Omitted verses.
- Thread starter Raggedcloth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Part 1:
I am trying to be gracious, and extend to you the courtesy and benefit of the doubt. But there are people who think they have something relevant to say, but don’t ever wind up making a point relevant to the discussion, and that is how I see this argument panning out for you.
You described the argument I presented (geographic attestation) as one legged, but it’s more like a two (or, perhaps even three) pronged argument—each of which overlap with one another simultaneously—in a congruent way to prove a larger point. The fact that you keep mentioning the German Luther’s Bible and the Spanish Sagradas, tells me that you don’t feel the full weight of the “geographic attestation” argument; and are unable to discern the full gist.
Let me try to explain this in a way that is easy to understand, because I may not have been so clear:
The reason for mentioning earlier versional witnesses (such as the Syriac, Latin, Coptic) are because they are ancient copies of the NT that range from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, and are from very different regions of the “Christian world” (and so are some of the Greek mss that I have mentioned in my initial post). So it is reasonable to assume (with warrant) that the readings found in those copies were—by the 4th c.—already widely circulated throughout various regions of the “Christian world.” This is, after all, what the Greek witnesses of the period seem to suggest, hence, p72 ℵ A B C, which are all representative of that time period, and are from varying geographic locales. I can say with certainty that the reading κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) was well established (and attested) throughout the known “Christian world” by (and prior to) the 4th c. That is a truthful, and honest statement that doesn’t require a whole lot of “guessing.” That is what the data indicates; and the evidence is right there in front of you. You don’t like that, but hey, that’s not my problem.
In contrast, you cite the German Luther’s Bible (a product from the 16th c.) which does not, in any way, prove really much of anything. All you are showing how is that by the 16th c., a variant reading was in circulation. At most, all you prove is how effective the 14th c. printing press was.
You have made several statements in your latest post that are riddled with inaccuracies. You stated,
And then immediately thereafter, you go on to say,
I think what you had intended to say was, “The critical English Text has the support of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus,” not (as you penned it) the other way around, “Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus have the support of the critical English Text.” Critical apparatus’ rely on manuscripts, not necessarily the other way around.
But more the point, Ephraemi (which has been attributed with the classification, “C”) does in fact (contrary to what you had said) include 1 Peter, but there is some lacunae. While Ephraemi may be missing portions of 1 Peter (such as 1:1–2; 4:5-fin), it does include 1 Peter 3:15, and it does attest to κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”). Ephraemi is a 5th c. document, and is completely at harmony with other mss from the period in its attestation of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”). In fact, the very list of mss I cited in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν came from Bruce Metzger,
Now compare that with the listing I gave in Post #70,
I even managed to keep it in the same order as presented by Metzger. Not to mention, that this citation by Bruce Metzger is found in the Nestle-Aland 28; which thereby confirms Metzger’s statement. And included in Metzger’s listing is none other than Ephraemi (“C”). Either Metzger (and by extension, the Nestle-Aland 28) is incorrect, or you are. Would you like to take a guess to who is correct? In fact, here is a photographic facsimile from the inside the cover of Ephraemi. And notice what it has to say about the contents of the codex,
Not to mention, on the next several pages, there is an exhaustive Scriptural index. Because this is a screenshot of a picture, the clarity (especially due to the need to resize it) may not be so clear. This screenshot only captures a portion of the Scriptural index, there are additional references where it got cut off at the top and the bottom of the page,
There are also add’l NT references on the pages that precede and follow this one (above), which include more references to the Petrine epistles. The file is too large to upload here. But the fact is, we’re getting warmer, wouldn’t you say?
Now for that grandiose “gotcha” moment. Because the original contents of Ephraemi had been (poorly) “bleached” from its vellum pages, and reused by a later 12th c. scribe to record (in a darker ink) a Greek translation of the treatise of Ephraem the Syrian, it can be quite hard to read if we are just looking at a fascismile.
However, because the original ink had stained the vellum for centuries and the later scribe couldn’t quite “wash” it all out, the original Greek has been able to be recovered. The 12th c. scribe didn’t do too good of job in his attempt to wash out the vellum, but because he transcribed overtop of it, it doesn’t necessarily make it easy on the eyes to read. Transcriptions of the original text are available, which make it easier to read. Here is the transcription by Tischendorf, but other more modern transcriptions are also available,
You initially had stated Ephraemi did not include 1 Peter 3:15; yet, here it is. And it attests to the reading as found in all other Greek witnesses of the time (p72 ℵ A B), κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
I am trying to be gracious, and extend to you the courtesy and benefit of the doubt. But there are people who think they have something relevant to say, but don’t ever wind up making a point relevant to the discussion, and that is how I see this argument panning out for you.
You described the argument I presented (geographic attestation) as one legged, but it’s more like a two (or, perhaps even three) pronged argument—each of which overlap with one another simultaneously—in a congruent way to prove a larger point. The fact that you keep mentioning the German Luther’s Bible and the Spanish Sagradas, tells me that you don’t feel the full weight of the “geographic attestation” argument; and are unable to discern the full gist.
Let me try to explain this in a way that is easy to understand, because I may not have been so clear:
The reason for mentioning earlier versional witnesses (such as the Syriac, Latin, Coptic) are because they are ancient copies of the NT that range from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, and are from very different regions of the “Christian world” (and so are some of the Greek mss that I have mentioned in my initial post). So it is reasonable to assume (with warrant) that the readings found in those copies were—by the 4th c.—already widely circulated throughout various regions of the “Christian world.” This is, after all, what the Greek witnesses of the period seem to suggest, hence, p72 ℵ A B C, which are all representative of that time period, and are from varying geographic locales. I can say with certainty that the reading κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) was well established (and attested) throughout the known “Christian world” by (and prior to) the 4th c. That is a truthful, and honest statement that doesn’t require a whole lot of “guessing.” That is what the data indicates; and the evidence is right there in front of you. You don’t like that, but hey, that’s not my problem.
In contrast, you cite the German Luther’s Bible (a product from the 16th c.) which does not, in any way, prove really much of anything. All you are showing how is that by the 16th c., a variant reading was in circulation. At most, all you prove is how effective the 14th c. printing press was.
You have made several statements in your latest post that are riddled with inaccuracies. You stated,
And then immediately thereafter, you go on to say,
I think what you had intended to say was, “The critical English Text has the support of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus,” not (as you penned it) the other way around, “Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus have the support of the critical English Text.” Critical apparatus’ rely on manuscripts, not necessarily the other way around.
But more the point, Ephraemi (which has been attributed with the classification, “C”) does in fact (contrary to what you had said) include 1 Peter, but there is some lacunae. While Ephraemi may be missing portions of 1 Peter (such as 1:1–2; 4:5-fin), it does include 1 Peter 3:15, and it does attest to κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”). Ephraemi is a 5th c. document, and is completely at harmony with other mss from the period in its attestation of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”). In fact, the very list of mss I cited in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν came from Bruce Metzger,
Now compare that with the listing I gave in Post #70,
I even managed to keep it in the same order as presented by Metzger. Not to mention, that this citation by Bruce Metzger is found in the Nestle-Aland 28; which thereby confirms Metzger’s statement. And included in Metzger’s listing is none other than Ephraemi (“C”). Either Metzger (and by extension, the Nestle-Aland 28) is incorrect, or you are. Would you like to take a guess to who is correct? In fact, here is a photographic facsimile from the inside the cover of Ephraemi. And notice what it has to say about the contents of the codex,
Not to mention, on the next several pages, there is an exhaustive Scriptural index. Because this is a screenshot of a picture, the clarity (especially due to the need to resize it) may not be so clear. This screenshot only captures a portion of the Scriptural index, there are additional references where it got cut off at the top and the bottom of the page,
There are also add’l NT references on the pages that precede and follow this one (above), which include more references to the Petrine epistles. The file is too large to upload here. But the fact is, we’re getting warmer, wouldn’t you say?
Now for that grandiose “gotcha” moment. Because the original contents of Ephraemi had been (poorly) “bleached” from its vellum pages, and reused by a later 12th c. scribe to record (in a darker ink) a Greek translation of the treatise of Ephraem the Syrian, it can be quite hard to read if we are just looking at a fascismile.
However, because the original ink had stained the vellum for centuries and the later scribe couldn’t quite “wash” it all out, the original Greek has been able to be recovered. The 12th c. scribe didn’t do too good of job in his attempt to wash out the vellum, but because he transcribed overtop of it, it doesn’t necessarily make it easy on the eyes to read. Transcriptions of the original text are available, which make it easier to read. Here is the transcription by Tischendorf, but other more modern transcriptions are also available,
You initially had stated Ephraemi did not include 1 Peter 3:15; yet, here it is. And it attests to the reading as found in all other Greek witnesses of the time (p72 ℵ A B), κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).
Attachments
-
1
- Show all
Part 2:
You stated,
While p81 is a 4th c. document (and would be a great witness to have), most of its contents have been lost to time. While it does include portions of 1 Peter (namely, 2:20-3:1, 4-12), it does not include 3:15. So why are you citing it as evidence for the KJV?
Likewise, p74 also includes 1 Peter, but some of its contents have been lost to time. It includes 1 Peter 1:1–2, 7–8, 13, 19–20, 25; 2:6–7, 11–12, 18, 24; 3:4–5, but not 3:15. Why are you citing this as evidence for the KJV? Additionally, p74 is a 7th c. document, approx. two to three hundred years removed from the earlier witnesses. So even had it supported the KJV’s rendition (which it does not), it would still be too far removed to be considered “early.” In addition, you have no other manuscripts from that time period that likewise use the variant reading. You need to show that the variant which you are supporting has broad (and early) attestation. If you cannot meet those criterion, then the argument is severely lacking.
You then go on to say,
Yet, there’s another (rather significant) problem. These miniscules are some of the most valuable of the entire bunch. I can’t go into all the details here, but I can refer you to several scholarly articles that discuss their importance in detail.
While there a great number of miniscules, the amount that actually include 1 Peter brings the total tally down significantly. You are not able to cite any of the papyri for support of the KJ, nor are you able to cite any of the Alexandrian, of Western uncials. At most, all you have are a few uncials (in addition to several handfuls of miniscules) that are Byzantine in character. So using the method I have laid out, if all you can cite are Byzantine mss for the support of your preferred rendition of 1 Peter 3:15, then that necessarily entails that the reading probably had its origins in Byzantium. And because you only have much later (from the 9th c. onward) witnesses, it is probably safe to say that your preferred reading was a byproduct of the 9th c. Because κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Jesus as Lord”) is found throughout multiple textual streams (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine), and that from an early period in history; and the fact that κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸ (“God as Lord”) is so predominant in one textual stream (Byzantine), we can deduce that the KJ reading probably originated during the 9th c. in Byzantium. Do you now see why early and broad attestation is so important?
Citing the German Luther’s Bible does nothing to help you in this regard. The underlying textual apparatus used in translation for the Luther Bible (and some of the other translations you have mentioned) include these 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 14th c. Byzantine manuscripts. It does not establish broad (and early) attestation in multiple textual streams.
You stated,
While p81 is a 4th c. document (and would be a great witness to have), most of its contents have been lost to time. While it does include portions of 1 Peter (namely, 2:20-3:1, 4-12), it does not include 3:15. So why are you citing it as evidence for the KJV?
Likewise, p74 also includes 1 Peter, but some of its contents have been lost to time. It includes 1 Peter 1:1–2, 7–8, 13, 19–20, 25; 2:6–7, 11–12, 18, 24; 3:4–5, but not 3:15. Why are you citing this as evidence for the KJV? Additionally, p74 is a 7th c. document, approx. two to three hundred years removed from the earlier witnesses. So even had it supported the KJV’s rendition (which it does not), it would still be too far removed to be considered “early.” In addition, you have no other manuscripts from that time period that likewise use the variant reading. You need to show that the variant which you are supporting has broad (and early) attestation. If you cannot meet those criterion, then the argument is severely lacking.
You then go on to say,
Yet, there’s another (rather significant) problem. These miniscules are some of the most valuable of the entire bunch. I can’t go into all the details here, but I can refer you to several scholarly articles that discuss their importance in detail.
While there a great number of miniscules, the amount that actually include 1 Peter brings the total tally down significantly. You are not able to cite any of the papyri for support of the KJ, nor are you able to cite any of the Alexandrian, of Western uncials. At most, all you have are a few uncials (in addition to several handfuls of miniscules) that are Byzantine in character. So using the method I have laid out, if all you can cite are Byzantine mss for the support of your preferred rendition of 1 Peter 3:15, then that necessarily entails that the reading probably had its origins in Byzantium. And because you only have much later (from the 9th c. onward) witnesses, it is probably safe to say that your preferred reading was a byproduct of the 9th c. Because κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Jesus as Lord”) is found throughout multiple textual streams (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine), and that from an early period in history; and the fact that κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸ (“God as Lord”) is so predominant in one textual stream (Byzantine), we can deduce that the KJ reading probably originated during the 9th c. in Byzantium. Do you now see why early and broad attestation is so important?
Citing the German Luther’s Bible does nothing to help you in this regard. The underlying textual apparatus used in translation for the Luther Bible (and some of the other translations you have mentioned) include these 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 14th c. Byzantine manuscripts. It does not establish broad (and early) attestation in multiple textual streams.
-
1
- Show all
Part 3:
Lastly, you state,
That really is besides the point, isn’t it? You are trying to villainize Sinaiticus (ℵ). And while p46, p66, and p75 are not witnesses to the Petrine epistles, they are witnesses to the Johannine literature, and they do agree with Sinaiticus (ℵ) and Vaticanus (B) at critical points, to the exclusion of the KJ. That’s the point. You can’t villainize Sinaiticus (ℵ) without also villainizing all the other papyri and uncials that agree with it in contrast to the KJ, it won’t work out well for you.
Lastly, you state,
That really is besides the point, isn’t it? You are trying to villainize Sinaiticus (ℵ). And while p46, p66, and p75 are not witnesses to the Petrine epistles, they are witnesses to the Johannine literature, and they do agree with Sinaiticus (ℵ) and Vaticanus (B) at critical points, to the exclusion of the KJ. That’s the point. You can’t villainize Sinaiticus (ℵ) without also villainizing all the other papyri and uncials that agree with it in contrast to the KJ, it won’t work out well for you.
-
1
- Show all
There is just one other thing I'd like to add in order to summarize this all up:
The scribes responsible for the Greek apparatus' underlying the 16th c. translations (such as the German Luther Bible) did not have access to thousands of mss as we do today. It wasn't up until archaeological discoveries of the 1950's that many of the early papyri were uncovered. The 16th c. scribes that brought us the Luther Bible used the exact method as I am using to deduce the authenticity of 1 Peter 3:15, but (due to access) relied on a more limited number of mss. They weren't working with p72 (discovered in the 1950's), or Vaticanus (discovered in 1844), or Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus (discovered in 1624). They were using the mss they had on hand, and were making the best choices with the data they had in the 1500's.
The scribes responsible for the Greek apparatus' underlying the 16th c. translations (such as the German Luther Bible) did not have access to thousands of mss as we do today. It wasn't up until archaeological discoveries of the 1950's that many of the early papyri were uncovered. The 16th c. scribes that brought us the Luther Bible used the exact method as I am using to deduce the authenticity of 1 Peter 3:15, but (due to access) relied on a more limited number of mss. They weren't working with p72 (discovered in the 1950's), or Vaticanus (discovered in 1844), or Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus (discovered in 1624). They were using the mss they had on hand, and were making the best choices with the data they had in the 1500's.
-
1
- Show all
The more recent Nestle Aland 28 listed additional proof for Theos although in their commentary is an assumption telling us they substituted “God” from the older text “Christ” which I may disagree with and good only for an educational guess.
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/1peterwgrk.pdf
Nestle Aland 28
Textual Criticism dwells on the “Old, the better” which part you may have denied. But the fact is that Critical Scholars believe in that notion as the Commentary of Cambridge Bible for Schools and College confessedly:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15. but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts] The better MSS. give the Lord Christ. The original text was probably altered by transcribers to bring it into conformity with the LXX.
Now, the Official Greek Bible Orthodox representing the Byzantine Text Type, on the other hand, has the “Lord God” which I believe represented the orthodox Christianity of mostly the eastern part of Europe as well as of Arabia in the first Century AD. John Gill’s pointed out the Arabic Bible to have it.
1Peter 3:15 - Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου
The Epramaei as edited by Tischendorf is not clear and hard to read. While it contains Petrine, it is mainly an Alexandrian Text Type family written in Egypt for the 5th CE , yet the palimpsest as evidence was corrupted in nature.
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/1peterwgrk.pdf
Nestle Aland 28
Textual Criticism dwells on the “Old, the better” which part you may have denied. But the fact is that Critical Scholars believe in that notion as the Commentary of Cambridge Bible for Schools and College confessedly:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15. but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts] The better MSS. give the Lord Christ. The original text was probably altered by transcribers to bring it into conformity with the LXX.
Now, the Official Greek Bible Orthodox representing the Byzantine Text Type, on the other hand, has the “Lord God” which I believe represented the orthodox Christianity of mostly the eastern part of Europe as well as of Arabia in the first Century AD. John Gill’s pointed out the Arabic Bible to have it.
1Peter 3:15 - Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου
The Epramaei as edited by Tischendorf is not clear and hard to read. While it contains Petrine, it is mainly an Alexandrian Text Type family written in Egypt for the 5th CE , yet the palimpsest as evidence was corrupted in nature.
It does seem you cannot make up your mind. In Post #79 you claimed Ephraemi lacked the Petrine epistles. You then went on to claim that p74 and p81 supported the KJV. I pointed out that your comments regarding Ephraemi, p74, and p81 were all inaccurate. Now you are citing the NA28, which further substantiates what I said. You do realize that, right?
You do understand (in the portion I have highlighted in red, above) that the “lac” stands for “lacunae,” correct? Lacunae simply means, “lacking” or “missing.” And you do realize that the portion in the screenshot (below), which I have highlighted in red, is not a reference to p81, but to miniscule 81 (not papyri 81)—they are two very different things—right?
Why did you not check your sources prior to making inaccurate comments? It seems that every time I read a post of yours, it is riddled with inaccuracies. That speaks volumes about your character. If we include all the former posts, along with this one that I am responding to now, we can deduce that you are not a reliable source of information. Do your due diligence before making uneducated (and inaccurate) guesses. By not doing your due diligence, you are putting wrong information in the air waves, and (in this case) had I not been here to correct you, someone else would have picked up and ran with what you said, only to be humiliated if ever faced by someone of the likes of a Bart Ehrman. I am not saying you are dumb, but you are not putting effort into doing proper study. Do your homework.
In addition, of these references you made to NA28, they say nothing intrinsically different from what I have already stated. I confirmed in my previous response to you (Post #84) that your preferred reading (“God as Lord”) was present in “…a few uncials (in addition to several handfuls of miniscules) that are Byzantine in character.” Yet, you clip a portion of NA28 which further goes to confirm what I said. What part of the clip is supposed to refute what I said?
What are you trying to prove? Do you even know? Heck, at this point I’m not too certain what you’re trying to prove. In fact, in the first snippet, it goes on in greater detail to explain how the later variant (“God as Lord”) likely gave rise, which is something I also pointed out in my opening post to this thread (Post #70),
You stated,
Guess what? Wrong again. You are misrepresenting what the commentary is actually stating. They are not making a broad (or blanket) statement that older is better. What they are saying, is that in this specific instance (1 Peter 3:15), the older is better (and it is). Not that “older is better” as a blanket rule of thumb, as you are suggesting. Textual critics do not (as you put it) “dwell on ‘old, the better.’” And if you look closely through your NA28, you will see that.
I have many books on this topic, it is, after all, one of my favorite areas of study. And never has anyone ever made such a broad blanketed statement as you are suggesting. The trend is to take one verse at a time, one-by-one, comparing all mss together to see where they differ—verse by verse—even, word-by-word. If an earlier mss is lacking geographic attestation, then it is common among scholars not to side with the earlier reading. The fact that it is “earlier” does not mean better. But when the early reading has broad attestation, it certainly has the appeal. There are other text-critical reasons we could get into, but that would only help my case even further. I am simply giving you one “rule of thumb” (if we should call it) used by scholars in the field of textual criticism.
In your final statement you made the comment that Ephraemi is difficult to read. However, Ephraemi is actually not difficult to read at all. To the naked eye, perhaps. But apparently you are unaware of the methods used to study this document: Blacklight/ultra-violet illumination.
Further, if this is the standard you’re going to hold Ephraemi to, simply because you are struggling to see it through the naked eye, then you might as well dismiss some of these other texts as witnesses for the KJ. Because some of those are in even worse condition.
Further, if you want to claim that Ephraemi is corrupt, then you cannot use it as a source to (ever again) support the KJV. And there are many times KJ-Only advocates will and do. We can go into some examples of this if you’d like… .
What are you going to come up with next? That Marvin the Martian teleported to earth with the Power Rangers, and—oh never mind.
You do understand (in the portion I have highlighted in red, above) that the “lac” stands for “lacunae,” correct? Lacunae simply means, “lacking” or “missing.” And you do realize that the portion in the screenshot (below), which I have highlighted in red, is not a reference to p81, but to miniscule 81 (not papyri 81)—they are two very different things—right?
Why did you not check your sources prior to making inaccurate comments? It seems that every time I read a post of yours, it is riddled with inaccuracies. That speaks volumes about your character. If we include all the former posts, along with this one that I am responding to now, we can deduce that you are not a reliable source of information. Do your due diligence before making uneducated (and inaccurate) guesses. By not doing your due diligence, you are putting wrong information in the air waves, and (in this case) had I not been here to correct you, someone else would have picked up and ran with what you said, only to be humiliated if ever faced by someone of the likes of a Bart Ehrman. I am not saying you are dumb, but you are not putting effort into doing proper study. Do your homework.
In addition, of these references you made to NA28, they say nothing intrinsically different from what I have already stated. I confirmed in my previous response to you (Post #84) that your preferred reading (“God as Lord”) was present in “…a few uncials (in addition to several handfuls of miniscules) that are Byzantine in character.” Yet, you clip a portion of NA28 which further goes to confirm what I said. What part of the clip is supposed to refute what I said?
What are you trying to prove? Do you even know? Heck, at this point I’m not too certain what you’re trying to prove. In fact, in the first snippet, it goes on in greater detail to explain how the later variant (“God as Lord”) likely gave rise, which is something I also pointed out in my opening post to this thread (Post #70),
You stated,
Guess what? Wrong again. You are misrepresenting what the commentary is actually stating. They are not making a broad (or blanket) statement that older is better. What they are saying, is that in this specific instance (1 Peter 3:15), the older is better (and it is). Not that “older is better” as a blanket rule of thumb, as you are suggesting. Textual critics do not (as you put it) “dwell on ‘old, the better.’” And if you look closely through your NA28, you will see that.
I have many books on this topic, it is, after all, one of my favorite areas of study. And never has anyone ever made such a broad blanketed statement as you are suggesting. The trend is to take one verse at a time, one-by-one, comparing all mss together to see where they differ—verse by verse—even, word-by-word. If an earlier mss is lacking geographic attestation, then it is common among scholars not to side with the earlier reading. The fact that it is “earlier” does not mean better. But when the early reading has broad attestation, it certainly has the appeal. There are other text-critical reasons we could get into, but that would only help my case even further. I am simply giving you one “rule of thumb” (if we should call it) used by scholars in the field of textual criticism.
In your final statement you made the comment that Ephraemi is difficult to read. However, Ephraemi is actually not difficult to read at all. To the naked eye, perhaps. But apparently you are unaware of the methods used to study this document: Blacklight/ultra-violet illumination.
Further, if this is the standard you’re going to hold Ephraemi to, simply because you are struggling to see it through the naked eye, then you might as well dismiss some of these other texts as witnesses for the KJ. Because some of those are in even worse condition.
Further, if you want to claim that Ephraemi is corrupt, then you cannot use it as a source to (ever again) support the KJV. And there are many times KJ-Only advocates will and do. We can go into some examples of this if you’d like… .
What are you going to come up with next? That Marvin the Martian teleported to earth with the Power Rangers, and—oh never mind.
-
1
- Show all
I am not quite finished responding to fredoheaven. I do intend to cite a counter example where scholars all agree that the earlier reading is not necessarily the better. The text in mind has been discussed early on throughout this thread, but I was going to let it slide. I understand this will cause a little uproar because there do seem to be a lot of people on that side of the fence, but this will demonstrate and further illucidate what I have been saying.
-
1
- Show all
Surprise! The KJV people are getting really active on promoting the " omitted" parts in the modem versions. I answered someone on FB, a very kindly Christian lady, as gently as I could, earlier this evening. My answer is simply that the KJV has many ADDED verses. It is not the modern versions that are wrong. Here is what I wrote!
I have to disagree with you. The KJV was translated from 7 late corrupt manuscripts, by Erasmus, a Catholic priest. The KJ Committee took that Greek translation. And used everything.
Now, 400 years later, we have over 6000 copies of the Greek New Testament. We have the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew, including almost a full version of Isaiah, which is identical to modern versions. However, Jesus & his Disciples used the LXX version, which was a Greek translation from 300 BC, in 80% of their OT quotes. The KJV uses the late 10th century AD, Masoretic text.
In fact, the later corrupt copies used for the NT have many ADDED verses. When you go back to the earliest texts, these added verses are not there. An example is Mark 16:9-20. That was an early addition, but it was not found in the earliest versions. It also had all kinds of words, titled & topics Mark never used in the rest of the book. It is spurious. Not written by Mark! (See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar...nterpretation,the Twelve Apostles minus Judas).
The Byzantine manuscripts, on which the later corrupt manuscripts are based, sprang into existence in the 10th century AD. They have no connection to the other families of manuscripts. Because Greek was still spoken in the Byzantine empire, the Greeks copied the earlier manuscripts over & over. Mistakes were added almost every generation which were handed down to the next generations of manuscripts. Scribes also sometimes wrote notes in the margins, which became integrated into the text of the Greek manuscripts. In the end there are literally hundreds of mistakes, additions handed down, which the KJV has.
It is not the newest versions that have taken things away, but rather, they are based on much earlier versions, without the transcription mistakes & mistakes of the later Byzantine manuscripts. I read both Greek & Hebrew, and I have spent a lot of time studying various scholars on the art & science of manuscripts, the canon, and the inaccuracies of the KJV.
The KJV has led many people to Christ, and inspired revivals. It contains the true gospel. But sadly, it has many errors. Plus, I can't read the Early Modern English of Shakespeare or the KJV. The KJV is full of obsolete & archaic words. Modern versions are written in our 21st century heart language. It is far more accurate to read a modern version than KJV! However, if you like the 16th century language, and have read it your whole life, by all means, read it.
But, it is very inaccurate in many ways, so much better to read modern versions, which are so much closer to the earliest a
copies of the original autographs. Think of the telephone game. One person starts with a sentence. The farther you get from the starting person, the more mistakes you make. That is why it is so important to use the earliest manuscripts, rather than corrupted ones, written as long as 1500 years after the original autographs.
So -KJV has added verses, the modern versions do not.
PS I've seen the additions in the Greek manuscripts, and how they got incorporated in the text. Other than a few extremists, most scholars understand the best Bible to read is a modem one, without the additions!
I have to disagree with you. The KJV was translated from 7 late corrupt manuscripts, by Erasmus, a Catholic priest. The KJ Committee took that Greek translation. And used everything.
Now, 400 years later, we have over 6000 copies of the Greek New Testament. We have the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew, including almost a full version of Isaiah, which is identical to modern versions. However, Jesus & his Disciples used the LXX version, which was a Greek translation from 300 BC, in 80% of their OT quotes. The KJV uses the late 10th century AD, Masoretic text.
In fact, the later corrupt copies used for the NT have many ADDED verses. When you go back to the earliest texts, these added verses are not there. An example is Mark 16:9-20. That was an early addition, but it was not found in the earliest versions. It also had all kinds of words, titled & topics Mark never used in the rest of the book. It is spurious. Not written by Mark! (See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar...nterpretation,the Twelve Apostles minus Judas).
The Byzantine manuscripts, on which the later corrupt manuscripts are based, sprang into existence in the 10th century AD. They have no connection to the other families of manuscripts. Because Greek was still spoken in the Byzantine empire, the Greeks copied the earlier manuscripts over & over. Mistakes were added almost every generation which were handed down to the next generations of manuscripts. Scribes also sometimes wrote notes in the margins, which became integrated into the text of the Greek manuscripts. In the end there are literally hundreds of mistakes, additions handed down, which the KJV has.
It is not the newest versions that have taken things away, but rather, they are based on much earlier versions, without the transcription mistakes & mistakes of the later Byzantine manuscripts. I read both Greek & Hebrew, and I have spent a lot of time studying various scholars on the art & science of manuscripts, the canon, and the inaccuracies of the KJV.
The KJV has led many people to Christ, and inspired revivals. It contains the true gospel. But sadly, it has many errors. Plus, I can't read the Early Modern English of Shakespeare or the KJV. The KJV is full of obsolete & archaic words. Modern versions are written in our 21st century heart language. It is far more accurate to read a modern version than KJV! However, if you like the 16th century language, and have read it your whole life, by all means, read it.
But, it is very inaccurate in many ways, so much better to read modern versions, which are so much closer to the earliest a
copies of the original autographs. Think of the telephone game. One person starts with a sentence. The farther you get from the starting person, the more mistakes you make. That is why it is so important to use the earliest manuscripts, rather than corrupted ones, written as long as 1500 years after the original autographs.
So -KJV has added verses, the modern versions do not.
PS I've seen the additions in the Greek manuscripts, and how they got incorporated in the text. Other than a few extremists, most scholars understand the best Bible to read is a modem one, without the additions!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
From a friend...
Those who promote the modern Vatican supervised versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard, etc. cannot deny the fact that their ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek text is the result of a formal agreement with the Roman Catholic Church to create an “inter confessional” text to help unite the separated brethren.
The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 says in its Preface: "The translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) which prescribed that..."WITH THE APPROVAL OF CHURCH AUTHORITY, THESE TRANSLATIONS MAY BE PRODUCED IN COOPERATION WITH OUR SEPARATED BRETHREN SO THAT ALL CHRISTIANS MAY BE ABLE TO USE THEM.” From the Vatican, September 18, 1970
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site -
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html
Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).
The modern Vatican Version users (ESV, NIV, NASB etc.) use this flimsy and ultimately meaningless “Erasmus was a Catholic Humanist” excuse to justify their use and promotion of their ever changing versions that not even they believe are the complete and infallible words of God.
They ignore the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest.
He often criticized many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
He died in the presence of his Protestant friends.
His books were eventually placed on the forbidden to read list by the RCC and most importantly -
No Catholic bible version ever used the Greek text of Erasmus to make up their translations, but ALL Reformation bibles did use Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as their textual basis.
The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza.
As usual, the KJB critics’ argument is misinformed, deeply biased and misapplied.
-
1
- Show all
Question…if all those missing verses are supposed to be missing because they were never part of the “originals” and the KJV placed them in the text wrongly, then why do the new versions that are correct still number the verses like the KJV? Why skip the number if they are correct? Why align the text to the KJV? For “consistency”? Consistency to a false text? Things that make you say hmmmmmmm.
-
1
- Show all
. ............... **Angela wrote*": "The KJV has led many people to Christ, and inspired revivals. It contains the true gospel. [omit for clarity ] Plus, I can't read the Early Modern English of Shakespeare or the KJV. The KJV is full of obsolete & archaic words. Modern versions are written in our 21st century heart language.". ..........
I have this to say: when I was 8 years old my parents decided to send me to Sunday school. They never set foot in a church since they were disaffected bitter unbelievers and never taught me even one thing about spiritual matters except that animals have no soul, which I did not understand, since I was just a little kid. They dropped me off on the sidewalk in front of the church and I had to find my own way in, where adults had me sit in the pews and then attend Sunday School. This went on for 6 months. In Sunday school the teachers conducted speed drills from the old King James Bible, in which the other kids loudly participated. I was a very shy and very very troubled kid who got straight f's in grammar School, which I know now was due to my inner turmoil and my parents desperate unhappiness. What kid gets straight Fs. I was not dumb which was everybody's assumption, and mine, but I am actually quite smart which I proved to my utter amazement in college and in my career.
Those Sunday school teachers knew *nothing* about me, and put 12th grade reading in the hands of a kid, and it was just another way for me to fail. I was desperate for God's lovingkindness, but I fell right through the cracks there. !Teachers, know your students! From then on I was very bitter about Christianity and ended up specializing in anti-christian jokes with which I tortured my Christian friends. I was a fully fledged reviler and very good at it. Finally when I was 40 I was saved by God's amazing grace. I did pick up the King James Bible again and tried to deal with it, but it's pedantic, non-intuitive style makes it impossible for me to even try, probably due to that childhood experience. I was so relieved to find out that there are trustworthy translations in my own street language which are fully able to save and to teach. I am 75 years old now and very well saved and secure, even without the King James Bible of which many of its adherents say is "the way God Wrote it". I paid close attention to the debate, and have concluded that very very few King James Only people understand why, and merely browbeat their Christian brethren about this. I've had enough, I don't attend the debate anymore, except to give this testimony right here. Again, Teachers, know your students!
I have this to say: when I was 8 years old my parents decided to send me to Sunday school. They never set foot in a church since they were disaffected bitter unbelievers and never taught me even one thing about spiritual matters except that animals have no soul, which I did not understand, since I was just a little kid. They dropped me off on the sidewalk in front of the church and I had to find my own way in, where adults had me sit in the pews and then attend Sunday School. This went on for 6 months. In Sunday school the teachers conducted speed drills from the old King James Bible, in which the other kids loudly participated. I was a very shy and very very troubled kid who got straight f's in grammar School, which I know now was due to my inner turmoil and my parents desperate unhappiness. What kid gets straight Fs. I was not dumb which was everybody's assumption, and mine, but I am actually quite smart which I proved to my utter amazement in college and in my career.
Those Sunday school teachers knew *nothing* about me, and put 12th grade reading in the hands of a kid, and it was just another way for me to fail. I was desperate for God's lovingkindness, but I fell right through the cracks there. !Teachers, know your students! From then on I was very bitter about Christianity and ended up specializing in anti-christian jokes with which I tortured my Christian friends. I was a fully fledged reviler and very good at it. Finally when I was 40 I was saved by God's amazing grace. I did pick up the King James Bible again and tried to deal with it, but it's pedantic, non-intuitive style makes it impossible for me to even try, probably due to that childhood experience. I was so relieved to find out that there are trustworthy translations in my own street language which are fully able to save and to teach. I am 75 years old now and very well saved and secure, even without the King James Bible of which many of its adherents say is "the way God Wrote it". I paid close attention to the debate, and have concluded that very very few King James Only people understand why, and merely browbeat their Christian brethren about this. I've had enough, I don't attend the debate anymore, except to give this testimony right here. Again, Teachers, know your students!
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all