kent steinhaugh has this time made a great finale with his very honest and wholehearted explanation of his reasons to leave the watchtower observer administration.
from the deep of my heart, i do admire and respect people like him.. .
i hope all members of the board take a time to digest the subliminal, yet obvious message this great character of our era has had the courage to send to the world of those who know his work and dedication.
This was one of the FIRST XJW sites I visited on the web, when i first learned how to surf the Net. Kent: I've enjoyed both our angst and our comeraderie. You'll be missed by more people than you could ever count.
So, until things quiet down for you
Yakki Dakki Doo Doo!!!!
i was so saddened yesterday when i read this post by kent.
http://kent.steinhaug.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=603.
there is so much information on wo that have helped thousands of people.
Best of luck, old friend
Yakki Da!
as the text containing alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the nwt.
the textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of revelation mentioned in my previous post.
earnest.
Robert:
Rev, please do some homework. You have many facts wrong, and it's not helping your credibility.
(My responses in blue original note in black)
That's entirely possible
I'm posting from work, in the midst of a world of other tasks and drawing from stuff I must admit was fresh a decade age, when I was looking at it daily. So I stand to be corrected on many points.
But let's go back to the beginning, as to why the post was submitted in the first place.
The question was why " I am the Alpha and Omega " doesn't appear in the NWT which led to Earnest's dissertation about Aleph, and blanket statements like:
Earnest:
The KJV was primarily based on the text Erasmus had collated.
it clearly lacks authority
his
While the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible is a work of scholarship and beauty it has the handicap of being translated almost 400 years ago. The textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at Basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of Revelation mentioned in my previous post.Much of what you said regarding the versions is true but not as early as you suggest and with limited support for the King James version:
Phew! Hope that sets you in the right direction.
And then his very long cut and paste of research material he obviously has never himself read but which was punctuated in such a way as to suggest that he had.
All that other humeral about who had to rush to beat whom to press is a bunch of irrelevant harrumph!
No, it's not. Erasmus' first edition was full of errors because it was so rushed (by his own admission, corroborated by many others), and many of these errors were never corrected in any of the TR editions that followed.
And so was Aleph, and 'C' Or for that matter possibly a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the MSS we have at our disposal.
The usual motive of writers who spend so much time deriding the TR which, by the way, was NOT derived from Erasmus' work but rather from Robert (Stephanus) Stephen's Elzevir Edition text is to suggest that somehow Bibles produced prior to the "Age of Enlightenment" in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were products of some sort of heresy.
All editions of the TR, Stephanus' and the Elzevirs', were based very closely on one edition or another of Erasmus. Errors included.
I can't argue the point, at the moment you're probably correct on this I was drawing back to memory to something in Dr. Ricker Berry's Preface that I read more than a decade ago. So I could have that wrong.
Nobody is suggesting that the TR is heretical, or that the men who edited the various TR's were heretics. Although Erasmus was an active Roman Catholic all his life. The motive of all textual critics is to get to the original text. Pure and simple.
Although I submit that Earnest's posts come within a breath of doing just that!
This is true of Erasmus, Tichendorf, Westcott, Hort, and the Trinitarian Bible Society. At least, it should be the motive of the Trinitarian Bible Society; I sometimes think their only goal in textual criticism is to somehow prove that whatever textual variants landed in the KJV, however they got there, are ipso facto what were in the autographs.
I can't say
I just thought the two articles cited had good information in them
My overall purpose was to state very simply that since the UNCIALS comprise only a small fraction of the Greek MSS available and in use by modern textual critics whether there was or was not UNCIAL support for the exemplars under girding the KJV is probably of little importance.
The uncials are very important, because as a rule they are older, and thus closer to the original -- fewer generations of copying means fewer errors. Of course there are fewer of them. They're older, and mss rot and wear out in time.
Johnson (color didn't copy):
***OKAY I could have said that differently
***Especially since Earnest's first statement about the lack of uncial support for the passage in Rev. 1:11 may have been answered by one simple statement from Charles Sitterly written almost a century ago (from yesterday's first post citing ISBE Volume 9)
" in the Gospels the great uncials A and C support it as well as Codex N, S and F, most of the later uncials and almost all minuscules, the Peshitta-Syriac version and the bulk of the Church Fathers from Chrysostom"
The UNCIALS are also called palimpsets meaning MSS which have been written on before then written over.
No, there is no connection between palimpsests and uncials. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is an uncial, and it is a palimpsest, but not all uncials are palimpsests.
You're right I don' know what I was thinking about, there
Constantin Tischendorf was the first outsider permitted to visit the reclusive St. Catherine's Monastery to study the texts in their library. During his excursion he literally found this manuscript in a wastebasket.
No, he didn't. He found some Greek mss, which were not from the Bible, in a wastebasket. He asked a monk about it, and the monk volunteered the information that they had an old Greek Bible, upstairs. It was not in a trash can; it was used from time to time and covered carefully with a cloth when not in use.
Johnson:
***Again, it's been a little over a decade since I read Secrets of Mt. Sinai, I'd have to read it again to dispute this point. As to the overall point, here that many of the 'older' sources were often inferior MSS in the first place the discussion is much larger than time and space would permit. I will concede your point that the simple fact that a MS was found in a trash can does not necessarily imply that it was trash while at the same time maintaining that there may have been some MSS that were!
***Same for your remaining comments.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
.
i know this subject has been covered numerous times before, but the board constantly gets new people.. how many here still attend meetings, go in service, etc.
even though you don't believe it's the truth?
That is AMAZING!!!! Undercover brothers/sisters -- I FEEL 4 ya!
I got the word [that this wasn't da trute] from the Holy Spirit at around 2:15 p.m. -- in the middle of the talk on the Tuesday (2nd day) of the summer convention. I picked up my 'bookbag' and headed for the exit.
That was 28 years ago, it was all I'd ever known for the past 23 years of my life; but I have never set foot in a KH since! Nor had any desire to ...
Heck ... it's hard enough trying to read that BOVINE EXCRETION for research purposes!!!!
I'm speechless. You guys are AMAZING!!!
as the text containing alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the nwt.
the textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of revelation mentioned in my previous post.
earnest.
All that other humeral about who had to rush to beat whom to press is a bunch of irrelevant harrumph!
The usual motive of writers who spend so much time deriding the TR which, by the way, was NOT derived from Erasmus' work but rather from Robert (Stephanus) Stephen's Elzevir Edition text is to suggest that somehow Bibles produced prior to the "Age of Enlightenment" in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were products of some sort of heresy. These like you Bro. Earnest never come right out and say as much but by your innuendoes leave the taste of "we're better than you are!" in our mouths.
The men who worked to bring the Bible to the common man offer up testimonies that theirs was a labor of love. Not all of them had unblemished personal lives but all of the men on the six Committees served their task with diligence and sincerity. And it is repugnant that people like you come along after the fact and cast aspersions upon them.
For anyone who cannot find The learned men in their local libraries should visit this excellent web site:
A Brief History of the King James Bible By Dr. Laurence M. Vance http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
WHATEVER any of the men who worked tirelessly and in Tyndale's case gave their lives for the cause of taking the Bible out of the exclusive domain of the Roman clergy.
Resources
From the Bibliography: "From Kingdom Hall to Kingdom Call" by Rev. Raymond Allan Johnson (unpublished)
Bentley, J. (1986). Secrets of Mt. Sinai. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Bruce, F. F. (1960) The King James version: the first 350 years, 1611-1961 New York, Oxford University Press
Comfort, P. W. (1990). Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Comfort, P. W. (1989). The Complete Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Comfort, P. W. (1992). The Origin of the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Countess, R. H. (1982). The Jehovah's Witnesses New Testament. New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.
Greensdale, S. C. (1963). English Versions of the Bible
Kenyon, F. G. (1927)Ancient Books and Modern Discoveries. Chicago: The Caxton Club
Opfell, Olga S. (1982) The King James Bible translators Jefferson, N.C. : McFarland
Paine, G. S. (1959)The learned men. New York, Crowell
Twilley, L. D. (1957). The Origin and Transmission of the New Testament. Edinburgh: Tweeddale Court.
ALSO:
What today's Christian needs to know about The Greek New Testament
http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/articles/grktxt.htm
The Received Text A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
The Claremont Profile Method
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CPM.html
as the text containing alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the nwt.
the textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of revelation mentioned in my previous post.
earnest.
Earnest:
I haven't had an opportunity to respond to your responses due to time constraints. I will make a few observations here, though right now I am working on an Apologetics Course I am presently teaching so I cannot devote the time I would like to this question.
My overall purpose was to state very simply that since the UNCIALS comprise only a small fraction of the Greek MSS available and in use by modern textual critics whether there was or was not UNCIAL support for the exemplars under girding the KJV is probably of little importance. Ruth of the matter is if you consult for yourself the subject ISBE article cited below you will observe that there is substantial UNCIAL support for KJV not the least of which are A (Alexandrinus) and the problematic C (Ephraimi Rescriptus
See also: The Manuscripts of the Gospels by Rich Elliott of Simon Greenleaf University http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/GospelsMSS.HTML
Of nearly 5,500 known extant MSS about 300 were UNCIALS. And you are right there are actually four important UNCIAL MSS not three, as I stated before (though James Adair might agree with three***) : Cod. Sinaiticus, Cod. Alexandrinus, Cod. Vaticanus and Cod. Ephrmi Rescriptus although the last has some serious problems not already mentioned. The UNCIALS are also called palimpsets meaning MSS which have been written on before then written over. The problem with Ephrmi Rescriptus aside from the fact that there are only 64 pages is that the erasure was far from complete, so there are some who would consider it a corrupt MS.
I won't even get into the fact that most of the 295 other UNCIALS are fragments or that most were found in genisae or trash piles. Constantin Tischendorf was the first outsider permitted to visit the reclusive St. Catherine's Monastery to study the texts in their library. During his excursion he literally found this manuscript in a wastebasket.
Furthermore nearly ALL of the papyrus MSS uncovered by Grenfell and Hunt in the 1897 and 1922 expeditions were found in genizae (trash heaps where defective and/or ruined scrolls were deposited)
The reason that some have advanced as to why the Sinaiticus MS was in the trash, rather than pressed into use by the monks was that it was DEFECTIVE: http://www.bible-researcher.com/faulty.html (which further states: " Regarding Vaticanus: it is much better than Sinaiticus, and generally worthy of confidence. But even it is not used uncritically; its readings are adopted when they are confirmed by a variety of early witnesses, such as the versions, Fathers, and Papyrus 46. Even Papyrus 46, from a.d. 200, is not used uncritically.")
This brief article is an expanded version of the article which will appear in the new edition of the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.
The term "uncial" refers to a rounded form of Greek or Roman majuscule (capital) letters. Although some scholars derive the word "uncial" from the Latin uncus, "hook" (a reference to uncials as hooked or bent capitals), most trace the word to the Latin uncia, "a twelfth part," a term used by Jerome in the introduction to his translation of Job to refer disparagingly to Greek manuscripts that used ostentatious letters "an inch wide." Both Greek and Latin texts from the third through ninth centuries C.E. were written in uncial script; after this time, minuscule characters almost completely replaced uncials. Uncial letters were used to write early lectionaries and papyrus manuscripts, but the term "uncial" is often used to refer to those manuscripts of the Old and/or New Testaments written in uncial characters on parchment. More than 300 uncial manuscripts, most fragmentary, are extant. Among the more important uncial manuscripts that contain significant portions of both the Old and the New Testaments are Codices Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and Sinaiticus (or, in reference to the Old Testament, S). James R. Adair, Jr., 1997
Charles Fremont Sitterly
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)
Sir Frederick G. Kenyon has so admirably stated the method that the gist of his account will be given, largely using his identical words (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edition, London, 1912). As in all scientific criticism, four steps are followed by Westcott and Hort: (a) The individual readings and the authorities for them are studied; (b) an estimate is formed of the character of the several authorities; (c) an effort is made to group these authorities as descendants of a common ancestor, and (d) the individual readings are again taken up and the first provisional estimate of their comparative probability revised in the light of the knowledge gained as to the value and interrelation of the several authorities.
Applying these methods, four groups of texts emerge from the mass of early witnesses:
1. The Antiochian or Syrian, the most popular of all and at the base of the Greek Textus Receptus and the English King James Version; in the Gospels the great uncials A and C support it as well as Codex N, S and F, most of the later uncials and almost all minuscules, the Peshitta-Syriac version and the bulk of the Church Fathers from Chrysostom;
2. the Neutral, a term giving rise to criticism on all sides and by some displaced by the term Egyptian; this group is small but of high antiquity, including B L T Z, A and C, save in the Gospels, the Coptic versions (especially the Bohairic) and some of the minuscules, notably 33 and 81;
3. the Alexandrian, closely akin to the Neutral group, not found wholly in any one manuscript but traceable in such manuscripts as C L X, 33, and the Bohairic version, when they differ from the other members headed by B;
4. the Western, another term considered ambiguous, since it includes some important manuscripts and Fathers very ancient and very Eastern; here belong D D 2 E 2 F 2 G 2 among the uncials, 28, 235, 383, 565, 614, 700, and 876 among the minuscules, the Old Syriac and Old Latin and sometimes the Sahidic versions.
Of these groups by far the most superior is the Neutral, though Westcott and Hort have made it so exclusively to coincide with Codex Vaticanus that they appear at times to have broken one of the great commandments of a philologist, as quoted by Dr. Nestle from a German professor, "Thou shalt worship no codices." Now, the only serious dispute centers on the apparent slight which this system may have put upon the so-called Western type of text in group four. The variants of this family are extensive and important and appear due to an extremely free handling of the text at some early date when scribes felt themselves at liberty to vary the language of the sacred books and even to insert additional passages of considerable length.
Although this type of text is of very early origin and though prevalent in the East was very early carried to the West, and being widely known there has been called Western, yet, because of the liberties above referred to, its critical value is not high, save in the one field of omissions. In Egypt, however, and especially Alexandria, just as in the case of the Old Testament, the text of the New Testament was critically considered and conserved, and doubtless the family called Neutral, as well as the so-called Alexandrian, springs up here and through close association with Caesarea becomes prevalent in Palestine and is destined to prevail everywhere. The Westcott-Hort contention that the Antiochian text arose as a formal attempt at repeated revision of the original text in Antioch is not so convincing, but for want of a better theory still holds its place. Their objections, however, to its characteristic readings are well taken and everywhere accepted, even von Soden practically agreeing here, though naming it the Koine text. It is also interesting to find that von Soden's Hesychian text so closely parallels the Neutral-Alexandrian above, and his Jerusalem family the Western. And thus we arrive at the present consensus of opinion as to the genealogical source of the text of the New Testament.
Abundant evidence exists and is constantly growing to show that critical opinion and methods were known at least from the very days of the formation of the New Testament Canon, but in such a sketch as the present the history can only be traced in modern times. The era of printing necessarily marks a new epoch here. Among available manuscripts choice must be made and a standard set, and in view of the material at hand it is remarkable how ably the work was done. It began in Spain under Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo, who printed at Alcala (Complutum) in 1514 the New Testament volume of his great Polyglot, though it was not actually issued until 1522. Meanwhile the great Erasmus, under patronage of Froben the printer of Basel, had been preparing a Greek New Testament, and it was published early in 1516 in a single volume and at low cost, and had reached its 3rd edition by 1522. His 4th edition in 1537 contains Erasmus' definitive text, and, besides using Cardinal Ximenes' text, had the advantage of minuscule manuscripts already named. The next important step was taken by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), whose 3rd edition, "Regia," a folio published in Paris in 1550, was a distinct advance, and, though based directly upon the work of Ximenes and Erasmus, had marginal readings from 15 new manuscripts, one of which was Codex Bezae (D). The learned Theodore Beza himself worked with Stephanus' son Henri, and brought out no less than nine editions of the New Testament, but no great critical advance was made in them. The same may be said of the seven Elzevir editions brought out at Leyden and Amsterdam between 1624 and 1678, the second, that of 1633, in the preface of which occurs the phrase, "Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum," becoming the continental standard, as the 1550 edition of Stephanus has for England. Thus, we arrive at the Textus Receptus, and the period of preparation is closed.
The second period, or that of discovery and research, was ushered in by the great London Polyglot of 1657, edited by Brian Walton (later Bishop of Chester) with collations by Archbishop Ussher of 15 fresh manuscripts, including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex 59. But Dr. John Mill of Oxford was the Erasmus of this period, and in 1707 after 30 years of labor brought out the Greek Textus Receptus with fresh collations of 78 manuscripts, many versions and quotations from the early Fathers. His manuscripts included A B D E K, 28, 33, 59, 69, 71, the Peshito, Old Latin and Vulgate, and his Prolegomena set a new standard for textual criticism. This apparatus was rightly appreciated by Richard Bentley of Cambridge and a revised text of the Greek and of the Vulgate New Testament was projected along lines which have prevailed to this day. The work and wide correspondence of Bentley had stirred up continental scholars, and J. A. Bengel published in 1734 at Tubingen a Greek New Testament with the first suggestion as to genealogical classification of manuscripts. J. J. Wetstein of Basel and Amsterdam, though a very great collector of data and the author of the system of manuscript notation which has continued ever since, made little critical advance. J. S. Semler, taking Wetstein's material, began rightly to interpret it, and his pupil J. J. Griesbach carried the work still farther, clearly distinguishing for the first time a Western, an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan recension.
With Carl Lachmann began the last epoch in New Testament criticism which has succeeded in going behind the Textus Receptus and establishing an authentic text based on the most ancient sources. He applied the critical methods with which he was familiar in editing the classics, and with the help of P. Buttmann produced an edition in 1842-50 which led the way directly toward the goal; but they were limited in materials and Tischendorf soon furnished these. Constantine Tischendorf, both as collector and editor, is the foremost man thus far in the field. His 8th edition, 1872, of the Greek New Testament, together with his Prolegomena, completed and published, 1884-1894, by C. R. Gregory, set a new standard. Dr. Gregory's German edition of the Prolegomena, 1900-1909, supplemented by his Die griechischen Handschriften des New Testament, 1908, marks the further advance of the master through his master pupil. Meanwhile, S. P. Tregelles was doing almost as prodigious and valuable a work in England, and was thus preparing for the final advances at Cambridge. F. H. A. Scrivener also ranks high and did extremely valuable, though somewhat conservative, work in the same direction. In 1881 "the greatest edition ever published," according to Professor Souter, was brought out in England coincident with the Revised Version of the English New Testament. This, together with the introduction, which the same writer characterizes as "an achievement never surpassed in the scholarship of any country," was the joint product of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, friends and co-workers for many years in the University of Cambridge. Thus with the end of the 19th century the history of the process may be said to close, though both process and progress still advance with ever-increasing triumph.
Von Soden's edition of the New Testament appeared during the summer of 1913 and is of first importance. It differs from all others in the extreme weight laid on Tatian's Diatessaron as the source of the bulk of the errors in the Gospels. This theory is not likely to command the assent of scholars and the text (which does not differ greatly from Tischendorf's) is consequently of doubtful value. Nevertheless, for fullness of material, clearness of arrangement, and beauty of printing, von Soden's edition must inevitably supersede all others, even where the text is dissented from. Dr. Gregory promises a new edition at some day not too far in the future which, in turn, will probably supersede von Soden's.
) Vellum Uncials
There are about 160 vellum uncials of the New Testament; some 110 contain the Gospels or a part thereof. The chiefest of these uncials are the four great codices of the entire Greek Bible, aleph, A, B, C, for which, see above. The Vatican (B) is the oldest and probably the best New Testament manuscript.
WALTER DRUM (1910). " Manuscripts of the Bible" The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX ( Transcribed by Bryan R. Johnson) Online Edition Copyright 1999 by Kevin Knight
MORE to follow
Edited by - revdrjohnson on 25 June 2002 13:55:43
as the text containing alpha and omega in revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the nwt.
the textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of revelation mentioned in my previous post.
earnest.
As the text containing Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century it clearly lacks authority and that is why it is not included in most recent translations including the NWT.
The textual support available then was primarily two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at Basle, both dating from about the twelfth century, as well as the singular incomplete manuscript of Revelation mentioned in my previous post. Earnest
JWs get all excited about stuff like this because they think that they've stumbled on some great revelation. The editors of the NWT LEAPED on Nestle 17 and on Westcott & Hort because of the omissions rampant in these two Greek Texts that seemed to give tacit support to their Arian bias.
They were especially delighted about the excision of the comma from 1 John 5:7 because they were convinced that the belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity rested squarely upon this verse.
After the 'discovery' of the newer 'Critical Texts" other variant passages got a lot of Watchtower attention. So when I saw this discussion about Revelation 1:11, and the 'learned' comments that followed I couldn't resist making a statement. So
There are four kinds of Greek manuscripts that we have in our possession today: 1) papyri, 2) uncials [majuscules], 3) cursives [miniscules], and 4) lectionaries." (Defending The King James Bible by D. A. Waite; p. 53, Brackets mine).
The surviving Greek manuscripts can be catalogued as follows:
Uncial 299
Minuscule 2,812
Lectionaries 2,281
Papyri 98
Total 5,490
Of these most, except the papyri were available within a short time after the 1611 edition of KJV and therefore certainly had some impact on much later editions of the KJV.
But also, of these there are more that agree with the Received Text that under girds the KJV that there are that agree with the more modern 'Critical Text" by (in some estimations) a margin of almost 99 to 1! (See discussion below)
Furthermore, as you will see at the end of this article, the uncials disagree with EACH OTHER in more than 3,000 PLACES! How can you ask us to be excited about two siblings who are so busy fighting with each other that they are in danger of MISSING THE WHOLE POINT that they were trying to make in the first place
Consider these thoughts made in a presentation By Dr. David R. Brown, to the Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society,* in August 2000
A REVIEW
By way of review, I remind you that the Old Testament was originally written primarily in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Further, it must be remember that there are no original autographs of either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. Yet, the Old and New Testaments have been preserved in apographs (exemplars or copies) of the originals. Since the focus in this paper is the New Testament it is important to know that there are at least 5309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament. In addition there are more than 19,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and other language versions. The oldest copies of the New Testament know to exist are NOT Greek copies but the Syriac and the Old Latin versions (pre-Jeromes Latin Vulgate). The Old Syriac "is a good translation from the Greek, and exists practically complete in about 46 manuscripts." (General Biblical Introduction by Herbert Miller, 1937; 240-41). The oldest of those manuscripts is from the 4 th or 5 th century but the form of text they preserved dates from the close of the second or the beginning of the third century. "The Old Latin version was likely translated from the Greek in roughly 157 AD." (A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism, II, 1894; Scrivner; pp.42-42). Finally, there are more than 24,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have survived.
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/uncials.htm
Earnest makes the statement that:
Revelation 1:11 has no uncial support or any manuscripts prior to the ninth century
But this is misleading on many grounds not the least of which is the fact that to date only about 10% of the uncial data has been analyzed and collated. The 20 th century English-language get much aplomb, because they supposedly rest upon the evidence of 'older MSS' including these uncials. In fact the three most acclaimed uncials are rife with problems of their own
Furthermore, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, which White often cites to support his errors (i.e. Rev. 1:11), makes an error in John 21:7 and Romans 16:1, carelessly omitting words which are found in the majority of manuscripts, the KJV and even new versions.
Readers (& White) naturally assume that the term 'Majority Text' and the German sigla "M" represent a numerical majority of a full collation of the five thousand-plus Greek New Testament documents. Nothing could be further from the truth. This so-called 'Majority Text' White cites is based on von Soden's collation of 414 of the 5,000+ documents. Even these 414 were not fully collated. White must not have carefully read the preface which admits, "We were forced to rely on von Soden's work...his presentation of the data leaves much to be desired....The present edition does not cite the testimony of the ancient versions or church fathers."
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~seccomn/biblever/FBNS124.html So, Dr. Brown leaves us with some things to ponder regarding these three allegedly superior MSS:Frederik Wisse, in his The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke: Studies and Documents (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) pp. 16-17, found a LARGE number of errors in von Soden's work. His conclusion was that "von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used." Even the editors admit, "all decisions about M p t [even split] readings are provisional and tentative." (Hodges 1985, xxii) Kevin James in his brilliant book, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship notes, "We do know that at times von Soden examined only 13 of the more than 300 manuscripts that make up his Kx group to determine the wording" (p. 248). (It is important to note that Hodges has not misrepresented his work, but unlearned students like White have. In Luke 1 von Soden cites 120 MSS; Wisse profiles nearly 1400. When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text by J.A. Moorman summarizes such findings. Wisse explains that, "Of the 99 checked MSS, 76 were missing one or more times when they should have been cited, or were listed when they should not have been. This breaks down to 59 MSS which were missing in von Soden's apparatus from one to four times, and 39 which were added incorrectly from one to six times" (pp. 16,17).
In conclusion, I will say the 'Majority Text' White cites is based on a collation of less than 10% of the extant documents. These 10% were not fully collated and were very frequently miscited. H.C. Hoskier said of von Soden's work, "I regret to have to condemn it strongly... the apparatus is positively honeycombed with errors." (JTS, 15-1914, p. 307) David Cloud.
"How, then, do we find the Bible version that pleases God? By reversing the process and naturalistic reasoning, by beginning with Christ and the Gospel and proceeding according to the logic of faith. Since the Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel is infallibly inspired. And since the Bible is infallibly inspired, it has been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence, not secretly in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves, but publicly in the usage of God's Church, the Old Testament through the Old Testament priesthood, and the New Testament through the New Testament priesthood, namely, the universal priesthood of believers. Moreover, the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing, for why would God preserve the sacred text at one time and not at another time? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, and this text is therefore a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired original text. And so is the King James Version and all other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. Hence today and for the foreseeable future the King James Version is the English Bible that truly pleases God." Dr. Edward F. Hills on the King James Biblehttp://www.deanburgonsociety.org/barnet91.htm#CONCLUSION:
Codex Alexandrinus (A) This codex was the first of the so-called "great uncials" to become known to western paleographers The New Testament of Alexandrinus The New Testament has lost from 19 to 25 leaves of the Gospel of Matthew, as far as Matthew 25:6 . Strangely there are two leaves missing from the Gospel of John (John 6:50 to 8:52) which cover the much disputed passage about the adulterous woman. But, what is amazing is that the Gospels follow the so-called Syrian type text, the ancestor of the Textus Receptus, which is evidence that the traditional text type did have an early origin! There are three leaves missing in 2Corinthians containing 4:13 to 12:6 . This manuscript ends with Mark 16:8 , therefore leaving out 9-20. It omits John 5:4 (For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.) and 1 John 5:7 (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.). There are additions to the New Testament as well. According to the table of contents the New Testament once contained the Psalms of Solomon, though it is now missing. Also added to the New Testament are the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the II Epistle of Clement. In these two letters "Clement of Alexandria teaches that: [1] Men are saved by works (2 Clement 2:12,15); [2] Christians are in danger of going to Hell (2 Clement 3:8); [3]Christians don't get new bodies at the resurrection (2 Clement 4:2); [4] He was a prophet who wrote Scripture (2 Clement 4:11); [5] The male and female in 1 Corinthians 11:9 9 were anger and concupiscence (when they were speaking of Christ's being the head, then the husband, followed by the wife in order or chain of authority). Not believing the Bible literally, Clement both fantasized and spiritualized the Scriptures." (Which Version is The Bible? By Floyd Jones Th.D, Ph.D; Published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p.69). Codex Vaticanus (B)The New Testament of Vaticanus Coming to the New Testament, Barry Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence -- "it omits Matthew 3 , the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon), Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 , and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and Romans 16:24 are missing. There is yet another strange thing about Vaticanus that John Burgon tells us about relating to the last twelve verses of Mark. "To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we posses, St. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the eight verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant column in the whole manuscript - a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he leave that column vacant? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out - and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark's Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen senturies and a half, a more ancient witness than itself." (Revision Revised: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark by John William Burgon; p. 86-87) Codex Sinaiticus a (a or ALEPH) There is one particular omission that made a real impact upon my mind, that I believe is important to beings into the picture at this point. Several years back I went to the British Museum, specifically to take a look at Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed was missing, it was clear to see that it had originally been there, but had been pumiced (erased) out. The space was still evident in the codex and the letters could faintly be seen. There are numerous other problems with this codex as well. For instance, it includes two uninspired books in the New Testament. The entire Epistle of Barnabas (which teaches baptizmal regeneration), except six leaves, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which is incomplete.
Finally, I must point out something ironic about these two alleged "oldest and best" manuscripts. They do not agree with each other! "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1). John Burgon points out that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. We should find that very disturbing. My research has led me to conclude that the three "Great Uncials" are at best unreliable. I am thankful that the Bibles of the Reformation were based on what came to be called the Traditional text or the Textus Receptus.Professor Daniel Wallace helps us to exercise caution before going too far to the OTHER extreme, though. When one considers the question of which 'text' is superior the Received Text (Byzantine) which was the exemplar for all English-language Bibles before 1880 (including KJV); or the Critical Text (Alexandrian) favored by Westcott & Hort, Eberhardt Nestle, Kurt and Barbara Aland, and others he or she must realize that the controversy centers around only a SMALL percentage of the entire New Testament. And that NONE OF THE DISPUTED PASSAGES have any impact upon Salvation!
To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century
"We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. Cited in: "Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?" By Douglas Kutilek http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html 2002-06-21
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary See also: kjvonly.org. http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/great_which_bible_pr.htm * The Dean Burgon Society was established in Philadelphia in 1978ConclusionIs the majority text identical with the original text? The present writer does not think so. There are no doctrinal reasons that compel him to believe that it is, and when all the evidence is weighed--both external and internal--it is quite compelling against such a view. Does this mean that the majority text is worthless? Not at all. For one thing, it agrees with the critical text 98 percent of the time. For another, several isolated Byzantine readings are early, and where they have good internal credentials, reasoned eclectics adopt them as original. But this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a wholesale adoption of the majority text. And that is precisely the issue taken up in this article.
"The Dean Burgon Society, Inc. proudly takes its name in honor of Rev. John William Burgon (1813--1888), the Dean of Chichester in England, whose tireless and accurate scholarship and contribution in the area of New Testament Textual Criticism; whose defense of the Traditional Greek New Testament Text against its many enemies; and whose firm belief in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, we believe, have all been unsurpassed either before or since his time!"[/quote]
Defense of the Scriptures.
Over a hundred years ago there was a warrior and fighter for the Scriptures. His name was John William Burgon. This champion was from a different time and century from you and me; nevertheless, he was a staunch defender of Bibliology. As you know, this discipline is the bedrock of all theology.
Edited by - revdrjohnson on 21 June 2002 13:54:37
Edited by - revdrjohnson on 21 June 2002 14:1:9
this is a continuation of a subject i broached on another thread.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=30556&site=3.
"i don't bi*ch about my jw childhood.
i never have regrets.
revdrjohnson - I have numerous friends from Cuba. There are many things that tourists do NOT see. Don't be so foolish to think that Castro would allow America to see these things.
MrMoe, Miami is chock full a people who are from Cuba. And everybody has 'numerous friends' who say this and who say that -- and I realize that there are things you are allowed to see and things that you are not.
But YOU said that the military would beat a person to a pulp for owning furniture -- and I simply asked can you substantiate your statement. You know: something we can see? Surely somebody -- maybe in the last wave of Marielitos -- has smuggled out some evidence that what you say is happening is indeed ... happening? Otherwise your statement sounds like so much hyperbole. And so much overkill that it detracts from the point that you sounded like you were trying to make, in the first place: that "we don' have it so bad compared to people in some other places."
Y'kno ... the old axiom "I thought I was unfortunate, 'cause I only had one foot. And then I met a man with no legs!"
this is a continuation of a subject i broached on another thread.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=30556&site=3.
"i don't bi*ch about my jw childhood.
i never have regrets.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like a flame.
Maybe you were just trying to illustrate a point. And it is true that Cuba is a 'poor' country by AMerican standards. But other than that Cubans lead a VERY normal life with free medical care, no income tax, and one of the most beautiful climates in the world!
Castro is a despot but he's also OLD! And despite the fact that they are under a Communist regime, there are some rural areas right here in America who are far worse off than th average Cubano.
this is a continuation of a subject i broached on another thread.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=30556&site=3.
"i don't bi*ch about my jw childhood.
i never have regrets.
There is some little boy or girl in Cuba that does not have furniture and if they get caught with furniture their entire household is beaten to a bloody pulp by the military, the children do not have shoes on their feet and their mother or father just got shot last week for trying to steal a cow that the government will not allow them to have because the citizens are only allowed a diet of beans and rice. Just an example anyhow. There are countless others."
Wha-Wha-WHAT??????????
That's not even propaganda, that's just plain old "where in the world did you get that from?"
I know not being able to travel frely into places outside our own world leads to lots of misconceptions, but I'd love to hear what your source is for these claims about Cuba.
Then I'd invite you to rent the video "Buena Vista Social Club" and pay attention to the background (it's about a group of aged Cuban musicians pulled together for a reunion tour)
Actually, Cuba is a tourist and vacation HOT SPOT for EVERY where else in the world except the U. S. becausse of our silly travel embargo -- and even that can be circumvented fairly easily, if you don' mind travelling from Canada. And while crime and punishment may be harsh, by our standards, what you describe may have occured in an isolated incident -- with LOTS of context behind it to explain the WHOLE story -- or never happened at all!
