Orthodox_Freethinker

I find that his opinions only bear weight if the Alexandrian text-type represents the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament. If this assumption fails, as does the assumption that scribes perverted the New Testament over time.

SaintCog

Ehrman probably turns down formal debates with MT advocates for the same reason most scientists turn down debates with creationists. The latter are solely interested in apologetics and influencing a popular audience through rhetorical means, with little to no interest in questions of method or, for that matter, honest investigation. To appear on the same platform with extremist idealogues of this sort is to lend them undeserved legitimacy.

MT and TR proponents are ultimately concerned to protect the doctrine of providential preservation of text. The idea that God would allow the original text of the scriptures to be lost for hundreds of years is just theologically unpalatable for inerrantists. Furthermore, they have yet to offer a non-laughable explanation for why there is not one representative of the Byzantine text type to be found in any of the hundreds of MSS dating before the 5th century.

This is a question that has been resolved for over a hundred years. There is much serious work still to be done in NT TC and no time to waste bickering with people whose previous theological commitments require them to examine the evidence with a pre-formed conclusion.

Steven Avery

LOL.. actually respecting the Bible, and being super-knowledgable about its textual history, as is Professor Robinson, is considered extremist. Congrats - you did pick up a page from the evolutionist handbook and regurgitated it well, to an area where it smells even worse.

Sure, since it is a denial of true inerrancy (although not the superficial inerrancy common today). However that is not the issue, since the fact of the matter is that the MT and TR positions have overwhelming manuscript support, excellent church writer support (see Dean John Burgon) and consistent theories of textual transmission (eg. no phoney Lucian recension). That is why we see all the harumphhing and hand-waving from historic Bible opponents like Cog.

By hundreds of MSS are you talking about three or four corrupt, disagreeing and error-laden alexandrian manuscripts (two in Greek and one or two in Old Syric). And then adding the very mixed text of the papyri, extrapolating every scrap and fragment into a mansucript. Boy, talk about a dishonest presentation. Be honest first.

btw, have you read any of the Maurice Robinson material, since he discusses precisely issues like this, as do others ? He goes into specific theories as to the times and reasons for major textual transmission changes.

Wow.. a masterful hand-waver !! Amazing.

One of the ironies is that I often get accused in exactly this fallacious way. The fact of the matter is that my position moved towards the Byzantine and Received Text AS I READ ABOUT AND EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE! Kapiche ?

And I also watched carefully the discussions where the Byzantine folks essentially tore to shreds the convoluted accepted theories (overuse of lectio difficilior, conflation theories, reliance on small number of 'early manuscripts, disregard for scribal condition of manuscripts, lucian recesnsion, etc. etc.) that are held in such high regard by the unbelievers on this forum.

You are falling into an elemenary fallacy of claiming that a position should be rejected because you don't like its conclusions, as its conclusions are harmonistic with its understanding of the evidences. For illicit arguments sake, you assume the conclussion formed the interpretations rather than the reverse. Back to Logic 101.

So Cog, all that being said, what is the true NT text ?
What is your belief about the text ?
Is it error-laden in the originals ? In its current version ?

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Julian

I am pretty sure that he supports the Westcott and Hort's Western non-interpolations, correctly so in my view, which I gather is, if not unique, a minority position these days. That is probably where prax's comment regarding 'textual liberalism' came from.

Julian

TomboyMom

Sorry, I'm ignorant of this. For those of us not conversant with the controversies, what is the Alexandrian text-type? If it is not the oldest and most reliable manuscript, why does it follow that medieval scribes did not gradually miscopy the previous texts?
Have you read Ehrman's work? Are you familiar with his scholarship?

Julian

The issue regarding text types or families gets very complicated and is not as clear cut as OF or prax would have you believe. Here is a somewhat technical overview: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextTypes.html

Julian

Diogenes the Cynic

There are no previous texts. The Alexandrian texts ARE, in fact, the oldest and least corrupted manuscripts. O_F is espousing a particular fundamentalist position that seeks to claim the KJV as the only authoritative English version of the Bible. In order to do so, it is necessary to claim that the basis for the KJV translation (called the Textus Receptus or "received text") is more reliable than the older Alexandrian and Western Texts. The Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus from the much later Byzantine texts, using two (incomplete) 12th Century manuscripts in particular. For material which Erasmus lacked in his manuscripts he chose to retranslate back into Greek from the Vulgate Latin.

The TR and the Byzantine Texts are now recognized as being late, unreliable sources and most modern Bible translations now use the Alexandrian Texts as their basis. There is nothing very controversial or shocking about that. It is the "KJV only" crowd which is out of step with scholarship.

TomboyMom

--Not only ignorant, but lazy--
That link so kindly provided by Julian above--too hard for me.
O.K., so we start out with the Alexandrian texts. What are they exactly? And we more or less end up with the KJV? So the question is what happened in between?
Ehrman and other modern scholars say the Alexandrian texts got copied/changed/copied/changed till you end up with the Textus Receptus, which Erasmus compiled from the Byzantine, and which someone-or-other translated into the KJV? But Orthodox_Freethinker thinks the Byzzantine came from somewhere else? Where? What is the key evidence on each side? Thanks.

Diogenes the Cynic

Maybe this page will help. Scroll down a bit to get to the diagram of transmission.

SaintCog

Let's unpack the criteria for scholarly qualifications here. I notice that the first of these is "actually respecting the Bible." What exactly does that mean? Are you implying that other scholars are not respecting the Bible? Sounds like a euphemistic way of trumpeting "true inerrancy." Is the top priority in Biblical scholarship to begin with the presumption that the Bible is inerrant? How does this amount to good scholarship?

Nothing here is substantive. No one denies that the MT has "overwhelming MSS support" hence the name "Majority" text. TR, on the other hand, is not the same as MT in this regard. Do your homework. One of the falacies of traditionalists is their frequent confusion between TR and MT as though the two are interchangeable. This is a brilliant example of how the primary concern is to preserve their own theological commitments. Recognizing the the difference between the two does not serve this end so it is happily ignored.

You are conveniently ignoring the Old Latin MSS. And for some reason you dismiss the papyri fragments as unimportant. Every "scrap" you mention reflects the prior existence of a full MS. When the variants of these scraps resemble the those of a certain text type, we can reasonably infer that said scrap was, if not a member of the text group in question, at least closely related. In any case, not one of the early papyri that I am aware of has been shown to have this sort of relationship with the Byzantine text.

The manner in which you came to accept the MT or TR position - I'm not sure which of the two you subscribe to, and I'm not sure you are either - is immaterial to me. I really could care less

I am similarly unimpressed by the manner i which you received the arguments of Byzantine prioritists. Oh, so you watcehd them carefully. Well then, nevermind. I hadn't realized you were one to examine the evidence carefully, as opposed to everyone else. I also enjoy your straw man in the Lucian recension. Most TC scholars don't hold to Hort's Lucian recension hypothesis. As to the "small number of early MSS" this is simply a reiteration of what nobody argues. Would you care to engage in some of these arguments rather than simply list them as though invoking them magically supports your position?

You do realize don't you that you have absolutely no ground to make that sort of accuasation, as I did not lay out any sort of argument for my own TC perspective. It seems that you simply read my reply, got angry, and resorted to groundless ad hoinem remarks. This, of course, is simply consistent with the rhetorical strategy of other MT and TR proponents - whichever of the two camps you fall into.

BTW, you really should figure that out.