Ask Dusty Peterson about his articles on Bible Translations

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Dusty,

I am not a scholar. I have never claimed to be. When I first read your 2ND article I knew that something was wrong. So I responded with what I knew at the time. Some of it was wrong (probably a lot). I don't have much patience when it comes to these things so I responded quickly and made errors. During the past week I have learn a lot and during this process I have come to see many errors in my own belief but also many more in your article.

Let me recap everything I said, correcting my previous errors and hopefully keeping it short. Whatever I previously wrote that is not covered here you can take as an admission of me being wrong.

1.) I no longer believe that Hort & Westcott were only respected on an intellectual level. Hort is no longer a reason why I don't "give much thought" to your 2ND article.

2.) You said you were quoting "two pre-eminent" scholars on both sides of the debate to show they believed there are major differences between family A & B (Byzantine & Alexandrian). Hort did not believe that the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts contained many errors that were "of great importance". He only believed that the differences were "minor". He did not believe that they were "vile".This quote supports that:

[Dr. Hort, whose authority on the point is quite incontestable, estimates the proportion of words about which there is some doubt at about one-eighth of the whole; but by far the greater part of these consists merely of differences in order and other unimportant variations, and "the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation ...can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text" (BF Westcott, FJ Hort,Paperback, Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 2).]
.

To further show the misleading nature of your article you said on page 4 as referring to family A (Byzantine texts), "Why would Hort call one of these two MS families “vile” if the differences in it were insignificant? That’s an extremely strong word to use if the differences are indeed negligible."

To answer your question in your own words, he didn't. He didn't call one family vile. Hort only called the TR vile not the entire family A (Byzantine texts). Here is that quote:
Please, PLEASE could you explain to me once and for all why Hort called the TR "vile" if the differences between it and his text are unimportant?
3.) Next in your article you said:
What some folks don’t realize is that the differences between these two families affect nearly six thousand separate parts of the New Testament,11 impacting nearly ten thousand words.
This is deceiving because you say "families" referring to the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts but this 6,000 does not refer to those "families". Those 6,000 refer to the differences between the "Authorized Version" of 1611 and the "Revised Version" of 1881. Your footnote supports this by the title of the book. Here is your footnote:
11 Estimates usually vary between 5,300 and 5,900 changes. Waite counted 5,604 [D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, (The Bible For Today Press, 2004), p. 40].
To further support this here is a quote from Sir Frederick Kenyon
The Greek text of the New Testament of 1881 has been estimated to differ from that of 1611 in no less than 5,788 readings, of which about a quarter are held notably to modify the subject-matter;though even of these only a small proportion can be considered as of first-rate importance. (Sir F Kenyon, Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, p.47)
Also, Burgon wrote a well known paper opposing the Revised Version called, "The Revised Revision". This article only attacked the Revised Version not family B (Alexandrian texts).

4.) Your article is deceiving because you don't mention manuscripts by specific names. Instead you group them all together under family A or family B. You take quotes that are only true of two modern texts and not of their respective "family of texts" (ie. Byzantine & Alexandrian). Your article if I understand you correctly is to show that there are two sets of texts the Byzantine and Alexandrian Texts. From those two sets of texts one is corrupt and the other isn't. To support this you base it upon "two of the most pre-eminent scholars in favour of each family". In doing this you take quotes of one of these "pre-eminent scholars" about the KJV and apply it to the entire family A or aka. Byzantine texts. This is very deceiving.

I asked if you believe the King James Bible is God's only preserved word in the English language. I believe you are trying to get people to believe that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt and the Byzantine texts are God's only true preserved Word so you can make the case for the King James Bible because it's based on family A and most other bibles are so called "based on family B". This is why you use family A and B rather than the true text names. It allows you to hide quotes meant for the Textus Receptus under "Family A". And facts about the King James Version and the Revised Version under "Family A & B".


For those who read your 2ND article let me quote Sir Frederick Kenyon again for you comfort:
One word of warning, already referred to, must be emphasised in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergences of reading, such as the plan of this book necessitates, might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament.
If I'm wrong please correct me. Please tell me you don't believe the King James is God's only Preserved Word in the English Language. I'm not trying to be rude or motivated by the wrong reasons. I could ignore it and move on. But it would drive me crazy to know that other people would read your article and get the impression that the Byzantine texts are corrupt and therefore their bibles derived from there are too. That would be wrong.[/url]
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi again Zach. MANY thanks for your latest. I hugely appreciate it.

Let me start this post by freely acknowledging that the tone of some of my recent messages has not been as gentle as it could have been. I apologize profusely for this. (I had been getting a teensy bit exasperated by elements of this thread, but that’s no excuse.) I’m also sorry for the times I have misunderstood a point you were making. These misunderstandings have been genuine (I haven't always found your style terribly easy to follow), but nevertheless I should have checked with you before jumping to any conclusions.

I intend my next “Installment”, due to be posted shortly, to consider the article-related issues you have raised. However, a posting of yours has prompted me to look again at my motivations for seeking to prove wrong various points you’ve made in this thread and I’ve realized there are several further causes beyond the three I listed recently. These extra ones are described below:

(4) Personally speaking, if I ever publish an erroneous statement, I am eager to be told about it (not least so that I can correct it and undo any damage caused by it). I naturally assumed you would feel the same - as I’m sure you do. I am especially keen to be informed of my error if a permanent record (or even just a record that will be available for public perusal for a number of years) is likely to exist of my mistake, as is the case with a web Board like this. Again, I guessed you would feel similarly.

(5) Other folks will presumably read this thread either now or in the future. These people may well view silence from me regarding statements you have made as being a tacit admission that those statements of yours were correct. Obviously I have a responsibility to every visitor, and thus I try - as time permits - to demonstrate errors when I believe they have occurred.

(6) As far as I can see, you have fallen for certain myths on the subject under discussion. I was hoping that, if I could *prove* this to be the case, you’d stop being quite so trusting of sources – especially the type of source who produced the particular myths I challenge here.

(7) To be completely frank, I have found some of your postings a bit tricky to follow. Given the number of typos present in them, they seemed to be hastily written. This would certainly help to explain why the logical flow wasn’t always clear to me. In my experience, hastily-written posts are usually ill-considered posts, and they can certainly get in the way of having an “honest discussion” as you phrase it. The Bible condemns haste (e.g. in Proverbs 29:20). I believe a person should take time over their responses and I hoped that, if I documented enough mistakes on your part, it would lead you to becoming more careful over the quality of your subsequent mailings. For everyone’s sake, I was simply trying to slow you down a tiny bit (I couldn’t keep up with the pace and multitude of your comments anyway) and to encourage you to think matters through a little more fully before replying. [It looks like this strategy has worked :wink: ]

In closing, you have said of me, “you are more interested in pointing out error than honest discussion”. This is not the case (and besides, the two things are somewhat related!), but I hope you can now see why I have approached your posts in the way I have.

Thanks again for your latest. Obviously it changes things, so I'll get back to you as soon as I decently can. All the very best. D
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hiya Zach. I now understand why you got so angry.

Let me say to begin with that these articles of mine are only meant to provide an overview of the subject for the “layman” as you put it. They deal in broad brush-stroke principles with a view to homing in more as the overall picture becomes clear. The whole issue of textual criticism is complex enough as it is without risking readers getting totally bogged down. I therefore felt I had to simplify a couple of issues - especially at such an early stage in the series. I have been quite upfront about the simplifications used and, as far as I can see, you have not yet offered any actual evidence that any of these simplifications are unreasonable, let alone that they invalidate any of the steps in the argumentation used in my articles.

The fact is that each of the handful of simplifications or generalizations I have employed has been entirely fair and justified, and I plan to demonstrate this in my next posting. (Of course, even if I were to talk only about the TR instead of family A it wouldn’t solve all the problems, for I'd then have to say *which* edition of the TR I was referring to. As a result, I’d be obliged to go into a long explanation of where the TR came from and why it is a legitimate text to represent one side of the debate.)

Thanks for spelling out your position again for me. As I say, the TR is extremely representative of the family A text-type and is therefore a very reasonable example for me to use in my articles. If you can disprove this I would be unspeakably keen to know the details. Thanks :)
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

I now understand why you got so angry.
I was never angry or upset. I do think your article are very deceiving.
Let me say to begin with that these articles of mine are only meant to provide an overview of the subject for the “layman” as you put it. They deal in broad brush-stroke principles with a view to homing in more as the overall picture becomes clear. The whole issue of textual criticism is complex enough as it is without risking readers getting totally bogged down. I therefore felt I had to simplify a couple of issues - especially at such an early stage in the series.
Your first article was good. It accomplished this. You 2nd articles 2a and 2b did not.
I have been quite upfront about the simplifications used and
,
No you have not.
as far as I can see, you have not yet offered any actual evidence that any of these simplifications are unreasonable,
Don't you think that the fact you are deceiving people is a "reasonable" reason for not over simplifying?

You lead readers to believe the Byzantine texts are very different from the Alexandrian texts. This is not true nor have you offered any proof of such. You have only offered proof that the KJV and the Revised Version are different. You conveniently hide this fact by using the term "family".
let alone that they invalidate any of the steps in the argumentation used in my articles.
You argumentation is based on deception. That invalidates it all.
The fact is that each of the handful of simplifications or generalizations I have employed has been entirely fair and justified, and I plan to demonstrate this in my next posting.


Deception is never justified. Hort did not believe there were important differences between the Alexandrian Texts and the Byzantine texts. He never called the Byzantine texts "vile". There are not 6,000 differences between the Alexandrian texts and the Byzantine texts. These are lies about the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. You hide these lies by using "family A" and "family "B". This is not a fair use of "simplification".


As a result, I’d be obliged to go into a long explanation of where the TR came from and why it is a legitimate text to represent one side of the debate.)
The Textus Receptus is not a legitimate texts to represent all of the Byzantine texts. The pre-eminent scholar you quote as being in favor of family A said it can't be said enough that the TR needs correction.
As I say, the TR is extremely representative of the family A text-type and is therefore a very reasonable example for me to use in my articles. If you can disprove this I would be unspeakably keen to know the details. Thanks
This Textus Receptus you say "is extremely representative" of "family A", is also the same TR that your pre-eminent scholar in favor of "family A" said this about:
"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at pg. 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction." [The Revision Revised, p. 21, note 3; italics his].

Your articles are deceiving and should be taken down. If you have done your homework as you say then I am quite justified in calling these errors deception and not just simple errors. For anyone who may be reading this, know that Dusty's 2nd articles 2a and 2b are not about the Alexandrian texts nor the Byzantine texts. They are about two modern translations of those families (ie. Textus Receptus, KJV 1611, The New Testament in the Original Greek, and The Revised Version). Dusty's articles have nothing to do with the respective family of texts upon which they are based (ie. The Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts).
Last edited by wackzingo on Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Dusty,

You end your second article by saying:
...the logical conclusion of approaching textual criticism from a godly, rather than a worldly, standpoint is to use a Bible translation made from (a) the Textus Receptus (or TR) for the Greek part of scripture, 53 and (b) the "Masoretic" Hebrew for the remainder of the Bible 54.
Can you please tell me what bible or bibles meet these standards?
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi there Zach. Thanks for your latest - patently heartfelt - messages. Below I have attempted to answer every significant point you made in your two main postings. If I have missed any issues, don’t hesitate (I’m sure you won’t :lol: ) to let me know.

*MANY* IMPORTANT ERRORS?
You begin by saying, “Hort did not believe that the Byzantine … texts contained many errors that were ‘of great importance’”. Firstly, would it be possible for you to point out to me where I have ever claimed that Hort did believe there are many errors “of great importance” in family A? Next, surely Part 2b in my series showed that a text does not need *lots* of important errors for it to be a dangerous text?

You then argue that “[Hort] only believed that the differences were ‘minor’”, yet you go on to quote Hort himself admitting that not all the differences were unimportant and that there is indeed some “substantial variation” among the thousands of readings that differ between the two “text-types”.

Incidentally, you appear to be very trusting of Hort over this whole question. This seems odd for two reasons…

(1) Hort’s own figures do not stack up. He claimed that only a thousandth of the NT involves differences that “can in any sense be called substantial variation”. The NT contains about 140,000 words - the exact figure depending on which Greek text one supports. One thousandth of that amount is 140 words, yet (a) just the sum of the examples in Part 2b in my series proves this figure to be unjustified, (b) the two lengthy passages Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are not present in either of Hort’s favourite MSS. They alone involve 24 entire verses between them - and thus involve a very large number of words, (c) you yourself quote Kenyon giving a figure of 1447 (i.e. one quarter of 5788) readings where the differences “notably … modify the subject matter” (note that this is 1447 readings, not just 1447 words). This is very different from Hort’s figure!

(2) The question of what does or does not constitute a “substantial variation” in God’s Word is patently a *spiritual* matter and therefore requires a Christian perspective, yet you have claimed in this very thread that Hort didn’t even believe in God, so it is unclear to me why you keep relying on him over this issue.

HORT’S VIEW OF THE BYZANTINE TEXT (aka FAMILY A)
You insist that my simplification regarding Hort’s “vile” reference “further shows the misleading nature” of my article. The first point to make is this: Hort may not have specifically called the family A text-type “vile”, but he certainly didn’t believe “the differences were ‘minor’” (as you word it) either. Even when he was trying to avoid being offensive about this text (undoubtedly so as keep the public from becoming suspicious of his deep opposition to the text in case they started looking into these matters in detail for themselves), he said that the family A text was “appreciably impoverished in sense and force” [Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 134-5, emphasis mine]. He also said of this text that "interpolations ... are abundant ... [and] capricious" in it [Ibid, emphasis mine].

Did Hort believe the family A text-type to be vile? Well, his extreme zeal to wipe it completely off the map assurecdly indicates that he did. Furthermore, from his earliest days he believed the TR to be “vile” and “In Hort’s biography the writer found no evidence that this animosity was ever reconsidered” [Wilbur Pickering, John William Burgon and the New Testament, Part II]. Since, as I keep pointing out (and as I demonstrate below), the TR is a very representative distillation of the text among members of Family A, it is only reasonable to infer that Hort did indeed believe family A to be vile.

RELEVANCE?
Far from showing the “misleading nature” of my article, your entire line of reasoning here actually has no relevance whatever to the arguments made in the rest of Part 2a. The issue, as I have explained before, is that there exists a wide gulf even today between the scholars on each side of the debate. (Certainly there exists a range of views *within* each of the two sides of this gulf, but this huge gulf in the middle remains.) This gulf can be traced back to Hort’s claim that family A (or the “Syrian” family as he disparagingly called it) was worthless...

Hort said that this text shows “no marks of either critical or spiritual insight” [Ibid, emphasis mine]. He believed that NONE of the readings unique to that text-type should be regarded as being the true readings [see The New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 115-116]. Let me reiterate this so as to ensure we are both crystal clear. My article is not founded on whether or not Hort believed family A to be vile. It is founded rather on the fact of the fundamental gulf in attitude towards family A that exists among scholars today and which derives from Hort’s belief that this family was absolutely valueless for the purposes of textual criticism.

(BTW If you are honestly claiming that Hort wasn’t fundamentally opposed to family A then any scholars - on either side of the gulf - reading this thread will just be laughing at you right now.).

OVER FIVE THOUSAND
You say I am again “deceiving” merely because I have tried to find a simple way of communicating the number of places where the text differs between the two families. Since no two MSS are identical, it is hard to decide on a representative figure. As the solution to this problem, I chose to give the number of differences between the two most famous (and most revered by their respective camps) representatives of these text-types. Why is this not a valid approach in such an article? What better option was open to me (apart from adding a clarifying note beyond the unambiguous one I already provide, that is)? Besides, in what way does this simplification of mine alter the outcome of Part 2a one jot?

TR VERSUS FAMILY A
You term as “very deceiving” my decision to relate a few select statements about the TR to family A as a whole. I will point out once again that the TR is extremely representative of the family A text-type. Even your Wikipedia article accepts that the TR is “Byzantine”. In his book Revision Revised, Burgon described the family A text as “virtually identical with the Textus Receptus”. I have given you repeated opportunities to check if the TR is a fair example to use when needing to make general statements about the family A text-type. You have so far produced no evidence that it is not. (Just because Burgon didn’t see the TR as *perfect* in no way implies he thought it unrepresentative of family A, as the preceding quote proves!)

As I have tried to point out before, a key reason why the TR is called the “received text” in the first place is because it agrees incredibly closely with the traditional text – i.e. the text-type present in the great bulk of extant MS evidence at the time the TR was being published, and the text -type generally received among God-fearing people at that time as the godly family. (In passing, I will also observe that the W&H Greek is similarly representative of the most revered members of family B. In other words, all my simplifications have been entirely fair.) Please can you tell me what you think the TR is based on, if it is not actually rooted in the family A type of evidence (including ancient translations of family A MSS etc)?

TWO ASIDES ABOUT FAMILY A
BTW1: It was in a private letter that Hort called the TR “vile” (and also “villainous”). Why was he more measured in his language (at least to the public) subsequently? By far the most probable reason is that he wanted to avoid offending the populace who had been brought up on a translation based on family A and who would have been much more likely to question his profound opposition to that text-type if he had been too rude about it. He well knew that, if they looked into this whole matter closely enough, they would find plenty of reasons to reject his work :!:

BTW2: You may be interested to learn that, as recently as 1989, the Alands claimed that the Family A manuscripts, are "irrelevant for establishing the original text". They also said that family A's readings have caused "corrosive effects" on what they call the "normal" text. Hort’s thorough opposition to family A has evidently had a corrosive effect on high-profile scholars since his day :cry:

DECEPTION OR SIMPLIFICATION?
In view of all the above, it is patently valid for my article to take the approach it has. If you disagree, please could you spell out why? What difference does my approach actually make to the logical progression of the article? I think the problem may lie with your interpretation of the purpose of the article. You write, “Your article if I understand you correctly is to show that there are two sets of texts … [and that] one is corrupt and the other isn't.” I’m afraid you have viewed the article the wrong way around. As I have stated previously, the purpose of the article is to explain why the gulf exists between the two parties. The side-effects, or resultant finds, from that investigation are something you'll simply have to come to terms with. But even if I had had other motives for writing the article, you have still not explained why the simplifications I have employed change the outcome of that article.

Please Note: I am horrified that you have called my articles “very deceiving”. They are not! But even if, regardless of all that I have written above, you are determined to believe I have employed deception, this still doesn’t necessarily invalidate the key arguments used in the article (let alone its overall conclusions) - despite what you claim. If all deception used during an activity automatically invalidates that activity then you are going to have to rebuke a lot of God’s People when you get to heaven. The number of them who were blessed by God for deceiving people for righteous reasons is legion. Among the many I could cite are Rahab, Jael, Joseph, the Hebrew midwives, David, Ehud, and Solomon. (I am assuming you have a reasonable working knowledge of God’s Word, but please don’t hesitate to shout if you need specific verses to prove my observation here.)

UPFRONT ENOUGH?
You suggest I have not been suitably upfront about my simplifications, yet you yourself have previously quoted the section in my article where I unambiguously state (a) that some simplification has been necessary, and (b) that “I sometimes relate comments made specifically about manuscript ‘B’ simply to family B, and likewise I sometimes relate comments about the Textus Receptus (a Greek text derived from family A ...) to the whole of family A”. I suppose one could argue that this has not been upfront enough, but since (i) the simplifications are entirely reasonable and do not alter the outcome of the piece, and (ii) inserting notes whenever I used a simplification would have made the document significantly more complicated than it already is, I still believe I was suitably upfront. (However, I have never claimed the document is perfect so I’ll happily revisit the text in this regard in order to help keep folks like yourself onboard in the future.)

TO SUM UP
In order to show my goodwill, I have decided to let a number of obvious and non-trivial errors in your latest posts go unmentioned at this stage. (If you’d like details just say the word.) But there are a couple of things I feel I can’t ignore…

:arrow: You quote Kenyon declaring that “No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading”. You appear to be ignoring the whole of Part 2b when you do so!

:arrow: Please can we stick to questions directly relevant to my articles as per the title of this thread? Not only does it help to make the thread intelligible to others, it also helps me to keep up :roll:

:arrow: You remark that you are “not a scholar” and I presume you say this in order to explain your errors and to encourage me to be patient with you. However, I ought to point out with all due respect that if someone isn’t a scholar it is very important for them to be extra careful in the reasoning they offer. It is also crucial for such people to avoid making bold assertions until they’ve done the necessary homework.

:arrow: Finally, please can I also ask you to fight the temptation to come to my articles with any preconceptions? Such will only make this thread even more painful than it already is for everyone concerned :( Thanks muchas.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Dusty,

You end your second article by saying:

Quote:

...the logical conclusion of approaching textual criticism from a godly, rather than a worldly, standpoint is to use a Bible translation made from (a) the Textus Receptus (or TR) for the Greek part of scripture, 53 and (b) the "Masoretic" Hebrew for the remainder of the Bible 54.


Can you please tell me what bible or bibles meet these standards?
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi Zach. Surely we need to determine whether Part 2a in my series of articles is sound before coming to this matter? If Part 2a is sound then why haven't you acknowledged this? If it isn't sound, we must deal with that issue first since it would mean Part 2b was fundamentally flawed - and thus make your question irrelevant.

To be honest it seems to me as if you are looking for any possible reason to avoid facing up to the validity of Part 2a. It appears as if, having tried various obvious cul-de-sacs based on comments within Part 2a, you are now prepared to sidestep 2a altogether in your search for reasons to reject it. But, as should be self-evident, Part 2a must be judged on its merits not on subsequent material. The validity of my statement at the end of Part 2b is determined by the content of Part 2a, not the other way around!

I am trying to have that "honest discussion" you mentioned. Are you? (Apologies if I'm missing something here.)
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

I will respond to the previous post tomorrow probably. I have a lot of homework to do for school and a test tonight (Math, grrr......). As soon as I'm done with that I'll get back to this topic.

And no I'm not side stepping. I thought I would see if you would admit what I've accused you of. You are a devout believer that the KJV is God's only true Word in the English language. To make this point you are taking the opposite approach of others in your movement. Rather than say "The KJV is the only English Bible and others are perverted and here's why..." you are saying, "These are the two sets of families and here's why one is corrupt and the other isn't..." so that you can say in conclusion "this is why we must use the KJV".

I read Hort's book from front to back yesterday and Sunday If I understood things correctly Hort didn't believe in 2 families, he believed in 4 families which is still acknowledged by scholars today. I also read most of Burgons book (not all though). There are however two camps as you say regarding these four families (The TR/KJV ONLY VS. Western, Alexandrian & Neutral)
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Next, surely Part 2b in my series showed that a text does not need *lots* of important errors for it to be a dangerous text?
Hort and dozens of other scholars have whole chapters devoted to punctuation errors/uncertainties, spelling errors/uncertainties, exact name uncertainties, etc. Not all errors affect “important doctrines”. How many errors does a text need before it should be consider “corrupt”?




(1) Hort’s own figures do not stack up…………you yourself quote Kenyon giving a figure of 1447 (i.e. one quarter of 5788) readings where the differences “notably … modify the subject matter” (note that this is 1447 readings, not just 1447 words). This is very different from Hort’s figure!
Lets clarify a few things:

Kenyon’s 5788 and your “nearly 6000” come from the KJV and the Revised Version. Hort’s numbers speak of all the texts as a whole even those considered “Syrian” aka. Byzantine.

You seem to misunderstand Hort, let me quote him in context:

“The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognizing to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidences leaves the judgement in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variations is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variations, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament, which might seem to be confirmed by language used here and there in the following pages, we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours.”





(2) The question of what does or does not constitute a “substantial variation” in God’s Word is patently a *spiritual* matter and therefore requires a Christian perspective,


I agree...to a point. A translator and textual critic must have a full understanding of Christian theology and core doctrines. This only affect their opinion on what is important. I do not see how it has to affect their textual criticism.


yet you have claimed in this very thread that Hort didn’t even believe in God, so it is unclear to me why you keep relying on him over this issue.
I did because I read hundreds of articles, books and various other sources that said he was not a believer in God and that he had all these warped views of theology. The problem is that these sources were and still are strictly from the KJV only advocates. I cannot find anyone outside the KJV only movement who agrees with them on this topic. Not only can I not find the quotes they use to support their view, I find the opposite in Hort’s writings. At the very least he had a good understanding of core doctrines of the Christian faith. Take this quote by Hort for example:

“As regards the doctrine of the Atonement itself, I do not think there is a word in your Lordship’s statement which I could not cordially accept as my own. If there is any differences, it concerns only the relation of the Atonement to other doctrines. I feel most strongly the truth of what you say about sin and atonement as answering to each other. Christian peace comes not from sin denied, or sin ignored, but sin washed away. If it was not washed effectually away once for all upon the Cross, an awakened conscience has no refuge but in futile efforts after a heathenish self-atonement. Nor can I see how, man being what he is now, the Incarnation could bring about a complete redemption unless it included a true Atonement. The Resurrection itself loses more than half its power, if spiritual death has not been conquered as well as natural death. About the manner of Atonement we must all feel that it lies in a region into which we can have only glimpses, and that all figures taken from things below are of necessity partial and imperfect. It is the vain attempt to bring the Divine truth down to the level of our own understanding that has created all the dark perversions of the Atonement which have justly offended sensitive consciences, and so given occasion to the denial of the truth itself. “
[Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 1896 1st Edition; by Arthur Fenton Hort]


You insist that my simplification regarding Hort’s “vile” reference “further shows the misleading nature” of my article. The first point to make is this: Hort may not have specifically called the family A text-type “vile”,


Exactly, Hort never called the Byzantine aka. Syrian texts vile. And he believed the differences between the Syrian, Western, Alexandrian and Neutral texts were very few. He said the disputed readings only form about one eighth of the entire text of the new testament. He went as far as to say that much of the New Testament stands in no need of correction.

he said that the family A text was “appreciably impoverished in sense and force” [Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 134-5, emphasis mine]. He also said of this text that "interpolations ... are abundant ... [and] capricious" in it [Ibid, emphasis mine].
This is out of context in my opinion. Here’s what he said:


The qualities which the authors of the Syrian text seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measure. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New interpolations on the other hand are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in diction the Syrian text is conspicuously a full text. It delights in pronouns, conjunctions, and expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable additions. As distinguished from the bold vigour of the ‘Western’ scribes, and the refined scholarship of the Alexandrians, the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless on either literary or religious grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet shewing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force, more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.



He believed that the difference between the “Syrian” texts and the remaining three (“Alexandrian”, “Western” and “Neutral” aka. Pre-Syrian) texts were due to changes or additions in the “Syrian” aka. Byzantine texts.


Did Hort believe the family A text-type to be vile?
No.
Well, his extreme zeal to wipe it completely off the map assuredly indicates that he did.
This is an unfounded accusation.
Furthermore, from his earliest days he believed the TR to be “vile” and “In Hort’s biography the writer found no evidence that this animosity was ever reconsidered” [Wilbur Pickering, John William Burgon and the New Testament, Part II]. Since, as I keep pointing out (and as I demonstrate below), the TR is a very representative distillation of the text among members of Family A, it is only reasonable to infer that Hort did indeed believe family A to be vile.
Hort believed there were three families (ie. Syrian, Neutral, Western & Alexandrian). He believed the other three were more accurate of the true original but that in no way means he thought they were vile. He even said about the Syrian texts, that the changes he believe were made to it were done in such a way that “it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity.

He did not trust the TR because “Erasmus based his work on fewer than a half-dozen manuscripts, all of which dated from the twelfth century or later; and only one of which was not of the Byzantine text-type.” [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type ]

Hort himself made this clear when he said:


These various conditions affecting the manuscript text of the New Testament must be borne in mind if we would understand what was possible to be accomplished in the early printed editions, the text of which exercises directly or indirectly a scarcely credible power to the present day. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, far more than now, the few ancient documents of the sacred text were lost in the crowd of later copies; and few even of the late MSS were employed, and that only as convenience dictated, without selection or deliberate criticism. The fundamental editions were those of Erasmus (Basel, 1516), and of Stunica in Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian (Alcala) Polyglott, printed in 1514 but apparently not published till 1522. In his haste to be the first editor, Erasmus allowed himself to be guilty of strange carelessness; but neither he nor any other scholar then living could have produced a materially better text without enormous labour, the need of which was not as yet apparent. The numerous editions which followed during the next three or four generations varied much from one another in petty details, and occasionally adopted fresh readings from MSS, chiefly of a common late type; but the foundation and an overwhelming proportion of the text remained always Erasmian, sometimes slightly modiefied on Complutensian base.”


Once again, Hort only seemed to have a problem with Erasmus and the TR and the quality of work with which the TR was produced. He never once gives us the impressions that he believes the Syrian family of text is in any way “vile”.

The issue, as I have explained before, is that there exists a wide gulf even today between the scholars on each side of the debate. (Certainly there exists a range of views *within* each of the two sides of this gulf, but this huge gulf in the middle remains.)
I used to believe this because people from the KJV only movement like yourself have made this claim. Now I see the truth and anyone who honestly researches Hort’s view and this issue will see that there is not this “wide gulf” as you say.

There is the view that the Syrian, Neutral, Alexandrian and Western families are very similar with minor differences between them (Mostly spelling, grammatical, order differences).

The second and only real different view comes from those who believe that the TR & KJV is sacred and holy and all other texts (other than the TR itself, the few documents Erasmus used in producing the TR, and the KJV )are corrupt and perverse. This “wide gulf” only exists in light of the KJV/ TR only movement. Aside from the harsh attacks of this group/movement there is virtually no disagreements upon which texts are closest to the original and the differences among them.

This gulf can be traced back to Hort’s claim that family A (or the “Syrian” family as he disparagingly called it) was worthless...
No, this gulf can be traced back to Burgon…the founder of the KJV only movement. There is virtually no disagreement outside the KJV only movement.
Let me reiterate this so as to ensure we are both crystal clear. My article is not founded on whether or not Hort believed family A to be vile.


Then why include it in your article? Why take the quote out of context? Why ask me the following in this thread:
Please, PLEASE could you explain to me once and for all why Hort called the TR "vile" if the differences between it and his text are unimportant?

It is founded rather on the fact of the fundamental gulf in attitude towards family A that exists among scholars today and which derives from Hort’s belief that this family was absolutely valueless for the purposes of textual criticism.
Hort and virtually all scholar (outside the KJV only movement) agree that Erasmus had only a handful of relatively modern texts to work with. They all believe that it contained many errors. This is a different from their view of the Syrian family as a whole. Hort believe the TR to be “vile” as you admitted. To say anything more is based unfounded accusations. It is also ridiculous to say that there is a “wide gulf” between two sides simply because he believed Syrian family was not the closest to the original. We find no such idea that he felt harshly towards them nor can we find any evidence that he belied the difference between the four texts were “serious” or “major”.

You say I am again “deceiving” merely because I have tried to find a simple way of communicating the number of places where the text differs between the two families. Since no two MSS are identical, it is hard to decide on a representative figure. As the solution to this problem, I chose to give the number of differences between the two most famous (and most revered by their respective camps) representatives of these text-types. Why is this not a valid approach in such an article? What better option was open to me (apart from adding a clarifying note beyond the unambiguous one I already provide, that is)? Besides, in what way does this simplification of mine alter the outcome of Part 2a one jot?


The numbers you gave were between the King James Version and the Revised Version. The KJV are based on the TR which according to virtually all scholars outside the KJV only movement believes Erasmus only had a handful of texts that were relatively modern. I apologize if your honestly were not trying to be deceptive but I fail to see how these are accurate of the respective families. The KJV accurate of family A?

You term as “very deceiving” my decision to relate a few select statements about the TR to family A as a whole. I will point out once again that the TR is extremely representative of the family A text-type. Even your Wikipedia article accepts that the TR is “Byzantine”.
I called they very deceiving because you say here that they have nothing to do with the purpose of the article yet you included them in the article. Why? Because I believe you were trying to give readers the impression that this “wide gulf” is larger and more serious than it is.

In his book Revision Revised, Burgon described the family A text as “virtually identical with the Textus Receptus”. I have given you repeated opportunities to check if the TR is a fair example to use when needing to make general statements about the family A text-type. You have so far produced no evidence that it is not. (Just because Burgon didn’t see the TR as *perfect* in no way implies he thought it unrepresentative of family A, as the preceding quote proves!)
This is why I find your article confusing, because you use so many different terms without clarifying. If you mean strictly the “Syrian” and don’t include the “Alexandrian, Western or Neutral” texts aka. Pre-Syrian texts then I can’t disagree with that. Not that I agree; I just haven’t studied this particular topic enough.

BTW1: It was in a private letter that Hort called the TR “vile” (and also “villainous”). Why was he more measured in his language (at least to the public) subsequently? By far the most probable reason is that he wanted to avoid offending the populace who had been brought up on a translation based on family A and who would have been much more likely to question his profound opposition to that text-type if he had been too rude about it. He well knew that, if they looked into this whole matter closely enough, they would find plenty of reasons to reject his work
Not necessarily. Don’t you think he had good reason to considering the reaction of Burgon? Don’t you think Hort had good reason too regardless of whether Burgon was right or wrong?



In view of all the above, it is patently valid for my article to take the approach it has. If you disagree, please could you spell out why? What difference does my approach actually make to the logical progression of the article? I think the problem may lie with your interpretation of the purpose of the article. You write, “Your article if I understand you correctly is to show that there are two sets of texts … [and that] one is corrupt and the other isn't.” I’m afraid you have viewed the article the wrong way around. As I have stated previously, the purpose of the article is to explain why the gulf exists between the two parties. The side-effects, or resultant finds, from that investigation are something you'll simply have to come to terms with. But even if I had had other motives for writing the article, you have still not explained why the simplifications I have employed change the outcome of that article.
Your article attempts to explain why this gulf exists so that you can steer people towards the KJV. This is why you don’t just stop there and explain the two views of textual criticism but go on to try and explain why “family A” is superior to “family B”. This is also why in your part 2b you give many examples of family B’s problems and end it with this:
As mentioned earlier, there are further reasons to reject Bible which rely on family B. God-willing we shall come to these in the next two articles along with added reasons why this matter is so serious. However, if you are already convinced that you ought to reconsider your current Bible versions, the following note offers some guidance.

Among other things, Part 3 will show that the logical conclusion of approaching textual criticism from a godly, rather than a worldly, standpoint is to use a Bible translation made from (a) the Textus Receptus (or TR) for the Greek part of Scripture, 33 and (b) the “Masoretic” Hebrew for the remainder of the Bible.
Please Note: I am horrified that you have called my articles “very deceiving”. They are not! But even if, regardless of all that I have written above, you are determined to believe I have employed deception, this still doesn’t necessarily invalidate the key arguments used in the article (let alone its overall conclusions) - despite what you claim.
I never meant to accuse you of purposefully deceiving people. I actually believe you have good intentions. However, your article is very deceiving in that its main purpose is not to “simply show that a wide gulf” exists but the end purpose is to convert people to your view that the KJV is God’s only true Word in the English language. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what other version would you be hinting at when you said it needs to be based on the TR and the Masoretic texts? If there are others that are please let me know, maybe I’ll find them easier to understand. When asked about his you refused to answer, only adding to the perception that you have something to hide. It is not my intention to hurt or offend you, but I also believe you article is divisive and the end purpose is divisive and wrong. I don’t believe the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language. Millions of Christians use bibles that are accurate and don’t doubt that they have God’s word in their possession, but then articles like yours come around and cause doubt. This is wrong. I would love for nothing more than to see your articles removed (at least 2a & 2b) and to have Jim delete this topic. I could care less if anyone ever reads this. I am not trying to make people hate you or stop trusting you.

If all deception used during an activity automatically invalidates that activity then you are going to have to rebuke a lot of God’s People when you get to heaven. The number of them who were blessed by God for deceiving people for righteous reasons is legion. Among the many I could cite are Rahab, Jael, Joseph, the Hebrew midwives, David, Ehud, and Solomon. (I am assuming you have a reasonable working knowledge of God’s Word, but please don’t hesitate to shout if you need specific verses to prove my observation here.)
Shall we sin that grace may abound?
You suggest I have not been suitably upfront about my simplifications, yet you yourself have previously quoted the section in my article where I unambiguously state (a) that some simplification has been necessary, and (b) that “I sometimes relate comments made specifically about manuscript ‘B’ simply to family B, and likewise I sometimes relate comments about the Textus Receptus (a Greek text derived from family A ...) to the whole of family A”. I suppose one could argue that this has not been upfront enough, but since (i) the simplifications are entirely reasonable and do not alter the outcome of the piece, and (ii) inserting notes whenever I used a simplification would have made the document significantly more complicated than it already is, I still believe I was suitably upfront. (However, I have never claimed the document is perfect so I’ll happily revisit the text in this regard in order to help keep folks like yourself onboard in the future.)
I don’t think your intentions are “to deceive” people. I believe your intention are good, just misguided. Your articles are deceiving even if it wasn’t your intentions.
In order to show my goodwill, I have decided to let a number of obvious and non-trivial errors in your latest posts go unmentioned at this stage. (If you’d like details just say the word.) But there are a couple of things I feel I can’t ignore…
I sincerely appreciate that.
You quote Kenyon declaring that “No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading”. You appear to be ignoring the whole of Part 2b when you do so!
I don’t agree that there are serious errors in dispute. What I mean is I believe that there are many good English translations available. I think your articles have some good points and would be very good if it wasn’t for the view towards the TR only / family A only. One example is the TNIV. It is a gender neutral version. The translators say it’s more accurate and the masculine pronouns aren’t that important. I agree with you that every word is important and should be translated as accurately as possible. I think that has happened with many English bible. We only disagree on which texts or bibles contain these errors.
Please can we stick to questions directly relevant to my articles as per the title of this thread? Not only does it help to make the thread intelligible to others, it also helps me to keep up
I believed the question was applicable to the topic.
You remark that you are “not a scholar” and I presume you say this in order to explain your errors and to encourage me to be patient with you. However, I ought to point out with all due respect that if someone isn’t a scholar it is very important for them to be extra careful in the reasoning they offer. It is also crucial for such people to avoid making bold assertions until they’ve done the necessary homework.
Let me explain how the learning process works. You start with beliefs about certain things and in your mind they are correct (or else you wouldn’t believe them to be true). As you study you learn more, correct errors and affirm that other beliefs were correct. You admit where you are wrong and this process continues. Hopefully getting more accurate as time goes on. It appears you like to take advantage of my willingness to admit when I’m wrong and accuse me of not doing my homework. You assume because I don’t agree with you that I’m not doing my homework.
Finally, please can I also ask you to fight the temptation to come to my articles with any preconceptions? Such will only make this thread even more painful than it already is for everyone concerned Thanks muchas.
I asked you about the KJV. Let me ask you a question….Did you write the articles without any preconceptions of which bible or bibles you want people to believe as God’s Word after reading your article or was it simply to show two views of textual criticism?
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi there Zach. Thanks for your last two postings. I greatly appreciate their gentler tone. Here’s a response to the first msg. I plan to reply to the second one in due course.

:arrow: You say, “I'm not side stepping. I thought I would see if you would admit what I've accused you of. You are a devout believer that the KJV is God's only true Word in the English language.”

Firstly, there exists a range of views among those who believe that the Masoretic Hebrew and the Textus Receptus Greek represent the God-fearing “streams” of God’s Word. A fair proportion of the folks in this camp would recognize English translations other than the KJV as being rooted in these two streams - such as the Tyndale and Bishop’s bibles. In other words, I’m not sure why you *insist* I am “a devout believer that the KJV is God's only true Word in the English language”.

Secondly, I have already explained why I am not in a position to confirm or deny your accusation. As I clearly state in Part 2a, “Some readers may be curious as to why I haven’t yet distanced myself from those people who have taken an unbalanced position at the other end of the spectrum [i.e. the other end from those who “lean towards” family B]. It needs to be recognized that these articles are not only designed to warn supporters of family B but to bring the truth to everyone whose standpoint doesn’t fit the facts, regardless of where they are on the spectrum. Just as I have striven to avoid challenging folks on the side of family B until it was necessary, [so] I am dealing with those who hold to other viewpoints in like manner” [p. 15]. Put another way, I am not at liberty to reveal my personal stance yet because, no matter what that stance is, it will unnecessarily repulse people I (and you!) want to help.

Thirdly, you do indeed seem to be trying to side-step my articles. As I have said before, they should be judged on their merits, not on my motivation for writing them or on any other criterion. Even if I were an orang-utan and had randomly typed articles 2a and 2b in a fit of banana-rage, it wouldn’t make the articles any less true. It does look to me like you are merely hunting around for any reason at all, even if patently illegitimate, to avoid facing up to the content of those articles :roll:

Let’s take another hypothetical case and imagine I am at the most extreme point of the pro-TR spectrum and that I did indeed write the articles with the sole purpose of getting people to join me in that worldview. What difference would that make to the truthfulness or otherwise of the articles themselves?

:arrow: You then write, “If I understood things correctly Hort didn't believe in 2 families, he believed in 4 families which is still acknowledged by scholars today.”

Firstly, I am glad you’ve been doing some extra research :wink: However, as part of your research it may be an idea for you to read my articles properly too! I plainly state in Part 2a, “[M]anuscripts are commonly said to fall into three or four, or even more, different groups or ‘families’ [p. 3]. (Please don't hesitate to show me where I have ever claimed that Hort believed in the existence of only 2 families.)

Secondly, I fear it is a little misleading to say that Hort’s view on this matter is “still acknowledged by scholars today”. For a start, some scholars (e.g. Wilbur Pickering) do not believe in the idea of families at all (as I again explained on page 3 of Part 2a). Other authorities, as I mentioned in the quote above, believe there to be more than four families [Hugh Dunton, Bible Versions, 1998, p. 57]. Finally, Hort’s specific family categorizations are not widely accepted today, even among his supporters [Ibid].

:arrow: You also write, “There are however two camps as you say regarding these four families (The TR/KJV ONLY VS. Western, Alexandrian & Neutral)”

I appreciate your acknowledgement of this. The parenthetic section in your statement here is a little simplified (you see, simplification is sometimes appropriate!), but it does at least highlight the fundamental opposition in one of the camps to the Byzantine family. Hence my articles!
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Zach, thank you for the opportunity to catch up. In the next 24 hours I plan to come to most, if not all, of the key arguments in your latest posting. However, I reckon a number of those arguments threaten to obscure the core issue of this thread so I’d like to suggest we all just take stock for a moment. It seems to me that the “bottom line” can be summed up in two statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong…

(1) Among scholars today there exists a fundamental gulf in attitude towards family A (the Byzantine family). One camp sees it as the true family (i.e. the product of sincere, Bible-revering folks down through the centuries). The other camp, as you yourself now admit, essentially sees it as "irrelevant for establishing the original text". Likewise there exists a serious gulf in attitude towards family B (the Alexandrian family as it is known today). I would suggest that, at least when combined, these differences of opinion constitute a rather large gulf in attitude towards these two families. Part 2a in my series of articles was designed to get to the bottom of this gulf in attitude. People can argue until they are blue in the face that scholars on one side of the debate claim the thousands of differences between the respective text-types to all be minor (yet another significant difference in attitude between the two camps!), but their view on this matter is surely immaterial to the logical steps in Part 2a.

(2) In order to get to the bottom of this huge gulf in attitude, I obviously needed to compare Hort’s and Burgon’s very different approaches to textual criticism - given that their respective approaches are foundational to the position held by scholars in each of the two camps today. So that’s what I did. (Put simply, it doesn’t matter to the logical steps of Part 2a whether or not Hort believed the family A text-type to be “vile”. It is more than enough that he publicly accused it of showing “no marks of either critical or spiritual insight” and that he publicly said “…all distinctively Syrian [i.e. Byzantine] readings may be set aside at once, certainly originating after the middle of the third century” [Introduction, p. 117], and that he publicly declared “The ‘Syrian Text’ must in fact be the result of a ‘Recension’”. Plainly, a major gulf in attitude towards these families of text existed between these two scholars.)

In view of the above, it would be good if we could at some point get on to dealing with the actual steps in argumentation I offer in Part 2a :shock:

Incidentally, I would be grateful if you could revisit your latest posting. Among other problems, it seems to me that it contains a number of illogicalities. I would also be very grateful if you could find some time to look a little more widely at the background to the Textus Receptus. For instance, there is a lot of post-Erasmus history to the TR. Thanks.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi again Zach. Here is the first installment of my responses to your large recent posting.

TERMS?
You say, “I find your article confusing, because you use so many different terms without clarifying”...

Firstly, I honestly don’t see how I can be accused of using “so many different terms” in the article. As far as I recall, I scrupulously used only the terms “family A” and “family B” throughout the entire article. (By the way, I did likewise in this BB thread too until someone who shall remain nameless started using other names for these two families on 17th January!) As to the charge that I use terms “without clarifying”, you are perhaps forgetting the point early on in my article where I specifically say: “Among other names, family A is frequently called the ‘Syrian’ or ‘Byzantine’ …. Family B is often called the … ‘Alexandrian’ family.” I’m not sure how much more “clarifying” I can sensibly be 8)

One of the difficulties I faced in writing the article was that the categorization of families has changed since Hort’s day. For example, few scholars refer to the “Neutral” family any more, and what Hort meant by the “Alexandrian” family is not what we mean by this term today. Perhaps you are beginning to see why I felt I had to simplify a couple of things!

WHY?
You still seem exercised, despite its desperately limited relevance to the rest of the article, by my decision to reveal something of the extraordinary extent of Hort’s hatred for the TR...

For a start, you ask “Why take the quote out of context?”. Firstly, I unambiguously explained in the article itself that I was relating some comments about the TR to family A as a whole, so there was at least some hint at the full context. Secondly (and as I keep having to say!), the TR is highly representative of family A. It comprises a text which Burgon called “virtually identical” to the family A text-type. Thus, if Hort believed the edition of the TR he was reading (an edition which, incidentally, would have been considerably more refined than any of the [five] editions published by Erasmus), to be “vile” and “villainous”, he certainly can’t have had a vastly higher opinion of the family A text-type. What I am saying is that I considered - and still consider - that the “vile” reference was fair and balanced in the context in which I gave it, especially in view of my decision to omit the word “villainous”.

Please Note: As we have both agreed, Hort believed that replacing the TR with the W&H Greek text would be so momentous as to cause a whole “new period in church history”. Please could you show me even just one of the differences between the relevant edition of the TR and the Greek text produced by Westcott and Hort that could possibly justify such an earth-shattering statement? If you continue to fail to do so, you may find some readers of this thread being tempted to apply the “very deceiving” label to yourself :(

You also ask, regarding the “vile” quote, “why include it in your article?”. I have already discussed this more than a fortnight ago on this thread. I said there, “I did this to try and encourage people to keep reading my article, but I shall reconsider my approach to this particular task in the light of Zach's input.” If it will help, let me develop my reasoning: Firstly the quote is at least germane to Hort’s true feelings about family A and is a simplification which does not change anything in the rest of the article. Secondly, the references to “vile” and to a “new period in church history” were included in order to encourage readers to persevere with my article. Many of these folks have been brought up with the claim that the differences between the two key families are minor – which understandably gets in the way of any desire these souls might have to look into the issue properly.

I hope the above is all suitably clarifying :)

P.S. As I noted in Part 2b, Hort said of the differences between the TR and the W&H Greek, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..." Similarly, I quoted Westcott whose view was, "the value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of its passages, which bear upon some article of Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive ...". Minor huh?
Last edited by Dusty on Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

This wide gulf is one sided. The KJV only crowd is trying to attack the other. The scholars today, use an eclectic approach meaning they use a variety of texts. The field has changed over the last 100+ years since those quotes by Burgon and Hort. As you acknowledge, finally, that most scholars don't hold to the same families as Hort. These scholars could care less about "rejecting" the TR or Byzantine texts. As I first mention in the beginning of this thread, scholars today are in the middle but lean towards side B. Pickering confirms this. We are left with the KJV only crowd one again trying to twist the fact and only tell half the truth in order to convince people the differences are not minor and therefore we must choose the KJV. This topic is not a two sided debate, it's an attack by one group on the other. A group who's beliefs of textual criticism if founded and driven by "speculation" and "theories" of what Christian would have done 1300-1800 years previous rather than the facts. This also lead into all sorts of other conspiracy theories. This quote from wikipedia is accurate:
KJO arguments typically involve many logical fallacies in their reasoning. The most salient is begging the question. The initial assumption that the KJV text is superior drives all other arguments. Therefore, selection bias and selective thinking dominate most KJO discussion. Many KJO arguments are similar to those of tax protesters and holocaust deniers in how evidence is interpreted in a way that creates an alternate interpretation of reality. (In common with holocaust deniers, KJO advocates employ a blizzard of statistics in support of their position.) The logical fallacy of guilt by association is often used to lump modern translations in with the Jehovah's Witness translation, the New World Translation, because the NWT (like all modern versions) is based on the modern, critical text. Rebuttal of KJO arguments must show that the logical fallicies are being employed and why arguments are fallacious.

Rebuttal of KJO arguments is also difficult for two reasons:

1. The KJO position has been honed over the three decades of the modern KJO movement (dating from Which Bible? in the 1970s) into a series of talking points anyone can quickly understand. Rebuttal to these points requires long responses which require scholarly training in textual criticism which are beyond the understanding of the audiences.
2. Bible translators and scholars consider modern Bible translations to be demonstrably better than the KJV, so they maintain that there is nothing to defend from their position. Modern scholarly response to this movement is rare. A few scholars, such as Comfort and Carson, have tried to write books for laypeople about this issue.

People holding the KJO position are typically closed-minded, and do not tend to listen to arguments presented by the other side. A hardcore KJO advocate is typified by simply being unable to accept that someone could listen to their advocacy and not accept it.

Simply advocacy of the KJO position often overlaps with conspiracy theory, particularly in its assertion or adumbration that all modern Bible versions are the product of untrustworthy people working to undermine historical Christianity. Conspiracy theorists in the King James Only movement include the Underground Christian Network (they have a presentation on SermonAudio.com which promotes the view that all modern Bible versions are the result of a New Age conspiracy) and Gail A. Riplinger whose book New Age Bible Versions presents the same basic view. Certainly, not all KJO advocates are the same. There is a continuum from those who simply prefer the King James text all the way to the hardcore conspiracy theorists.

This brings me back to your argument that your position doesn't matter. It does matter but even all that set aside, I have one more reason not to trust that the KJV only movement is right. You will know a tree by it's fruit. I have yet to see the KJV only movement exhibit any kind of spiritual fruit. They are constantly calling names, attacking other and preach the turn or burn type of Gospel. This alone is enough to keep me away. Thanks for the last post but as I mentioned I'm pulling out of this discussion which is why I wont respond to it directly.
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by jimbaum »

Zach,

I don't think it is reasonable to lump Dusty in with "Biblebeliever" who was posting in this discussion board and the author of New Age Bible Versions.

It seems like you get frustrated with trying to discuss with Dusty and then just start attacking him personally accusing him of being King James Only and a conspiracy theorist.

There is a variety of views on these things. There are some who might not like NIV because of dynamic equivalency but they might support NASB. There are some who prefer KJV but are attacked by both KJV only people and modern translation defenders at the same time.

Let's discuss issues without intentionally putting people down personally.

I agree that most of the KJV only people I've known come across as you describe, but you are coming across like that now.

We ought to persevere with one another in love.

Jim
Locked