How can we know for certain...

[trofimus]

Athenasius did not practice allegorical interpretation. He was exceptional; and would have been exceptional wherever he was.

I am NOT KJV only. I do favor the TR and the Majority text.

I began with the Textus Receptus 10 years ago, because its European version (I think Elzevir?) was a basis for Czech reformation translation... well, situation very similar to the KJV and "Brittish" TR (by Stephanus).

Later I started to study for and against and turned to the majority text (which is not the text of TR).

In last months I am inclining more and more to minority text (Nestlé Aland), but still with strong use of Majority text.

Sometimes I see reasons for the Majority text, sometimes for Netstlé aland, but practically none for the TR.

---

I think that because of this evolution process in me I am able to see how good or bad some evidence or proofs are. I know most of them for each of those three Greek compilations and I used all three Greek texts in my daily readings.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Bumping this to keep it going.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Bumping this to keep it going.

Since your primary focus is on the earliest NT manuscripts, the place to start is to study "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament" by Frederick H.A. Scrivener (Volumes I & II, Fourth Edition).

Frederick Scrivener was a British biblical scholar of the 19th century who dedicated his research to the New Testament. In Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Scrivener studies over 3,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Many of the accounts in this volume have been written or compiled by leading scholars in the fields of Greek and Latin classics or biblical studies. This first volume contains Scrivener's preliminary considerations where he explains the importance of textual criticism and introduces the reader to the types of manuscripts contained in the volume. Then Scrivener presents the general character of the Greek manuscripts, exploring the various writing materials, styles, and literary conventions associated with individual manuscripts. The majority of this volume is filled with the uncial manuscripts of the Book of Acts, the Gospels, and Paul's epistles. These uncial manuscripts are written in the Greek or Latin script of the early centuries. The wealth of manuscripts contained in this book is unrivaled. As a result of completing a project of this latitude [magnitude?], Scrivener will be remembered for decades.

Emmalon Davis
CCEL Staff Writer

See Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) for Volume I. There are other sources for both volumes in one book (of which I possess a reprint).

Scrivener was a contemporary of Westcott, Hort, and Burgon. However he and Burgon were on the same side of the controversy (and had the highest regard for each other) and exposed W & H for their fraudulent promotion of a totally corrupt critical text.

Both textual scholars wrote extensively about the manuscripts and texts, and both had personally collated many MSS of the NT. Scrivener was the sole opponent of W & H on the Revision Committee, but the notions of W & H prevailed and showed up in the Revised Version (1881).

But Scrivener and Burgon acknowledged the value of the Textus Receptus, and Scrivener actually produced the TR used by the KJB translators in 1894, since it is not strictly that of Stephanus (!550) but includes items from other editions of the TR. However for all intents and purposes the Textus Receptus is the same, whether from Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the Elizeviers. But it is quite different from the critical texts of W & H and their followers.

 

[trofimus]

Since your primary focus is on the earliest NT manuscripts, the place to start is to study "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament" by Frederick H.A. Scrivener (Volumes I & II, Fourth Edition).


See Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) for Volume I. There are other sources for both volumes in one book (of which I possess a reprint).

Scrivener was a contemporary of Westcott, Hort, and Burgon. However he and Burgon were on the same side of the controversy (and had the highest regard for each other) and exposed W & H for their fraudulent promotion of a totally corrupt critical text.

Both textual scholars wrote extensively about the manuscripts and texts, and both had personally collated many MSS of the NT. Scrivener was the sole opponent of W & H on the Revision Committee, but the notions of W & H prevailed and showed up in the Revised Version (1881).

But Scrivener and Burgon acknowledged the value of the Textus Receptus, and Scrivener actually produced the TR used by the KJB translators in 1894, since it is not strictly that of Stephanus (!550) but includes items from other editions of the TR. However for all intents and purposes the Textus Receptus is the same, whether from Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the Elizeviers. But it is quite different from the critical texts of W & H and their followers.

Textus Receptus is a roman catholic compilation of various late manuscripts Erasmus could get.

We now have much more broader comittee (not just one RCC priest), much older sources (the oldest one is from the 2nd century) and much broader sources (thousands, not just cca dozen Erasmus had).

What reason is there to stay with the TR even today?

So called "majority" reason is not applicable, because the TR does not represent majority text correctly, even though its close to it more than Nestlé Aland. But the majority reason is not a good one at all.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Textus Receptus is a roman catholic compilation of various late manuscripts Erasmus could get.

We now have much more broader comittee (not just one RCC priest), much older sources (the oldest one is from the 2nd century) and much broader sources (thousands, not just cca dozen Erasmus had).

What reason is there to stay with the TR even today?

So called "majority" reason is not applicable, because the TR does not represent majority text correctly, even though its close to it more than Nestlé Aland. But the majority reason is not a good one at all.

That which I bolded is what I am driving at. How do they know that ms is from the 2nd century?

I don't trust carbon dating, seeing they've used it to prove things to be billions of years old. FYI, I am an YEC.

 

[trofimus]

That which I bolded is what I am driving at. How do they know that ms is from the 2nd century?

I don't trust carbon dating, seeing they've used it to prove things to be billions of years old. FYI, I am an YEC.

I am OE, so I have no problem with carbon dating... so this is probably a question you must solve for yourself.

There are some indicators, though. For example its papyri, these were in use before pergamen. So you can at least roughly, historically, get some idea because of cultural context, style of handwriting, the composition of papyri, but probably not so precise as with carbon dating.

This is the one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Wiki has some info about its datation.

 

[trofimus]

When you read how they try to date this P52, you see that somebody says 94AD, somebody says 170AD, because they use different approaches.

But nobody says "its 300AD". So its more about a probability range than a precise date like "it certainly is 111 AD, 5th of November"...

 

[SovereignGrace]

I am OE, so I have no problem with carbon dating... so this is probably a question you must solve for yourself.

There are some indicators, though. For example its papyri, these were in use before pergamen. So you can at least roughly, historically, get some idea because of cultural context, style of handwriting, the composition of papyri, but probably not so precise as with carbon dating.

This is the one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

Wiki has some info about its datation.

So, what material were the mss written in the KJV translators used?

 

[trofimus]

So, what material were the mss written in the KJV translators used?

The KJV translators used various editions of Erasmus text. These editions were already printed, they were not manuscripts.

 

[Snoozy]

The KJV translators used various editions of Erasmus text. These editions were already printed, they were not manuscripts.

are u serious? did they not have even manuscripts for the kjv??? proof please.

 

[NayborBear]

So, how can we know which mss are the best? I keep hearing the KJVO's saying the TR is the best, and the anti-KJVO's saying the TR is corrupted. How can we know this with any level of certainty?

I could go into something like: "Have ya ever read the KJV, and read a certain name, or location, and right behind that, an explanation, or, a defining of that which you just read?" This should tell the reader (at least it tells this particular reader...lol) that, some "translator/copier", WAY BEFORE these "items" were even called "mss", or whatever name, or label man puts on 'em, in their, and with the wisdom of God or, perhaps not, seen fit in elaborating on, most likely, a change in dialect, as well as language/s, as the centuries passed, that which was needed, as a way of independently confirming that which had been given him to copy, translate, transliterate, but rarely reinterpreting, the Sacred Scrolls.

Yet, the thing is, with all the swingin' Richard's and sashayin' Sally's out there, to be making such conniptions over "Which is the OLDEST manuscripts?" "Therefore, older is BETTER!" Tells me, and tells others, that that which you are actually accomplishing is trying to get a better look at HIM, but not FOR HIM! In (a) reality, expending (wasting) massive amounts of good intentions(?), needed in the seeking and growing spiritually, In Christ, for menial filthy ragged labors, of boasting, in the eyes of men!

 

[SovereignGrace]

I could go into something like: "Have ya ever read the KJV, and read a certain name, or location, and right behind that, an explanation, or, a defining of that which you just read?" This should tell the reader (at least it tells this particular reader...lol) that, some "translator/copier", WAY BEFORE these "items" were even called "mss", or whatever name, or label man puts on 'em, in their, and with the wisdom of God or, perhaps not, seen fit in elaborating on, most likely, a change in dialect, as well as language/s, as the centuries passed, that which was needed, as a way of independently confirming that which had been given him to copy, translate, transliterate, but rarely reinterpreting, the Sacred Scrolls.

Yet, the thing is, with all the swingin' Richard's and sashayin' Sally's out there, to be making such conniptions over "Which is the OLDEST manuscripts?" "Therefore, older is BETTER!" Tells me, and tells others, that that which you are actually accomplishing is trying to get a better look at HIM, but not FOR HIM! In (a) reality, expending (wasting) massive amounts of good intentions(?), needed in the seeking and growing spiritually, In Christ, for menial filthy ragged labors, of boasting, in the eyes of men!

 

[trofimus]

are u serious? did they not have even manuscripts for the kjv??? proof please.

You cannot prove that somebody did not have something. You can prove only positive facts.

So you must prove they used some real manuscript and not just Erasmus's printed editions of the Textus Receptus as every historian I found says.

And yes, I am serious, because its a standard knowledge. James White or D. Wallace speak about this often. Even if you do not agree with their opinions, I suppose you do not think they are liars in historical facts.

 

[NayborBear]

Can you post some examples in manuscripts you think are a result of "allegorical interpretation"?

So we know what you mean.

I apologize if I interjected this, as you weren't talking to me, but, here is 1 example from KJV, and NIV:


Ezekiel-13:20,21 (NIV)

[SUP]20 [/SUP]“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms; I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds. [SUP]21 [/SUP]I will tear off your veils and save my people from your hands, and they will no longer fall prey to your power. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

Ezekiel-13:20,21 (KJV)

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

 

[Snoozy]

You cannot prove that somebody did not have something. You can prove only positive facts.

So you must prove they used some real manuscript and not just Erasmus's printed editions of the Textus Receptus as every historian I found says.

And yes, I am serious, because its a standard knowledge. James White or D. Wallace speak about this often. Even if you do not agree with their opinions, I suppose you do not think they are liars in historical facts.

i like james white u can read my earlier post. there is no tellin how high his IQ is. the man is a genius. i doubt i could hold a conversation with him for long over a cup of coffee tho

why is the kjv so popular then if its not even based on any manuscripts but just eramus's printed editions of textus receptus? last time i checked erasmus was a catholic.
there goes that argument out the window that the new versions are catholic.

yeah this is a swamp of error for sure. i wonder if james white has translated anything himself. he reads greek

 

[SovereignGrace]

i like james white u can read my earlier post. there is no tellin how high his IQ is. the man is a genius. i doubt i could hold a conversation with him for long over a cup of coffee tho

why is the kjv so popular then if its not even based on any manuscripts but just eramus's printed editions of textus receptus? last time i checked erasmus was a catholic.
there goes that argument out the window that the new versions are catholic.

yeah this is a swamp of error for sure. i wonder if james white has translated anything himself. he reads greek

IIRC, he's on the NASB translating committee.

 

[NayborBear]

Yeah? I get that a lot! Different level's of vanity, I suppose.

 

[Snoozy]

IIRC, he's on the NASB translating committee.

i gotta try reading that bible, i'll probably buy it once i get healthy. i like it how sam gipp claimed in that james white video that they attack deity of Jesus in the "alexandrian" bibles but nasb has only begotten God in john 1 so its actualy stronger for the deity of Jesus. kkind of funny.

turns out the kjvonly folks got no evidence. im actually surprised myself. the manuscript claim about antioch to textus receptus to kjv is not true. so the entire thing is shaky.

i read what the kjv translators said and they wouldnt be kjvonlyist even. im jumping out of this titanic

how sad. lucky for me i never made a big deal of a bible version when soul-winning. never said a word. its all about the gospel.

 

[trofimus]

I apologize if I interjected this, as you weren't talking to me, but, here is 1 example from KJV, and NIV:


Ezekiel-13:20,21 (NIV)

[SUP]20 [/SUP]“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms; I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds. [SUP]21 [/SUP]I will tear off your veils and save my people from your hands, and they will no longer fall prey to your power. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

Ezekiel-13:20,21 (KJV)

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

The Old Testament is quite a different issue, because here both NIV and the KJV uses the same primary source - masoretic text. So the difference is just their translation.

While in the New Testament, NIV and the KJV uses different sources.

---

To your example: I have no idea what the KJV reading is saying there...

 

[SovereignGrace]

i like james white u can read my earlier post. there is no tellin how high his IQ is. the man is a genius. i doubt i could hold a conversation with him for long over a cup of coffee tho

why is the kjv so popular then if its not even based on any manuscripts but just eramus's printed editions of textus receptus? last time i checked erasmus was a catholic.
there goes that argument out the window that the new versions are catholic.

yeah this is a swamp of error for sure. i wonder if james white has translated anything himself. he reads greek

Read up on William Tyndale. He was fluent in 7 languages, Greek being one of them. Erasmus translated the Vulgate into Greek. Now, what Erasmus had were not mss(thanks bunches trof), but the Vulgate. Tyndale then took those texts of Erasmus' and translated them into English. Then later the KJV translators used Erasmus', Beza's, and Tyndale's(I think) to translate the word of God into the KJV.