, but I need to clarify my own
position and make sure the Byzantine-priority and 'majority text"
proponents are not lumped in with the nonsensical claims of the TR/KJV
advocates.  Feel free to skip this epistle if none of this is of concern
to you.

> and principles of "established" modern textual criticism.

Nor does it concur with any pro-Byzantine or "majority text" position, and
I want to make it _abundantly_ clear that my own position accepts _none_
of this rhetoric which I consider to be equivocative nonsense regarding
the TR as original. I only want to comment on a couple of points in
Helge's post which seem to call his entire position into question:

> You may assert that your method is "better" or "more

I suspect that here "prove" is being used in a semantically deceptive
manner.  One cannot "prove" the autograph text by _any_ theory, for
example, if we are talking in absolutist terms.  However, various theories
and methods _can_ be assessed in regard to their procedure, weaknesses in
method can be discerned and question, and various degrees of reliability
can be assigned to each method.  

The Hills' type of TR defense will utterly fail on every sound principle
of analysis (and I actually think Helge will admit this, since he admits
assumption is a "faith" assumption from beginning to end), and, unless
Hills or those who advocate the "providential preservation" of the
original text via the Textus Receptus are themselves endowed and imbued
with infallibility to make such sweeping decrees, such claims can be
rightly dismissed by everyone else as readily as Christians dismiss the
Islamic claims regarding the utter perfection of the Qur'an as divine
revelation. 

> the providence of God in the copying-process.

This is the real crux: God NEVER said that his providence was directly
operable in the copying process, nor that he would providentially preserve
as true and accurate only the TR text.  Other textual scholars may freely
admit the providence of God in preserving ALL the textual data we
currently possess, whether in MSS, lectionaries, versions, or fathers; but
very few if any (including myself) would claim that only *one* MS or one
type of text is the sole result of divine preservation.  The TR/Hills
crowd makes the biggest and most fault-ridden leap of faith right here at
this very point, and they don't even see that they are so doing from a
purely human perspective which does _not_ reflect good theology in any
manner.

> shall determine what the original God-inspired readings are. 

Since there is absolutely _no_ evidence that the transmission (NOT the
revelation) of the canonical books proceeded under any special divine care
or control (had it been so, then _all_ copies of the Greek NT MSS would
have been preserved in identical form), the whole premise stated above is
without foundation.  Unless Helge or other TR (and usually KJV)  advocates
can _demonstrate_ that the transmission of the Greek NT proceeded
differently than by "naturalistic" means (i.e. human copyists with no
divine superintendence preventing false or erroneous readings from
occurring), then his whole claim toward "providential preservation" 
vanishes into thin air, and becomes (as Burgon would have said),
"moonshine". 

> where the TR editions differ from each other. 

Now this part is indeed amusing to me: the TR supporters seem to have _no_
problem in "performing textual criticism" _if_ the only decisions to be
made are among the _printed_ TR editions.  Who gave forth this revelation,
and why is not a _single_ TR edition (whether Erasmus, Stephens, Elzevir,
or Scrivener) not "the" one true text?  But further, _if_ textual
criticism can be practiced where there are differences between TR
editions, why oh why can textual criticism _not_ be practiced in the
earlier stages where there are differences among the _Greek_ MSS,
versions, and fathers themselves?  The illogic of such a position is
blatant on its face, and it has _nothing_ to do with any conflict between
"rationalistic" and "faith-based" textual criticism.  

One might just as well make a faith-based claim that the current
Nestle/UBS text is "the"  only true and preserved form of the text, since
it is the latest in a long line of text which have reflected divine
providential superintendence toward restoring the most pure form of the
text as originally intended.  That faith claim has as much rationale
behind it as what is proposed by the TR advocates, and neither claim has
any legitimate merit whatsoever. 

> scholars in the past, though.

Since my own method differs from that of modern eclectics and I also
likely hold to the same basic evangelical doctrinal position as does Helge
(I know -- I have seen yours stated elsewhere), it does not follow that a
"consistently Christian" approach to textual criticism has to come down on
either a TR or KJV-only position, nor does evangelical Christianity force
acceptance of any single text-type, as is clearly demonstrated by the
various schools of textual criticism which exist.  "Consistently
Christian", properly applied, should mean dealing with the evidence
preserved to us in ALL manuscripts, versions, and fathers, and trying to
make sense out of them in light of what is known or reasonably can be
discerned in regard to true historical data regarding copying and
transmission of the text.  The Hills' position and that of the modern
TR/KJV defenders does none of the above, and makes textual criticism into
a mere charade for their own pre-determined ends.  As I stated, I will
have nothing to do with such a faulty position. 

> text ceased with the invention of printing" (p.192).

This quote from Hills is also interesting: one cannot defend BOTH the TR
and the "majority text", since they differ in over 1800 places, many of
them quite substantial.  Also, Hills wrote that before either the
Hodges/Farstad or Robinson/Pierpont text had appeared.  By the same logic
Hills uses, every TR defender ought now to be using a majority text
edition exclusively and shun the TRs, which were merely what had
previously been the "only" available form of the "Traditional Text".  I do
not exactly see any of the TR/KJV advocates moving or attempting to move
in that direction, even if Hills hinted that such should occur were there 
a better "Traditional Text" edition available.  Of course, since the
"majority text" advocates really do _not_ want or need the TR/KJV crowd as
bedfellows, the current situation remains best for all concerned. 

> My TC is taking other things into consideration, namely the
> is to be found in a time honored traditional text. 

Again totally illogical.  _Which_ "time honored traditional text"?  _Why_
the TR and not the mass of Greek manuscripts?  Why not the Latin Vulgate?
Why not the NIV?  It is only by a decree of fiat that one selects the TR
to the exclusion of all other contenders.  This is not "theology"; this is
not "providential preservation", but this is textual fixation by
infallible decree, such decree made by those who are not qualified to
administer such.

> The Lord Jesus Christ

Which, even granting the claim above (which seriously can be disputed when
it applies to the historical transmission of the text through MSS,
versions, and fathers), would NOT point to the TR in any way, but to the
text found in the majority of Greek MSS. The TR advocates once more are
totally inconsistent on this point.

> types. 

Seems to me that the Egyptian text was quite "traditional" in Egypt, and
it may have been the primary texttype they knew for quite a while in
certain areas of that region.   Seems like the Old Latin was quite
"traditional" in the Western portion of the Empire to the total or
near-total exclusion of the Greek text.  The analogy does not hold up.

> And I believe that the TR is the complete restoration of the true
> text, as I have already indicated above. 

But with no historical, transmissional, or factual basis to be offered for
such an assertion. This is a "faith" claim, plain and simple, and even the
theology underlying such a faith claim is highly flawed in every way and
misinterprets theology and the biblical data itself. A very weak reed to
lean one's hand upon.

> And consistent Christian textual
> edition of the TR. 

Which again should imply that the TR advocates should now all be "majority
text" supporters, which in fact they are not.  Instead, they currently
lean on the _artificially-produced_ Scrivener "TR" (reprinted by the
Trinitarian Bible Society) which is a reverse-rendered reconstruction of
the text purportedly underlying the KJV, starting first with the KJV text
and then picking and choosing among various TR editions existing before
1604 to find the closest match among available readings, even when the KJV
translators actually followed the Latin Vulgate and none of their
available Greek texts.  I suppose _this_ is what is meant by selecting
among variants in the TR editions to determine the "final" form of the
text -- and if so, the whole procedure is illegitimate from square one.
This is no "faith-presumption" at all, nor is it based on any legitimate
theological presuppositions, but it is all stemming from the KJV-only
position which has no legitimate basis whatsover.  Helge says as much when
mentioning Hills:

> Hills also appealed to the KJV-text as the

When God specifically told Hills or anyone else that the KJV text alone
was the "God-approved" text and that only the TR underlying the KJV should
be followed will of course remain a mystery to even the TR/KJV advocates;
however, they all seem to think that by repeating the same claims over and
over again that eventually people will recognize the claims to be correct.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and every time such a line of
argument comes up, such TR/KJV defenders continually make themselves look
bad and even ignorant by comparison.  

> text, because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal

I must note that NO "majority text" or Byzantine-priority defender makes
this type of claim.  This is peculiar to the TR/KJV crowd, and I do NOT
want to become in any way mislabled or associated with such a line of
argument.  

> of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Received

And since the printed TR text came out of a long line of Greek Orthodox
believers, their usage did not put the stamp of approval on the text they
used?  The Reformation had not even begun when Erasmus' first edition came
out, and I don't recall any TR edition ever claiming God's stamp of
approval (though maybe more copies would have been sold had any
claimed "Textum ergo habes receptum ab Deus").

> should therefore be defended today by Bible-believing Christians

And the New KJV is an accurate translation of the TR also.  When does
God's stamp of approval get placed on it?  The NIV is leading in sales
currently; does it have God's stamp of approval?  These are _ad hominem_
arguments claiming a (false) theological basis.  There is really no room
for such nonsense within textual criticism.

> printing, just shortly after the publication of Erasmus' printed edition.

This becomes total nonsense and indicates unawareness of the fact that
Greek MSS continued to be copied by hand into the 19th century (so Aland's
Kurzgefasste Liste), and few if any of these post-XVIth century MSS were
copied from printed TR texts, but continued to be copied from the _same_
"traditional text" which long before had obtained currency in the Greek
church.  Had the above claim been correct, then the scribes after 1516
should all have copied printed TR texts, and the Greek Orthodox church
today should be reprinting only the "true" Reformation-era printed TR
copies instead of those which reflect more accurately _their_ "traditional
text."

> I hope this has clarified for you my position.

The sharp disagreement from all sides is only to be expected. I do not
expect ever to convince TR/KJV defenders of the errors of their ways, not
would I bother to try.  I long ago learned that this is a waste of time
and bears no fruit.  But for the sake of the others on the tc-list, I am
pleased that they had opportunity to see the TR/KJV position presented,
since they then will know how its thinking functions, even if they regard
it as totally nonsensical and illogical as do I.

I intend for this to be the end of the discussion on my part, since there
is little else which needs to be said.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 01:45:03 -0700

Maurice Robinson wrote:
> advocates.  Feel free to skip this epistle if none of this is of 
> concern to you.

This is not a response to Robinson's post on this subject, just a short 
comment on his first paragraph quoted above:

I doubt that there's *anybody* on this list who would confuse the 
majority/Byzantine text position with that of the TR/KJV advocates.

:-)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:53:28 -0700

> the lenght of my "answer").

Thank you for your response Helge. I cannot respond right now, since your post is long AND I now must read 
Robinson's also AND I'm off to work in one hour.;-) 

I will answer very soon.

Mike A.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:11:50 -0400 (EDT)

> majority/Byzantine text position with that of the TR/KJV advocates.

Thank you, Helge, but unfortunately there is an unwarrnted linkage
frequently made between the TR/KJV position and those who advocate the
Byzantine Textform and/or "majority text" position, and the distinction
between the two viewpoints needs to be preserved.

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:36:05 -0500 (CDT)

On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
> ...
> so believe....

Mr. Helge.
I missed some of the discussion, but I do have a question.  In your view
of textual preservation at Acts 19:20 is "God" (KJV) or "Lord" (Most mss. 
and most TRs) correct, and how would you decide between the TR and the KJV
when they differ (O.T. or N.T.)?

Many thanks.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:19:14 -0700

Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:
> determine the original readings. 

Helge, 

Sorry for the late reply.

In light of the scorching critique of your views by Maurice Robinson, there's not much left for me to say... 
;-) ;-)

> is not necessarily convincing from my point of view.

In light of your more recent post, your 'method' of determining the original reading, then, is by _faith_.
So, in reality, the MSS evidence takes a back seat to your faith in the providence of God--and in the TR/KJV.
If this is the case (and it is), we can now say:

1) the providence of God brought the TR into being, and the TR corrects the errors in the Traditional text

2) the KJV is the only correct translation (in current use) of the TR--better than the NKJV, KJV II etc.

3) therefore, regardless of the MSS evidence supporting the TR--whether it now follows 'only' the Byz, or 
'only' the Egyptian, or 'only' the Western, or has support among a handful of MSS--the TR should ALWAYS be 
defended no matter what.

Correct?

Mike A.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:55:44 -0700

> 'only' the Egyptian, or 'only' the Western, or has support among a handful of MSS--the TR should ALWAYS be

A remarkably correct representation of my views! :-O

For the sake of clarity, I would add this:

1) It is not "by faith" alone. That might have opened the possibility of 
several textual choices of my own which corresponds better with my 
personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. I 
do not let *my* faith alone determine which readings are original. The TR 
is a historical sanctioned text that has been defended by orthodox 
christians for a very long time. It is a *traditional* text. Had it only 
been for *my* faith, I probably would have preferred other readings at 
times. Especially if I consider the fact that my faith or convictions may 
vary from decade to decade.
Actually, I am trusting in a historical sanctioned and received text, and 
that this text is the fulfilment of the divine promise of preservation.
Yes, seen in this context, it *is* "by faith"! This is nothing new under 
the sun, though!

2) The MS evidence does not take a back seat. Without MS evidence, there 
would not have been any ground for believing in *any* preserved text! The 
question is: *what* MS evidence do I depend on? I depend on MS evidence, 
but what *I* find as convincing evidence is not identical to what *you* 
consider as convincing evidence. So it is not a matter of "no MS 
evidence" vs. "MS evidence". Rather, it is a question *which* MS 
evidence?
To my mind, the TR editions (*and* the Scrivener reconstruction of the 
text underlying the KJV) is as good MS evidence as any other, ancient or 
late. (Yes, I know this is heresy!) :)

3) I would not say that the KJV is the "only correct" translation of the 
TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. And, as Hills pointed 
out, it is a variety of the TR, in that its textbase is not identical to 
any Greek TR edition. My reason for accepting the KJV textbase (the 
Scrivener edition) can be explained thus: I prefer to follow the 
decisions of the numerous scholars who worked on the KJV committee rather 
than the decisions of any one of the TR editors. (However, this is 
slightly modified by the fact that the Scrivener edition goes as far as 
the *Greek* evidence that was available to the KJV translators).

4) I believe the TR is to be defended in the face of all other MS 
evidence! (Sorry!) :-) And, as I have stated earlier, the area of TC is 
within the TR editions. And I agree with Hills that the Scrivener edition 
(now the TBS edition) is the "best" available TR edition, by the 
providence of God! (Again, Sorry!)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:19:58 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]> wrote

>providence of God! (Again, Sorry!)

Let me, then, ask a question. First, three presuppositions.

1. You state that the TR is the best Greek Testament, and that it was,
   more or less, providently preserved.
2. Presumably it was providently preserved for the sake of the church
   and/or the human race. (At least, I can think of no other
   explanation in this scenario. Unless we're supposed to be
   bringing the Bible to the dolphins....)
3. The TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a handful
   copied from it after it was published.

Thus, prior to the publication of the TR, it was impossible for a
Christian to use what you define as the "best" edition. So my
question is, What is the theological position of all the people
prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT
use the TR?

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:47:02 -0700

> A remarkably correct representation of my views! :-O

Cool. :-)

> personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings. 

For example?

> I
> christians for a very long time. It is a *traditional* text. 

Its been 'traditional' for 481 years. The Byz text has been 'traditional' fot circa 1300-1400 years.

> evidence" vs. "MS evidence". Rather, it is a question *which* MS

Well that WAS my point, actually. My point was:

a) The TR follows the Byz text most of the time,

b) occasionally it follows the other textypes (to the exclusion of Byz), 

c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places, 

d) since you defend the TR in every place, then your _primary_ argument is faith, and your _secondary_ 
argument is the MSS evidence.

> late. (Yes, I know this is heresy!) :)

Is this a typo of yours, or are you REALLY stating that the TR should have the same authority as a MS??

> TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR. 

That was my point, again. ;-) 

> And, as Hills pointed
> than the decisions of any one of the TR editors. 

But what about those places, as Ron Minton asked, where the KJV and TR differ? 

> In your view
> when they differ 

The KJV reads "God" here, but Scrivener's text reads "Lord" (along with the NKJV).

Perhaps Ron has a 'ready list' of other examples which he can supply us with??

> evidence! (Sorry!) :-) 

No need to apoligize Helge. I'm thankful you are being straightforward in answering. ;-)

Mike A.

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

[snip]
> christians for a very long time.

What?  How could it have been so defended for "a very long time" when it
has been published for only about 500 years?  Even this is too long for
many TR supporters, who insist on using the 19th century edition of the
TR. 

The closely related Byzantine Text has been around for MUCH longer, so has
a much better claim to be the "historical sanctioned text" (whatever that
really means). 

> It is a *traditional* text.

Only for a narrow group of Christians west of the Danube has it been
traditional, and even there only for such a short time. 

[snip]> 
> TR. I say it is the *best* translation of the TR.

Then how did they screw up Titus 2:13 so badly?  Even Moulton admits that
"the Greeks were right after all" in reading it as I have it in my sig
file.  See "Grammar of New Testament Greek" by J.H. Moulton (this volume
by Nigel Turner).  The LC# is PA813M71908v.3. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:20:20 -0700

> prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT

Mr. Waltz,

I'll be glad to answer your question.

First, let me remind of the fact that *no* resultant text of *any* text
editor or bible translator is reflected in any known manuscript.

You say that "the TR does not agree with *any* known manuscripts except a
handful copied from it after it was published". But the MSS used by
Erasmus were *very* close to his resultant Greek text. It has even been
called by some "a late form of the Byzantine text". Erasmus' text was, of
course, to a certain extent, an "eclectic" text. But Clark noted that
"the Erasmus text is a typical Byzantine text", and he also stated that
"the Erasmus text is largely a printing of Codex 2".
And I am aware that no MS exactly agrees with Erasmus' edition or any
other TR edition (or for that matter, any *other* printed Greek NT on the
face of the earth). But Clark's statements seem to point to a very close
similarity between Erasmus' printed edition and the MSS that formed the
basis of his edition.

While I'm at it, I will use the opportunity to ask if anyone has seen a
complete collation of Codices 1 and 2 with the TR/Erasmus' text. That
would have been very useful in detecting the difference between these MSS
and the earlier Byz MSS. I am not aware that there exists such a
collation. I would appreciate if anyone could help me find it, if such a
collation is available. Does anybody know? (I seem to recall that K. Lake
has done something in that direction!?)

Now to your question, which, to my mind, has serious problems. Christians
in the time prior to Erasmus' edition *may* in fact have had a "TR text"
available through several MSS. It does not necessarily have to be found
in just *one* MS!
It may be true that they did not have any one MS with such a text. But we
really do not know that for sure, either. It is clearly to overstate the
case to say that it was *impossible* for a Christian to use a "TR
edition" before 1516. I think it would be better to use terms like
"probably" or "more/less likely" in cases such as these!

It is even possible that MSS with such a text could have perished through
extensive use. At least, it should be clear that thousands of MSS that
were extant in the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries have perished. To my mind,
it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as
a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. (More heresy!)
:~)
You say that people prior to the time of Erasmus' edition did not and
could not use the TR. How can you be so sure? Since the TR was based on
several sources that were extant at the time of its formation, is it any
wonder if these sources (and the predecessors of these sources) would
have been available to the peoples' use in the time prior to 1516?

Dr. Hills has long ago answered your question. By way of conclusion,
consider this quote from his "KJV Defended":
        ".....the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal
priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1
Peter 2:9).
....the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the
God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. ....The first
printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back
but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament.
Hence the few significant departures of that text from the Traditional
Text are only God's providential corrections of the Traditional Text in
those few places in which such corrections were needed" (p.193).

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:03:18 -0700

> > personal faith and conviction than the already established TR readings.

To add an example may start a theological debate regarding my personal 
beliefs, but this is a TC list, so I shall spare ye all!

> Its been 'traditional' for 481 years. The Byz text has been 'traditional' fot circa 1300-1400 years.

My argument is similar to that of Hills. He acknowledged that the Byz 
MS tradition was the product of providential preservation. But also that
this Traditional text had its flaws and that the TR (in God's providence) 
corrected those flaws. Hills stated clearly that providential 
preservation was not a miracle which produced a "perfect" transmission.
Who said that providential preservation had to be hundred percent
*perfect* all the time, all through history? Hills even believed that
the Roman Vulgate to a certain degree was a product of providential
preservation. But was it perfect? In other words, a text can be 
providential preserved without being 100% perfect!

> c) NO existing text-critical canons can vindicate the TR in all these places,

No "existing" text-critical canons?? I may have several you have never
heard about.

> argument is the MSS evidence.

No! As I indicated, without MS evidence, you have nothing to work with.
MS evidence *has* to be primary!

> Is this a typo of yours, or are you REALLY stating that the TR should have the same authority as a MS??

Yes, since the TR editions *are* _copies_, the only difference being that 
they are in *printed* instead of *handwritten* form!! The early printed 
editions is a kind of MS transmission, for they reflect the then extant 
handwritten MS evidence! They are *copies*! Or....?

> That was my point, again. ;-)

Good, then we agree. :-\

> But what about those places, as Ron Minton asked, where the KJV and TR differ?

I suggest that you ask Ron to mail you my off-list reply to his question.

> Perhaps Ron has a 'ready list' of other examples which he can supply us with??

That would be helpful.

> No need to apoligize Helge. I'm thankful you are being straightforward in answering. ;-)

Thanks...

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:17:52 -0700

> a much better claim to be the "historical sanctioned text" (whatever that

See my latest response to Mike

> traditional, and even there only for such a short time.

You miss the point. It is the traditional *Greek* text, in which language 
the NT was originally written.

> Then how did they screw up Titus 2:13 so badly?

Well, did they? That *assertion* demonstrate nothing except the fact that 
"Good godly men differ"!

  Even Moulton admits that
> by Nigel Turner).  The LC# is PA813M71908v.3.

Some time in the future, I will send a list of Scripture examples to 
Mike, in which I will demonstrate that the KJV has a more correct 
rendering than the NKJV. I may send you a copy if you are interested!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:50:39 -0500 (CDT)

Let me thank Evensen for his honesty -- and also his patience
in the face of many people who argue, with justice, that he
has no view of *textual criticism*; he merely has a view on
the text. 

Clearly this is a pointless discussion, but for the sake of any
lurkers out there I wish to point out the logical inconsistency
of Mr. Evensen's position. Note that this does not "prove" him
wrong; I can offer no proof that God is logical. (In fact, I could
offer a pretty strong case for the reverse.) So Evensen may
be right. "God knows; I do not know." He merely cannot claim to
practice anything resembling a scientific method of criticism.

Thus, I would note to the readers that I am arguing logic and
Evensen is arguing faith. I can only hope you'll make the right
choice between the two. To me, it's obvious -- but then, I am
trained as a physicist and mathematician. No doubt I'm biased. :-)

>editor or bible translator is reflected in any known manuscript.

True, because of slips of the pen. However, I suspect (and I have not
checked this with Robinson) that you could find manuscripts that
agree almost completely (i.e. except for clear errors and orthographic
differences) with Maurice Robinson's text.

Also, didn't somebody try to create an exact English translation of
B (or was it Aleph?) a while back? (I will admit I could be wrong
on this -- the memory is very vague.)

What's more, this is not a faith issue for me. Since I don't
believe in providential preservation in any form, I don't
*expect* the text to be preserved in any one manuscript (although
B comes close in the Gospels, and 1739 in the Epistles). I don't
*want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-)

>Erasmus were *very* close to his resultant Greek text.

Not entirely true. Obviously 2e and 2apc and 1r were -- but not 1eap!

>It has even been

The latter is true. The former is not. As the apparatus of Hodges and
Farstad shows, there are thousands of differences between the TR
(*any* TR) and *the* Byzantine text.

It is true that the TR is more Byzantine than anything else, and by
a large margin. But it is by no means typically Byzantine. If the
Byzantine text is adopted as a standard, then the best text is either
H&F or R&P. Which editions Evensen has explicitly rejected.

[ ... ]

>available through several MSS. It does not necessarily have to be found

But how, in that case, were people to identify it? Divine inspiration?
In that case, why did they need the Bible in the first place?

>"probably" or "more/less likely" in cases such as these!

You're right. There are some 3,000 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts
of the Bible. Not one of which agrees with the TR. (Excluding lectionaries,
etc.) None of which match the TR. That's 13,000 manuscripts.
None of which agree with the TR. Let's assume that the majority of
all manuscripts ever copied were TR-equivalent. So that's at least
13,001 manuscripts equivalent to the TR that have been lost.
The odds of losing one, therefore, are given by 13,001/26,001,
or for all intents and purposes .5.

That makes the odds that the TR was once the majority text no
better than .5 to the 13,001 power.

This number is so small that, even using logarithms, I cannot
get a value off my calculator. Let's put it in colloquial terms:
"One in a  gazillion gazillion."

In other words, for the TR to be the true Byzantine text, someone
would have had to go out and deliberately destroy all the copies.

>a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. (More heresy!)

All I can say is, Do the math! It should be easy, since I already
did it. :-)

>have been available to the peoples' use in the time prior to 1516?

But, again, how were they to know which reading was right?

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT)

Although I am not going to continue in a debate over ridiculous matters
coming from the TR/KJV-only quarters, the point below really asks far too
much of even the most credulous TR/KJV supporter: 

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

> it is even possible to regard the printed TR editions as a transmission
> of the text of MSS which now have perished. 
> (More heresy!)
> :~)

Using precisely the SAME argument-ex-silentio, it could equally be claimed
that "thousands of MSS" containing the current NESTLE 27 text "that were
extant in the 13ths, 14th, 15th centuries have perished", and "it is even
possible to regard the printed" NESTLE 27 edition "as a transmission of
the text of MSS which now have perished."  And there is nothing preventing
such a claim, except normal logic and the normal laws of evidence and
interpretation of factual data.

This type of assertion, Helge, is the biggest crock of nonsense I have
EVER heard coming from the TR/KJV-only crowd, and I cannot imagine how you
can make such a suggestion with a straight face.  

With absolutely NO evidence regarding the supposed "thousands of MSS" 
which perished (I would suggest hundreds), let alone that the text
EXCLUSIVELY of those "thousands" would happen to agree with the printed
TR, and all that today remain extant are somehow "different" --- this type
of assertion makes your whole concept of God's "divine preservation"  of
the "true text" in totally lost MSS the TR/KJV-only equivalent of Joseph
Smith finding the Book of Mormon on the golden plates, which, once
translated, were forever removed from view, leaving only the PRINTED Book
of Mormon as the "evidence" that such ever existed.  You said precisely as
much in your last sentence: 

> To my mind,
> a transmission of the text of MSS which now have perished. 

I might as well even claim that "thousands" of MSS from the 13th-15th
centuries which contained a text like Codex Bezae have similarly perished,
and that ALL of those which perished in fact were systematically destroyed
because they contained a pre-publication version of the Book of Mormon
between their covers.

This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain
and simple.

---

From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:53:23 -0700

> beliefs, but this is a TC list, so I shall spare ye all!

Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list?

> No "existing" text-critical canons?? I may have several you have never

Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list (again)? :-) Tks.

Mike A.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:24:56 -0700

> has no view of *textual criticism*; he merely has a view on

Thanks.
Although I usually disagree with Mr. Waltz, I appreciate his overall
impartial attitude. In my opinion, he is the most honest TCer on this
list (even though he's a "non-specialist"; .....hmm...Is there a
connection here....?) :-)

It's too late now, of course, to ask Dr. Edward Hills about his opinion
on what is to be called "textual criticism" or not. For he was certainly
a textual critic, but his position was a "TR priority position" and he
believed in providential preservation and that the TR was the
providential preserved New Testament text. He believed in what he called
a "consistent Christian textual criticism". And since I largely agree
with Dr. Hills, I believe in his view of textual criticism, at least to
a considerable degree. So I *have* a view of textual criticism as much as
Hills had a view of textual criticism. In my mind, textual criticism is
to try to establish the original text of the Bible. Hills did that, and
he concluded (with the help of the Scriptures themselves) that the TR is
the textform which best fulfils the scriptural promise of providential
preservation. I freely admit that I follow Hills' in this. (I do not,
however, necessarily agree with Hills at every point).
(While writing this post, I am listening to Mozart in my Walkman, in
fact, it is his Piano Concerto No.12 in A Major. This is the kind of
music that will give you relaxation and peace even right in the middle of
the most boring debates. Try it some time!) :-)

> be right. "God knows; I do not know."

A honest admission. Appreciated...

> He merely cannot claim to

It seems that you are right. At least, it may not be "scientific" in the
usual sense.

> trained as a physicist and mathematician.

Again, I would appeal to Dr. Hills' view. He was talking about a "logic
of faith".

> No doubt I'm biased. :-)

Who isn't? :)

> differences) with Maurice Robinson's text.

That may be so. There is, however, a problem in the *historical* area.
Since the invention of printing, the only form of the traditional text
that would be of any real help to ordinary Christian people (the "lay
people" or the non-specialists) is a *printed* edition. It was first in
the early 1980s that a printed edition of the Majority/Byzantine text was
made available. Robinson's followed later.
Thus, a useful edition of the Byzantine text has not been available all
between the invention of printing up to 1982.
Only in the form of the TR has it continued as a text all the way through
that intermediate period.

> on this -- the memory is very vague.)

Again, it does not help much as long as almost no one have heard about
it, much less *read* it!

> *want* to adopt the text of any one manuscript -- so I don't. :-)

With all due respect, but I seem to find a "faith statement" here.
If I am interpreting Mr. Waltz correctly, he is stating (as a fact)
that B comes close to the original text in the Gospels, and that
1739 does so in the Epistles. I must ask: What canons of criticism
verify that this is so? As far as I can see, it's not stated as a
"likelihood". (Sorry if I have interpreted you wrongly, Bob).

[.....]

> As the apparatus of Hodges and

A little too strong statement there. It's not "thousands" of differences.
I think the appr. number of total differences is somewhere between
1800 and 2000. Well, "thousands" could of course apply to 2000, but for
the person who does not know the appr. number of differences, the above
statement may easily be interpreted to mean far more than just 2000.

[....]

> In that case, why did they need the Bible in the first place?

My point was not that everybody *knew* that this was the original text. I
said that it might have been *available* through several MSS (and I may
add, several *sources*).
In other words, the TR was not *non-existent* before 1516.
Its readings can be found before that time. And I know this does
not testify to the TR as a *text*, but only to its readings. I admit that
I should have expressed myself more clearly at this point.
But remember that I was responding to the following statements of yours:

<< Thus, prior to the publication of the TR, it was impossible for a
Christian to use what you define as the "best" edition. So my
question is, What is the theological position of all the people
prior to 1516 who not only did not use the TR, but COULD NOT
use the TR? >>

I objected to your assertion that it was *impossible* for a Christian to
have *used* the "TR" before 1516 or that he *could not* have used it,
because no existing MS contains such a text.

As to the *theological position* of those before 1516 I clearly believe
that they regarded the Byzantine textual tradition as the God-preserved
text. Note in this context that I never said that they held any "TR" text
to be the providential preserved text. I do not think that they did, but
only that they *had* the TR available through different sources. There is
a difference.

As I have stated elsewhere, concurring with Dr. Hills, I think that the
Byzantine text was the providential preserved text *at the time of its
dominion*!

> or for all intents and purposes .5.

Note that I did not make a strong point out of any existing TR in any
one MS before 1516. I clearly admitted that "It may be true that they did
not have any one MS with such a text". All I did was to open for the
*possibility* that there may have existed MSS with such a text.

> better than .5 to the 13,001 power.

I never stated that I believed the TR was at any time a "majority text"
in handwritten copies.
Again, I only said it was *available* in MSS sources and that it
*existed* before 1516.

> "One in a  gazillion gazillion."

You should know!

> would have had to go out and deliberately destroy all the copies.

That would have been a bad deed, indeed! :-Ø

> All I can say is, Do the math! It should be easy, since I already

Note my use of the word "possible" in both statements above. Even more
important, remember that I did *not* say that manuscripts with such a
text probably were in *majority*. My whole point had to do with the
*possibility* of the *existence* of such MSS! The quantity was not
mentioned.
It seems that Mr. Robinson interpreted me as having asserted that
"thousands" of MSS now lost may have agreed with the TR. But by reading
my words carefully, anyone should be able to see that I did no such
thing.

> But, again, how were they to know which reading was right?

I don't know. Most of them probably never did. If somebody did, he may
have attained to that benefit by comparing the MSS and praying God to
show him.
(But I'm not God. Thank God I'm not!) :-)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:31:53 -0700

> Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list?

Yes, I will do so.

> Perhaps you can send me some examples off-list (again)? :-) Tks.

I will.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:31:53 -0500

Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:

> preservation.

    As a somewhat "informed" layman, I usually just sit back and keep my
mouth.....er....fingers quiet and learn from the pros on the tc-list.  I
have been following
this thread with some interest and no small amount of curiosity over the
TR/KJV
position.  Although it is true that the AV is by and large a Byzantine
descendant,
I do not equate your position with that of Dr. Robinson's Byzantine
priority.  It
is the "providential" thingy that makes me wonder.  There were few Greek

witnesses around for the construction of the AV.  Now there are over
5,000
uncial and miniscule papyri, fragments, codices, etc.  These early
exemplars
of the NT and portions thereof contain more than 70,000 significant
variants.
    The art/science of textual criticism has been responsible for
reducing these
disparities significantly to a critical text.  This text is not
identical to any other
extant text...however, Aleph is not either...nor B, nor W, nor D, etc.
Why should
the TR or KJV or AV be any more "providential" than Aleph?  Aleph
contains
a number of scribal errors corrected marginally by later scribes, even a
correction
by a later scribe that was incorrect.  In fact, the development of the
finished
Alpha itself was a praxis of textual criticism.  Where was providence
when the
"wicked Bible" of 1641 was published?  The Sistine Bible?  All of the
texts
were the creation of human copyists with human failings.  If there is
indeed a
"providence" involved, I vote for it amongst our hard-working and
knowledgeable TCs.  The distillation of the many mss into a critical
text would
be the one smart place for "providence" to kick in...or better yet, when
one
picks up any edition to read and ask for providence in his/her
interpretation.
    There is but a short step between "God told me to do it" and "the
devil made me do it."
I will place my confidence in the scholars.

Jack

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon ([email-masked])

 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium