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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:39:36 -0500

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.

---

From: "Mark Proctor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:05:26 -0500

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:39:48 -0500

>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
                     [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: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:32:44 -0700

> thereby producing completely unique Gk readings for the final two chaps of

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.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 05:24:17 -0700

> Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses.

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

> have it from the Latin) are generally copies of the TR.

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

> Age doesn't mean anything either.

AMEN!

> wrong (they may, be it noted, *both* be wrong, but no more than

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

> It's not a political matter. It's not a dogmatic manner, either.

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

> decide between the old manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts.

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

> 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

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