Kent Brandenburg on inspiration, autographs, preservation, languages - Luke 2:22 her purification

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mangled by the Rick Norris quote-snippets.- CARM quotes from Rick misrepresent Kent
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 4
By Kent Brandenburg July 18, 2014
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2014/07/18/are-accurate-copies-and-translations-of_18/

There did not appear to be any confession that either denied that the breath of God was in copies or accurate translations, or that made some sort of distinction between gramma and graphe in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

Scripture teaches that inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture. Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they are properly termed inspired. Since, in a derived sense, the Bible, when accurately translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word accurately translated is, in a derived sense, properly termed inspired. Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version inspired, because it is an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew autographs dictated once and for all by the Holy Ghost.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Kent,

First, I appreciate that you you will have the Authorized Version as inspired scripture.

One concern I would like to raise: The idea of limiting the New Testament autographs to Greek-only attempts to put a doctrinal preference over the historical reality.

Eusebius wrote, from Clement of Alexandria, that Hebrews was written by Paul in Hebrew and that Luke then translated it carefully into Greek. If accurate, this makes Hebrew the true autographic language.

One of many discussions of this theory also touches on the stylistic issues:

Paul the Apostle Wrote Hebrews
Sandra Sweeny Silver
https://earlychurchhistory.org/communication/paul-the-apostle-wrote-hebrews/

(Similar questions can be raised about Mark and Revelation and Matthew, and perhaps additional books, but Hebrews is an excellent focal point.)

Now it would be hard to prove or disprove what Eusebius wrote, but would it really be contradicted by a Greek-onlyism or Greek-primacy theory? When they clash, I believe it is the theory that has to bend. There is still Greek in a central spot in transmission, and the TR editions are looked at mostly from Greek, but the autograph theory ... not so good.

Yet the Greek-autographs-only theory seems to disallow this very sensible historical possibility, or probability. For the doctrinal purpose of placing Greek in a special autographic spot. Partly to match various confessions, perhaps with an ultra-literal view.

Similarly, Greek-onlyism on preservation runs smack into the historical excellence of the Latin lines on certain specific variants, such as the heavenly witnesses and Luke 2:22 and Acts 8:37. The Reformation Bible perfection was built on a base that included Greek and Latin, and even Syriac in a corroboration mode (the Syriac Revelation from c. AD 600 is especially interesting as akin to the TR text.)

So please do some special consideration.
And I look forward to your response and any counterpoint!

Yours in Jesus name,

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
https://linktr.ee/stevenavery

https://kentbrandenburg.com/2014/07/18/are-accurate-copies-and-translations-of_18/#comment-16213

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

Hi Thomas,

Thanks!

3 brief points.

The stylistic argument, presumably from Clement, is given by Eusebius, which at the least commands respect. It is not from the moderns and their games, and it involves robust books, not micro- snips of analysis. Note: Jerome also is warm to Hebrews in Hebrew.

“an egregious violation of His promises of preservation”
Why?
William Whitaker saw no difficulty.

Do you reject Luke 2:22 (her purification) and Revelation 22:19 (book of life) in the AV due to the lack of Greek support prior to the TR editions?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Thomas,

First I would like to discuss Eta Linnemann (1926-2009) and sample size. After her conversion she wrote strongly on Paul being the author of Hebrews.in her 2002 A Call for a Retrial in the Case of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This study includes the type of stylistic analysis you claim she opposed.

David Lewis Allen (b. 1957) goes into this in some depth in:

Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q1wmaVyAEukC&pg=PA51

Linnemann’s section on style makes a more substantial case. She examined Harold Attridge’s assertions in his commentary’s section, “Literary Characteristics of Hebrews: Language and Style.”45 Linnemann succeeded in countering virtually all of Attridge’s examples of Hebrews’ so-called “better Greek” with similar examples from the Pauline Epistles, especially Romans. ....

I am going to conjecture that you saw Eta Linneman show some spots where stylistic analysis has been used improperly. The ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae would be examples.

If you have more broad-based rejection of stylistic analysis from Eta Linneman, please share!

btw, note that Charles Forster (1767-1871) was very much involved in the Hebrews stylistic analysis. We are familiar with his superb book:

A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or, Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined, and the ... evidences for 1 John v. 7, eclectically re-surveyed (1867)
https://books.google.com/books?id=EKwCAAAAQAAJ

In which there is stylistic analysis, especially of two works connected with Athanasius.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
For clarity, we are discussing related questions.
1) Does every TR variant we accept require extant Greek manuscript evidence?
(else an egregious violation of preservation)
2) Is all preservation in Greek?
And is this mirrored by all autographs being in Greek?
3) Can there be multi-language authorship of the scriptures?
Just looking at your position on (3), please note William Whitaker.
A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (1588, 1849 edition)
William Whitaker (1548-1595)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WK7yPBiP1GcC&pg=PA125
… he (Jerome) says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew … the Greek edition both of the Gospel according to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles, received in the church, and approved by the apostles themselves.
Do you find Whitaker’s position acceptable?
Or do you reject it due to egregious violation?
Thanks!
Steven
=====================================

    • Kent

      September 16, 2022 at 9:53 pm


      This is to Steve too, but I’m just putting it here. I’ve thought about what I think is the primary question here. It applies, it seems, to the overall evidence. I don’t think that God preserved extant manuscripts. He preserved His Words in the language in which they were written. Translations show some evidence that those words existed. We can look at the words in the printed editions. One of the printed editions can have words from manuscripts predating them. It’s possible some of the manuscripts upon which they relied or they used do not exist any more. There is still a kind of chain of custody. All told, however, it is faith. It is the testimony of the saints based upon the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. It is what the church received.


      Reply


  • 3a75a04b2af3edffd2c99c17c1fb1483
    Steven Avery

    September 17, 2022 at 11:49 am


    And I agree with Kent on the faith component.
    Let’s take Luke 2:22. In 2022, we see 0 extant Greek mss., maybe we have a Greek church writer. And maybe the corruption was in the first 60 years after Luke wrote to the high priest Theophilus, by AD 100. We can be sure Luke wrote “her”, but if our belief requires extant Greek manuscripts, we put ourself in a bit of a sticky wicket.
    The Latin and versional evidence is massively singular, which must be her, with festivals on the purification of Mary. So the preservation was accomplished in Latin and versions, the Greek situation helped by the wonderful faith-consistent corrective analysis of Theodore Beza.
    The question boils down to the degree of Greek-primacy or Greek-onlyism a person uses for their inspiration-preservation Bibliological base.
    My personal view is more fluid.
    Steven

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

Hi Thomas and Kent and forum,

Luke 2:22 (AV)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

The Harvard Theological Review, Volume 14
William Henry Paine Hatch (1875-1972)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qpcWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA380

Footnote 4
Codex 76, a Vienna manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century, is commonly cited as a witness for αὐτῆς. This, however, is an error; for Gregory, who examined the codex in 1887, reports that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22 (cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, III, 484). Codex 76 is one of the manuscripts consulted by Alter. He printed αὐτῆς in Luke 2:22 without recording the reading of this codex. Griesbach inferred from Alter’s silence that αὐτῆς was found in 76, and in order to indicate that the citation was based on inference he enclosed the number 76 in parentheses. It has been pointed out above that this manuscript really has αὐτῶν; and Alter failed to indicate this fact through carelessness. His edition is substantially a reprint of 218, a thirteenth century codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Professor Karl Beth, of Vienna, has kindly informed me that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22. Alter, a Roman Catholic scholar, no doubt adopted αὐτῆς from the Complutensian-Elzevir tradition, or possibly from the Vulgate eius. Scholz, with characteristic inaccuracy, omitted Griesbach’s parentheses about 76, and thenceforth αὐτῆς passed into the critical tradition as the true reading of the manuscript.

If you need verification that there are no other Greek minuscules to support Luke 2:22 as "her", please let me know.

btw, Hatch does make a conceptual error in that paper, trying to play the ambiguous card on the Latin and versional singular readings that really had to be referring to Mary.

Edward Freer Hills did wonderful work, but some of his material is a bit dated, and he and others have often missed the Hatch paper.

Btw, I believe you have misrepresented other items, including William Whitaker (from my reading there was no contradiction with what was written a couple of pages later.) And not understanding that the purpose of the first link from Sandra Sweeney Silver was simply to properly supply the Eusebius position on Hebrews, which is not as easy as you would expect. My goal has been not to get into a technical morass, but to stay on the primary issues.

I'll plan on getting more into the overall conceptual, doctrinal issues on my next post.

Steven

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

Steven Avery

September 17, 2022 at 7:29 pm


Jon Gleason,
“preserved the Greek version … the preserved Greek text”
Yet our preserved Reformation Bible text, expressed in the inspired scripture of the AV, was built on Greek and Latin (and Syriac) evidences, and faith-consistent methodologies, including the refinements through Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. An amazing, providential process.
Remember Luke 2:22 and numerous other Bible variants where extant Greek preservation actually begins in the Reformation era.
Do we reject a word or phrase or verse because of minimal or zero earlier extant Greek support? I trow not!
The underlying Greek-onlyism and Greek-primacy needs reconsideration, even if supported by a literal read of Confessions.
If we can agree that their was no known extant singular ultra-pure NT text on the macro level before Stephanus and Beza, the Geneva and the AV, logically speaking, why would we insist on full Greek continuity on a micro level?
On what basis can we declare that there was ever a singular full NT volume, even in the early centuries, as complete and pure as the Reformation Bible excellence?
Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Thomas and Kent and forum,

Luke 2:22 (AV)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

The Harvard Theological Review, Volume 14
William Henry Paine Hatch (1875-1972)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qpcWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA380

Footnote 4
Codex 76, a Vienna manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century, is commonly cited as a witness for αὐτῆς. This, however, is an error; for Gregory, who examined the codex in 1887, reports that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22 (cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, III, 484). Codex 76 is one of the manuscripts consulted by Alter. He printed αὐτῆς in Luke 2:22 without recording the reading of this codex. Griesbach inferred from Alter’s silence that αὐτῆς was found in 76, and in order to indicate that the citation was based on inference he enclosed the number 76 in parentheses. It has been pointed out above that this manuscript really has αὐτῶν; and Alter failed to indicate this fact through carelessness. His edition is substantially a reprint of 218, a thirteenth century codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Professor Karl Beth, of Vienna, has kindly informed me that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22. Alter, a Roman Catholic scholar, no doubt adopted αὐτῆς from the Complutensian-Elzevir tradition, or possibly from the Vulgate eius. Scholz, with characteristic inaccuracy, omitted Griesbach’s parentheses about 76, and thenceforth αὐτῆς passed into the critical tradition as the true reading of the manuscript.

If you need verification that there are no other Greek minuscules to support Luke 2:22 as “her”, please let me know.

btw, Hatch does make a conceptual error in that paper, trying to play the ambiguous card on the Latin and versional singular readings that really had to be referring to Mary.

Edward Freer Hills did wonderful work, but some of his material is a bit dated, and he and others have often missed the Hatch paper.

Btw, I believe you have misrepresented other items, including William Whitaker (from my reading there was no contradiction with what was written a couple of pages later.) And not understanding that the purpose of the first link from Sandra Sweeney Silver was simply to properly supply the Eusebius position on Hebrews, which is not as easy as you would expect. My goal has been not to get into a technical morass, but to stay on the primary issues.

I’ll plan on getting more into the overall conceptual, doctrinal issues on my next post.

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Trying to correct either book from a speculative work in another language certainly does cause doctrinal problems"

Agreed, and never suggested.

This is done in certain cases, e.g. by the Aramaic primacists and the Jerusalem School for Synoptic Research. Also some proponents of Latin, in Mark and maybe more, have done similar, such as the scholars Francis Crawford Burkitt (1864-1935) and Maurice Casey (1942-2014) . Also Nehemia Gordon, who is excellent on the name of Jehovah (vs. the corrupt yahweh which is jupiter) seems to dabble a bit in this realm with medieval texts.

So I heartily agree that this can be a trap to try to fight the Reformation Bible.

"and it is very unwise to say that the inspired original vanished"

Here I see no difficulty. As long as we have the pure scriptures due to the Reformation Bible efforts.

"if everything Christ said was in Aramaic, why mention this one particular word was)?, or Eloi, eloi, etc. on the cross."

Well, Jesus likely spoke in multiple languages in the course of the ministry in the New Testament text, including Greek (Galilee of the Nations, Isaiah 9:1) Hebrew as Paul did in Jerusalem, and Aramaic, and possibly Latin.

The internal translations were only done for specific purposes. e.g. To show the Old Testament prophecy in the power of the Hebrew or Aramaic, or when a place-name has a certain specific meaning, like Golgotha.

"To say that readings with absolutely no Greek MSS support can be correct is to be to the left of even many critical text proponents and to throw preservation out, unless you believe that Luke 2:22 was written in Greek except for one Latin word in the middle of the verse in the copy Luke wrote with his hand, under the control of the Holy Spirit."

As I tried to explain above, I see (extant) "Greek MSS support" as an artificial standard for preservation. And I also explained the mechanics of an early drop of "her" shortly after the c. AD 40 writing to Theophilus. So I never speculated about a Latin word from Luke.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Ross was not happy about the Hatch scholarship and went back to Hills.

1663571626110.png

Luke 2:22
their purification. Erasmus. Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.
Her purification. Beza. King James Elzevir. Compliitensian. 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts. Latin Vulgate <?).

So let's add a bit more about MS. 76, Beza and the Complutensian

"The claim regarding MS 76 has long been refuted, by Gregory and others."
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf

My note : ** few cursives is probably from Tischendorf ** about Hills

Adye
https://books.google.com/books?id=jFQRAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA11
1663572351401.png


LaParola - masculine
αὐτοῦ] D 2174*

"The reading AUTHS is not found in MS 76. Gregory checked the MS and found AUTWN ("Textkritik" vol. 1, p. 146). Hatch confirms this."

Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes: A. Urkunden. I. Griechische Handschriften ... (1900)
Caspar René Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=aiR-vKx_uQ0C&pg=PA146
1663572651101.png

1663572731676.png


Griesbach - 1887
Prolegomena
https://books.google.com/books?id=RfJBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16
1663596208186.png


M.M.R.
U.B.S. 3rd edition also list ms. 76 The thing is there's no question mark or parentheses in U.B.S. 3 ( It reads // αυτής 76 // ) and yet NA26 has no mention of αυτής. the original UBS 3 had beaucoup errors, and was replaced by the UBS 3 "corrected edition" -- does the latter still have 76 listed? -- Yes

James White
Daniel Wallace
AV defenders after Hills
This information came from Tischendorf's GNT, 8th ed. Gregory corrected this mistake in 1887 and was published in the Prolegomena. Tischendorf followed Scholz who followed Griesbach who followed Alter's work. Scholz did not print the parentheses around the ms. notation (76). He printed it without the parentheses. Griesbach who was citing what he thought was Alter's collation, maintained doubt by placing manuscript 76 in parentheses. Other than the information found in Hatch's article, all I know about Alter's work was that it appears to have been a collation of mss. 218 (XII) and 76 (XIV/XV). Both mss. contain the plural AUTWN and not the feminine singular AUTHS. Griesbach thought that Alter was citing from a collation of ms. 76. Alter a Roman Catholic scholar, derived this reading from the Complutensian Polyglott. The Compl. back-translated it just as they did the Comma Johanneum. BTW the only GNTs to print this false reading is the Complutensian, Beza, and Elzeviers (Scrivener is an exception, as he was creating a text underlying the KJV). No one since this time has placed this reading into their text. No GNT, that I know, since Tischendorf, has cited ms. 76 as reading AUTHS. The Nestle-Aland 25th ed. has a question mark in the apparatus next to AUTHS. The BFBS GNT (Nestle editor, 1904) does not cite ms. 76 as reading AUTHS.

Did Professor Alter of Vienna say that he derived the reading from the Complutensian or is that a conjecture (of yourself or Hatch or another) ? If a conjecture, whose ? Did the Complutensian editors indicate that they back-translated Luke 2:22 or is that conjecture (it is generally accepted that some or most of their MS are no longer extant). If conjecture, whose ? Have you checked all the various Greek NT editions ? Walton, Fell, Bentley etc ? If this is conjecture, whose ?

BP: See Hatch's article for the information. See the updated information in Jan Krans' "Beyond What Is Written," (Brill, 2006).

Hatch also quotes Mill as saying that Erasmus used another MS, something you ferget to mention. How Hatch can quote Mill on Erasmus on one hand and conclude the Compluentensian did not have any Greek MS for "her purification" is a puzzle. It is a reasonable conjecture to make, a theory, but far from factual. More on that below.
=====================

Facebook on Jan Krans
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...t_id=682707685154457&comment_tracking={tn:R9}

1663567897891.png

1663592375784.png


Of Mary, αυτης. In the Vulgate: ‘eius (‘of him/her’), apparently ‘of Mary’. For it is proper to fulfill the Law, although Mary after Christ’s birth would be all the more sanctified, in any case, we have expressed the antecedent itself in full, in order to avoid any ambiguity. Most manuscripts [codices] have αυτων, and thus Origen reads also, followed by Erasmus. But I fail to see how this could fit, while the law of purification only concerns the mother. And so I prefer to follow the old edition with which the Complutensian edition agrees” (Krans, Beyond What is Written, 294. Cited from 1556 edition).

Indeed, most probably the true scripture has been corrupted by those who dreamt of diminishing Mary’s holiness to some degree in this way.95 (Krans, 294, 1582 addition)

1663570178435.png


1663570229920.png

==========
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/posts/682558538502705/?comment_id=2726823690742836

Jeffrey Riddle queue .. my post

her or Maries
Complutensian, Beza , Elzevir, Antwerp and Paris Polyglots, Dutch Statenvertaling, Spanish Reina-Valera
Luther, Gagny(RC), John Lightfoot
English Bibles - Geneva, Bishops AV
==
their
Erasmus, Stephanus and London polyglot
Calvin, Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, John Gill
(1500s English Bibles - Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverners, Great Bible)
==========
Thomas Holland
While the reading autnV (of her) is preferred and is written thus in minuscules 76 and 2174, both readings stand in the genitive singular and not the plural as autwn (of them) does.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/posts/10152248082046693/?comment_id=10152250129381693
1663589838925.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Forum,

It looks like we should continue with cursive ms. 76 in Luke 2:22. Hatch in 1921 in an excellent paper that is online explained how the error occurred and how it was corrected. Corrected by Caspar Rene Gregory in 1887 in a Tischendorf Prolegomena, and, more importantly, this was confirmed to Hatch by the visual inspection of Professor Karl Beth (1872–1959) of Vienna. Nonetheless, we seem to have a very skeptical stance here.

Before ms. 76, lets include the Beza note on Luke 2:22:

Luke 2:22 (AV)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;

Beza’s note is very helpful to understanding the superb decisions of the pure Reformation Bible.

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

Theordore Beza:

Of Mary, αυτης. In the Vulgate: ‘eius (‘of him/her’), apparently ‘of Mary’. For it is proper to fulfill the Law, although Mary after Christ’s birth would be all the more sanctified, in any case, we have expressed the antecedent itself in full, in order to avoid any ambiguity. Most manuscripts [codices] have αυτων, and thus Origen reads also, followed by Erasmus. But I fail to see how this could fit, while the law of purification only concerns the mother. And so I prefer to follow the old edition with which the Complutensian edition agrees.
(Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written, p. 293-294. Cited from Beza’s 1556 edition).

Indeed, most probably the true scripture has been corrupted by those who dreamt of diminishing Mary’s holiness to some degree in this way.
(Jan Krans, p. 294, Beza;s 1582 addition)

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

So Beza properly followed the Latin Vulgate and the Complutensian Polyglot, and faith-consistent textual principles, without concern for extant Greek mss. We know the CP’s approach could at times properly place Latin evidences over extant Greek mss., as occurred with the heavenly witnesses.

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

MS. 76 has been an equal opportunity problem for both AV pure Bible defenders and contras. This error of including the ms. as support for “her purification” was in the UBS apparatus until the 1983 3rd corrected edition. And today can be seen at the NETBible footnote and at the LaParola apparatus, as well as James White. And various AV defenders generally following Hills, with the faux apparent confirmation in the errant UBS apparatus and NETBible.

Why did Hills talk of other cursives?
There are none with “her”, if you want I can go into how that also got a bit muddied.

And I will say that I have been a bit surprised at the attacks on the ms. 76 information.

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
GA 76 is online
CSNTM
https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_76
αυτων not αὐτός

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

Just to put this issue to rest, where I have been chastised and ridiculed for simply speaking the truth about the ms. 76 and the variant (including Edward Freer Hills following the error and missing the Hatch corrective paper, along with many others including UBS and Wallace's NETBible.)

Note, not one thank you came my way for pulling out and sharing the info. On my end, however, it helped me collate my information for future study, which I try to keep and expand on the research site purebibleforum.

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

One reason Beza would say "most" for αὐτῶν is that Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis had been collated by Stephanus (and came to England in 1562) and it has the masculine singular Greek text αὐτοῦ. Which may also be in about 3 extant cursives.

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

Note:
If our theory is that there may somehow be other extant Greek manuscripts out there matching a variant, hitherto unknown, then we could have any Greek text at all. After all, a matching Greek manuscript might arise tomorrow.

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

"Not even one consonant or vowel can disappear from the original language text."

If we draw the line of NT preservation at specific Greek words always being extant, theoretically, our opponents can simply say:

"Show me an extant preserved NT, or an exact preserved Book, why are you only claiming specific words? Preservation is not disjointed, unconnected words."

Plus they can point out that your preservation has special pleading, about invisible theoretical not-yet-extant manuscripts supporting specific variants.

Personally, I am 100% comfortable that our text was preserved in Greek and Latin and that the Reformation Bible was the tool for harmonizing the preservation of the two (three with Syriac) major Bible text lines. Adding the fact of providentially anointed men over a century who used faith-consistent textual principles.

You are not comfortable with that, I understand. However, there is a wide range of preservation views among TR and AV defenders, and your surprisingly aggressive rhetoric, in my view, works against your position.

Blessings and grace in Jesus name,

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You have to navigate to:

https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_76
CSNTM Image Id: 283976
CSNTM Image Name is: GA_76_0097.JPG.
GA 76 has αυτων (plural)

3rd line from bottom on this pic
1663649634161.png

καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ
αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως



Scrivener's TR has αυτης (correct)


Luke 2:22
αὐτῶν (plural) – א, A, B, K, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ξ, Π, Ψ, 053 etc.
αὐτοῦ (masc sing) – D, 2174, syrs, copsa
αὐτῆς (fem sing) – 76 omit – 435, copbo
αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς - (singular) ita itaur itb itb itc itd ite itf itff2 itl itr1 vg
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Ross
" your position that it is a “probability” that Clement of Alexandria had first-hand knowledge that the original copy of Hebrews was in Hebrew from Apostles who were 150+ years old"

Thomas, it is not proper quoting to twice use the word "probability" twice when what I said was:
"Yet the Greek-autographs-only theory seems to disallow this very sensible historical possibility, or probability."

Plus I never wrote of "first-hand knowledge" leading to your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of 150 year old apostles.

And I believe the information from Eusebius is more than a possibility. Plus Clement did not have to have first hand knowledge. this was apparently passed down to Pantaenus and then to Clement of Alexandria.






Can you take a screen shot of the page from the MSS you linked to that has Luke 2:22 and circle the variant? I don’t have time to look through the challenging handwriting.
The reason we claim “specific words” is because that is what the passages actually say. They don’t say “books.”
“Not one thank you” is correct–you have received multiple “thank you”s not one only, in this comment section.
I am not the one who asserted the universal negative that among the vast numbers of uncollated MSS of Luke there is not even one that reads “her.” I did assert that Dr. Hills might know a thing or two about MSS of Luke more than we do when he affirms multiple Greek witnesses to “her” in Luke 2:22. I have never collated even one Greek MS. Have you collated any?
I am thankful that you believe in the KJV/TR. Your reasons for it, however, overthrow Scripture’s teaching on preservation. Matthew 5:18 and the other texts I cited simply say exactly the opposite of your position. They say that preservation took place in the original language. So we do NOT have the same position–your position that entire books of words that God gave the original writers can totally disappear is a radically liberal position, far beyond even the beliefs of the modernists who put together modern CT editions.
Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Ross
your position that it is a “probability” that Clement of Alexandria had first-hand knowledge that the original copy of Hebrews was in Hebrew from Apostles who were 150+ years old

Thomas, it is not proper quoting to twice isolate the word "probability" when what I said was:

"Yet the Greek-autographs-only theory seems to disallow this very sensible historical possibility, or probability."

Why not quote accurately? - "possibility, or probability"

Plus I never wrote of "first-hand knowledge" leading to your awkward attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of 150-year-old NT apostles.

And I believe the information from Eusebius is more than just a possibility. Since I do not have a Greek-onlyism presuppositionalism and know that Eusebius was often an excellent historian of the Bible. And, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, I do plan a separate study on this question which I will place on my research forum.

And the general stylistic analysis claim, of whole books, was done by fluent, native Greek scholars, church writers, of c. AD 150-200. Without a textual axe to grind. Deserves respect.

To me that is on a whole different level than piddle seminarian Greek Anglo and German scholars today whining about the Mark ending, which is in fact a small sample size about a very special event!

Luke and Acts have 25,000 words each, Hebrews 5,000, so I can not take your "sample size" objection to the book authorship question as meaningful.

Plus Clement quite obviously did not have to have first hand knowledge. This was apparently passed down to Pantaenus and then to Clement of Alexandria.

You have to discard the possibility because of your specific preservational motif. You can not have any writings by Mark or John or Paul or Matthew translated to the Greek scriptures c. AD 40-68 when the NT was in formation.

In such a case (e.g. John writing Revelation in Hebrew before his Greek edition, helping explain the unusual Greek grammar even in the TR text) the original words would be preserved through the Greek text. Seems perfectly fine to me, but to you it is out of bounds. And the contras seem to accept and understand this position, per my conversations on CARM and elsewhere.

In addition, you believe "words" can be preserved outside of their context, to me this is similar to the dictionary belief of preservation of the contras.

"All the New Testament words are in the dictionary" is similar to

"All the New Testament words are in Greek manuscripts, maybe, if we include those not discovered."

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

Here is where you can see the GA 76 picture, the word looks clear, so I do not think you need a red marker. On this I got a nudge and assistance from the Facebook group Textus Receptus Academy, a gentleman named Russ Boone, I did not know about this online ms. before yesterday.

GA 76 Pic

CSNTM Image Id: 283976
CSNTM Image Name is: GA_76_0097.JPG.
GA 76 has αυτων (plural)

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

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
KJB1611

September 20, 2022 at 9:50 am


Thanks for posting the pic at the link. Unfortunately, at least on my devices it is blurry if I attempt to read it. Can you say what page and line it is on in the csntm.org file? Thanks.
Of course, one MSS not having “her” does not come close to either proving that it is not in any Greek MS, contrary to what Dr. Hills affirmed, nor, much more importantly, does it change the fact that God says He would preserve the very words He gave His churches (and, since we are to live by them, we can see what they mean in context, but that does not require that God prevent every scribe from making copyist errors over the span of whole books or single books).
I am thankful to here that you do not believe what the article you linked to plainly said about the baptismal regenerationist and allegorical interpreter Clement of Alexandria, namely, that he spoke to the Apostles first hand.
I do not believe that the sentence you wrote with “possibility or probability” linking to the article saying Clement spoke to the Apostles first hand would be read as meaning 0.000000000001% as a possibility, but as something likely or probable. But if you think it is not really probable, thanks for clarifying that.
And yes, you are correct that believing Matthew 5:18, 24:35, and many other passages mean Clement is wrong. Let God be true and every man a liar.
If entire books of the NT can have disappeared because a 4th century historian quotes an Alexandrian false teacher who said this allegedly took place, preservation of Scripture is false, and Muslims, atheists, and radical critical test people can leap for joy, while even the editors of the critical text shake their heads, for they reject such radicalism.
I am surprised to have a TR person extolling someone from Alexandria, home of the Alexandrian text.
Thanks again for posting the link to Luke 2.
Have a nice day.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Thomas and forum,

Above I did put the information, it is not hard to navigate to the GA#, working till 0097.
https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_76
CSNTM Image Id: 283976
CSNTM Image Name is: GA_76_0097.JPG.
GA 76 has αυτων (plural)

3rd line from bottom on this pic

Thomas
" Clement of Alexandria, namely, that he spoke to the Apostles first hand."

Sandra Sweeny Silver had a wacky statement:
"Clement of Alexandria was a very early Christian writer who had access to some of the living Apostles and 70 Disciples of Jesus, so he had first-hand witnesses ..."
but since she had "Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD)" I did not think anyone here would get tripped up, the point was to look at the Eusebius material. If I did it again, I would include a disclaimer.

If I had to make a pct guess about Paul writing Hebrews in Hebrew, something I avoid, probably I would say "50-50", which is reflected in my "possibility, or probability".

Matthew 5:18 (AV)
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.

Matthew 24:35 (AV)
Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away.

Please do not improperly speak for my position on those two verses. I never have connected them to theorized Greek manuscript preservation, and I do not think they prove the historical position of Clement on the authorship of Hebrews wrong.

"If entire books of the NT can have disappeared"

No books disappeared, in a history with John or Paul writing a book in Hebrew, they simply are no longer extant in the original autographic language. Greek editions were available, virtually immediately. This does not affect our pure Reformation Bible one iota.

"I am surprised to have a TR person extolling someone from Alexandria, home of the Alexandrian text."

The two streams of Bible AV mythology of Alexandria vs. Antioch text-types, two streams, is largely a Benjamin Wilkinson myth that has been rather embarrassing for AV defenders. Wilkinson from the Adventist background lauded the Waldensians and wanted them to have an Old Latin text that is TR style, against the bad RCC Latin Vulgate.

There were good and bad expositors in both regions, e.g. if you like Athanasius he was from Alexandria. The corruption of the Alexandrian text likely arose mostly after Clement of Alexandrian, and the root cause was gnostic copyists taking short-cuts, much of it is simply a Reader's Digest text. It is hard to pin that on Clement of Alexandria. Carl Cosaert has a 2008 study, The text of the Gospels in Clement, that shows Clement with a proto-Byz text. Earlier, Burgon had him 55% Byz (Traditional Text) over Neologian, https://books.google.com/books?id=fX9CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA99 .
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Why did the Geneva 1560 have her purification

Krans
1663809617460.png



Beyond What is Written - p. 294,
Jan Krans
https://archive.org/details/BeyondW...ConjecturalCriticsOfTheNew/page/n303/mode/2up

Jean de Gagny (d. 1549)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Gagny

In Euangelia Scholia
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_fIOoN4YMm_cC/page/n399/mode/2up
Note on right-hand side bottom of page begins:
"Pro eius, Graeci codices variant"

1663811169829.png


Gagny (In Euangelia Scholia, 1559, pp. 181v-182r) expresses the same preference for αὐτῆς, having noted αὐτοῦ and αὐτῶν in Greek manuscripts, as well as αὐτῆς in the Complutensian Polyglot. The Geneva Bible (1560) has a marginal note to the reading “her purification”: “Or, their."

Glenn Conjurske
http://www.straitegate.com/oldepathsfolder/op94feb.htm
In Luke 2:22 several editions of the Textus Receptus, as well as the Majority Text and most critical editions, read “their purification.” This is also the reading of all of Tyndale's Testaments, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, and the Great Bible. It is also the reading of the Southwark edition of Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament, which has eorum in the Latin, with little support. The Paris edition, however, which alone was printed under Coverdale's personal supervision, has “her purification”----eius in the Latin----this being the only version in English before 1560 which so reads. In 1557 the ultra-Protestant Geneva New Testament appeared, which read “Maries (that is, Mary's) purification”----a bold alteration with no support at all from manuscripts, and an obvious attempt to shield the Lord from the imputation of any need for purification. The Geneva Bible of 1560 reads “her purification,” with “their” in the margin.

Facebook my pst
Here are English Bibles, the scriptures, which have the error "their purification" (as do the modern versions.)
Tyndale
Coverdale
Matthew
Taverner
Great Bible.

Eight editions
https://archive.org/details/newtestamentocta00unse/page/320/mode/2up }

Was there a Latin Beza in 1557
Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=2u0RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173

http://books.google.com/books?id=MtQ5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA337
1663788854836.png

Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=ImVbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA231
1663788747266.png
1663788793955.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Forum,

Andrew shared some information and asked about the Geneva 1560 having "her purification". In 1556 Beza had both a Latin and Greek New Testament, it is very possible they had contradictory texts, singular meaning her in the Latin, and their.

Anyway, the following information shows direct interest in the Greek ms. situation.

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

Beyond What is Written - (2006) p. 294,
Jan Krans
https://archive.org/details/BeyondW...ConjecturalCriticsOfTheNew/page/n303/mode/2up

Gagny (In Euangelia Scholia, 1559, pp. 181v-182r) expresses the same preference for αὐτῆς, having noted αὐτοῦ and αὐτῶν in Greek manuscripts, as well as αὐτῆς in the Complutensian Polyglot. The Geneva Bible (1560) has a marginal note to the reading “her purification”: “Or, their." ...

Note the direct interest in Greek manuscripts, even though Gagny was working with a Latin text and commentary.

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

Jean de Gagny (d. 1549)

So presumably Gagny did this manuscript study and decision no later than 1549.

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

In Euangelia Scholia
Note on right-hand side bottom of page begins:
"Pro eius, Graeci codices variant..."

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

So it looks like the lack of extant Greek ms. attestation was not considered a problem. And they knew the plural Greek was different than the singular forms.

And the Complutensian contributed to the confidence and accuracy in making the decision to place the singular feminine in Greek and English editions.

Was it "corrective analysis"? Not in the big picture, looking at the Complutensian, but yes in the picture of the Erasmus-Stephanus-Beza Greek New Testaments, where about a dozen editions had the plural error.

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

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Andrew,

Apologies on the 1556 error.
Apparently, using Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written, and his blog, as the source,

Beza as Editor of the New Testament
https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/9789047410515/BP000011.xml

Beza’s New Testament editions online
http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/bezas-new-testament-editions-online.html

In 1556 there were two Latin texts, one traditional Vulgate, one corrected more towards the Greek, using the Stephanus collations. The idea of two differing Latin texts goes back to Erasmus. It would be interesting to find any scholarship showing, e.g. 25 of the major differences between the two texts. Also it would be good to try to identify online the two differing texts.

As Jan Krans says:
"The 1560 Geneva stays very close to Beza's text and opinions, but not slavishly."

So the Beza note of 1556, above, would likely be a spur to "her purification" in 1560.
http://vuntblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/bezas-new-testament-editions-online.html

Thus, their main area of textual manuscript and edition research was Greek and Latin. And the early church writers and a faith-consistent textual analysis were used for both.

It would be interesting to see cases where Latin variants were discussed. An obvious Latin variant is the errant omission in the Lateran Council and the Complutensian of “the three agree in one” from the earthly witnesses. This was a late variant, doctrinally motivated. Luke 2:22 has the eorum plural variant in a couple of Old Latin mss. Acts 20:28 is an example where the Old Latin is quite split between Lord and God. There are many interesting Latin splits.

Andrew, I disagree with your Luke 2:22 manuscript analysis, especially your idea that the Greek plural was being translated as a feminine singular, “either reading would translate the same way.” That does not explain the various English editions with “their purification”, (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, Great Bible.) nor the Gagney note, nor the Beza notes.

As for your analogy with sabbath plural or singular verses, that is an area where I would need a fluent native Greek, and/or a skilled Greek translator to weigh in. However, the issues look to be quite different.

We could do a whole post on the John Mill section, where there are some problems. The strongest part is his noting the masculine singular reading that is in Codex Beza Cantabrigiensis as absurd.

You mention 1598, however the Beza notes began in 1556 (before Geneva 1560) and Greek text correction I believe in 1582.

Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
αὐτῶν] ‭א A B K L W X Δ Θ Ξ Π Ψ 053 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174c Byz itq syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo(mss) goth arm eth geo Origenlat Cyril-Jerusalem Augustine Cyril ςStephanus WH NR CEI Riv Dio TILC Nv NM
αὐτοῦ] D 2174* pc syrs copsa(ms) Paschal Chronicle
αὐτῆς] 76 ςScrivener ND
αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς] it

(1931) Wilkinson, Benjamin - Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Bible - PDF - ** George Salmon ** Burgon Guardian - ( Erasmus 4th edition has corrected Latin Vulgate by Greek - three parallel columns Edward Miller )

Beza supports Vulgate Latin over Greek-corrected contra Erasmus
Joseph Dixon
Richard Simon .. then goes on to state, that Beza in the New Testament preferred the vulgate to all other Latin versions, and censured Erasmus for condemning it because it does not agree always with the modem Greek copies; “ whereas," says Beza*, “ it appears to have followed a more correct Greek copy." Walton adds, that Beta’s own attacks on the version were severely criticized by a learned Protestant (John Boys, prebendary of Ely, in England), who, by the desire of Launcelot Andrews (the Protestant Bishop of Ely), wrote a defence of the vulgate against Beza. Mill, who spent thirty years in preparing his famous edition of the New Testament, informs us (in the prolegomena to his Greek Testament, p. 142), that he considered the fragments of the old Italica as more precious than gold; he wished that St Jerome had not departed so much from it in his correction of the New Testament; but yet, speaking of our version in the New Testament, as it stands after St Jerome's revision, he says,

"Quam certc tantum abest, ut ad Graxum ... posteros prodeat qualcm earn edidit Hieronymus."

We see, therefore, that in Mill’s judgment, to procure an exact Latin version, we ought not to attempt to reform the vulgate according to any printed Greek edition, but to make the required corrections by collating the ancient Latin MSS. We may add here the judgment which Lewis de Dieu, a man famous for his knowledge of the languages, passes upon the vulgate. The words are quoted by Walton (in the place before cited, Prolegomen. 10, versus finem,) from a work of Ee Dieu upon the gospels. De Dieu is comparing the Syriac, Arabic, and other versions, with the vulgate and the versions by Erasmus and Beza. His words are:

“Si vulgatum iuterprctern, quisquis is tandem fuerit, doctum, iino doctissimum virura fuisse asscram, non me
peccasse judicavero; suos habet naevos fateor, hal>et et suos barbarismos, sed quin passim cjus fidem judiciuinque admirer, etiam ubi barbarus videtur negare non possum."

“ Were I to assert that the vulgate translator, whosoever he was (for in the New Testament he is unknown), was learned—
nay, most learned—I should not consider that I had erred. He has his blemishes, I admit, he has also his barbarisms; but I cannot deny that I must admire his fidelity and judgment, even where he appears to be barbarous.” Hence De Dieu often, among the various readings, prefers that of the vulgate to the rest, and defends it against Beza. Walton cites a number of instances of this from his work. Such are the testimonies even
of the most learned Protestants in favour of our version. No doubt several
Protestants havo spoken disparagingly of the vulgate, but in this they have
been led by their prejudices rather than their judgment. On this point a
recent Protestant writer thus speaks (Dr. Samuel Davidson, Sacred ller-
meaeutim, p. 625) : u This translation has been highly esteemed by the



Note for Jan Krans:
Hi Jan Krans,

Wonderful blog post. Maybe you can you help a little with Beza and Luke 2:22, her purification, following up on Beyond What is Written. Was 1582 the first Greek edition with “her”, αὐτῆς? Beza’s note of 1556 supports “her” (which likely was a spur to 'her purification' as the text in the 1560 Geneva). And then there is the 1582 note addition. Did Beza leave the old plural reading 'their', αὐτῶν in 1565? If so, why? :)

FYI: on the superb Jean Gagny note the book edition is 1559 but he is listed as passing in 1549. In which case the note was written a decade or more earlier than the edition. And this Gagny note looks to be the best note on Luke 2:22 and Greek manuscripts in the 1500s, and even much later.

Side question:
Is there any study showing some of the major differences between the two Beza Latin editions of 1565, Vulgate vs. corrected Latin? Would love to see the 10 biggest updates. Erasmus 4 of 1527 also had Vulgate and corrected editions.

Any help appreciated!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
www.linktr.ee/stevenavery
=============

Willem Surenhuis (1666-1729) in his Liber conciliationis in loca ex Vetere et Novo Testamento (1713) defended the reading of Beza. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NIFBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA302

 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Krans comment

Hi Jan Krans,

Wonderful blog post. Maybe you can you help a little with Beza and Luke 2:22, her purification, following up on Beyond What is Written. Was 1582 the first Greek edition with “her”, αὐτῆς? Beza’s note of 1556 supports “her” (which likely was a spur to 'her purification' as the text in the 1560 Geneva). And then there is the 1582 note addition. Did Beza leave the old plural reading 'their', αὐτῶν in 1565? If so, any thoughts why? :)

FYI: on the superb Jean Gagny note the book edition is 1559 but he is listed as passing in 1549. In which case the note was written a decade or more earlier than the edition. And this Gagny note looks to be the best note on Luke 2:22 and Greek manuscripts in the 1500s, and even much later. There is a John Mill note in the 1700s and also Hi Jan Krans,

Wonderful blog post. Maybe you can you help a little with Beza and Luke 2:22, her purification, following up on Beyond What is Written. Was 1582 the first Greek edition with “her”, αὐτῆς? Beza’s note of 1556 supports “her” (which likely was a spur to 'her purification' as the text in the 1560 Geneva). And then there is the 1582 note addition. Did Beza leave the old plural reading 'their', αὐτῶν in 1565? If so, why? :)

FYI: on the superb Jean Gagny note the book edition is 1559 but he is listed as passing in 1549. In which case the note was written a decade or more earlier than the edition. And this Gagny note looks to be the best note on Luke 2:22 and Greek manuscripts in the 1500s, and even much later. In the 1700s John Mill steps in, and also Willem Surenhuis (1666-1729) in his Liber conciliationis in loca ex Vetere et Novo Testamento (1713).

Side question:
Is there any study showing some of the major differences between the two Beza Latin editions of 1565, Vulgate vs. corrected Latin? Would love to see the 10 biggest updates. Erasmus #4 of 1527 also had Vulgate and corrected editions.

Any help appreciated!
Especially on Beza and Luke 2:22.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
www.linktr.ee/stevenavery
 
Top