Ok, the fourth reason that I am KJV-Only, is to me, the most important topic in this discussion. (http://hindsey.blogspot.com/2007/06/kjv-only-reason-1.html for more details)
Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts
If anyone has been following these reasons, you should have picked up on it by now, that the other translation is not just an "updated language" version of the Bible, but rather it is translated from a different set of texts.
The two Primary manuscripts (a Manuscript is a Hand-Written document) that are used in support for the other translation are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They have the privilege of being two of the oldest manuscripts and two of the most complete ancient manuscripts that are in known existence today. In 1881, the first edition of the other translation came out in New Testament form: the Revised Version. This was supposed to be an update to the language, but instead had a new Greek text introduced that was based on readings from these two manuscripts - mind you, these two manuscripts very often did not agree with themselves, yet were still given the weight in deciding which reading to go with.
These two manuscripts left out whole passages like the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, and 12 verses from John 7:53 to 8:11. Dean Burgon back in the late 1900s wrote an entire book demonstrating the certainty that the last 12 verses of Mark were original and needed to be included in the Gospel. He essentially showed that these two ancient manuscripts were flawed in a major way when it came to that point. However, they are still being accepted and used for the other translation.
It is true that there are some more manuscripts that support the readings found in those other two corrupted manuscripts, but when you compare it to more than 5,000 manuscripts that disagree with them, I wonder why this is still even an issue.
This change of texts behind the translations explains why the other translation leaves out those sections of Scripture mentioned before. That's why some 17 verses throughout the New Testament are not found in the other translation. That's why important phrases are not found, talking about the Blood of Christ and some on Fasting. Along with changing phrases that would support the Deity of Jesus Christ (see 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7).
5 comments:
Good Stuff Andy...with shotguns like this there is no need to use cap guns to prove that the KJV is God's perfect Word.
Dear Sir,
I've read your first four reasons thus far. They are what I've run into with every KJV Only advocate since 1996. And I am to say the least not impressed. Let's consider some of your argumentation:
Ok, the fourth reason that I am KJV-Only, is to me, the most important topic in this discussion. (http://hindsey.blogspot.com/2007/06/kjv-only-reason-1.html for more details)
Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts
"The two Primary manuscripts (a Manuscript is a Hand-Written document) that are used in support for the other translation are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They have the privilege of being two of the oldest manuscripts and two of the most complete ancient manuscripts that are in known existence today."
This is partially true. But you do not even mention P75, a late second-early third century papyrus manuscript that shows 94% affinity with Vaticanus. The revisers of 1881 did not have this manuscript but it's discovery validates much of their initial conjecture.
"In 1881, the first edition of the other translation came out in New Testament form: the Revised Version. This was supposed to be an update to the language, but instead had a new Greek text introduced that was based on readings from these two manuscripts - mind you, these two manuscripts very often did not agree with themselves, yet were still given the weight in deciding which reading to go with."
This kind of comment borders either on scholastic dishonesty or scholastic ignorance. You're not bothering to mention the fact that 'disagree' is a loaded word. You're also not mentioning the fact that the disagreements PROVE that they are not corrupt copies of a later recension.
"These two manuscripts left out whole passages like the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, and 12 verses from John 7:53 to 8:11."
You are arguing in a circle here, sir. They only took those verses out IF - and a huge IF - those verses were original. It is just as likely that the LATER Byzantine manuscripts ADDED them as a conflation.
" Dean Burgon back in the late 1900s wrote an entire book demonstrating the certainty that the last 12 verses of Mark were original and needed to be included in the Gospel."
I assume you mean the late 19th century or the late 1800s since Burgon died in 1888. And I note that you discuss none of his arguments nor do you note that he had a hidden theological agenda as well - he needed the passage 'proving' baptismal regeneration, part of his confession with the Anglican Church.
"He essentially showed that these two ancient manuscripts were flawed in a major way when it came to that point. However, they are still being accepted and used for the other translation."
This would be because Burgon never proved the case.
"It is true that there are some more manuscripts that support the readings found in those other two corrupted manuscripts, but when you compare it to more than 5,000 manuscripts that disagree with them, I wonder why this is still even an issue."
It is an issue because majority rules is a naive way to look at anything to do with how an ancient text was transcribed. You fail to mention that the majority of those come from the NINTH CENTURY or later.
The majority of the ANCIENT witnesses support the Critical Text. And the majority of LATIN - since all we're doing is countin here - also support the CT. But I suspect majority rules will suddenly be a 'qualified' argument.
"This change of texts behind the translations explains why the other translation leaves out those sections of Scripture mentioned before. That's why some 17 verses throughout the New Testament are not found in the other translation."
This is only true again supposing the KJV = the original. This is an unproven assumption on your part.
"That's why important phrases are not found, talking about the Blood of Christ and some on Fasting."
This is interesting because you just contradicted yourself. You were citing the 'majority' of those 5,000 manuscripts - yet the MAJORITY do not have either Matthew 17:21 about fasting or Colossians 1:14 phrase 'through His blood.'
So do you now think the majority is right? Or do you think the KJV is right? I will be very interested in your answer to that question.
"Along with changing phrases that would support the Deity of Jesus Christ (see 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7)."
There's simply no comparison here. The first passage you list has majority support; the second one has a tiny fractional minority of some 4-8 manuscripts. Yet earlier you argued from majority.
I'm sorry, sir, this hardly proves the case.
Thank You, teacher, for your comments... I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
"This is partially true. But you do not even mention P75, a late second-early third century papyrus manuscript that shows 94% affinity with Vaticanus. The revisers of 1881 did not have this manuscript but it's discovery validates much of their initial conjecture."
I did not mention this manuscript by name, but I do later on say that it is true that there are more mss that supports the readings found in the other corrupted mss. I am not familiar with that particular ms, but if what you say is true, it is still 200 years after the autographs were penned. 94% affinity - I take it that means that at least 6 percent of one or both of those are wrong?
"This kind of comment borders either on scholastic dishonesty or scholastic ignorance. You're not bothering to mention the fact that 'disagree' is a loaded word. You're also not mentioning the fact that the disagreements PROVE that they are not corrupt copies of a later recension."
I said in 1881, the Revised version, based on the new Greek text primarily from 2 mss was put out - that is true
By agree, I mean agree in the readings. That is, often times they do not have the same readings - that is true
Those two mss were given weight in Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament - that is true.
Where was I dishonest or am I ignorant? I did not claim that they were corrupt copies of a later recension.
"You are arguing in a circle here, sir. They only took those verses out IF - and a huge IF - those verses were original. It is just as likely that the LATER Byzantine manuscripts ADDED them as a conflation."
I did not say that took them out, I say they were left out. Those verses were cited in the early church fathers, Dean Burgon references a bunch of them in his book regarding the last 12 verses of Mark. So, if they existed before the 2 mss were written, and the scribe of the 2 mss did not include them, then they "left them out." I did not suggest that those scribes "took them out." I would say it is quite unlikely that the later extant copies that we have added them - since they were quoted by early church fathers.
" Dean Burgon back in the late 1900s wrote an entire book demonstrating the certainty that the last 12 verses of Mark were original and needed to be included in the Gospel."
"I assume you mean the late 19th century or the late 1800s since Burgon died in 1888. And I note that you discuss none of his arguments nor do you note that he had a hidden theological agenda as well - he needed the passage 'proving' baptismal regeneration, part of his confession with the Anglican Church."
Forgive me, I always mess those up - 19th century, 1900s...
The strongest argument that I got out of the book (only skimmed, not throughly read) was that there were a number of early church fathers that referenced these verses. If they referenced them, they must have been in existance. His motive to me does not matter so much, if the facts he presented are true.
"This would be because Burgon never proved the case." [that those mss were flawed or corrupted]
If a manuscript leaves out 12 verses in a passage, then that mss is corrupt. If early church fathers quoted those verses, then they must have been in existence. I think Burgon does a good job to show that the mss were corrupted.
"It is an issue because majority rules is a naive way to look at anything to do with how an ancient text was transcribed. You fail to mention that the majority of those come from the NINTH CENTURY or later."
True, the majority of these mss were later - I'm sure you've heard the common argument that gives the explanation of: the more they were used, the more they wore out. I don't know if that's true, but it could work.
"The majority of the ANCIENT witnesses support the Critical Text. And the majority of LATIN - since all we're doing is countin here - also support the CT. But I suspect majority rules will suddenly be a 'qualified' argument."
I am under the assumption that the majority of the early translations are contrary to the critical text. Like the Old Latin, etc.
"This is only true again supposing the KJV = the original. This is an unproven assumption on your part." [My statement was: This change of texts behind the translations explains why the other translation leaves out those sections of Scripture mentioned before. That's why some 17 verses throughout the New Testament are not found in the other translation.]
You are wrong in this point. You say, this is only true supposing the KJV = original. I said that the modern versions "leave out" those 17 verses because of they used different texts behind the translation.
"This is interesting because you just contradicted yourself. You were citing the 'majority' of those 5,000 manuscripts - yet the MAJORITY do not have either Matthew 17:21 about fasting or Colossians 1:14 phrase 'through His blood.'"
"So do you now think the majority is right? Or do you think the KJV is right? I will be very interested in your answer to that question."
Yeah, I can't give you a good answer on that one off the top of my head. I know that the majority text does differ from the Textus Receptus in some ares.
"There's simply no comparison here. The first passage you list has majority support; the second one has a tiny fractional minority of some 4-8 manuscripts. Yet earlier you argued from majority."
I posted that to inform that there is a difference between the two - the KJV vs. the other translation.
"I'm sorry, sir, this hardly proves the case. "
Well, obviously, that's where you and I disagree. I can't prove to you that the KJV is perfect and inerrant. However, the evidence on the subject substantially convinces me that the KJV is better than the modern translations.
Thanks for keeping me sharp!
Hindsey:
Thank You, teacher, for your comments... I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
Maestroh:
"This is partially true. But you do not even mention P75, a late second-early third century papyrus manuscript that shows 94% affinity with Vaticanus. The revisers of 1881 did not have this manuscript but it's discovery validates much of their initial conjecture."
Hindsey:
I did not mention this manuscript by name, but I do later on say that it is true that there are more mss that supports the readings found in the other corrupted mss. I am not familiar with that particular ms, but if what you say is true, it is still 200 years after the autographs were penned. 94% affinity - I take it that means that at least 6 percent of one or both of those are wrong?
Maestroh:
Well, if you wish to use that argument then apply it to the Byzantine text - where there are still between 2 and 10 variants per verse and it is NINE centuries removed from the original. Given the fact anything above 80% is substantial agreement and you have NO ANCIENT Byzantine evidence - it doesn't do anything for your position to impugn the older manuscripts when your side has none.
Maestroh quoted by Hindsey
"This kind of comment borders either on scholastic dishonesty or scholastic ignorance. You're not bothering to mention the fact that 'disagree' is a loaded word. You're also not mentioning the fact that the disagreements PROVE that they are not corrupt copies of a later recension."
Hindsey:
I said in 1881, the Revised version, based on the new Greek text primarily from 2 mss was put out - that is true
By agree, I mean agree in the readings. That is, often times they do not have the same readings - that is true
Those two mss were given weight in Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament - that is true.
Where was I dishonest or am I ignorant? I did not claim that they were corrupt copies of a later recension.
Maestroh:
You did not mention it. Perhaps you are unaware of Burgon's accusation of such. But the disagreements prove they do not come from the SAME corrupt copy. And this also fails to point out that scholarship and manuscripts have moved WAY beyond Westcott and Hort.
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"You are arguing in a circle here, sir. They only took those verses out IF - and a huge IF - those verses were original. It is just as likely that the LATER Byzantine manuscripts ADDED them as a conflation."
Hindsey:
I did not say that took them out, I say they were left out. Those verses were cited in the early church fathers, Dean Burgon references a bunch of them in his book regarding the last 12 verses of Mark. So, if they existed before the 2 mss were written, and the scribe of the 2 mss did not include them, then they "left them out." I did not suggest that those scribes "took them out." I would say it is quite unlikely that the later extant copies that we have added them - since they were quoted by early church fathers.
Maestroh:
But the problem is they were not DIRECT QUOTATIONS - they were allusions. Secondly, many of Burgon's CLAIMED Fathers do not qualify as Mike Heuer's paper published in the December 1995 JETS showed. Many of Burgon's claims are not even footnoted and his vain attempt at using patristic evidence to overthrow manuscripts has long been the Achilles heel of the KJV Only position.
Hindsey:
" Dean Burgon back in the late 1900s wrote an entire book demonstrating the certainty that the last 12 verses of Mark were original and needed to be included in the Gospel."
Maestroh:
Yes. Now let's apply YOUR standard to it. The EARLIEST citation of the last 12 verses of Mark is from Irenaeus around 170 A.D. Now when it was P75 on your other post (KJV Only Reason #5), you said it was still 200 years later. So now the earliest we have is 100 years later - and it's original?
Hindsey:
Forgive me, I always mess those up - 19th century, 1900s...
The strongest argument that I got out of the book (only skimmed, not throughly read) was that there were a number of early church fathers that referenced these verses. If they referenced them, they must have been in existance. His motive to me does not matter so much, if the facts he presented are true.
Maestroh:
His motives determined his methodology. Burgon was not alone in this for even Hort had strong reasons of his own for dispensing with the TR. However, Burgon ran to patristic evidence because he had NO ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS - a fact I find quite telling.
Hindsey:
If a manuscript leaves out 12 verses in a passage, then that mss is corrupt. If early church fathers quoted those verses, then they must have been in existence. I think Burgon does a good job to show that the mss were corrupted.
Maestroh:
And if a manuscript ADDS later verses - that's even worse is it not? The 'left out' can be explained by a torn paper - but the ADDED? Let me make this clear - Burgon BY HIS OWN ADMISSION got his quotes from the NINTH CENTURY collation of J.P. Migne. Thus, Burgon only proved what we already knew - that the TT went back to the ninth century. But Hort never alleged it didn't.
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"It is an issue because majority rules is a naive way to look at anything to do with how an ancient text was transcribed. You fail to mention that the majority of those come from the NINTH CENTURY or later."
Hindsey:
True, the majority of these mss were later - I'm sure you've heard the common argument that gives the explanation of: the more they were used, the more they wore out. I don't know if that's true, but it could work.
Maestroh:
Both ahistorical and special pleading. After all, didn't the Alexandrian text-type have copies that also wore out?
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"The majority of the ANCIENT witnesses support the Critical Text. And the majority of LATIN - since all we're doing is countin here - also support the CT. But I suspect majority rules will suddenly be a 'qualified' argument."
Hindsey:
I am under the assumption that the majority of the early translations are contrary to the critical text. Like the Old Latin, etc.
Maestroh:
You're incorrect here. The earliest SURE WITNESS for the Byzantine text-type is (I believe - I'm going from memory here) - the Gothic version in the fourth century.
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"This is only true again supposing the KJV = the original. This is an unproven assumption on your part." [My statement was: This change of texts behind the translations explains why the other translation leaves out those sections of Scripture mentioned before. That's why some 17 verses throughout the New Testament are not found in the other translation.]
You are wrong in this point. You say, this is only true supposing the KJV = original. I said that the modern versions "leave out" those 17 verses because of they used different texts behind the translation.
Maestroh:
You are ahead of some of your peers then. But then you have to answer this: if the CT is older and there is a variance of readings - why do you side with the TR that is 1,000 years LATER than the CT?
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"This is interesting because you just contradicted yourself. You were citing the 'majority' of those 5,000 manuscripts - yet the MAJORITY do not have either Matthew 17:21 about fasting or Colossians 1:14 phrase 'through His blood.'"
"So do you now think the majority is right? Or do you think the KJV is right? I will be very interested in your answer to that question."
Hindsey:
Yeah, I can't give you a good answer on that one off the top of my head. I know that the majority text does differ from the Textus Receptus in some ares.
Maestroh:
Good and honest answer, and I appreciate it. So which one do you side with when they 'contradict?'
Hindsey quoting Maestroh:
"There's simply no comparison here. The first passage you list has majority support; the second one has a tiny fractional minority of some 4-8 manuscripts. Yet earlier you argued from majority."
Hindsey:
I posted that to inform that there is a difference between the two - the KJV vs. the other translation.
Maestroh:
There is a difference. But the CRITICAL question is WHY. You do not address this.
Hindsey quotes Maestroh:
"I'm sorry, sir, this hardly proves the case. "
Hindsey:
Well, obviously, that's where you and I disagree. I can't prove to you that the KJV is perfect and inerrant. However, the evidence on the subject substantially convinces me that the KJV is better than the modern translations.
Maestroh:
But if the evidence is skewed and determined first by placing the KJV on the throne by personal fiat - what good is the alleged evidence?
Thank you and I will continue to be kind as you have.
Not going to take the time to respond paragraph by paragraph. I really do hope that I address things that matter.
There are so few mansucripts for the critical text that when two of them disagree, you have a much harder time to determine which one is right. Whereas, when you have the multitudes of mss as in the Received Text, you have an easier time to figure what reading is right. That's why the percentages don't make the argument work back on the TR. You say 80% is substantial agreement. What if I think 95% is substantial agreement, and anything less is disagreement? That 80% does not mean anything to me.
I have heard the common argument about a recension (Constantine ordered 50 of them to be made or something like that?), but I did not know that it came from Burgon. I have no evidence of that, so I can't comment on it.
"The scholarship & mss have moved beyond Westcott & Hort" I had remembered reading the following and had to look it up again. I am quoting someone that quotes the book, so it is not a direct quotation, but it is cited: "In his 1981
book The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament--Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain admission: The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."
Perhaps that is a misquote. But this is true: the methods of Textual Criticism that Westcott and Hort used seem to be the same as used today in the modern versions.
As for the "allusions" that the early fathers made, I still see this as evidence. If I allude to the biblical story of the woman caught in adultery and don't quote any direct statements from the story, does it not still prove that the story existed? I don't know what the so-called 'allusions' are like, but that logic makes sense to me. I'm told Burgon has an index or reference to some 80,000 Church Father quotes that have never been published in the Lodon Museum. Maybe some of his proof could be found there?
as for the 170AD citation & the P75 date - when we refer to the last 12 verses in Mark, we do not need to have the actual reading of the text to find out if the text existed. If in 170 AD the passage is being referenced, or even alluded to, then it proves that the passage did exist and was not added later. Yeah, I don't hold the church fathers' readings to be necessarily right, but they do prove that a verse existed when they quote it. For Mark 16, and John 7-8 especially, those quotes or allusions become important.
You mention the idea of Alexandrian mss wearing out as I suggested possibly happened to the old TR mss. Could you tell me what happened to the Alexandrian reading that was found in the original autographs? Why did their readings not survive in the church for over a millennium?
And you say I am incorrect about early translations, but go on to say, "The earliest SURE WITNESS..." So, I assume you should have said, that I may be incorrect, that I can't be sure of it, but there is some evidence but perhaps it's doubtful. You mention a fourth century TR Gothic translation, and then ask why I hold to the TR that is 1,000 years later than the CT. I am confused where you're getting the 1,000 years from.
Maestroh, both of us come into this argument with pre-conceived biases. I hope you would admit that. When I began studying the issue, I was looking to prove someone wrong. I found the evidence to be stronger to the other side. I've read James White's book - I thought he had some propositions in there I don't know if I could answer well. But none of his arguments provided anything better to me than the position I currently hold. I don't believe God allowed parts of His word to be unavailable to His church for such a long time. If you hold to the critical text, then parts of God's word were not available for His church to have. When I read of how God treats His word, I don't think He would allow that to happen.
Post a Comment