Catholic TR

[Psander]

Hello All,

It seems that a central pillar of TR onlyism is the sectarian claim that the TR represents the preserved text of God--unadulterated by Catholic Christianity. If there is a Catholic Greek text, I posit that the TR, recopied and preserved in the context of Catholic influence, reflects the most Catholic textual base. I don't see how one can get around this....

Open to input,
Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

rcc and the Reformation Bible and the Westcott-Hort text

Hi Folks,

It seems that a central pillar of TR onlyism is the sectarian claim that the TR represents the preserved text of God--unadulterated by Catholic Christianity. If there is a Catholic Greek text, I posit that the TR, recopied and preserved in the context of Catholic influence, reflects the most Catholic textual base. I don't see how one can get around this.... Open to input, Peter

Hi Peter, warm welcome to the forum.

Before more in depth input, please give me your explanation for the following simple three facts.

1) The placing of the works of Erasmus, including his Textus Receptus, on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) from about 1650 to at least 1950.

(Note: perhaps the index was disbanded or made 'inoperative' in the 20th century, although often appearances as written in the secular media do not reflect the actual rcc pronouncements and positions, so that to me is as yet undertermined.)

2) The simple fact that no Textus Receptus text has, afawk, ever been printed and utilized by the rcc anywhere in the world at any time. Also note that the Textus Receptus text is the underlying text behind what is known in scholarship circles as the Reformation Bible.

3) The fact that the rcc have become heavy users and supporters and even translators of the Westcott-Hort and derivative alexandrian texts. Texts which are even far more corrupt than their otherwise utilized Latin Vulgate text. And that today actual rcc usage of versions like the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible and the NAB (all alexandrian text-based) is common-place. And in many areas such alexandrian usage may surpass, even far surpass, the usage of Vulgate-based versions in rcc circles. (Sidenote: I use the expression "counter-reformation text" for the alexandrian versions, at this point YMMV).

Your proposed explanations for those three facts would be of help in moving the conversation along. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the three, share away.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

Catholic Influence on TR

Hello Steven,
It?s been a while. Thank you for the warm greeting, and I look forward to our dialogue.

1) The placing of the works of Erasmus, including his Textus Receptus, on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) from about 1650 to at least 1950.

(Note: perhaps the index was disbanded or made 'inoperative' in the 20th century, although often appearances as written in the secular media do not reflect the actual rcc pronouncements and positions, so that to me is as yet undertermined.)

Let me state the obvious: Erasmus did not work from a single Greek NT manuscript?actually Erasmus only used six or seven minuscule mss. Hence, the TR is itself an eclectic text, knitted into a single textual fabric using the humanistic-critical methods of textual criticism available to Erasmus. Erasmus was not commissioned by the Catholic Church to create the TR, in fact, Erasmus? motivation behind publishing a Greek text was possibly to beat the then officially-commissioned Catholic Greek text (the Complutensian Polyglot) to print. To this end note Erasmus? personal reflection that his Greek text was ?rushed to print and not edited? (Thompson, p. 167).
Not only was Erasmus? Greek text placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, but his Colloquia, which were sympathetic to Protestant disenfranchisements with Catholic abuses, were likewise banned with inclusion in the Index. Erasmus, though Catholic to his dying day, was yet critical of the Catholic Church.
(Colloquies: The Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 5 by Desiderius Erasmus. Translated and annotated by Craig P. Thompson. Toronto: Toronto, 1997)

2) The simple fact that no Textus Receptus text has, afawk, ever been printed and utilized by the RCC anywhere in the world at any time. Also note that the Textus Receptus text is the underlying text behind what is known in scholarship circles as the Reformation Bible.

The TR was constructed using late, minuscule (vs. the older uncial) texts which had been ?marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying? (Preface to the RSV). The copying conflation and additions of the minuscule texts were accumulated during the Dark Ages?the time of the greatest Roman Catholic influence. How could they not, despite the polemical refusal of the Roman Church to use the TR, reflect a Catholic influence that the earlier uncial texts were immune from? As just stated, the refusal of the Roman Church to use the TR was polemical, not textual. And, ironically, the Protestant use of the TR supplied Protestant translations with inferior readings for nearly five centuries before the rise of critical texts that took the older uncial texts into consideration.

3) The fact that the rcc have become heavy users and supporters and even translators of the Westcott-Hort and derivative alexandrian texts .. texts which are even far more corrupt than their otherwise esteemed Latin Vulgate. And that today actual rcc usage of versions like the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible and the NAB (all alexandrian texts) is common-place, and in many areas may even surpass the usage of Vulgate-based versions.

Ironically, the great uncial codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) provide challenges to official Catholic teachings in favor of readings that take away from ecclesiastical authority and dogmas. I disagree heartedly that the uncial codices are ?more corrupt? than the Latin Vulgate.
The TR reflects centuries of Catholic influence. I do not see how the TR is not one of the more Catholic Greek texts available.

kol tuv,
Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

rcc - uncials and cursives and Vulgate copying and doctrine

Hi Folks,

Peter, my first question to you was why the Erasmus books were put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum,

Erasmus only used six or seven minuscule mss.

Desiderius Erasmus had extensive travels and correspondence of over a decade throughout Europe while he was preparing the NT. (In Awe of Thy Word by Gail Riplinger goes into this in chapter 27 quite nicely, especially from pages 929-944, frequently quoting Erasmus of Christendom by Roland Herbert Bainton, English ed 1969) which gave Erasmus deep familiarity with the manuscripts from libraries and churches, both Greek and Latin. And what Erasmus had physically in his hands in the Greek NT were from the homogeneous Byzantine line, where most verses have 99% agreement among the manuscripts, so 7 and 70 and 700 give the same reading. Erasmus then refined the text over five editions, and it went through further refinement by Robert ?tienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza.

Hence, the TR is itself an eclectic text, knitted into a single textual fabric using the humanistic-critical methods of textual criticism available to Erasmus.

The Reformation giants used a methodology that was in general precisely opposite today's "humanistic-critical methods of textual criticism". As a simple example, while today lectio difficilior is a cardinal tenant, to the Reformation scholars this idea had close to no mileage at all. In the 1800s it became simply another excuse for small minority blunderama alexandrian readings to be incorporated into the revision, such as the swine marathon from Gerash. (A geographic blunder which we saw the IIDB skeptics embrace so warmly.)

Erasmus was not commissioned by the Catholic Church to create the TR, in fact, Erasmus’ motivation behind publishing a Greek text was possibly to beat the then officially-commissioned Catholic Greek text (the Complutensian Polyglot) to print. To this end note Erasmus’ personal reflection that his Greek text was “rushed to print and not edited” (Thompson, p. 167).

And while Erasmus used that phrase he also specifically indicated how it was "being taken to pieces and refashioned, so thoroughly that it will be a new book". And this was more a question of the extensiveness of proof-reading than anything else, since the extensive annotations demonstrated the careful nature of the work as a whole. As a more extensive accounting of the quote says, Erasmus indicates that errors had "slipped in here and there" (Ep 809:79) . Some references (sounds like this means the Annotations) needed to be inserted which "in my haste I formerly overlooked" (Ep 809:78-9). Additional citations to authorities needed to be made and additional manuscripts needed to be consulted. All of this was done in the next 20 years and four more editions, making the work a 30+ year project. The more balanced discussion then goes into the consuming nature of the efforts and his active seeking of suggestions and correction.

Controversies - Desiderius Erasmus, Jesse Kelley Sowards p. xxii
http://books.google.com/books?id=FmGRKp29LvMC&pg=PR22

Not only was Erasmus’ Greek text placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, but his Colloquia, which were sympathetic to Protestant disenfranchisements with Catholic abuses, were likewise banned with inclusion in the Index. Erasmus, though Catholic to his dying day, was yet critical of the Catholic Church.

So critical that shortly after his death all his books were totally forbidden to roman catholics. Does not sound very much like an rcc endeavor, a "Catholic Greek text, recopied and preserved in the context of Catholic influence". Apparently you have now confirmed the inaccuracy of that original comment.

The TR was constructed using late, minuscule (vs. the older uncial) texts which had been “marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying” (Preface to the RSV).

Do you feel a tiny tinge of conscience actually quoting the RSV Preface for this quote ? Does it really need a response ? The quote contains an internal competition between self-serving hilarity and ludicrosity.

The copying conflation and additions of the minuscule texts were accumulated during the Dark Ages—the time of the greatest Roman Catholic influence.

Every solid textual study shows that the times of textual divergence were by about 200 AD, no later than 300 AD. And you would be hard-pressed to find any significant reading in the Textus Receptus that does not show solid support from lines that were translated 400 AD and much earlier .. as well as early church writers from the early centuries. So, was this last statement also taken from the RSV ? (And for a study of the proposed particular 'conflation' verses the Wilbur Pickering paper online is a good start.)

How could they not, despite the polemical refusal of the Roman Church to use the TR, reflect a Catholic influence that the earlier uncial texts were immune from?

First, could you find any significant readings in the Textus Receptus that have cursive support and are actually lacking significant uncial (and early church writer) support ? Please list a few for our study. Without specifics, the "how could they not" becomes a tad unwieldy.

Beyond that, many of the manuscripts were under Greek orthodox care from 1050 on (or earlier with the Period Of Cold Silence 879-1054), not roman catholic, so this is a very large segment of the cursives. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 brought many of those manuscripts into Europe, however they were copied and maintained outside of rcc provenance. And most of the readings you are referencing are in the Peshitta Syriac line as well, totally outside of rcc influence.

Overall, the degree of rcc interest in active copying of the Greek manuscripts in the period from about 800-1400 AD is itself up in the air, a scholarship area that has a bit of a void. Their major copying interest was the Latin, I have yet to find a good discussion of their Greek copyist activities.

As just stated, the refusal of the Roman Church to use the TR was polemical, not textual.

Are you quoting your own off-hand statement as factoid ? If so, I will pass on it for now.

And, ironically, the Protestant use of the TR supplied Protestant translations with inferior readings for nearly five centuries before the rise of critical texts that took the older uncial texts into consideration.

And this is simply a circularity from the alexandrian modern version position.

Ironically, the great uncial codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.)

Could you be specific on the 'etc' ?

provide challenges to official Catholic teachings in favor of readings that take away from ecclesiastical authority and dogmas.

Could you list five of these readings ? Or at least three ?

I disagree heartedly that the uncial codices are “more corrupt” than the Latin Vulgate.

There are two ldistinct evels of corruptness, scribal and textual, and the first is an objective measure. Have you ever specifically read the descriptions of Dean John Burgon about the textual state of those two manuscripts (and also of Codex Bezae ?). Have you read any accounts that disagree with the scribal condition of the manuscripts ?

The TR reflects centuries of Catholic influence. I do not see how the TR is not one of the more Catholic Greek texts available.

Peter, I think your understanding of textual and church and manuscript histories can use some improvement. As for my three questions to you, if the opposition of the RCC was only a type of transitory polemical (thus the Index of Forbidden Books) opposition, not textual, why has it been maintained 100% for almost 400 years against every TR edition in every language throughout the world ?

And why has the same rcc heartily approved the alexandrian-based texts that you consider to be in opposition to their own doctrinal perspectives ? Seems very strange.

And when you get a chance, I really would like to see those 5-10 readings where the alexandrian uncials are particularly discomfiting to the rcc. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

Hello Steven,

I will reply in detail as I find time today, but I can see already that you are going to be a moving target. The information that you give is blatantly false and quite demonstrably so. With the methodology used one could defend the inerrancy of just about any corpus of inspired writ (Ellen White, Book of Mormon, etc.), and I have learned from experience that this will go no where.

More later,
Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

responding to an unusual proposition

Hi Folks,

Let's remember Peter, you started with a very unusual proposition, almost unheard of in scholarship circles, where the King James Bible is considered an example of the "Reformation Bible". A Bible text that was the unchallenged Bible of Christian believers for hundreds of years (putting aside the Peshitta which itself generally supports the Reformation Bible in its readings) -- in direct contradistinction to the rcc Vulgate. To have the Reformation Bible attempted to be pegged as "Catholic" (presumably as opposed to "Protestant - Baptist - Apostolic") is a very unusual position, one that happens to be rather easy to rebut. You seem to be upset that my assignment has been fairly easy.

I will reply in detail as I find time today, but I can see already that you are going to be a moving target. The information that you give is blatantly false and quite demonstrably so.

Feel free to show any "blatantly false" statements I have made above, generally I am quite careful to indicate where I am stating facts and where there is more of an interpretative element.

With the methodology used one could defend the inerrancy of just about any corpus of inspired writ (Ellen White, Book of Mormon, etc.), and I have learned from experience that this will go no where.

Sounds like a moving attack. Were we even discussing "inerrancy" ? That belief about the Bible had not even come up above.

Note, though, that the Reformation Bible defenders used the term "infallible" for the scriptures, a term which included tangible inerrancy as one component yet was far more meaningful.

My experiences on IIDB and Freeratio were interesting in how strongly the skeptics who do not accept the Bible as true in any way insist on trying to define the NT as necessarily one that must be based on the scribally corrupt ultra-minority alexandrian manuscripts. They are far more insistent on this than the Christians who claim simply to be adverse to what they call a "King James Bible Only" position. You have offerred a variation on this "definition" theme, and I simply responded to point.

In my experience the way your type of position of "adulterated by Catholic Christianity" is generally used as an attack against the Reformation Bible is one that is based not on the Greek Text. The attack is based on the influence that the Latin Vulgate had in the formation of the Textus Receptus text (as opposed to say the recent editions of 'Greek Majority Byzantine' texts where there is no Vulgate influence). This might lead to discussions of the Council of Trent and the apologetic debates between men like Robert Bellarmine (rcc for the Vulgate) and William Whitaker (Reformation Bible defender).

This in itself is a fascinating discussion, however I did not go into it since it was not the issue you raised. Your OP above is the first attempt I recall having ever seen that attempts to place the TR Greek Text as "Catholic", rather than being concerned about Latin Vulgate influences in the Textus Receptus. You staked out an unusual position, so you should not be surprised that your position was directly challenged on a number of levels.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

Vulgate & Catholic Influence

Hello Steven,

I will be unable to reply more until later, but, yes, I posit that the TR is much more heavily influenced by Catholic Christianity than the codices. I posit this because the copying/recopying of the Greek minuscule base texts of the TR occurred under the social and theological influences of Catholicism (in Roman or Orthodox flavors). The Vulgate influence on the TR is an example of Roman Catholic influence (e.g., the last six verses of Revelation, etc.), but that is not the case that I had in mind.

I do not consider my position unusual in the least. It is, after all, a direct implication of the textual-critical preference for the earlier codices.

* Why prefer the earlier uncial mss over the later minuscule mss?
--because they evidence an earlier era in the transmission of the text.

* Why are earlier textual samplings (mss) preferred?
--because they are assumed to have had less corruptions due to scribal copying by means of inadvertence or doctrinal "corrections" and harmonization.

So, I side with texts over which the hegemony of the Church has asserted less of an influence. In this sense, I am more fundamentalist than you or most KJVO supporters as I am seeking a closer textual connection to the "faith once delivered." My position that the TR is more Catholic is, hence, a direct implication of the science of textual criticism.

kol tuv,
Peter

 

[Psander]

burden of proof

Hello Steven,

And, I might add....the burden of proof is with you and KJVO against the majority viewpoint of Christian and/or textual scholarship. So, I will quote the status quo, and the overwhelming burden will be on those who would disagree with the same.

Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

never let the facts get in the way of a good theory

Hi Folks,

the burden of proof is with you and KJVO against the majority viewpoint of Christian and/or textual scholarship. So, I will quote the status quo, and the overwhelming burden will be on those who would disagree with the same.

Nope. I have no such burden of proof, especially since it is very easy to show the huge conceptual flaws in modern scholarship, which itself frequently starts with a presupposition of Bible error, even before textual studies.

To give one of many examples, modern scholarship claims that Peter did not write 2 Peter and Paul did not write the Pastorals. There is no substantive basis for this, these theories are very weak. Yet they are accepted by a majority of 'scholars'. If the theories were true, the Bible as a unit, Christianity based on the pure Bible, would be essentially irrelevant. Since whole books would be de facto forgeries with faked first-person accounts.

Similar could be said about the late dating perspectives given to NT and Tanach books.

And when you move over to the so-called science of 'textual criticism' you run into the same situation. The new paradigms of TC, improperly applied in the 19th century, are actually designed to force an errant and confused and undefendable text, as well as being incompatible with tangible inspiration preservation. (No text can ever be accepted as the pure word of God.) This has been demonstrated over and over in various articles, and if you are unfamiliar I could share some of the basics with you or point you in the right direction. Thus I have no need to re-refute weak positions which are irreconcilable with the historic Christian view of the Bible.

The bottom line is that I have no "burden of proof" on issues like this, since my position is the historic Christian position, fully in line with the Reformation position on the Bible, in concept and text. The conceptual blunders of the German schools of the late 1800s and the ultra-strange theories of Westcott and Hort are not a starting point in my discussions.

To give a simple example, Hort's theories posited a Lucian recension (as well as a new late dating of the Peshitta) to have any mileage at all. Dean John Burgon showed how even if the supposed Lucian recension were a fact, the very recension essentially destroyed Hort's position. Beyond that, the whole concept is historically flawed, it is a concept against evidence, and is essentially today a historically-discarded oddity, nobody defends the concept. Which essentially deep-sixes the whole Hort construct. Why is the theory not then abandoned ? Simply because pseudo-science has a motto ..

'never let the facts get in the way of a good theory'

Similar could be pointed out on almost every concept of 'modern scientific textual criticism'. e.g. How today's gross abuse of lectio difficilior is clearly not sensible in terms of real-world scribal activity (Professor Maurice Robinson has written about this, among others) and is totally incompatible with evangelical Bible faith.

Tons more could be said, however I simply want to give you a mini-outline and tell you that if you have a 'prove it to me' approach .. you will first have to show yourself very well studied and able to deal with the conceptual issues. Even before I take the discussion as meant as serious inquiry.

e.g. I asked you a simple question - if you had read Dean John Burgon on your favorite manuscripts. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and I added Bezae). If you have not done even the most fundamental research on your own, and are unwilling or unable to discuss the facts on the ground offering your own understandings, then your insistence on proof is irrelevant at best and a cheap debating trick at worst. I have absolutely no responsibility to 'prove' anything to skeptics and unbelievers, or to Christians with no pure Bible, since we have no agreed plumbline of truth and no agreed upon rules of evidence from which to 'prove'.

Remember, your first argument example was responded to rather easily, yet you dismissed the response as coming from "blatantly false" information. Now a claim like that from you .. definitely does have a high burden of proof. I await even one example of where there is "blatantly false" information in my posts above. And if you do not find a good example (and 'modern scholarship says' is not an acceptable demonstration, although at least it would be a start) a retraction of your assertion will be in order.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

researching...

Hello Steven,

I am doing some more reading before replying.

soon
kol tuv,
Peter