Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Matthew 5:27 - by them of old time

  1. Default Matthew 5:27 - by them of old time

    Matthew 5:27
    Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
    Thou shalt not commit adultery:

    Facebook - Pure Bible
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2031251930300019/

    Writers like James Snapp appear to be clueless as to how the corruption within the Greek line, which largely developed in the first centuries, was cleansed and eliminated in the Reformation Bible by skillfully using the wide range of evidences. Including the Latin lines and the early church writers, and also applying sharp thinking tools to the textual issues.

    Erasmus and the learned textual men of the 1500s, emphasis on Stephanus and Beza, were well aware that the Byzantine Greek was a line that had suffered corruption. And the Alexandrian "text-line" (which I view as a misnomer) was barely a radar blip, and when the variants appeared, they were rejected as corruptions.

    Even in the mid-1800s skilled men simply saw the Vaticanus text as an abbreviated Readers Digest abomination, even before Burgon. (This was before the Hortian textual criticism apostasy.) And these men in the Reformation era of the 1500s knew the early church writers, and the Greek and Latin mss, from their personal studies. And thus they produced the providential, pure "eclectic" received text.

    James likely picked this Matthew 5:27 Byzantine majority omission, which is in the Received Text, from the Edward Miller publication from John William Burgon notes.

    A textual commentary upon the Holy Gospels largely from the use of materials, and mainly on the text, left by the late John William Burgon (1899)
    Edward Miller
    https://archive.org/details/textualcommentar00mill/page/28


    And James tends to include his own superficial textual value-minus analysis. Ironically, James does not tell his readers that Burgon-Miller actually show strong support for the phrase, even while supporting omission.

    Our purpose here is to show how limited was the analysis of James Snapp. If your view of the Bible is not faith-based, you could understandably disagree on inclusion or omission, and come up with your personal probability pcts. That is the game today. And, like James Snapp, you will be de facto producing your own private version text, a plague of our times.

    And if you are a textual critic dupe, you will pretend to be objective, and then you will hide the evidences supporting the pure Bible reading, as done by James Snapp in his article. The pure Reformation Bible, and the majestic AV, becomes your enemy, because it tells you the truth.

    Galatians 4:16
    Am I therefore become your enemy,
    because I tell you the truth?


    This study came out of looking at:

    Facebook - Today at The Text of the Gospels:
    The Mumpsimus Mentality
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10156478904446693/

    The Mumpsimus Mentality - January 3, 2019
    http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...mentality.html


    Matthew 5:27: ερρεθη (it was said).

    KJV/TR: ερρεθη τοις αρχαίος (it was said by them of old time).
    ... the causes of corruption in the Textus Receptus are usually not difficult to perceive:

    Matthew 5:27: Conformation to 5:21.
    Typical superficial textcrit nonsense from James Snapp.

    We can get much more information from:


    A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament

    The Gospel According to Matthew
    Gavin Basil McGrath
    Matthew 5:27 - p. 92-04
    http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/pdfs/1net3.pdf

    After going through the Greek minuscule evidence, and the solid Latin ms. evidence and inclusion in Jerome's Vulgate which had access to ancient Greek and Latin mss, McGrath adds the pivotal:

    They are further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, Irenaeus (2nd century) in a Latin translation (c. 395), Origen (d. 254) in a Latin translation, Eusebius (d. 339), and Chrysostom (d. 407); and the early mediaeval church Latin writer, Gregory the Great (d. 604).
    Next is the sytlistic, internal evidences, strongly supporting inclusion. It is a good read, at the PDF.

    Plus, Miller using Burgon above, showed lots of additional church writer support.

    ==========================================

    Gavin Basil McGrath essentially calls the Received Text Neo-Byzantine as here:

    A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
    Being the Greek Text used in the AUTHORIZED VERSION also known as the AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION also known as the KING JAMES BIBLE
    Gavin Basil McGrath
    http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/pdfs/1net1.pdf


    The rich storehouse of neo-Byzantine textual jewels includes the beauties of the Greek Byzantine textual tradition and the glories of the Latin textual tradition. There are several thousand Greek Byzantine texts that lie behind the representative or majority Byzantine Text. Everyone of them has some beauty in its own unique way. p. v
    ... I humbly pray God that this commentary may be used to help such persons, as it acts to “build ... a bridge” across the many omissions and changes of the neo-Byzantine Received Text that appear in the modern neo-Alexandrian texts and / or Burgonite Majority texts, and their associated English (or other) versions. p. vii
    Additions planned.

    Steven Avery

  2. Default the Snapp Mumpsimus discussion

    My comment:

    Anonymous
    "In opposition to Burgon's position, that the preferable text is the Traditional Text found in the majority of manuscripts"

    This was never Burgon's position. This is easily seen in his "Seven Notes of Truth". Burgon has a variety of quotes, that can be used for either side of this question. To take a simple case, he never gave any hint of attacking Acts 8:37. That would be the textbook case (along with 1 John 2:23b and the more nuanced heavenly witnesses, where he has an interesting turnabout, classical ad hominem quote for Griesbach) for taking a Greek Majority position against the Received Text.

    As for the question of possible inconsistencies of Edward Hills, that needs a separate discussion. Suffice to say for now that Hills clearly stated that the Latin lines contributed to the Reformation Bible and AV text that he supported. This essentially negates the Maurice Robinson speculations above.

    =====

    For Daniel, I am curious how he tries to connect the F35 as the source of the TR.

    =====

    James Snapp has clearly supported the authenticity of the full text of Acts 8:37, with the baptism testimony. So how he tries to take a Greek number-counting position in this article is a very strange puzzle.

    And my example of Matthew 5:27 has the same type, and more, of the fulcrum ECW (early church writer) support that is so powerful with Acts 8:37.

    =====

    And I spent a few minutes looking at the Matthew 5:27 verse, because it had really solid detail techie information available from Gavin McGrath, as I show on the Pure Bible Forum post. And I suggest delving into the details in his paper. McGrath sees the Received Text as the Neo-Byzantine text. He can be quirky at times, and you may dispute his logic and conclusions, he definitely does a superb job in putting forth the evidences and giving his conjectures about the internal/transcriptional aspects.

    Pure Bible Forum
    Matthew 5:27 - by them of old time -
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...em-of-old-time

    =====

    Steven Avery

  3. Default

    This was the post that James deleted, or part of it.

    SIDENOTE - FYI

    Keep in mind that James is addressing the article first to the Facebook Confessional Bibliology people (the group with Robert Truelove now called The Received Text, formerly The Traditional Text.

    They have their selectively applied Creedal Hoops. (PuritanBoard is clearer, and I totally respect their doctrinal requirements.

    However, as you see, it is ultimately designed to the AV position.

    ===================

    Anonymous

    "In opposition to Burgon's position, that the preferable text is the Traditional Text found in the majority of manuscripts"

    This was never Burgon's position. This is easily seen in his "Seven Notes of Truth". Burgon has a variety of quotes that can be used for either side of this question.

    To take a simple case, he never gave any hint of attacking Acts 8:37. That would be the textbook case for taking a Greek Majority position against the Received Text.

    (Along with 1 John 2:23b and the more nuanced heavenly witnesses, where he has an interesting turnabout, classical ad hominem quote regarding Griesbach)


    As for the question of possible inconsistencies of Edward Freer Hills, that needs a separate discussion. Suffice to say for now that Hills clearly stated that the Latin lines contributed to the Reformation Bible and AV text that he supported. This essentially negates the Maurice Robinson speculations above.

    =====

    For Daniel, I am curious how he tries to connect F35 as the source of the TR. Perhaps the Greek ms. contribution? Tis a puzzle.


    =====

    James Snapp has clearly supported the authenticity of the full text of Acts 8:37, with the baptism testimony. So how James tries to take a Greek number-counting position in this article becomes a very strange puzzle. Consistency would look at verses with the same type of sharp acuity he used in favoring Acts 8:37 authenticity, despite its modest Greek ms. support.

    ==================

    And my example of Matthew 5:27 has the same type, and more, of the fulcrum ECW (early church writer) support that is so powerful with Acts 8:37.

    The Matthew 5:27 analysis is here, a bit long for this post.

    Matthew 5:27 - by them of old time
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=2172#post2172

    ===================

    Steven Avery
    Dutchess County, NY

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •