PDA

View Full Version : Text Critical Issues



ISalzman
08-29-2009, 06:01 PM
As I am fairly new to New Testament text criticism, I thought I might post a few questions that will probably seem basic to you savvy, experienced ones out there. But nonethess, I shall proceed.

1. Is it a fair question to ask if there have ever been any rescensions to the Textus Receptus? I Know that the question may almost seem to be a contradiction in terms, but have there been revisions made to the TR? And have they been universally received amongst TR folks?

2. What Greek NT text today most closely reflects the TR? Would it be Scrivener's 1894 NT? How would Robinson-Pierpont differ from it?

3. Which Greek NT text within BibleWorks most closely replicates the TR?

4. What text-type or family of manuscripts would B Vaticanus follow?

5. What would be the best book out there today to read up on NT Textual Criticism? Something akin to Ernst Wurthwein or Ellis Brotzman on the OT.

6. Also, I've heard that David Allan Black has got a pretty good volume on NT textual criticism. Any comments on this text?

I realize I've put up quite a few questions. Thanks for any takers.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 06:34 PM
1. Is it a fair question to ask if there have ever been any rescensions to the Textus Receptus? I Know that the question may almost seem to be a contradiction in terms, but have there been revisions made to the TR? And have they been universally received amongst TR folks?

Yes. The changes have been for the most part insignificant. The KJV translators not only employed various editions of the TR, but engaged in textual criticism themselves, both in the Old and New Testaments, and likewise were masters of the Masorah in the Old Testament, unlike any group today.


2. What Greek NT text today most closely reflects the TR? Would it be Scrivener's 1894 NT? How would Robinson-Pierpont differ from it?

Yes, Scrivener (SCR) is a reverse-engineered text, and is the Greek text which most closely represents the TR today.

The RB text is inappropriately labeled as the Majority Text, as is the HF inappropriately labeled the Majority Text, as both texts have been constructed on Von Soden's apparatus, which means both texts have been built on approximately 200 MSS out of more than 5,500 manuscripts. Some majority. (Actually, Von Soden employs 414 manuscripts with regard to Byzantine classification, but only about 200 have any real collation integrity).


3. Which Greek NT text within BibleWorks most closely replicates the TR?

SCR.


4. What text-type or family of manuscripts would B Vaticanus follow?

Vaticanus B is of the Latin Vulgate flavor. Erasmus was offered more than 300 significant readings from Vaticanus, and, as one who was eminently familiar with the Latin Vulgate, this was Erasmus' charge against Vaticanus B and its readings, and is one reason Erasmus and the Reformers and Puritans and Great Awakeners rejected the readings of Vaticanus B.

B and Aleph are today classified as Alexandrian, as in Alexandria, Egypt, even though each manuscript agrees more with the TR than it does with each other. Both manuscripts represent the Latin Vulgate text, which is why modern bibles also are the Latin Vulgate text, because modern bibles are based almost exclusively on B, Aleph and D.


5. What would be the best book out there today to read up on NT Textual Criticism? Something akin to Ernst Wurthwein or Ellis Brotzman on the OT.

Books on OT textual criticism are rare compared to the NT and are not anything like books on NT textual criticism. If you want the party line and the mindset that stands behind WH and the NA/UBS text, read Metzger, et. al.

If you want actual evidence coupled with DEMONSTRATION, read John Burgon's "Revision Revised", "The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark", along with Herman Hoskier's "Codex B & Its Allies", and that's just for starters.

Here is a short but very accurate DEMONSTRATION of John Burgon's work -- http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/burgon_excerpt.htm


6. Also, I've heard that David Allan Black has got a pretty good volume on NT textual criticism. Any comments on this text?

Black follows the modern school on textual criticism.

Kimba
08-29-2009, 07:15 PM
I don't know the details of how scholarly those of the King James version were, but I do know if you tell Bibleworks to highlight the difference between KJV and TNT you will see that the words are the same, just that the KJV modernized Tyndale's spelling. That alone would tell me that there was very little effort in the translation or that Tyndale was greater than 70% of the the KJV NT translation team.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 07:20 PM
I don't know the details of how scholarly those of the King James version were, but I do know if you tell Bibleworks to highlight the difference between KJV and TNT you will see that the words are the same, just that the KJV modernized Tyndale's spelling. That alone would tell me that there was very little effort in the translation or that Tyndale was greater than 70% of the the KJV NT translation team.

Good observation, Kimba. Actually, it is estimated that 90% of Tyndale's work was preserved by the KJV translators in the Gospels. Here's an excerpt from yours truly from my website under Tyndale's name --

"As vast as the reverence, piety, skill, and learning were in the hearts and minds of the 1611 AV Translators, they possessed an additional attribute that rained upon them mightily from Heaven, viz., they flourished in a grace which allowed them to recognize that "a greater" had gone before them. Thus, they let much of William Tyndale's work shine through, and this can be seen by simply comparing Tyndale's 1534 translation with that of the Authorised Version. Like a precious stone, the Translators of 1611 took Tyndale's work and, with the utmost wisdom, mastery, and propriety -- and the good hand of God upon them -- polished Tyndale's words into the most sanctified and fruitful Book the world has ever known." from --

http://lamblion.net/Quotations/tyndale.htm

I should also note that the prhase "good hand of God upon them" was a phrase that the KJV translators used of themselves in the Preface written by Miles Smith. For an expose about the myths that have circulated concerning what the KJV translators themselves thought of their own work, see my expose --

Commentary On the KJV Translators Preface (http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/commentary_on_kjv_translators_preface.htm)

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 07:22 PM
Yes, Scrivener (SCR) is a reverse-engineered text, and is the Greek text which most closely represents the TR today.

First, thanks for all your answers. What briefly is meant by a reverse-engineered text?

The RB text is inappropriately labeled as the Majority Text, as is the HF inappropriately labeled the Majority Text, as both texts have been constructed on Von Soden's apparatus, which means both texts have been built on approximately 200 MSS out of more than 5,500 manuscripts. Some majority. (Actually, Von Soden employs 414 manuscripts with regard to Byzantine classification, but only about 200 have any real collation integrity).

What is the HF text? Also, I seem to recall that Von Soden was supplied with BW at one time. Is that no longer true? I can't seem to find it in my own BW installation.



Vaticanus B is of the Latin Vulgate flavor. Erasmus was offered more than 300 significant readings from Vaticanus, and, as one who was eminently familiar with the Latin Vulgate, this was Erasmus' charge against Vaticanus B and its readings, and is one reason Erasmus and the Reformers and Puritans and Great Awakeners rejected the readings of Vaticanus B.

B and Aleph are today classified as Alexandrian, as in Alexandria, Egypt, even though each manuscript agrees more with the TR than it does with each other. Both manuscripts represent the Latin Vulgate text, which is why modern bibles also are the Latin Vulgate text, because modern bibles are based almost exclusively on B, Aleph and D.

What is D, by the way?



Books on OT textual criticism are rare compared to the NT and are not anything like books on NT textual criticism. If you want the party line and the mindset that stands behind WH and the NA/UBS text, read Metzger, et. al.

Do you mean Metzger's textual commentary?



Again, thanks for all your answers.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 07:36 PM
Irving, if you really want to understand textual criticism you are going to have to buy books, download books, and read books. The answers you are seeking can only come with the study of the issue.

D is an uncial manuscript, just like B and Aleph. HF stands for Hodges-Farstaad, or the HF text, which differs only very slightly from the RP text.

Metzger has written numerous books and articles, which a Google search would instantly reveal.

Reading any of the books I mentioned, or any books by Metzger, or by Googling textual criticism, would answer all these questions and more.

It's not that I am not willing to give you the answers, but as you've demonstrated, each answer only propagates more questions, and these questions are ALL answered, and then some, by reading the material.

I know you've stated that you don't like to read long articles, but if you want to truly understand this issue, there is simply no way around it. If you're not willing to use the Google button and read long articles, then textual criticism is not the subject for you.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 07:50 PM
Oh, with regard to reverse-engineering the text, Scrivener -- and his own book on this very subject backs this up -- took the KJV and reverse-engineered the Greek, as any record of how the KJV translators arrived at their decisions had been lost.

So Scrivener went through the NT and wheverever he found manuscript support for a reading which matched the KJV, he rendered the Greek word for it in his text.

He made some obvious errors, so the SCR Greek Text of today is not wholly that of the TR of 1611.

In addition to other things, there was the great fire of London in 1666, and manuscripts and other writings were lost forever. We know that manuscripts existed then that do not exist now because of commentaries and other statements of records down through the centuries.

That is why Scrivener's work is considered to be reverse-engineered.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 07:53 PM
Short bibliography of the two authors I mentioned. You don't even have to buy the books, although if you really want to STUDY the issue, I'd recommend BUYING the actual books --

Herman Hoskier, Codex B & Its Allies -- http://www.ccel.org/index/author-H.html

Burgon, John William -- http://www.ccel.org/index/author-B.html

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Irving, if you really want to understand textual criticism you are going to have to buy books, download books, and read books. The answers you are seeking can only come with the study of the issue.

Scott, I am willing to read books. That's why I asked, in my previous post, which books would be good to read re NT textual criticism.

D is an uncial manuscript, just like B and Aleph. HF stands for Hodges-Farstaad, or the HF text, which differs only very slightly from the RP text.

Metzger has written numerous books and articles, which a Google search would instantly reveal.

Reading any of the books I mentioned, or any books by Metzger, or by Googling textual criticism, would answer all these questions and more.

It's not that I am not willing to give you the answers, but as you've demonstrated, each answer only propagates more questions, and these questions are ALL answered, and then some, by reading the material.

I know you've stated that you don't like to read long articles, but if you want to truly understand this issue, there is simply no way around it. If you're not willing to use the Google button and read long articles, then textual criticism is not the subject for you.

First, once again, thanks for all your answers, Scott. I am willing to read books on textual criticism. How can I not be? Someone has once said, "The first job of the interpreter is to establish the text of scripture." I, first and foremost, desire to exegete the text of scripture because I believe it is the living and active word of God. Therefore it is incumbent to properly determine the text.

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 09:50 PM
Oh, with regard to reverse-engineering the text, Scrivener -- and his own book on this very subject backs this up -- took the KJV and reverse-engineered the Greek, as any record of how the KJV translators arrived at their decisions had been lost.

So Scrivener went through the NT and wheverever he found manuscript support for a reading which matched the KJV, he rendered the Greek word for it in his text.

He made some obvious errors, so the SCR Greek Text of today is not wholly that of the TR of 1611.

In addition to other things, there was the great fire of London in 1666, and manuscripts and other writings were lost forever. We know that manuscripts existed then that do not exist now because of commentaries and other statements of records down through the centuries.

That is why Scrivener's work is considered to be reverse-engineered.

Thanks. Good, helpful answer.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 10:14 PM
Okay, well then I've given you a good start. Metzter's "Text Of The New Testament" is a must read for anyone who is going to delve into textual criticism. I say this even though I find his book full of both evidentiary and logical errors and problems. I say this even though I find little in his book that represents the actual truth.

Then why do I recommend it?

Because unlike the other side, I know that a good investigator must be thoroughly familiar with BOTH sides of an issue.

To understand modern textual criticism, you must understand Metzger, et. al., and if Metzger et. al. is all you read, you will be equal to the modern textual critic. And just as blind, because you won't find Burgon, Hoskier, and the other side recommended by modern textual critics.

But as I said, a GOOD investigator will turn over all sides of the matter, even those that aren't recommended. A GOOD investigator will actually MASTER all sides of an issue.

That's why I personally collated B, Aleph, and others in the New Testament. That's why I literally lived with these manuscripts for over ten years, and why I understood why the Reformers and Puritans and Great Awakeners didn't reject B and its text type solely because they are Latin Vulgate manuscripts, but because of the innumerable corruptions within them as well. They did not reject the Latin Vulgate text of B simply out of some tradtion, but because they knew what the Latin Vulgate text of B contains.

Thus, if you want to truly understand the manuscript issue without actually collating them, then you must read the works of people who HAVE actually collated them, which means you must read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark", both of which are absolute MUST reads by a man who METICULOUSLY COLLATED B, Aleph, D and other manuscripts.

On top of that, Hoskier's "Codex B & Its Allies" is a MUST read and study, for this is a VERY METICULOUS COLLATION of B, Aleph, D, and others in the Gospels, and the person who hasn't mastered this work is an utter ignoramus in textual criticism, I don't care how many acronyms he has behind his name. If he doesn't know Hoskier's work intimately, then he lives in a dream world if he thinks he understands the manuscript issue in general.

So then, you can Google sites and spend a lot of time that way, and you will of course find a lot of fluff in with the actual evidence, but at the end of the day, if you want to really understand the issue, you will need to INVESTIGATE, just like a detective, and that means you will have to buy books as noted above and then patiently and painstakingly go through them.

A GOOD investigator will make the asserter DEMONSTRATE his assertions. You will almost never find that anymore, but you find that Burgon and Hoskier can't take a breath without also DEMONSTRATING, unlike their critics.

And I gave you a link which shows that. You can get off cheap by spending five minutes or less in reading an excerpt in Burgon's own words, as I posted this link earlier --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/burgon_excerpt.htm

So, once again --

Burgon, "Revision Revised", "The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark"
Hoskier, "Codex B & Its Allies"
Metzger, "The Text Of The New Testament"
Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament"

That's the BARE BARE BARE BASICS. If you haven't read those works, you haven't a clue as to what constitutes NT textual criticism today.

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 10:41 PM
And I gave you a link which shows that. You can get off cheap by spending five minutes or less in reading an excerpt in Burgon's own words, as I posted this link earlier --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/burgon_excerpt.htm

I read that the first time you gave it to me. As my daughter is fond of saying, "You're repeating yourself!" (I love my daughter very much, by the way!)

So, once again --

Burgon, "Revision Revised", "The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark"
Hoskier, "Codex B & Its Allies"
Metzger, "The Text Of The New Testament"
Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament"

That's the BARE BARE BARE BASICS. If you haven't read those works, you haven't a clue as to what constitutes NT textual criticism today.


Again, thanks for your well thought out and crafted answers. Reading I will do. Let me just ask you one more question. What is meant by collating the manuscripts?

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 10:54 PM
Again, thanks for your well thought out and crafted answers. Reading I will do. Let me just ask you one more question. What is meant by collating the manuscripts?

It means, starting in Matthew 1:1, looking at the letter Beta (properly pronounced Veeta), and then comparing that letter to Sinaiticus Aleph, then comparing that letter to Vaticanus B, then comparing that letter to D, then comparing that letter to any other manuscripts that I might be interested in for that passage, and then determining if any of the letters differed among themselves, and if so, how and where.

Then it means going to the next letter, the Iota, and doing the same thing once again. And it took me several years to get through the whole NT, even though in numerous cases I was able to look at the whole word and make the comparisons, still, it is an extraordinarily painstaking endeavor, and anyone who has ever done it for more than a few days knows what I'm talking about.

That's why I value Swanson's work so much, even though there are of course the requisite share of errors in there also.

Most importantly, that's why I value Burgon's and Hoskier's work so much, for they did it without computers, and their work is extraordinarily accurate and full.

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 11:18 PM
That's why I value Swanson's work so much, even though there are of course the requisite share of errors in there also.

Hey Scott, please forgive me for continuing the volley here; you've worked plenty hard till now. But I will try to limit my questions as much as possible. Understand though; your answer has prompted them. Just let me ask you the name of Swanson's work and does it come in BibleWorks?

Most importantly, that's why I value Burgon's and Hoskier's work so much, for they did it without computers, and their work is extraordinarily accurate and full.

Also, I am re-dredging up a question I asked in a previous post, which you must have missed. I will just re-paste it in. "I seem to recall that Von Soden was supplied with BW at one time. Is that no longer true? I can't seem to find it in my own BW installation."

Again, thanks in advance, Scott.

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 11:24 PM
I think Clint Yale is working on Von Soden's apparatus and tagging it to BW. I seem to remember Von Soden's work in an earlier BW, but I don't remember. I never used the one in BW if it had it. I used a printed source.

Swanson's work was at one time slated for BW, and Mike said something about it the other day, but I don't really remember what the deal is with regard to BW.

I have his printed editions. Unfortunately, he only managed, what -- nine or ten volumes? He wasn't able to finish the NT before he died. Only the nine or ten books, or something like that.

ISalzman
08-29-2009, 11:26 PM
Okay, thanks. Get some sleep!

Irving

Adelphos
08-29-2009, 11:51 PM
Okay, thanks. Get some sleep!

I can't do that until my computer quits beeping and telling me that Irving the Salt Man is calling. :p

ISalzman
08-30-2009, 11:33 AM
Well, we're called to be the salt of the earth, right?