I like the points that you made about the flawed thinking of the majority text. I knew that I wasn't wild about it, but hadn't yet thought through what the issues were. Thanks!
Thank you for putting this together! When you talk about micro and macro differences in the text, do you believe that say the Robinson-Pierpont text or the Greek Orthodox New Testament differ on the level of macro or micro? Not sure if I worded that correctly, but you get the idea.
I would say they represent a VERY similar macro text, though not perfectly the same due to 1 John 5:7. Thanks for being my guinea pig for this video by the way haha!
Taylor DeSoto, I felt honored 😄. I haven’t settled on a position on this subject. I find myself attracted to Byzantine text-type position, but it’s difficult for me to feel comfortable dismissing the work of competent scholars in the field and the witness of the early manuscripts. It seems to me that the arguments that make the Byzantine text form attractive to me at times cut against a TR position, as in the case of 1 John 5:7.
The heavenly witnesses and its sister verse Acts 8:37 are key verses that largely dropped out of the Greek Byzantine text line. Study, stay informed. The modern Greek Majority/Byz editions are pale shadows. The Orthodox, who transmitted the Greek manuscripts, quickly accepted these Reformation Bible corrections.
Pure Bible, thanks for that. I was trying to find when the Eastern Orthodox did accept those as scripture. Do you know approximately when? Was it the 1600s, 1700s, or later? I can’t seem to find the answer.
The Orthodox Confession of 1643, Peter Mogils, is one big date. purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-greek-and-russian-orthodox-acceptance-of-the-reformation-bible-correction-inclusion-of-the-heavenly-witnesses.929/ More planned.
Hi, do you *now* reject *all* of the editions of Erasmus from the TR corpus? Someone just sent me a quote (from Facebook) that appears to say as much, but I wanted to allow for qualification if you deem such necessary. Thanks.
Doesn’t your argumentation make a better case for Eastern Orthodoxy? After all, that’s where all the Greek manuscripts came from. Also, their rigid liturgical practice acted as a double buffer alongside scripture as a way to maintain true doctrine.
What do you folks think about the codex bezae cantabrigiensis? Father white speaks ill of it, but it sounds like it has good Providence as a text of Western Europe. Albeit some of it containing Latin readings.
If I changed my belief about the critical text but had already bought my young daughter an ESV Bible for her first Bible for serious study, did I make a mistake? I don’t like the old English of the KJV but feel comfortable using the NKJV.
Hey Jordan. I wouldn't say you made a mistake. If you didn't know there were any issues at the time then it's not like you did something wrong. With teaching and guidance, she is not really any more likely to fall into some error with the ESV than the KJV. The NKJV is also a great option.
I just can't wrap my head around God allowing His word to be believed, preached, taught and died for for 300-400 years in Protestantism only to be corrected and reconstructed by modernists, infidels and Bible correctors in the last 150 years. It really goes against God's nature, His sovereignty and His integrity. God is not a deceiver. He is found by those who truly, humbly, prayfully look for Him. Following the tradition passed down by the church is a safer path then following those who don't even believe the book they critique & correct.Great points. God Bless your work.
Hello, I hope you don't mind that I contact you with this here. I apologise in advance for the awkwardness of placing my question here because it doesn't match the subject of the video. I was told Dane Johanneson knew a lot regarding Augustine. My question is regarding Jerome's Latin translation. I'm reading a few articles on Augustine's view on Justification. I have a question after reading them. Was dikaioun (“to justify”) wrongly translated with the Latin term iustificare (“to make righteous”) and it was this that then affected Augustine's view of justification? Or was Romans 1:17 rightly translated by Jerome? Wondering why early patristic writers had the same view on justification as Augustine. Is there any material where I can read more on this? Alister McGrath's book (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification) is going to be updated because he changed view on this.
Just another follow up question to the three already asked: (4) Where's a good place to get info on the "Approved Texts" ? I know Owen mentions them in passing in his 'On the Divine Original' but who discusses them a bit more than that - like mentioning approved texts, letting us know what they were, where they were from, and how they were being used during the advent of and period of the Reformation? Thanks again!
At about 30.00 min you say: "First time in history when we have a lot of data on what actually happened. We do not have all the manuscripts they used, but we do have a lot of records about the manuscripts they used. We have translations that testify to the text they used, we have annotations, we have historical records that bear witness to what the church thought of the Alexandrian type manuscripts during a time when manuscripts were still being used in churches. It is the time in history where we have the most clear perspective on what the people of god thought of manuscripts that were actually being used." That's a fascinating and important set of statements there, that it would be great to have some flesh put on them: (1) Can you give some pointers as to the manuscripts they used (excluding Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza who's work is well known already)? i.e. places where they tell us about manuscripts, where/how they received them, what happened to them, how they used them etc..? (2) Apart from Erasmus and Beza's Annotations were there other annotations you were thinking of that give us direct insight on the manuscripts, or the kinds of manuscripts that were being used in 1514-1633? (3) Apart from Erasmus's doubt about Stuncia's use of Vaticanus where were the men of the reformation expressing their opinions about what would become known as the Alexandrian text? Thanks Taylor!
I like the points that you made about the flawed thinking of the majority text. I knew that I wasn't wild about it, but hadn't yet thought through what the issues were. Thanks!
Thank you for putting this together! When you talk about micro and macro differences in the text, do you believe that say the Robinson-Pierpont text or the Greek Orthodox New Testament differ on the level of macro or micro? Not sure if I worded that correctly, but you get the idea.
I would say they represent a VERY similar macro text, though not perfectly the same due to 1 John 5:7. Thanks for being my guinea pig for this video by the way haha!
Taylor DeSoto, I felt honored 😄. I haven’t settled on a position on this subject. I find myself attracted to Byzantine text-type position, but it’s difficult for me to feel comfortable dismissing the work of competent scholars in the field and the witness of the early manuscripts. It seems to me that the arguments that make the Byzantine text form attractive to me at times cut against a TR position, as in the case of 1 John 5:7.
The heavenly witnesses and its sister verse Acts 8:37 are key verses that largely dropped out of the Greek Byzantine text line.
Study, stay informed.
The modern Greek Majority/Byz editions are pale shadows. The Orthodox, who transmitted the Greek manuscripts, quickly accepted these Reformation Bible corrections.
Pure Bible, thanks for that. I was trying to find when the Eastern Orthodox did accept those as scripture. Do you know approximately when? Was it the 1600s, 1700s, or later? I can’t seem to find the answer.
The Orthodox Confession of 1643, Peter Mogils, is one big date.
purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-greek-and-russian-orthodox-acceptance-of-the-reformation-bible-correction-inclusion-of-the-heavenly-witnesses.929/
More planned.
Hi, do you *now* reject *all* of the editions of Erasmus from the TR corpus? Someone just sent me a quote (from Facebook) that appears to say as much, but I wanted to allow for qualification if you deem such necessary. Thanks.
very interesting... excellent... the light is getting brighter,.... :-))
What about the MEV translation that uses the Majority/Received text? Well?
The church received Luther's editions; which used Erasmus' 2nd edition.
Doesn’t your argumentation make a better case for Eastern Orthodoxy? After all, that’s where all the Greek manuscripts came from. Also, their rigid liturgical practice acted as a double buffer alongside scripture as a way to maintain true doctrine.
Except for they didn't maintain sound doctrine.
What do you folks think about the codex bezae cantabrigiensis? Father white speaks ill of it, but it sounds like it has good Providence as a text of Western Europe. Albeit some of it containing Latin readings.
If I changed my belief about the critical text but had already bought my young daughter an ESV Bible for her first Bible for serious study, did I make a mistake?
I don’t like the old English of the KJV but feel comfortable using the NKJV.
Hey Jordan. I wouldn't say you made a mistake. If you didn't know there were any issues at the time then it's not like you did something wrong. With teaching and guidance, she is not really any more likely to fall into some error with the ESV than the KJV. The NKJV is also a great option.
I just can't wrap my head around God allowing His word to be believed, preached, taught and died for for 300-400 years in Protestantism only to be corrected and reconstructed by modernists, infidels and Bible correctors in the last 150 years. It really goes against God's nature, His sovereignty and His integrity. God is not a deceiver. He is found by those who truly, humbly, prayfully look for Him. Following the tradition passed down by the church is a safer path then following those who don't even believe the book they critique & correct.Great points. God Bless your work.
Hello,
I hope you don't mind that I contact you with this here. I apologise in advance for the awkwardness of placing my question here because it doesn't match the subject of the video. I was told Dane Johanneson knew a lot regarding Augustine.
My question is regarding Jerome's Latin translation.
I'm reading a few articles on Augustine's view on Justification. I have a question after reading them. Was dikaioun (“to justify”) wrongly translated with the Latin term iustificare (“to make righteous”) and it was this that then affected Augustine's view of justification? Or was Romans 1:17 rightly translated by Jerome?
Wondering why early patristic writers had the same view on justification as Augustine.
Is there any material where I can read more on this?
Alister McGrath's book (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification) is going to be updated because he changed view on this.
Great stuff man, keep it up!
The modern critical text, in my opinion, can - and does at times - lead to a living text theory, undermining that the text was immediately inspired.
This is so good. Thanks brother
Excellent!!
Dear Taylor,
Do you have a contact email for your ministry? I did not see it under the ‘about’ tab.
Just another follow up question to the three already asked: (4) Where's a good place to get info on the "Approved Texts" ? I know Owen mentions them in passing in his 'On the Divine Original' but who discusses them a bit more than that - like mentioning approved texts, letting us know what they were, where they were from, and how they were being used during the advent of and period of the Reformation? Thanks again!
At about 30.00 min you say:
"First time in history when we have a lot of data on what actually happened. We do not have all the manuscripts they used, but we do have a lot of records about the manuscripts they used. We have translations that testify to the text they used, we have annotations, we have historical records that bear witness to what the church thought of the Alexandrian type manuscripts during a time when manuscripts were still being used in churches. It is the time in history where we have the most clear perspective on what the people of god thought of manuscripts that were actually being used."
That's a fascinating and important set of statements there, that it would be great to have some flesh put on them:
(1) Can you give some pointers as to the manuscripts they used (excluding Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza who's work is well known already)?
i.e. places where they tell us about manuscripts, where/how they received them, what happened to them, how they used them etc..?
(2) Apart from Erasmus and Beza's Annotations were there other annotations you were thinking of that give us direct insight on the manuscripts, or the kinds of manuscripts that were being used in 1514-1633?
(3) Apart from Erasmus's doubt about Stuncia's use of Vaticanus where were the men of the reformation expressing their opinions about what would become known as the Alexandrian text?
Thanks Taylor!