tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post114037978200432181..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Inerrancy and Textual CriticismP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8990639655775656702017-05-27T02:56:23.870+01:002017-05-27T02:56:23.870+01:00P.S. CAINAN MISSING SEPTUAGENT 1CHRONICLES 1:24
A...P.S. CAINAN MISSING SEPTUAGENT 1CHRONICLES 1:24<br /><br />According to Bibleworks 9 apparatus<br /><br />Cainan is missing in mss P75 and D05<br /><br />At least for some Critical scholars, doesn't P75 and D05 carry some weight? I have seen some textual decisions made on basically B vaticanus by itself or literally by itself and even D05 literally by itself [Hort]<br /><br />Also, while Cainan is in the Septuagent version of Gen 10:24 and 11:13 it is mysteriously missing in the Septuagent version of 1 Chronicles 1:24 and instead follows the Hebrew text.<br /><br />Hebrew Text:<br /><br />1:24 ¶ Shem,º Arphaxad,º Shelah,º<br />1:25 Eber,º Peleg,º Reu,º<br /><br />Septuagent text:<br /><br />1:24 ¶ and Arphaxad, Sala,<br />1:25 Eber, Pheleg, Ragan,<br /><br />Curious, huh?<br /><br />So, the Septuagent contradicts itself. <br /><br />So, which is it Septuagent? arphaxad, Sala or arphaxad,Cainan, Sala?<br /><br />http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/1-chronicles/1.html <br /><br />Does this not change the evidence somewhat to know that the Septuagent contradicts itself in the geneologies and in one of the verses above actually confirms the Hebrew text?<br /><br />Wow!!!<br /><br /><br /><br />So, where did Cainan come from? Who knows? <br /><br />I would usually not spend this much time on this but the issue is very important. If the Cainan variant of the Septuagent is the correct reading, then the Hebrew text is in error in 5 verses not just one.[(Gen.10:24 and 11:13; I Chron.1:18, 1 Chronicles 1:24 and the verse Turretin mentions as 10 from Abraham [not sure where that is].<br /><br />This changes the whole perspective for me. <br /><br />If I had a choice between the Hebrew or or Septuagent text. I would prefer the Hebrew[original] over a [translation] Septuagent that has now been shown to contradict itself and in one place confirm and agree with the Hebrew text in omitting Cainan[whoever he is]. <br /><br />Although I haven't made my final decision yet, I am leaning in favor of the Hebrew text and the omitting of Cainan. <br /><br />There, I said it.<br /><br />GB <br /><br />ANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90442833787921926352017-05-27T00:39:41.578+01:002017-05-27T00:39:41.578+01:00CAINAN LK 3:36
I wanted to add this to this blog ...CAINAN LK 3:36<br /><br />I wanted to add this to this blog because I thought it was interesting. The explanation of Cainan [Cain] found in Lk 3:36 is from Francis Turretin's 21 Questions on the Doctrine of Scripture . Now, whether it is the solution of the problem of the geneology of Luke let each one here decide. I give it without comment.<br /><br /><br />https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/21%20Questions%20on%20Doctrine%20of%20Scripture.pdf<br /><br /> XII. Luke 3:36, concerning the younger Cain who is placed between Arpachshad and Shelah,<br />contrary to the truth of the Mosaic record (Gen. 11:13), offers indeed a difficult problem, which learned<br />scholars interpret in different ways, but it should not be regarded as an insoluble one, since various forms<br />of solution are possible. For our part, not mentioning other opinions, we consider most appropriate that<br />which regards this Cain as a suppositious and spurious [person], who crept in, through the carelessness of<br />copyists, from the Septuagint version, in which he had existed before the time of Christ, as the chronology<br />of Demetrius quoted in Eusebius's De praeperatione evangelii witnesses; or through some pious intent [of<br />copyists], who did not want to oppose Luke to the Septuagint, whose authority was then considerable. The<br />following data support this: (1) the authority of Moses and of the Books of Chronicles, which make no<br />mention of him in their genealogies, in which there are three places where clearly he should have been<br />included (Gen.10:24 and 11:13; I Chron.1:18). (2) The Chaldean paraphrase, which altogether omits this<br />http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/turretin/chap5.html (3 of 5) [23/11/2006 09:40:04 p.m.]<br />Apparent Contradictions in Scripture by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)<br />Cain both in Genesis and in Chronicles. (3) Josephus does not mention him, nor does Berosus to whom he<br />refers, nor [Julius] Africanus whom Eusebius quotes. (4) [If his existence is upheld] the sacred chronology<br />would be confused, and the Mosaic record would be brought into doubt, if Cain is inserted between<br />Arpachshad and Shelah, and Noah becomes the eleventh after Abraham, not the tenth as Moses states.<br />(5)[This Cain] is not found in all the codices. Our Beza witnesses to his absence from his oldest<br />manuscript, and Ussher states (Dissertatio de Cainane, p.196) that he has seen a copy of Luke in Greek<br />and Latin on a very old parchment, in large letters without breathings and accents, which was long ago<br />taken from Greece to France and placed in the monastery of Saint Irenaeus near Lyons, and in 1562<br />removed, and then taken to England and given to Cambridge University, in which Cain in not listed.<br />Scaliger affirms, in his prologue to the chronicle of Eusebius, that this Cain is lacking in the oldest copies of<br />Luke. Whatever may be the facts, although this passage in Luke may be said to contain an error, Luke's<br />authenticity cannot be brought into doubt on account of it, for (1) the corruption is not universal; (2) little<br />falsehood is contained in it, and the correction for that is easily supplied from Moses, so that there was no<br />need for the learned Isaac Voss to be concerned over the purity of the Hebrew codices, that he might<br />defend the authenticity of the Septuagint. <br /><br />GBANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34758692389039910862017-05-26T22:03:53.118+01:002017-05-26T22:03:53.118+01:00P.S.
Tim,
I wanted to correct my statement. I b...P.S.<br /><br />Tim, <br /><br />I wanted to correct my statement. I believe we are in agreement on inspiration. I do believe, however, that we are not in full agreement as to Warfield's statement on inspiration cited above. Thanks, again.<br /><br />GBANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2024322481514230532017-05-26T21:42:40.588+01:002017-05-26T21:42:40.588+01:00Tim,
Thank you for responding to me. I really app...Tim,<br /><br />Thank you for responding to me. I really appreciate it. I do understand your explanation of why Warfield said what he said. I do believe, however, that we are not in full agreement about the "inspiration" issue. I will leave it at that. Anyway, thanks again for your response, I have enjoyed chatting with you.<br /><br />GBANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68001982295669292722017-05-26T21:21:48.538+01:002017-05-26T21:21:48.538+01:00GB,
Last from me also. Warfield believed in and p...GB,<br />Last from me also. Warfield believed in and preached the Gospel from the 'common text'. His statement just acknowledges that there is variance in the manuscript tradition and that men have decided which variant to include in the common text. By stating his claim as he did, he can uphold the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the scriptures even if someone showed a real error in the common text. His last sentence above makes this clear. <br /><br />Tim<br /><br />Timothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57814368612971544832017-05-26T01:53:32.864+01:002017-05-26T01:53:32.864+01:00One final word on Warfield [at least for a while]....One final word on Warfield [at least for a while]. St. Paul has this to say about the inspiration of Scripture:<br /><br />2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:<br /><br />17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.<br /><br />A more accurate rendition would be "God-breathed" [inspired]. So, it is quite clear from this Scripture that Paul is not talking about some "inspired original autograph" from the past but a fully "inspired" copy[ies] of the Scripture of his day that he and other Christians possessed at that moment. So, not only is Warfield absolutely wrong about only the original autographs being inspired and not copies [sharing that inspiration] he outrights contradicts the Scripture in saying so. And I believe it is a very serious error and contradiction he has made here. His theory is simply not true.<br /><br />While most people that I have talked to believe that Paul is talking only about the Old Testament inspiration here, I believe he is also talking about the New Testament as well.<br /><br />GB<br /><br />ANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68019355997798426592017-05-26T00:21:36.144+01:002017-05-26T00:21:36.144+01:00Thanks for your response. I am glad that we agree ...Thanks for your response. I am glad that we agree that even in our copies of Scripture we have the inspired, inerrant word of God. And,yes, in the minority of passages we have to choose between variants. But let us also remember that in the vast majority of the passages of Scripture both the Majority text and the neolgian or nu text agree somewhere in the 90% level I have heard from amywhere from 90-97% of agreement which is really quite amazing. <br /><br /> Perhaps I misunderstood what Warfield meant by what he said. I should go to the source itself rather than depending on other people's view of what he said.<br /><br />Therefore, I have copied a quote of Warfield from one of Steve Avery's comments:<br /><br />The Presbyterian Review, Volume 2 (1881)<br />Inspiration - April, 1881 p. 225-260<br />Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield<br />books.google.com/books?id=kmzUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA245<br /><br /><br />“We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired. No ‘error’ can be asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text.” <br /><br />It seems to me [at least from this quote of Warfield] that he is saying that the "common text" [guessing the TR] is not inspired but only the autographs. If words mean anything how else can I take what he says here? Again, I must disagree with Warfield here. The common text is just as "inspired" and "inerrant" as the "original autographic" where it has copied correctly the "autographic" text. So, can you tell me what Warfield's point is? Because it seems very contradictory to me.ANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-91882070840360763342017-05-25T12:13:28.769+01:002017-05-25T12:13:28.769+01:00GB,
The issue is related to the process of human c...GB,<br />The issue is related to the process of human copying. Manuscripts whether OT or NT were hand copied for hundreds of years. I can affirm that the Autographs are both inspired and inerrant while still acknowledging the human process. At least in this discussion, I have not seen anyone that holds to this or a similar position argue that because we do not have inerrant copies our present bibles do not accurately represent the ausgangstext. I would go so far as to claim that because of the quantity and quality of the manuscript tradition that we have the inerrant/inspired text of the NT however, in some limited instances we can not yet be absolutely sure which of two viable variants are original. This last situation is really the crux of this post. When there are multiple viable variants and at least one of them seems inconsistent with what we would prefer and another variant is consistent do we follow our normal rules for identifying the ausgangstext or do we decide based on our view of inerrancy. I for one, would rather struggle with understanding the text based on a consistent process than a text that I chose because it was easier. <br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11640447427507971952017-05-25T06:01:03.862+01:002017-05-25T06:01:03.862+01:00I would like to add a comment to this discussion. ...I would like to add a comment to this discussion. It was mentioned earlier that Warfield held the belief that only the original autographs of the Scripture can be described as being inspired and inerrant and that copies of the same Scripture do not share those same qualities. If that be the case, then what about the Old Testament that Jesus preached from in the Synagogues of his day? These Old Testament scrolls had been copied down for more than 1400 years from the time of Moses [or earlier if you accept the Patriarchal pre-authorship of of the records of Genesis [Gen 5:1] which Moses then compiled and edited into the present day book of Genesis [see Josephus].<br /><br /> Therefore, according to Warfield, if only autographs of the Scripture are inspired and inerrant and copies do not share those qualities, doesn't that mean that the Scriptures that Jesus used were not inspired nor inerrant? Warfield's view makes no sense at all. If apographs of the Scripture are faithful in recording the exact words of the original <br />"autographs" then by necessity they must also share the same inspiration and inerrancy qualities of those same original autographs. If not, then are we not doomed to a futile search for that one and only inspired and inerrant "original autograph" of the books of the Bible not unlike the futile search for the "holy grail"? The Bible itself and Jesus himself refutes such an idea as this. <br /><br />Talking of the copies of Scripture [Old Testament] of his day, he had this to say: <br /><br />Matt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.<br /><br />Thus, Jesus assigns inerrancy to the copies of Scripture of his day not to some "original autograph".<br /><br />Again, Jesus says,<br /><br />Jn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken <br /><br />Just another example of Jesus referring to the copies of the Scripture of his day as "cannot be broken". He is not talking about some "original autograph".<br /><br />Another example:<br /><br />Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.<br /><br />Here, Jesus assures us for all time the inerrancy of the copies of Scripture to the very jot and tittle [letters] until the passing away of the present heaven and earth. <br /><br />And now for the New Testament:<br /><br /> Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.<br /><br />Christ promises that his words shall not pass away even to the end of heaven and earth. Of course, we believe these are in reference to his words in the four Gospels.<br /><br />Even Peter declares that their preaching of the Gospel is the word of the Lord that endures forever:<br /><br />1 Peter 1:24-25 “All flesh is as grass,<br />And all the glory of man[a] as the flower of the grass.<br />The grass withers,<br />And its flower falls away,<br />25 But the word of the Lord endures forever.”[b]<br />Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.<br /><br />Of course, that preaching of the Gospel is found in the Epistles of the New Testament.<br /><br />Many more passages of Scripture could be cited, however, for now this is sufficient.<br /><br />I must agree with Steven Avery that the qualities of inspiration and inerrancy have been passed on to those copies of Scripture that have faithfully recorded the words of the original autographs. Warfield is not correct in asserting that only the original autographs of Scripture are inspired and inerrant. The Bible and Jesus himself refutes such an idea.<br /><br />GB <br /><br /><br /><br />So, <br /><br /> ANONYMOUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01576675256071895686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90744912785378588532017-05-24T11:15:08.388+01:002017-05-24T11:15:08.388+01:00Contra what some believe, Textual Criticism has it...Contra what some believe, Textual Criticism has its limitations. It can neither confirm nor rebut the Christian's knowledge that the Scripture is truly the Word of God, or God speaking. At best, it TC can only make conclusions about what the Bible, the Scripture, claims itself to be. The source for the conviction that the Bible is or is NOT the Word of God is either natural or it is something else. If it is natural, then it parallels other religious beliefs like, for example, the Muslim's belief that the Qur'an is God's perfect revelation. But the Christian belief is not that. The Christian conviction regarding the nature of Scripture has no parallel. I am not saying that some individual Christian's conviction in the concrete, has no parallel. Surely it can and does. I am saying that the biblically genuine Christian conviction regarding the nature of Scripture as infallible is not the product of natural investigation, argument, textual research, etc. It is something much greater than that. Some apparently do not like the notion that TC is limited, that it cannot establish nor overturn the doctrine of inerrancy in and of itself. Others think my viewpoint is unscholarly. My only interest in discussions like this is to be faithful. The "best" scholarship in the world is worth less than a pile of steaming cow dung if it proves to be unfaithful. Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43753771331922206662017-05-23T23:15:12.977+01:002017-05-23T23:15:12.977+01:00SA: “like Mark 1:41 above, where the inerrancy com...SA: “like Mark 1:41 above, where the inerrancy component is already packed into the Critical Text.”<br /><br />Maurice properly questions this above. He is correct, I meant to be referencing Mark 4:21, under a a candlestick. My error.Steven Averyhttp://www.purebibleforum.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13321283404578945912017-05-23T23:05:52.274+01:002017-05-23T23:05:52.274+01:00Timothy, great question, and the answer is a very ...Timothy, great question, and the answer is a very slightly qualified YES,<br /><br />Matthew 27:49 is a good example. By Alexandrian Critical Text standards the evidence for the inclusion is massive. Thus the note from Maurice Robinson right above, which de facto expresses puzzlement that the sentence is given sort shrift in CT circles.<br /><br />And I think it is well known that the Metzger internal considerations, often passed down from Hort and others, are based on moving the target to match the Alexandrian-Vaticanus arrow. They are apologetically based. You can easily find inconsistencies. (James Snapp is good on that kind of stuff.)<br /><br />There are lots of legitimate reasons why Matthew and John could use similar wording to describe the same event.<br /><br />Thus I contend that errancy embarrassment is at the core. Similarly for "his daughter Herodias" being left out of most English Bibles despite being preferred in the NA CT (not sure of the ABCD code offhand.)<br /><br />Now I don't want this to sound too dogmatic, I am certainly open to counterpoint, this is simply sharing what I sense to be the underlying cause. And thus, is directly germane to the Peter Wiliams blog post.<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttp://www.purebibleforum.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34180111869572952262017-05-23T23:01:40.242+01:002017-05-23T23:01:40.242+01:00Ryan,
Why don't you parade your evidence out f...<br />Ryan,<br />Why don't you parade your evidence out for evaluation Ryan? I would be willing to wager that your evidence is little more than your own philosophical bias and theological prejudice controlling your approach and interpretation of the evidence.<br /><br />You believe the doctrine of inerrancy is doing more harm because, if you're like others whose faith rests as much in your own reason as it does in anything else, you cannot figure out how to harmonize the Bible with modern sensibilities. And so, where these two clash, the Bible must give. You fellows call it removing obstacles to belief. I call it a pseudo-factory. The move to compromise Scripture does little more than manufacture pseudos, filling the pews with fakes and frauds, all the while living in the delusion that somehow the compromise makes Christianity intellectually respectable in the eyes of the academy again. How many seminary professors earn a living sowing unbelief rather than true godly faith?Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49025383705530673622017-05-23T22:54:07.576+01:002017-05-23T22:54:07.576+01:00Ryan,
It is absurd to think that scholarly = the r...Ryan,<br />It is absurd to think that scholarly = the requirement that one be open to the possibility of an errant autograph. Faithless scholarship has, for years now, placed the Scripture in the dock and called upon autonomous human reason to judge its nature. I have a newsflash for you, the doctrine of a divinely inspired text is not "known" except by divine illumination. Why would I make such an outrageous claim? The doctrine of inspiration claims that the Bible, as originally given was given by God supernaturally through human instruments. No amount of evidence you could ever offer can deliver the doctrine of inspiration. It is a spiritual commitment that can only be genuinely held by those whom God has called to himself. It is NOT similar to a Muslim believing that the Qur'an, for example, is inspired. This has MUCH MORE to do with faith than it does with scholarship...so much more.<br /><br />To say that my commitment to inerrancy is unscholarly while the other man's commitment to human reason is not, is itself guilty of pretentious and arrogant bias if ever there was one. Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57163698434458961322017-05-23T22:23:12.706+01:002017-05-23T22:23:12.706+01:00Just for the record, I consider the Mt 27:49 longe...Just for the record, I consider the Mt 27:49 longer addition clearly to have been part and parcel of the Alexandrian archetype, and I do think that those favoring the critical text approach should include such (even within double brackets), just as did Westcott and Hort (inerrancy or lack of such not being a central issue in that regard).Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31653779545572260542017-05-23T21:04:46.707+01:002017-05-23T21:04:46.707+01:00My bad. You are right. I was wrong. I confused the...My bad. You are right. I was wrong. I confused them.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65118809909508327942017-05-23T20:52:09.288+01:002017-05-23T20:52:09.288+01:00Steven,
So, if I understand you, your contention i...Steven,<br />So, if I understand you, your contention is that since the CE does not follow the earliest external evidence in these verses the editors had to have been motivated by inerrancy, even if they did not realize it. I assume you don't buy their eclectic argument based on internal evidence or that they are not really attached to the 'Alexandrian Manuscripts'? <br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-58161067688570930992017-05-23T20:08:39.256+01:002017-05-23T20:08:39.256+01:00SA: "like Mark 1:41 above, where the inerranc...SA: "like Mark 1:41 above, where the inerrancy component is already packed into the Critical Text."<br /><br />Even if the sole Greek MS reading in Bezae were original, I fail to see how either an "angry" or "compassionate" Jesus in the actual context would impact inerrancy one way or another. Such seems too much of an overreach at this point.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87981501128226517832017-05-23T19:14:31.953+01:002017-05-23T19:14:31.953+01:00You mean Poythress's? And you mean examples of...You mean Poythress's? And you mean examples of what is "hugely impossible"?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45906432959846795352017-05-23T19:04:08.832+01:002017-05-23T19:04:08.832+01:00For some examples cf. Frame's Inerrancy and th...For some examples cf. Frame's Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of HarmonizationPeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65573520697118633652017-05-23T18:37:06.929+01:002017-05-23T18:37:06.929+01:00From John Frame: "Sometimes attempts to recon...From John Frame: "Sometimes attempts to reconcile apparent discrepancies are hugely implausible (one thinks of the assertion of some that Peter must have denied Jesus six times), and appeals to textual corruption can be an asylum of ignorance, unless actual evidence of textual corruption exists. Often it is better to leave these problems unanswered." From his <em>Doctrine of the Word of God</em>, pp. 544-545Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-63149383694441472902017-05-23T17:39:59.641+01:002017-05-23T17:39:59.641+01:00Inerrancy and Textual Analysis
Overall, I think ...Inerrancy and Textual Analysis <br /><br />Overall, I think the most germane Bible verses to the OP may be those, like Mark 1:41 above, where the inerrancy component is already packed into the Critical Text. And thus invisible to most of our theorists, who use the CT and its apparatus and its biases and its rigging as a normal starting point.. Thus our textual critics are being driven, or ruled, by inerrancy concerns without even being aware of the process! <br /><br />Here is another:<br /><br />Matthew 27:49 <br />The rest said, Let be, <br />let us see whether Elias will come to save him.<br /><br />The following is the addition in the Alexandrian mss and given double confusion brackets by Westcott-Hort:<br /><br />“And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.” - NETBible note<br /><br />This one they have removed from the Critical Text, pretty clearly because of the inerrancy concerns with John 19:34 and the question as to whether Jesus was alive or dead at the time. <br /><br />Hort had it in the text with his double bracket confusion. Today it is the rejected section, with the omission getting a B in the ABCD system. <br /><br />By manuscript evidence, by Critical Text sensibilities, this sentence would easily be included, with Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and much more evidence in support.<br /><br />Thus our evangelicals, and even the atheists, who are Critical Text aficianados, have a sentence that is omitted with inerrancy as a prime consideration.<br /><br />==== <br /><br />Looking at Whitney and Weiss discussing Hort, there are other verses where the rejection was possibly the weakness, or errancy, of the Vaticanus-primacy text. Mark 4:21, Galatians 2:12, James 1:17 Revelation 18:21 Hebrews 1:8 and Acts 12:25 are some that could be checked.. Steven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-724530324126285502017-05-23T15:53:04.613+01:002017-05-23T15:53:04.613+01:00But the oil lamp (λυχνος) still should have been p...But the oil lamp (λυχνος) still should have been placed on a lampstand (λυχνιαν) rather than upon (επι) a culturally anachronistic KJV "candlestick".Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21569359700593000422017-05-23T15:37:00.497+01:002017-05-23T15:37:00.497+01:00SA: "The question becomes: what corruption wo...SA: "The question becomes: what corruption would you support and defend if there was no alternative?"<br /><br />Were there no alternative, by definition there would be no "corruption", but only a reading possessing interpretative difficulties. <br /><br />Already some readings among the Byzantine majority of MSS are "problematic" (Mt 27:9 previously noted; one also might include Lk 2:22; Ac 12:25, or Jas 2:18, as have been mentioned by those representing various textual positions).<br /><br />SA: "you sound like you are saying that in the eclipse, Isaiah, and going to the feast, you would accept the harder minority reading if it were the majority."<br /><br />Indeed, that is what I said, albeit with the clear qualification that "certain contextual issues or range of meaning readily could allow for such". <br /><br />In contrast, certain of the other readings would be far more difficult of interpretation were they solidly Byzantine -- but of course they are not, so speculation by "what if" hypotheses isn't necessary. Such can be left to those who desire to defend the critical text at those points, e.g., Poythress' attempt to maintain inerrancy regarding Asaph and Amos in the Matthean genealogy as opposed to Metzger simply admitting these names were erroneous; so also Bock and others at Lk 4:44, suggesting "Judea" supposedly could include Galilee, in order to avoid the obvious conflict with the direct parallels Mt 4:23/Mk 1:39). Were these clearly the dominant Byzantine readings, perhaps such interpretative gymnastics would be necessary; since they are not dominant, it is far simpler to recognize scribal error at some point in that particular transmissional line as opposed to elevating such to the level of authoritative readings (which is basically what I said before). Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87470757703119303712017-05-23T11:18:13.481+01:002017-05-23T11:18:13.481+01:00Steven,
The question becomes, in my mind anyways, ...Steven,<br />The question becomes, in my mind anyways, "do we have evidence of or knowledge of an inerrant text?" My comment stated clearly that we do. We have reliable copies, the MSS, in which that text lives. Second, we have clear evidence in those MSS that the original text claimed to be divinely inspired and fully authoritative. In other words, there is NOTHING in the MSS evidence that we do have to support the position that the Bible (original collection of autographa) was fallible. The doctrine of inerrancy is nowhere at risk where textual issues are concerned. That is the point. <br /><br />The denial of inerrancy cannot be argued on the ground of textual criticism. It must be denied based on theological and philosophical commitments. At least that is how I understand the matter. I am open to correction in my thinking on the matter (but not open to an errant original). Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007054168398086809noreply@blogger.com