"Modern Bibles" Are Based on Wescott and Hort - Who Were They? Part I

by Perry 105 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Apparently no fundy trash (the kind which even Evangelical scholars are getting tired of refuting) is beneath Perry...

  Another previous JWD discussion on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73252/1.ashx

  The pseudo-evidence for the comma joanneum has been debunked even more recently on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/154994/1.ashx
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Perry,

  Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, Sam Gipp's book is flawed to say the least.

  One of the most prominent manuscripts which has been discovered since 1611 is the Sinaitic manuscript. This witness, though horribly flawed, was found amongst trash paper in St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1841 by Constantine Tischendorf.

  Tischendorf writes of his discovery of the manuscript in his book When Were Our Gospels Written and definitely claims it happened in May 1844. And his name was Constantin, not Constantine. And it was at the Convent of St. Catherine, although it is not inaccurate to describe it as a monastery.

  READINGS [of the codex Sinaiticus] were well known to the translators through the Vatican manuscript [codex Vaticanus] which was discovered in 1481 and also through the Jesuit Bible, an English translation of 1582.

  The codex Vaticanus was not discovered in 1481. The Vatican Library was established in 1475 and the codex was included in the catalogue of that year. In 1481 the librarian produced a listing of everything held in the library and that listing also included the codex. The fact is we do not know when the Vatican obtained possession of the codex but it was certainly before the library was established.

  The Jesuit Bible, also known as the Rheims New Testament, was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. In the preface to the 1989 edition of the Douay-Rheims bible it says :

  Sometimes the question is raised: Why translate from a translation (the Latin Vulgate) rather than from the original Greek and Hebrew? This question was also raised in the 16th century when the Douay-Rheims translators (Fr. Gregory Martin and his assistants) first published the Rheims New Testament. They gave ten reasons, ending up by stating that the Latin Vulgate "is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is "more pure than the Hebrew or Greek now extant" and that "the same Latin hath bene barre better conserved from corruption." (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609).

  So just how were the readings of the Sinaitic codex "well known" to the translators of the Authorised Version.

  So we see that there are no readings available today to scholars which were not already in the hands of the King James translators.

  It is difficult to believe anyone can say this with a straight face, but I have already shown Mr Gipp is unfaithful in small matters so I suppose it should not be a surprise he is unfaithful in much.
• 

  Satanus

  95% free will. Satan had 5% free will to mess w the bible content. 99% free will, satan had 1% free will to mess w bible content.
  
  S
• 

  BurnTheShips

  95% free will. Satan had 5% free will to mess w the bible content. 99% free will, satan had 1% free will to mess w bible content.

  I think you musunderstand my comment Satanus (or I misunderstand yours). I am not referring to Free Will, but to textual variations.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  I would just add that imo the biggest fallacy of the TR/KJV apologists' argument lies in their reference to the "majority" of mss. Of course the middle-ages Byzantine manuscripts essentially agree because they are the product of an official standardisation of the text in a state-church setting, furthered by professional copyists providing many exemplars of the officially accepted text for liturgical use.

  Mutatis mutandis, it comes down as saying that a handful of medieval manuscripts of a middle-ages work are to be disregarded for establishing the original text because they are fewer than the millions of modern printed copies of the same work (although these printed copies depend on a couple of late mss available to the first editors).
• 

  Satanus

  Burn
  
  It was more a responce to perry's post, just ahead of your. He connected bible accuracy w free will.
  
  S
• 

  Perry

  Ernest, First you claim:

  the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus. Neither manuscripts were available to the King James translators

  Then you say:

  The Vatican Library was established in 1475 and the codex was included in the catalogue of that year. In 1481 the librarian produced a listing of everything held in the library and that listing also included the codex. The fact is we do not know when the Vatican obtained possession of the codex but it was certainly before the library was established.

  I have found many sources as listing 1481 as a discovery date for Vaticanus in the Vatican Library. I think that there is a play on words going on here. If it was in the Library was it lost? Depending on how you answer that question will determine the characterization of the word "discovery" here.

  Correct me if I'm wrong here. But doesn't Jerome's Latin Vulgate largely conform to the minority readings of Vaticanus? Those readings were certainly available to the KJ translators and rejected.

  It seems that most of the minority readings (1%) can be traced back to a small geographical region around Alexandria, Egypt. The other 99% are kinda from all over.

  Now I ask you why would the spiritists Wescott and Hort reject the witness of multi-regional mss (99%) that can be traced back to the region where people were first called Christians in Antioch, and accept the minority witness (1%) from a regionally locked area known for heresy?
• 

  Perry

  Excerpt from here: http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm#6

  T H E I T A L I C B I B L E ( 157 A.D. )

  ( The Traditional Majority Text In Latin )

  At the same time as the Syrian translation, but in another part of the world; the common language of Italy, France, and Great Britain was not Syrian, but Latin. Thus, for these countries, a Bible was needed in Latin. Therefore, the original Greek Vulgate (The Traditional Majority Text) was translated from Greek into Latin. This is believed to have occurred no later than 157 A.D.

  "One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy ..." [S4P98]. The Waldenses were: "lineal descendents of the Italic Church" [S4P98-99]. More will be said of the Waldenses later on, but as for the Italic Church suffice it to say that:

  "Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity" [S4P98].

  Augustine, speaking of the Latin Bibles, said: "Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression" [S2P208].

  Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, traced the history of the 'Traditional Majority Text' to the Waldenses of the Italic Church. He says the Traditional Majority Text was:

  "... adopted into the version that prevailed in the Latin Church" [S4P99]. This means:

  "... the basis for the King James Bible has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century" [S4P99].

  This statement about the Italic Bible of 157 A.D., along with the statement about the Syrian Peshitta Bible of 150 A.D., both date the 'Traditional Majority Text' with the earliest Church manuscripts.

  For terminology sake we will call this Latin Bible the 'Old Latin'. And, as history shows, it's this 'Old Latin' Bible which agrees with the 'Traditional Majority Text' used in the King James Bible.
• 

  nicolaou

  Seeing as the author of this topic chooses to ignore my question I'll just go all Paxmanon him;

  Would a 100% accurate Bible translation still contain the myth of creation, the fables of a global flood and human/spirit hybrids? Would it still make the provably false claims that a 1st Century virgin became pregnant to a son who could walk on water and raise the dead?
• 

  Perry

  95% free will. Satan had 5% free will to mess w the bible content. 99% free will, satan had 1% free will to mess w bible content.

  Satanus,

  Critical, penetrating, analysis!

  I can't really back it up scripturally, but that is about where I land on the Calvinism/Armenian debate, 95% God, 5% us. My position succeeds in making everyone upset!