[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #609
b-greek-digest Sunday, 12 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 609
In this issue:
Re: UBS Text
Re: UBS Text
Re: Bibliography request (Lutzelberger)
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: UBS Text
Re: UBS Text
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 01:25:41 -0400
Subject: Re: UBS Text
>I have found myself dragged into this entire argument due to my encounter
>with one Gail Riplinger a few years ago. To make a long story short, I have
>a book coming out from Bethany House Publishers, possibly as soon as next
>Friday, entitled _The King James Only Controversy_. The work is 303 pages in
>length, and deals extensively with the entire issue. Unlike most KJV Only
>advocates I have encountered (I do not know if you would be included as such
>a person or not) who write and publish books on the topic, I attempted to
>garner "peer review" of my work. Here is what I received in return:
Well sir, I am impressed with those who have reviewed your book. I
am eager to read what you have to say, and if it is at all possible I would
love to obtain a copy to add to my library.
I am from Pensacola, Florida, but am in no way affliated with Dr.
Peter Ruckman (as you are most likely familure with), or his institution. I
hold to the fact that the Authorized Version is the most superior version
available at the present time. This is true only because it is not based on
the Ecclectic/ Critical Text. In B-GREEK, I have purposefully avoided
dragging the ole King Jimmy into the subject, because of the taintings that
people like Ruckman, and others that wrongfully believe in Secondary
Inspiration. I don't think I would have a problem with another English
Translation, just as long as it uses the correct Greek Text (i.e. The
Traditional Text).
Sir, please forgive me if I seem to be polemic on this issue. I am
not normally polemic, and have found that arguing/ fighting does not change
people's minds =). My previous posts have been a bit steamy, and I am making
a point to curb my zeal for the truth - - not to allow error, mind you, but
to make sure that if a person is offended, they are offended from Scripture,
and not from my personal words.
I hold to the Traditional Text. Not because I think Erasmus was a
good ole' boy and that he was perfect, but because I am convinced that God
has promised to preserve His word (literal words). If this is true, then I
need to look at the Greek Texts and then with a lot of prayer and guidance
from the Holy Spirit, I need to hold to the Text that I _will_ be held
accountable to by God. My hobby is Textual Criticism, and I teach Greek at a
small college here in Pensacola (NOT Ruckman's thank you! ::grin:: He has
already tagged me as a heretic, and I avoid the gentleman as much as possible).
>was inevitable. I have been the most active Protestant debating Roman
>Catholic scholars in the US for a few years now, and have also been very
>active in evangelizing Mormons for years as well.
Praise God, and I wish you all success; I hope and pray that God is
glorified through your work.
> Texe Marrs has already identified me as a "servant of Satan," Gail Riplinger
>says I'm a "rude, crude heretic," and Peter Ruckman told me to "blow it out
>your nose." Such lovely folks are involved in this discussion . . . . :)
I am sorry to say that many brothers and sisters in Christ (on both
sides of the camp) have a tendency to be "crude." I have caught myself
moving in that direction, and am praying (and working) that it does not
happen again. Even though I have convictions about certain people, it
doesn't profit anyone to air these specific oppinions until absolutely
necessary (and with documented proof). Please, keep in mind though, we are
not all Ruckmanites (as they are called in P-cola) nor do all
_KJV_Only_People_ agree 100% with Gail Riplinger (I am personally convinced
that someone can get saved with an NIV, or ASV [dare I even say.... a Living
Bible <grin>], as easily as they can get saved through the use of a tract -
- - because they all contain the Word of God [though they are not THE WORD OF
GOD]).
>All of that aside, I wanted to address each of your assertions. First, with
>reference to "mistakes," by what standard do you judge these to be "mistakes"?
... snip ....
>Next you repeat the charge that there is a "consistent doctrinal pattern" to
>the "mistakes" in Aleph and B. While I have heard that said many times, my
>own study of the texts has failed to provide any substantiation of this
>charge. Might you provide me with something *other than* the charge that the
>more ancient texts lack the "expansion of piety" that is found in the
>Byzantine tradition? Specifically, everyone knows that piety brought people
>to expand "Jesus" to "Lord Jesus," and "Lord Jesus" to "Lord Jesus Christ,"
>etc. But what really solid evidence do you have that the modern texts have a
>*doctrinal* bias?
Oh, I am familure with the "Mark 1:1" type of passages that you are
referring to and even though I _do_ believe that these are examples of
heretical tampering, I do not consider them to be the greatest of the errors.
You and I both know that there are two main groupings of textual
problems - those that are easily seen as slips of the scribe or worn marks
of the texts, and those which are intentional changes. As with the
intentional changes, there are some that were done through innocence <?>,
and those that were malicious in nature. These last changes I believe can be
seen in Codices Aleph and B.
As a historian, you know that during the first 100 years after the
completion of the Scriptures, many heretical factions rose up and tried to
claim to be the true and pure sect of Christianity. Reading many of the
Ante-Nicean Fathers I have found that some of these heretics have even taken
the Scriptures and have edited them to fit their own dogmas [Marcion during
A.D. 150 comes to mind as one example .... the ole boy didn't care too much
for Paul's writings I guess...].
Anyways, getting back to the matter, Arianism flourished in
Alexandria, Egypt during the 4th century. I personally believe that Origin
was the true father of Arianism (because Origin liked to mix Greek philosphy
{Platonic??} with Christianity, Athanasius thought so during the Nicean
Council of 325, and because Origin's disciple, Eusebius, was a semi-Arian),
but the tag went to Arius. Arianism denied the deity of Christ, and I find
it interesting that a MS that comes out of Alexandria, during this time
period, has many "corrections" that pertain to Christ's deity [Matthew 5:22,
Luke 2:22, 2:33, Mark 1:1, John 1:18, etc.].
I admit, some of this is conjecture. What I have done was take the
known facts, and compile them together. The truth will never completely be
known until we get to glory. But what I have drawn up does fit history, and
it does make sense. BUT this compilation of facts is NOT why I hold to the
Traditional Text or the Authorized Version. It just solidifies a dogma that
I am settled in.
>I truly am looking for folks who can *rationally* defend the KJV Only
>position. I have debated Dr. Waite, and while he is a fine man and a very
>nice person, any person who listens to the tapes has to admit that he was
>very long on faith, very short on substance. Perhaps you will be able to do
>more? I truly hope so. I look forward to your reply.
James, I hold to the Traditional Text because God has promised to
preserve His Word. I believe that, and it's settled. I find that many who
hold to the Critical Text question the Preservation of the Word of God. This
is very dangerous, because it will lead to doubting the innerency, and then
the Inspiration of the Scriptures. Please, remember Colossians 2:8 - don't
be spoiled by the vain philosophies of man. Dr. Waite might be long on
faith, but II Corinthians 5:7 says - we walk by faith and not by sight.
It's important to use scholasticism in our studies, but when it
starts to supercede faith, we run the risk of becoming spiritually
shipwrecked. I don't have all the answers to the questions pertaining to
doctrine of Preservation, but that doesn't stop me from clinging to that truth.
+ In Psalm 12:6-7 God shows us that His words are pure, and that He will
preserve them.
+ In Psalm 119:89-90 we see that God's Word is settled forever.
+ In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus says that the Law (God's Word) will be preserved
down to the yod's and tittles. If any brother or sister teaches anyone to
break the commands of our God, they WILL be counted the least in the kingdom
of God.
+ In I Peter 1:23-24 compares the temporal glory of man with the eternal
glory of God's Word.
How do I handle the matter of all the variations between the
Byzantine MSS? I don't know. I havn't fully researched the extent of these
specific differences, but for me to drop the doctrine of Preservation over
something small like that, would be comperable to becoming an evolutionist
because I cannot fully understand DNA variances. There comes a time when
faith picks up where knowledge leaves off (Hebrews 11:6 - for without faith,
it is impossible to please [God]).
This matter of the Greek Texts is vitally important today. During
the 1800's the church swallowed the fabrications of Darwin, and attempted to
mix Scripture with evolutionism (remember the Gap Theory?). At the same time
period, the church also swallowed the teachings of Hort, who developed the
Ecclectic Method which uses the wisdom of man to determine the eternal Word
of God. Praise God for people like Whitcomb and Morris, who God used to turn
His church back to the truths of God (creationism). May He raise up men who
will bring the church back to the Word of God rather than to believe that
man is wise enough to determine the "lost" text of Scripture.
>You can post it in B-Greek, if you wish, since, hopefully, I will be
getting mail runs >regularly now.
I'll do just that. If the moderator hollars at me for being off topic, I'll
point him in your direction <grin>.
>James White, B.A., M.A.
>Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries
- --
John Calvin Hall
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
`O doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 19:04:40 -0500
Subject: Re: UBS Text
< Well sir, I am impressed with those who have reviewed your book. I
am eager to read what you have to say, and if it is at all possible I would
love to obtain a copy to add to my library.>
The book should ship late this week or early next, and will be very easily
obtainable, I'm happy to say. And, what is even better, Bethany House has
kept the book quite affordable. I am happy to say that the 303 page book
will cost only $9.99. These days that isn't half bad.
< I am from Pensacola, Florida, but am in no way affliated with Dr.
Peter Ruckman (as you are most likely familure with), or his institution. I
hold to the fact that the Authorized Version is the most superior version
available at the present time. This is true only because it is not based on
the Ecclectic/ Critical Text. In B-GREEK, I have purposefully avoided
dragging the ole King Jimmy into the subject, because of the taintings that
people like Ruckman, and others that wrongfully believe in Secondary
Inspiration. I don't think I would have a problem with another English
Translation, just as long as it uses the correct Greek Text (i.e. The
Traditional Text).>
Your position seems to be very much akin to Dr. Waite's, am I correct? He is
not a Ruckmanite, but believes the KJV to be the best English translation,
and the TR the best Greek text. Would that be a fair assessment of your
view?
< Sir, please forgive me if I seem to be polemic on this issue. I am
not normally polemic, and have found that arguing/ fighting does not change
people's minds =). My previous posts have been a bit steamy, and I am making
a point to curb my zeal for the truth - - not to allow error, mind you, but
to make sure that if a person is offended, they are offended from Scripture,
and not from my personal words.>
Believe me, in comparison with the posts I've been getting in private e-mail
from folks at PBI, your posts were almost comatose. :)
< I hold to the Traditional Text. Not because I think Erasmus was a
good ole' boy and that he was perfect, but because I am convinced that God
has promised to preserve His word (literal words). If this is true, then I
need to look at the Greek Texts and then with a lot of prayer and guidance
from the Holy Spirit, I need to hold to the Text that I _will_ be held
accountable to by God. My hobby is Textual Criticism, and I teach Greek at a
small college here in Pensacola (NOT Ruckman's thank you! ::grin:: He has
already tagged me as a heretic, and I avoid the gentleman as much as
possible).>
Regarding Ruckman, that is probably a good idea (i.e., avoiding him). I
won't be able to do that, however, and have decided to "take the bull by the
horns" so to speak, and will be issuing a debate challenge to him as soon as
I can send my book along with the challenge. Should prove interesting. :)
As to the Traditional Text, as you know, the phrase is ambiguous. Do you
refer to the TR with this phrase, or to the broader Majority Text? Surely
you know that the Majority Text differs from the TR in many places. And if
you speak of the TR, which one? Which of Erasmus' five editions? Stephanus?
Beza? Or the eclectic text created by the KJV translators as they chose
between variations in the above texts?
Most importantly, do you believe the TR should be changed in those places
where it is quite obviously in error? I mean, we have conjectural
emendations made by Beza, and importations from the Vulgate that don't have
enough Greek support to fill a single line of text. Indeed, such "popular"
variations as "through His blood" at Colossians 1:14 are obvious instances of
errors in the TR. Would you support a revision of the TR so as to bring it
into conformity, at least, with the Majority Text?
>was inevitable. I have been the most active Protestant debating Roman
>Catholic scholars in the US for a few years now, and have also been very
>active in evangelizing Mormons for years as well.
<Praise God, and I wish you all success; I hope and pray that God is
glorified through your work.>
I pray for the same thing. My next debate will be a four-hour affair at
Boston College on April 22nd. Subject: the Papacy. Well, that is if you
don't count the time I'll be spending on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City after
the LDS General Conference in a few weeks. My 22nd consecutive trip to the
Conference to pass out tracts and witness to people. As you can see, I don't
live a boring life. :)
> Texe Marrs has already identified me as a "servant of Satan," Gail
Riplinger
>says I'm a "rude, crude heretic," and Peter Ruckman told me to "blow it out
>your nose." Such lovely folks are involved in this discussion . . . . :)
< I am sorry to say that many brothers and sisters in Christ (on both
sides of the camp) have a tendency to be "crude.">
While there may be those who have responded in kind to the writings of
Ruckman, Riplinger, etc., I must say that I believe such behavior is so
common amongst KJV Only advocates as to be descriptive of a majority of the
movement. Take Gail Riplinger as an example. It seems from what you have
said that you have read her book. Personally, I have spent years reading and
studying the materials produced by such groups as the LDS Church and the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I've seen some pretty bad works in my
time (the Watchtower's Trinity booklet comes to mind as an example of how to
misrepresent the truth while sounding like you are simply presenting a
scholarly position). But I've never seen a work like _New Age Bible
Versions_. It's almost as if Mrs. Riplinger can't quote a scholar with whom
she disagrees correctly. It's truly incredible. I've never seen a work
filled with more errors of citation, logic, and fact. New standards are set
for double-standards and hypocrisy. Yet, I have found only one person who
can truly be called "KJV Only" who has had the courage of his convictions and
come out and spoken the truth about this book. That was David Cloud. Most
others have either ignored the work or tacitly endorsed it by looking past
the incredible errors of this interior-designer turned textual critic.
Now, I wouldn't care if Gail Riplinger was in agreement with my beliefs 100%
of the time. If I saw someone engaging in the kind of constant
misrepresentation that is the hallmark of _NABV_, I would HAVE to speak out
if for no other reason than simple honesty. And yet despite the repeated
documentation of error after error on her part, many KJV Only advocates
continue to hold their tongue. This strikes me as an example of allegiance
to a belief that compromises the very truth allegedly defended by that
belief.
< Please, keep in mind though, we are
not all Ruckmanites (as they are called in P-cola) nor do all
_KJV_Only_People_ agree 100% with Gail Riplinger (I am personally convinced
that someone can get saved with an NIV, or ASV [dare I even say.... a Living
Bible <grin>], as easily as they can get saved through the use of a tract -
- - because they all contain the Word of God [though they are not THE WORD OF
GOD]).>
I know you are not all Ruckmanites. It takes some real work to earn that
name. :) But do you indicate by the above that the KJV is THE WORD OF GOD
while an NASB, for example, is not?
>All of that aside, I wanted to address each of your assertions. First, with
>reference to "mistakes," by what standard do you judge these to be
"mistakes"?
... snip ....
>Next you repeat the charge that there is a "consistent doctrinal pattern" to
>the "mistakes" in Aleph and B. While I have heard that said many times, my
>own study of the texts has failed to provide any substantiation of this
>charge. Might you provide me with something *other than* the charge that
the
>more ancient texts lack the "expansion of piety" that is found in the
>Byzantine tradition? Specifically, everyone knows that piety brought people
>to expand "Jesus" to "Lord Jesus," and "Lord Jesus" to "Lord Jesus Christ,"
>etc. But what really solid evidence do you have that the modern texts have
a
>*doctrinal* bias?
< Oh, I am familure with the "Mark 1:1" type of passages that you are
referring to and even though I _do_ believe that these are examples of
heretical tampering, I do not consider them to be the greatest of the errors.
>
OK, but what direct evidence do you have that these are, in fact, examples of
"heretical tampering"? Or to put it another way, is it possible, to your way
of thinking, that the phrase "huiou theou" could be an *addition* to the
text? Can you admit the possibility that a later scribe might have inserted
the phrase out of piety? If not, why not?
< You and I both know that there are two main groupings of textual
problems - those that are easily seen as slips of the scribe or worn marks
of the texts, and those which are intentional changes.>
I'm not sure I would draw such a neat line.
< As with the
intentional changes, there are some that were done through innocence <?>,
and those that were malicious in nature. These last changes I believe can be
seen in Codices Aleph and B.>
Why just those two? Would you also include P46, P66, and P75 as well?
< As a historian, you know that during the first 100 years after the
completion of the Scriptures, many heretical factions rose up and tried to
claim to be the true and pure sect of Christianity. Reading many of the
Ante-Nicean Fathers I have found that some of these heretics have even taken
the Scriptures and have edited them to fit their own dogmas [Marcion during
A.D. 150 comes to mind as one example .... the ole boy didn't care too much
for Paul's writings I guess...]. >
Heresy was part and parcel of even the apostolic church, John. The polemic
nature of Galatians, Colossians, and 1 John is sufficient evidence of this.
Heresies were not geographically limited, either. Egypt had no more, or
less, of its share of heresies than any place else, including Antioch or
Rome. As to Marcion, you seem to have him a bit backwards. Marcion had
little *but* Paul in his canon; he simply deleted the references to the Jews.
This went back to his gnostic view of YHWH as a demiurge, but we are getting
a bit far afield now . . . .
< Anyways, getting back to the matter, Arianism flourished in
Alexandria, Egypt during the 4th century.>
Actually, John, Arianism "flourished" primarily in the East, especially
around (gulp) Antioch and its environs. Remember, John, it was Athanasius,
the bishop of (gasp again) Alexandria who was five times driven from his see
for refusing to bow to the wave of Arianism that held most of the church in
its grip during the decades after Nicea. Athanasius, the great defender of
the deity of Christ, normally used a biblical text that was, by and large,
Alexandrian, not Byzantine, in form.
< I personally believe that Origin
was the true father of Arianism (because Origin liked to mix Greek philosphy
{Platonic??} with Christianity, Athanasius thought so during the Nicean
Council of 325, and because Origin's disciple, Eusebius, was a semi-Arian),
but the tag went to Arius. Arianism denied the deity of Christ, and I find
it interesting that a MS that comes out of Alexandria, during this time
period, has many "corrections" that pertain to Christ's deity [Matthew 5:22,
Luke 2:22, 2:33, Mark 1:1, John 1:18, etc.].>
I can't agree with your conclusions, nor with your facts. Origen (note the
sp.) definitely had subordinating tendencies, but he did not follow his ideas
to the conclusions that Arius did. Be that as it may, how do you know where
Aleph or B came from, specifically? And wouldn't it be even more relevant,
if we are to find such things relevant, that these manuscripts, if they did
come from Egypt, were possibly written contemporaneously with the great DEFEND
ER of the deity of Christ, Athanasius? As to the specific passages, what is
your point regarding Matthew 5:22, eike or racha? I cover Luke 2:22 in my
book, but I have to say that I find this a tremendously weak argument. Autou
has miserable support; the TR rejects literally hundreds of readings with
*better* support than this. What is more, would you not admit that there is
a perfectly orthodox understanding of this passage that in no way indicates
sinfulness on the part of Christ? Luke 2:33 is even worse, in my opinion,
than 2:22, since the TR itself uses pater of Joseph at 2:48. If pater at
2:33 somehow impacts the deity of Christ, why doesn't the same term do so at
2:48? And John 1:18 is a plain reference to the deity of Christ, and, in
fact, I would say is a strong evidence of the Trinity, too. The wild
accusations made against the reading of theos at this point by Burgon and his
modern representatives are utterly without merit in my opinion.
< I admit, some of this is conjecture. What I have done was take the
known facts, and compile them together.>
John, while none of us have ALL the facts, might I suggest that there are a
whole lot of other facts that militate against the AV position that you might
wish to give equal weight in your thinking?
< The truth will never completely be
known until we get to glory. But what I have drawn up does fit history, and
it does make sense. BUT this compilation of facts is NOT why I hold to the
Traditional Text or the Authorized Version. It just solidifies a dogma that
I am settled in.>
What if you were to be shown that history does not really fit with your
theory, let alone demand allegiance to it? Might you consider the
possibility that your idea of the MEANS of preservation is not necessitated
by the word of Scripture itself?
< James, I hold to the Traditional Text because God has promised to
preserve His Word. I believe that, and it's settled. I find that many who
hold to the Critical Text question the Preservation of the Word of God. This
is very dangerous, because it will lead to doubting the innerency, and then
the Inspiration of the Scriptures. Please, remember Colossians 2:8 - don't
be spoiled by the vain philosophies of man. Dr. Waite might be long on
faith, but II Corinthians 5:7 says - we walk by faith and not by sight.>
John, if you wish to hold to the "Traditional Text" because your belief in
preservation demands it, that's OK with me. But I see no reason at all why
holding to a particular text type is going to provide you with a *meaningful*
basis for preservation. When I asked Dr. Waite why he believed this or that,
often his only answer was that he "believed" in the superiority of the KJV.
While that's fine, let's not confuse it with being able to really *answer*
the question. You see, I believe God preserved His Word, too, but I don't
believe He did so in one particular text type, modern text, or modern
translation. And one thing I'm certain of: the TR, and indeed the "Majority T
ext," contains errors. Closing one's eyes to those errors because of a
preconceived committment to a particular viewpoint is not worthy of one who
follows the One who surnamed Himself "Truth."
< It's important to use scholasticism in our studies, but when it
starts to supercede faith, we run the risk of becoming spiritually
shipwrecked. I don't have all the answers to the questions pertaining to
doctrine of Preservation, but that doesn't stop me from clinging to that
truth. >
Nor do I wish to encourage you to abandon any beliefs, John. I only encourage
you to be *consistent* in your beliefs.
<+ In Psalm 12:6-7 God shows us that His words are pure, and that He will
preserve them.>
If the passage is actually referring to the words of inspired Scripture (note
the translation of the NIV which gives a perfectly good alternative
translation that I feel fits the context much better), Psalm 12 does not give
us any particular MEANS of preservation.
<+ In Psalm 119:89-90 we see that God's Word is settled forever.>
It is. That doesn't mean that the KJV or the TR is the perfect embodiment
thereof.
<+ In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus says that the Law (God's Word) will be preserved
down to the yod's and tittles. If any brother or sister teaches anyone to
break the commands of our God, they WILL be counted the least in the kingdom
of God.>
And again none of this has anything to do with the TR or the KJV unless you
simply make a blind leap and assign all these passages to the KJV, as many
KJV Only advocates do. But then you have to deal with the problems found in
the text of both the KJV and the TR, and that, in fact, leads one to hang
one's entire spiritual committment to Christ upon the perfection of a
particular translation or text. That is something VERY dangerous as well,
John.
<+ In I Peter 1:23-24 compares the temporal glory of man with the eternal
glory of God's Word.>
No argument, but again: "What does this have to do with Rome?"
< How do I handle the matter of all the variations between the
Byzantine MSS? I don't know.>
I can put down my lamp, I've found my honest man. :) But what is more, what
do you do with TR readings that are not even to be found in the Byzantine
manuscripts?
< I havn't fully researched the extent of these
specific differences, but for me to drop the doctrine of Preservation over
something small like that, would be comperable to becoming an evolutionist
because I cannot fully understand DNA variances. There comes a time when
faith picks up where knowledge leaves off (Hebrews 11:6 - for without faith,
it is impossible to please [God]).>
I'd only suggest that it may be unwise to assign to a belief in a particular
textual theory a "de fide" level of faith. What if I am able to demonstrate
errors in that theory? What would this mean to your faith en toto?
< This matter of the Greek Texts is vitally important today. During
the 1800's the church swallowed the fabrications of Darwin, and attempted to
mix Scripture with evolutionism (remember the Gap Theory?).>
I remember the Gap Theory, and know all sorts of theistic evolutionists. And
while I was the "lone creationist" at the Christian college I attended (I was
a double major, Bible and Biology), one thing is for certain: I have seen the
fruit of the Spirit in the lives of some men I know to be theistic evolutionis
ts while I have seen just the opposite kind of evidence in the lives of men
committed to the KJV as the final and absolute authority.
< At the same time
period, the church also swallowed the teachings of Hort, who developed the
Ecclectic Method which uses the wisdom of man to determine the eternal Word
of God.>
Woops, sorry, John, but I can't let that pass. Have you ever read ANY of
Erasmus' comments on how he arrived at the readings he included in his text,
which you believe to be "preserved"? He used the exact same concepts, the
exact same kinds of arguments, that modern textual scholars use in
determining readings. He compared manuscripts, weighed probabilities,
examined forms--everything. He simply didn't have the rich resources
available to him that we have today. Hence, if using the eclectic method
means you are exalting the wisdom of man over the Word of God, you must, on
the EXACT same basis, reject the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the
KJV translators. If you don't, you are proving yourself inconsistent.
< Praise God for people like Whitcomb and Morris, who God used to turn
His church back to the truths of God (creationism). May He raise up men who
will bring the church back to the Word of God rather than to believe that
man is wise enough to determine the "lost" text of Scripture.>
I'm sorry, John, but your argument is based upon an ignorance of the origin
of the TR, and hence does not hold up to examination.
>You can post it in B-Greek, if you wish, since, hopefully, I will be
getting mail runs >regularly now.
<I'll do just that. If the moderator hollars at me for being off topic, I'll
point him in your direction <grin>.>
Well, I really hope the text of the NT is on topic for this mailing list.
<John Calvin Hall
Pensacola, Florida>
How ironic. :) Being a good Calvinist, I find the latent anti-Reformed
attitude of KJV Only folks, and your place of residence, to be rather
humorous. < grin >
James>>>
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 23:01:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Bibliography request (Lutzelberger)
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, Greg Doudna wrote:
> I would be very grateful if someone could assist in identifying
> and/or locating a copy of the following incomplete reference:
>
> Lutzelberger [first name unknown], _Die Kirchl.
> Tradition uber den Apos. Joh._
>
The reference is:
Lutzelberger, E. C. J. (Ernst Carl Julius). Die kirchliche Tradition uber
den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit
nachgewiesen. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1840.
It is apparently also available Bound with:
Die drei ersten Evangelien / H. Ewald. Gottingen : Dieterichschen, 1850.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: VCBROWN@delphi.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 23:31:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Dear Tim,
> I have always repsected the Byz family, but have felt that the
> conflations, scribal explanatory notes, and lateness of many of the
> Byz mss point to a text less representative of the original text.
Have you read Harry Sturz's The Byzantine Text-type and New Testa-
ment Textual Criticism? Pages 145-159 contain 150 example of readings
that Sturz says are "distinctively Byzantine readings now found to have
early Egyptian papyri supporting them."
Perhaps we should reconsider the latenes of the Byzantine text.
Virgil Brown
VCBrown@Delphi.Com
------------------------------
From: VCBROWN@delphi.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 23:31:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: UBS Text
Dear John,
> Alexandria, Egypt during the 4th century. I personally believe that
> Origin was the true father of Arianism (because Origin liked to mix
I read your note a couple of times. However your appraisal of
Origen seems harsh to me.
There should be no question of Origen's belief in the inspiration
of Scripture. see The Ante-Nicene Fathers (IV, 371) ed by Roberts and
Donaldson.
Nor should there be any question about Origen's belief in the
God's preservation of Scripture. In this instance you might check out
Hills' King James Bible Defended (p.33).
Virgil Brown
VCBrown@Delphi.Com
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 01:25:41 cst
Subject: Re: UBS Text
>I have found myself dragged into this entire argument due to my encounter
>with one Gail Riplinger a few years ago. To make a long story short, I have
>a book coming out from Bethany House Publishers, possibly as soon as next
>Friday, entitled _The King James Only Controversy_. The work is 303 pages in
>length, and deals extensively with the entire issue. Unlike most KJV Only
>advocates I have encountered (I do not know if you would be included as such
>a person or not) who write and publish books on the topic, I attempted to
>garner "peer review" of my work. Here is what I received in return:
Well sir, I am impressed with those who have reviewed your book. I
am eager to read what you have to say, and if it is at all possible I would
love to obtain a copy to add to my library.
I am from Pensacola, Florida, but am in no way affliated with Dr.
Peter Ruckman (as you are most likely familure with), or his institution. I
hold to the fact that the Authorized Version is the most superior version
available at the present time. This is true only because it is not based on
the Ecclectic/ Critical Text. In B-GREEK, I have purposefully avoided
dragging the ole King Jimmy into the subject, because of the taintings that
people like Ruckman, and others that wrongfully believe in Secondary
Inspiration. I don't think I would have a problem with another English
Translation, just as long as it uses the correct Greek Text (i.e. The
Traditional Text).
Sir, please forgive me if I seem to be polemic on this issue. I am
not normally polemic, and have found that arguing/ fighting does not change
people's minds =). My previous posts have been a bit steamy, and I am making
a point to curb my zeal for the truth - - not to allow error, mind you, but
to make sure that if a person is offended, they are offended from Scripture,
and not from my personal words.
I hold to the Traditional Text. Not because I think Erasmus was a
good ole' boy and that he was perfect, but because I am convinced that God
has promised to preserve His word (literal words). If this is true, then I
need to look at the Greek Texts and then with a lot of prayer and guidance
from the Holy Spirit, I need to hold to the Text that I _will_ be held
accountable to by God. My hobby is Textual Criticism, and I teach Greek at a
small college here in Pensacola (NOT Ruckman's thank you! ::grin:: He has
already tagged me as a heretic, and I avoid the gentleman as much as possible).
>was inevitable. I have been the most active Protestant debating Roman
>Catholic scholars in the US for a few years now, and have also been very
>active in evangelizing Mormons for years as well.
Praise God, and I wish you all success; I hope and pray that God is
glorified through your work.
> Texe Marrs has already identified me as a "servant of Satan," Gail Riplinger
>says I'm a "rude, crude heretic," and Peter Ruckman told me to "blow it out
>your nose." Such lovely folks are involved in this discussion . . . . :)
I am sorry to say that many brothers and sisters in Christ (on both
sides of the camp) have a tendency to be "crude." I have caught myself
moving in that direction, and am praying (and working) that it does not
happen again. Even though I have convictions about certain people, it
doesn't profit anyone to air these specific oppinions until absolutely
necessary (and with documented proof). Please, keep in mind though, we are
not all Ruckmanites (as they are called in P-cola) nor do all
_KJV_Only_People_ agree 100% with Gail Riplinger (I am personally convinced
that someone can get saved with an NIV, or ASV [dare I even say.... a Living
Bible <grin>], as easily as they can get saved through the use of a tract -
- - because they all contain the Word of God [though they are not THE WORD OF
GOD]).
>All of that aside, I wanted to address each of your assertions. First, with
>reference to "mistakes," by what standard do you judge these to be "mistakes"?
... snip ....
>Next you repeat the charge that there is a "consistent doctrinal pattern" to
>the "mistakes" in Aleph and B. While I have heard that said many times, my
>own study of the texts has failed to provide any substantiation of this
>charge. Might you provide me with something *other than* the charge that the
>more ancient texts lack the "expansion of piety" that is found in the
>Byzantine tradition? Specifically, everyone knows that piety brought people
>to expand "Jesus" to "Lord Jesus," and "Lord Jesus" to "Lord Jesus Christ,"
>etc. But what really solid evidence do you have that the modern texts have a
>*doctrinal* bias?
Oh, I am familure with the "Mark 1:1" type of passages that you are
referring to and even though I _do_ believe that these are examples of
heretical tampering, I do not consider them to be the greatest of the errors.
You and I both know that there are two main groupings of textual
problems - those that are easily seen as slips of the scribe or worn marks
of the texts, and those which are intentional changes. As with the
intentional changes, there are some that were done through innocence <?>,
and those that were malicious in nature. These last changes I believe can be
seen in Codices Aleph and B.
As a historian, you know that during the first 100 years after the
completion of the Scriptures, many heretical factions rose up and tried to
claim to be the true and pure sect of Christianity. Reading many of the
Ante-Nicean Fathers I have found that some of these heretics have even taken
the Scriptures and have edited them to fit their own dogmas [Marcion during
A.D. 150 comes to mind as one example .... the ole boy didn't care too much
for Paul's writings I guess...].
Anyways, getting back to the matter, Arianism flourished in
Alexandria, Egypt during the 4th century. I personally believe that Origin
was the true father of Arianism (because Origin liked to mix Greek philosphy
{Platonic??} with Christianity, Athanasius thought so during the Nicean
Council of 325, and because Origin's disciple, Eusebius, was a semi-Arian),
but the tag went to Arius. Arianism denied the deity of Christ, and I find
it interesting that a MS that comes out of Alexandria, during this time
period, has many "corrections" that pertain to Christ's deity [Matthew 5:22,
Luke 2:22, 2:33, Mark 1:1, John 1:18, etc.].
I admit, some of this is conjecture. What I have done was take the
known facts, and compile them together. The truth will never completely be
known until we get to glory. But what I have drawn up does fit history, and
it does make sense. BUT this compilation of facts is NOT why I hold to the
Traditional Text or the Authorized Version. It just solidifies a dogma that
I am settled in.
>I truly am looking for folks who can *rationally* defend the KJV Only
>position. I have debated Dr. Waite, and while he is a fine man and a very
>nice person, any person who listens to the tapes has to admit that he was
>very long on faith, very short on substance. Perhaps you will be able to do
>more? I truly hope so. I look forward to your reply.
James, I hold to the Traditional Text because God has promised to
preserve His Word. I believe that, and it's settled. I find that many who
hold to the Critical Text question the Preservation of the Word of God. This
is very dangerous, because it will lead to doubting the innerency, and then
the Inspiration of the Scriptures. Please, remember Colossians 2:8 - don't
be spoiled by the vain philosophies of man. Dr. Waite might be long on
faith, but II Corinthians 5:7 says - we walk by faith and not by sight.
It's important to use scholasticism in our studies, but when it
starts to supercede faith, we run the risk of becoming spiritually
shipwrecked. I don't have all the answers to the questions pertaining to
doctrine of Preservation, but that doesn't stop me from clinging to that truth.
+ In Psalm 12:6-7 God shows us that His words are pure, and that He will
preserve them.
+ In Psalm 119:89-90 we see that God's Word is settled forever.
+ In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus says that the Law (God's Word) will be preserved
down to the yod's and tittles. If any brother or sister teaches anyone to
break the commands of our God, they WILL be counted the least in the kingdom
of God.
+ In I Peter 1:23-24 compares the temporal glory of man with the eternal
glory of God's Word.
How do I handle the matter of all the variations between the
Byzantine MSS? I don't know. I havn't fully researched the extent of these
specific differences, but for me to drop the doctrine of Preservation over
something small like that, would be comperable to becoming an evolutionist
because I cannot fully understand DNA variances. There comes a time when
faith picks up where knowledge leaves off (Hebrews 11:6 - for without faith,
it is impossible to please [God]).
This matter of the Greek Texts is vitally important today. During
the 1800's the church swallowed the fabrications of Darwin, and attempted to
mix Scripture with evolutionism (remember the Gap Theory?). At the same time
period, the church also swallowed the teachings of Hort, who developed the
Ecclectic Method which uses the wisdom of man to determine the eternal Word
of God. Praise God for people like Whitcomb and Morris, who God used to turn
His church back to the truths of God (creationism). May He raise up men who
will bring the church back to the Word of God rather than to believe that
man is wise enough to determine the "lost" text of Scripture.
>You can post it in B-Greek, if you wish, since, hopefully, I will be
getting mail runs >regularly now.
I'll do just that. If the moderator hollars at me for being off topic, I'll
point him in your direction <grin>.
>James White, B.A., M.A.
>Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries
- --
John Calvin Hall
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
`O doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #609
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu