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

Steven Avery

Administrator
Kent Brandenburg
"Wilkerson was picking something up that already existed. There are definitely two sides, two branches, two streams, however you want to put it."

We can talk about metaphors, but "two streams" as defined by Wilkinson was very specific. And today it is invariably accompanied by charts, one is called the Hark Chart, which places the Old Latin on the good stream and the Vulgate on the polluted stream. While there are other many other problems with the chart, this is the one that really cries out "worthless!".

You can see the genesis of the theory:

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930)
Benjamin. George Wilkinson (1872-1968)
https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT15
https://archive.org/details/doctrine-bible-benjamin-g-wilkinson-our-authorized-bible-vindicated-01

"Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles"

And you can see the Wilkinson defense of the theory:

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

Answers to Objections
A Reply to the "Review" of my Book
"Our Authorized Bible Vindicated"
Benjamin. George Wilkinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=SxgnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT229

I also proved, historically, in the same chapter, that the Waldensian Bible was from the Textus Receptus. Now the Spirit of Prophecy says that the Waldensian Bible was of apostolic origin, uncorrupted, entire, and teaching apostolic Christianity. The Reformation adopted the Textus Receptus; the Jesuit counter-Reformation adopted the Vaticanus. .... The Spirit of Prophecy endorses this line of reasoning. I gave in my book, (page 42) that quotation from Sister White which shows that the Waldenses possessed a Bible which came from apostolic days, was entire, was unadulterated and was ever sought by the fury of the papists to be corrupted. The Spirit of Prophecy, however, tells us that angels restrained their malignant hatred and their efforts to bury the Waldensian Bible under a mass of error and superstition.

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

You see, this more than over-simplified, actually false, representation of textual history, was intrinsically a part of the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White) error about the Waldensian Bible.

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

And I have a page on all this here:

Pure Bible Forum
two lines - two streams - two trees
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/two-lines-two-streams-two-trees.73/

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

Here Bryan Ross helped bring this understanding to the AV defender mainstream.

The Two Streams of Bibles Model of Transmission: Its Origins & Accuracy (2019)
Bryan Ross
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/wp-...bles-Model-of-Transmission-Complete-Notes.pdf

In the Pure Bible Facebook Group, I was able to interact with researcher Steven Avery. As it turned out, Avery also had misgivings about the “two streams of Bibles” model but for different reasons. Instead of questioning the paradigm via the Gothic and Peshitta translations as I had, Avery’s doubts were primarily centered around what he perceived to be false dichotomy between the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate. Moreover, Avery also expressed misgivings regarding Benjamin Wilkinson, the fountainhead of the “two streams” notion and his ties to 7th Day Adventism.

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

This might explain why Rick Norris and Mark Ward, terrible writers on their own account, are able to follow the Doug Kutilek lead and point out obvious and blatant errors from AV defenders.

btw, I am far more sympathetic to Adventists than many of our Baptist and Reformed TR & AV defenders. Personally, I have had good contacts with their health retreats over the years, and understand their sabbath position. And I believe Wilkinson was brave in what he wrote on the Authorized Version, and a bit of a pioneer.

However, showing the falsity of his two streams position, and explaining how it arose out of Adventist error, is simply a reasonable service. Too many AV defenders have tripped themselves up following this rabbit trail of the charts.

Maybe there is a way to rehabilitate "Two Streams" theory on the NT, but it is difficult with so much misinformation around.

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 ...

Beyond What is Written - 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 in the comments on the blog page above:

"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.

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
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Forum!

Kent
"I’ve never read Wilkinson, and I’ve never used the terminology, “two streams,” and seen the charts on this. ..."

However, this argument, originating from Benjamin Wilkinson, has been used by dozens of TR and AV defender writers, often with the misinformation charts that place the Old Latin on the good side and the Vulgate Latin on the bad side. This mistaken push is not just metaphorical, and has undermined the integrity and accuracy of TR and AV defense.

Can we really chastise Mark Ward for an argument against the metaphorical idea of "two streams" that he has not actually made, but that we feel he would make? Remember, stopped clocks are right twice a day.

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

Here is a more accurate take of "two living streams" from the 1800s, Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall (1812-1879) was involved in a superb defense of the heavenly witnesses authenticity, one of the very best writings, in two parts, the first part was:

American Church Review (1874)
The genuineness of I. John, v. 7
https://books.google.com/books?id=rkQUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA625
p. 625-641

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

We are looking at the conclusion of the second part.

American Church Review
The genuineness of I. John, v. 7 proved by neglected witnesses
Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
https://books.google.com/books?id=YaPSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA528
p. 509-528

And diligent, thorough scholars, in search of the whole truth of history upon this question, must discuss it on broader ground than Biblical critics commonly have in view. Thorough scholars recognize the fact, that every Latin Version made before the era of printing, and having a diction of its own distinct from that of other Latin versions, implies the existence of a Greek manuscript from which that translation was made. When this fact is duly regarded by all whom it concerns a vast advance will be made toward the true and safe decision of this long controversy, by a thorough comparison and combination of ‘‘the Greek evidence” and “the Latin evidence” from all sources, not as two kinds of testimony having rival or unequal claims to attention and regard, but strictly co-equal wherever they can he traced as contemporaneous. Both alike records, in ancient manuscripts, of readings received when those manuscripts—the Latin as well as the Greek—were penned; two living streams of Holy Truth and cherished knowledge of that truth ; there flowing in their own proper channels as distinct tributaries for the diffusion of revealed wisdom among the nations; here intermingled, rolling on with all their affluence of sacred learning above the ruins of the old philosophy, both Greek and Latin.

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

This fits the actual activities of the superb Reformation-era scholars in the century of Bible analysis and collation from Erasmus to Stephanus to Beza to the learned men of the AV. You can actually start earlier with Lorenzo Valla (1441-1552) whose work was the spur to Erasmus.

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

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Andrew
"The variant here in Luke 2:22 is not that – it’s simply something that translates the same either way. Therefore not as much of a concern."

If that were true, nothing else would be needed, at least for AV defense. The TR issue might still exist.

It looks like you are saying that the ultra-majority reading αὐτῶν can be translated "their purification" or "her purification". (If you are saying something else, please indicate, thanks!)

Afaik, this is a unique claim that you have made, based on an ultra-dubious analogy attempt. And perhaps misreading John Mill. Or perhaps dealing with a different variant, not αὐτῶν, a singular reading that is not gender fixed and allows two translations, which does exist in some languages.

Dozens of fine writers have discussed Luke 2:22, pro and con to her purification, and I have never seen this claim made till your posts on this forum.

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

btw, I believe you are confusing two fundamental issues.

1) does the evidence point to an original Greek for "her purification"

2) do we see extant manuscripts for "her purification"

=====

#1 has been my position, positing a possible corruption even in the first century, within 60 years of Luke's writing to Theophilus.

#2 - the evidence is no extant mss.
(you sort of acknowledge this by moving to the Vetus Latina, which does help with #1, as explained in my quote of two living streams from Cornwall)

True, anybody can claim that there are, were, or will be Greek mss. in hand, with αὐτῆς.

We agree that there were such mss. in the first century, penned by Luke. (Since we can be quite confident that Luke was penned in Greek.)


However, the Complutensian, Gagny, Beza, Geneva editions, AV, etc. do not give any positive evidence for extant Greek ms. support at that time. Nor do the searches today.


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

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Our basic differences I will try to express.

Thomas Ross and maybe other posters believe that the promises of preservation filter down to the question of known or extant or theorized Greek manuscripts, word by word.

This is an outgrowth of a Greek-primacy perspective, which is sometimes supported by Confessional statements around the 1600s, where Greek is proclaimed the original language of the NT. It is also supported by a specific interpretation of New Testament scripture preservation verses.

Also all pure English Bible inspiration, with a central focus on the AV, is carefully given the derivative sense. This is superior to the no inspiration view of many, such as the Dean Burgon Society, yet it also again a type of second fiddle.

The positions of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza were more involved in dual language New Testament reconstruction, utilizing preservation from Greek and Latin manuscripts. Syriac as well, in the 2nd half of the century. And related evidences like the early church writers and faith-consistent textual principles, principles which are often opposite the modern textual criticism pseudo-principles. Thus I have not seen those 1500s textual savants make statements of absolute Greek primacy. Erasmus to Titlemans wrote of "both from both", Greek and Latin correcting, when he was responding to a Latin-primacy perspective.

Returning to the Greek manuscript support, that is why so much effort has been placed here on theorizing Greek manuscripts for Luke 2:22 for 'her' purification. Either the Greek manuscripts existed in the 1500s, or they exist today, or the Greek-primacy proponents conjecture some other way. It is not sufficient to say that there was a corruption in the Greek manuscript line in the first two centuries, there has to be a theorized, physical quasi-extant ongoing manuscript tradition transmission in later years.

And the same, presumably, would be done for the 5 to 10 New Testament variants in the later TR editions and the AV that do not appear to have any extant Greek manuscript support. Andrew mentioned a few, there are a few in Revelation, and others often in the Bible debate. Somehow the Greek-preservation primacists have to theorize not just an original Greek of c. AD 50-200 which was corrupted, but a transmission Greek through the centuries.

A corollary of all this, at least for Thomas, is the rejection of any theories of translation to Greek in the original text. No first-in-Hebrew Revelation by John, helping to explain the linguistic issues, no Hebrew Hebrews by Paul with Luke a translating amanuensis as explained by Clement of Alexandria, no Latin edition by Mark for Rome, as explained by Hoskier and numerous others, unless it was late, no original Hebrew Matthew unless it was a different book than canonical Matthew. (The first three I see as very real possibilities.)

As I have expressed, overall, my own position is different. My defense is of the Bible I can read, the Authorized Version. While I study the Greek and Latin sources that brought forth the AV text, I see the Greek and Latin as "two living streams", as expressed by Cornwall, that brought forth the AV excellence, purity and perfection.

The accusation is made that I am denying preservation when I point out verses without an extant Greek ms support, or theorize early non-Greek texts translated to Greek. This, I believe, is based on an interpretation and historical base which I do not share.

Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts!

Grace and peace in the name of the Lord Jesus,

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Andrew
"We also learn from Mill, furthermore, on p. 748 of his Novum Testamentum (in his discussion on 1 John 5:7), that Stephanus and the other TR editors had access to ancient exemplars (as Mill calls them) in their day, and that this is basis of what represents the readings in each of their texts.” There is no reason to doubt what John Mill says...

There was a major error in the Stephanus collation relating to the heavenly witnesses, and crochet marks, likely placed by his son Henri. These marks were meant to indicate the last phrase of the earthly witnesses (often dropped in Latin text) but were interpreted by many as showing that Stephanus had many mss. in Greek with the heavenly witnesses.

John Mill was one of many who erred , even though this had actually been written about over a century earlier by Lucas Brugensis

Thus, I would not extrapolate from the John Mill comment, as if it gives great insight into the 1500s textual labours. The comment was mistaken even on the specific question at hand.

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Dear Steven,
You are correct that we have different views of preservation. In all of your discussion, you have never provided careful exegesis of the Scriptural texts that plainly and clearly say that the specific words that were given to the infallibly controlled human writers of Scripture are going to be preserved forever and available to God’s people–for these texts plainly say that your view is wrong.
Your attempt to defend the AV from a non-perfect preservation perspective destroys Scriptural preservation, its most important problem, as well as advocating radical anti-preservation ideas like entire books of Scripture disappearing without a trace in the manuscript record, something far to the left of even the editors of the critical text.
Your historical arguments are also highly problematic (such as your quote above that every Latin variant requires the existence of a Greek text that had that variant–so scribes of Latin MSS made no copyist errors?), and your attempts to prove that readings with no Greek MSS support must be defended is also problematic. If one were to grant that when Beza said “most” MSS have a reading he really meant “no” MSS have the 1598 TR reading in Luke 2:22, that Dr. Hills is wrong when he said some MSS have the KJV reading in Luke 2:22, that we can draw dogmatic conclusions that no MS has a reading in Luke although nobody has ever even come close to collating all the MS of Luke, etc. all you would prove is that other TR editions in Luke 2:22 are correct. It would be far better to draw this conclusion than your view that entire books of Scripture can disappear without a trace, like the golden plates of the book of Mormon.
Please carefully study Scripture’s promises on preservation and see if what the verses actually say fits what you are arguing for. If widespread adoption of your view would actually destroy the case for the TR, KJV, and preservation, maybe you should rethink it.
Finally, I would still like it if you could tell me exactly what page in the MSS you linked to I can see the high quality pic that shows that MS does not have the KJV reading, and where on the page it is. The smaller one that allegedly had it three lines from the bottom is blurry, and it has no page number. I trust that you are reading these MSS yourself and actually know what you are looking at, and the same is true when you are talking about Syriac and the book of Revelation, namely, that you can read Syriac fluently and so know what you are speaking about. Also, you may not be aware that the book by Jan Kranz is in copyright by Brill, so whoever posted it online did so illegally; so maybe it is best not to link to books illegally placed online. I would like to get it free online instead of paying a lot of money to buy it, but that would be unethical.
Thanks.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Ross
"… destroys Scriptural preservation … anti-preservation ideas like entire books of Scripture disappearing without a trace“

Thomas, please, you are repeating what I consider nonsense already answered. If John or his amanuensis translated a Hebrew Revelation to Greek, no book of scripture is lost. The book simply exists in Greek.

You only try to create a difficulty because you are following your private idea of Greek-onlyism and Greek-primacy, which you drill down by variants from quasi-extant Greek manuscripts. This is a new theory, afaik only of the last decades, it has no historic base.

Your preservation perspective is simply your own staight-jacket. A contra will ask you where the perfectly preserved word was in AD 1000 or 1500 and you will not have an answer of substance. Maybe you will follow Ellen G. White and Benjamin Wilkinson and respond about the Waldesnians. You have no real answer that fits your artificial construct.

And God is faithful to his promises. You should try to understand the interpretation that is not Greek-primacy, including the "two living streams" expressed by Cornwall, which is close to the ideas of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.

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

Thomas Ross
"our quote above that every Latin variant requires the existence of a Greek text"

Yes, Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall technically should not have used “every.” His context was variants like the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37, not piddle scribal corruptions. By focusing on the technical, you miss the incredible significance of the reality.

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

Thomas Ross
“and your attempts to prove that readings with no Greek MSS support must be defended is also problematic.”

5-10 readings. Your problem, not mine,
You have two choices.

1) Abandon the TR-AV text, for a new Thomas Ross Version.
2) Pretend you have ms. support, even if nothing is there.

For me, there is nothing problematic with Luke 2:22 or other verses having extant no Greek ms. support, and the Reformation Bible correction.

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

Thomas Ross
when Beza said “most” MSS have a reading

And I explained that there is a third reading, as in Codex Bezae, explaining his "most".

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

Thomas Ross
" ... Dr. Hills is wrong when he said some MSS have the KJV reading in Luke 2:22"

All the evidence is that Edward Freer Hills made a couple of honest errors on Luke 2:22. Others have as well. And I can keep giving you more information as to how this occurred, or you could make some inquiries of your own in textual circles. The bottom line is simple, there is no known Greek manuscript support for the 'her' purification text.

Thomas Ross
"we can draw dogmatic conclusions that no MS has a reading in Luke although nobody has ever even come close to collating all the MS of Luke, etc. all you would prove is that other TR editions in Luke 2:22 are correct.."

So this means that you are in fact uncertain of what text is correct.
Interesting.
If there is no tangible Greek support, you will in fact abandon the AV text as defective.

Apparently you will abandon the AV text on every variant where you do not find Greek ms. support.
And will you abandon the TR, all editions, if all the TR texts do not have Greek support?
Ooops. Your slope has slipped.

Thomas Ross
"It would be far better to draw this conclusion than your view that entire books of Scripture can disappear without a trace, like the golden plates of the book of Mormon."

Comments like this, based on your own nouveau-modern quirky ideas of preservation, really are foolish. You are looking for an echo chamber. As I point out, your preservation ideas are easily torn to shreds by anybody who knows the 'facts on the ground'. Are you going to follow Ellen G. White and Benjamin Wilkinson and try to claim pristine Waldensian manuscripts, provenance and actual manuscripts unknown?

Plus you are jumping around different topics, the simple fact that we do not have extant support for 'her' in Greek in Luke 2:22 to the idea that John wrote Revelation in Hebrew (or any book can have an earlier form in another language.) Two independent topics.

Thomas Ross
"Please carefully study Scripture’s promises on preservation and see if what the verses actually say fits what you are arguing for. If widespread adoption of your view would actually destroy the case for the TR, KJV, and preservation, maybe you should rethink it."

Basic issue: I do not accept your idea that the scripture promises of preservation drill down to the issue of a pastiche of widely differing Greek manuscripts jointed together by taping together verse and word manipulations in a modern apparatus.

After laughing, the contras can easily point out the problems with this idea. If you believe that all generations must have the perfectly preserved Bible, you better be ready to tell them where it was in AD 500 and 1000 and 1500.

Plus now we see you are even ready to abandon TR and AV editions that do not have your patch-quilt Greek word support.

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

Thomas Ross
"Finally, I would still like it if you could tell me exactly what page in the MSS you linked to I can see the high quality pic that shows that MS does not have the KJV reading, and where on the page it is. The smaller one that allegedly had it three lines from the bottom is blurry, and it has no page number. "

The page number was given on an earlier post but in one of the spots the url was wrong.

It is not hard to navigate to the sequential GA#, working till 0097, that number is on the bottom of each pic.
https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_76
CSNTM Image Id: 283976
CSNTM Image Name is: GA_76_0097.JPG.
- added, 14th row down, 6th pic on the row

GA 76 has αυτων (plural)

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

Thomas Ross
"I trust that you are reading these MSS yourself and actually know what you are looking at"

I found it easy to compare the Greek letters in the manuscript to the Greek letters of the various variants, no special language skills needed. However, you may not have the variant forms handy, and eyesight varies.

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

Thomas Ross
"and the same is true when you are talking about Syriac and the book of Revelation, namely, that you can read Syriac fluently and so know what you are speaking about."

Here I am working with a paper by Isaac Hollister Hall, more information at:

Pure Bible Forum
Syriac Revelation - close to the Received Text - Isaac Hollister Hall
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...tion-ms-very-close-to-the-received-text.2465/

It would be interesting to have this reviewed by the experts today, like George Kiraz. So I am trying to work in that direction.

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

Thomas Ross
"Also, you may not be aware that the book by Jan Kranz is in copyright by Brill, so whoever posted it online did so illegally; so maybe it is best not to link to books illegally placed online. I would like to get it free online instead of paying a lot of money to buy it, but that would be unethical."

Right, normally I avoid any urls to books that seem to be copyright infringed. The moderator can remove that url. My understanding, Jan Krans is accepting of its availability and has not sent Archive.org a takedown notice. If so, kudos to Jan, and its availability has really helped people to understand his scholarship approach (uneven conceptually but technically very strong.) Still better not to post the url on forums.

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

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
www.linktr.ee/stevenavery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
To Andrew and Thomas,

You both want the Old Latin of the Waldensians to be the good guy text, and the Vulgate Latin of the RCC to be the bad guy text.

The problem is that there is really no superiority to the Old Latin, in any manuscript or line. In fact, there are many places where Jerome's text was superior, eliminating, using the Greek as an aid, some false phrases, accretions, that were in the Old Latin. There are four just in 1 John, 1 John - 2:17 4:3 5:6 5:20. Likely over 10 overall, where the Vulgate is strongly superior to the Old Latin.

If the Old Latin were superior, you, or Benjamin Wilkinson, or somebody, would simply list the significant verses and variants where the Old Latin is a TR text, and the Vulgate Latin is not. No such list exists. Two line theory in its TR-AV iterations is simply false.

Now, to be fair, Jack Moorman (d. 2021) in Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version with Manuscript Digests and Summaries may have some collation information supporting the Old Latin over the Vulgate, but I can safely say that it will be small potatoes. Since I have rarely if ever seen the Old Latin as superior on any significant variant.

And as there are tons of places where the Old Latin and Vulgate agree with the TR against the Alexandrian corruption, and also many places where they agree with the Alexandrian corruption against the TR.

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

Andrew
there was no real version of “the Vulgate” until at least 1590 and 1592 when the Sixtine and Clementine editions were released in quick succession.

Even in the Samuel Angus writing those editions are considered similar to the Stephanus and Hentenius editions of earlier in the century. So there was no radical change of text involved.

The substantial difference in texts would be with the corrected Latin texts, modified by the Greek, of Erasmus and Beza. They had both a Vulgate Latin and a corrected Latin.

For some reason you put "anachronism" in quotes, but the context in the article has no relation to your usage

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

Andrew
"nobody that I’ve seen here refers to what Wilkinson said as the be all and end all,"

The Wilkinson (to Fuller to dozens of TR and AV defenders) errors on the:

Old Latin
"two streams"
pristine Waldensian text
Tepl

have been, until recently, a consistent false undercurrent in modern TR and AV defense. Among those who know a bit of the textual history, it has been a major embarrassment, even more so due to the reluctance to change and accept correction.

To his credit, Bryan Ross of Grace Baptist Church has been seeking to set the record straight.

The Two Streams-of Bibles Model of Transmission: It's Origins and Accuracy
Bryan Ross
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/wp-...bles-Model-of-Transmission-Complete-Notes.pdf

Ironically, these errors of Wilkinson, likely the weakest part of his writing, were dismantled by the published response to Wilkinson in 1931:

A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” by B. G. Wilkinson
Warren Eugene Howell (1869-1943)
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/944.4
Section III- The Itala and the Bible of the Waldenses
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/Answers2-3.htm

Followed by Doug Kutilek in 1991. While wrong in other areas, he is essentially correct on the Old Latin issues.

The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version
https://web.archive.org/web/20140209110910/http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm
2012 update
https://sckool.org/as-i-see-it.html

Followed by Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001) in Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

Codex Teplensis - Waldensian or Roman Catholic? (1996)
http://straitegate.com/oldepathsfolder/op96jun.htm

Generally, the TR and AV defenders simply put their head in the sand and refuse to learn.

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

Andrew
"This is what I see as motivating the persistent attempt to tie the Greek text specifically to Catholicism through the Vulgate. And this is also the motivation behind the various legends surrounding what Erasmus supposedly did – even though the work of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and many others are left entirely out of the picture as if they didn’t exist within that mythology."

Everything in that paragraph is backwards. e.g. I have been consistently appealing to Stephanus and Beza as complementary to the Erasmus position of being favorable to both Greek and Latin evidence. (Elzevir has minor significance and is after the AV.)

The Greek text of the Reformation Bible has deep Latin roots. You can despise Catholic doctrine and fancies and have a respect for their copying and maintenance of the Latin Bible, without which we would not have our pure Reformation Bible.

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

Steven wrote: “The Vulgate has its pluses and minuses in its text, but was used powerfully in the 1500s development of the Reformation Bible.”

Andrew
I don’t believe anyone has ever demonstrated a single concrete example of where this is the case.

Trivially easy. The basic evidence for the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37 and Luke 2:22. And then another dozen or so salient TR readings come principally from the Vulgate Latin text.

You really have to put on blinders to think otherwise. Without the Latin evidence, no heavenly witnesses verse.

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

Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

Dear Stephen,
I noticed that you did not provide any serious explanation for why Baptists for centuries have believed and confessed that Greek words are what God promised to perfectly preserve, nor provide any confessional sources that say anything remotely like your position that the originally inspired words can be lost for whole books of Scripture, but that it is fine if they vanished, as long as someone translated them into another language. Statements about how highly one values Latin are not answering the question.
From your comment, are you saying that pre-Reformation Anabaptists did NOT use a TR-type text? Do you think Greek orthodox monks constituted the true churches before the Reformation, or was the TR not in use by anyone, violating Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 28:18-20, etc.?
Unfortunately, I would be surprised if either Benjamin Wilkerson or the patristic Jerome is in heaven, but I can still critically look at their works and get what may be valuable from them.
While it seems like quite a remarkable conclusion to say that my essay is “loaded with Benjamin Wilkinson errors, from Ellen G. White,” based on part of one sentence in one footnote where I cite a book on ecclesiology by Dr. Thomas Strouse, I welcome evidence-based critique, even if from a hostile source. So please feel free to point out every example of how my essay is “loaded with Benjamin Wilkinson errors from Ellen G. White,” if you have actual evidence for this striking affirmation. I am aware of referencing Wilkinson in one footnote in my essay, and am not aware of him having anything to do with any of the rest of its content at all.
I personally have not examined the Tepel MS. If it turns out that Dr. Strouse is wrong about it, I am happy to change one part of one footnote in my essay, when I have time to do that.
I believe I may have spent too long on this discussion already. So thanks in advance for exposing the loads of Benjamin Wilkinson errors from Ellen G. White in my essay, and thanks in advance for pointing out where Baptist confessions have said that God has preserved His Words if they have disappeared without a trace but been translated into a different language, while also pointing out why Baptist confessions don’t really mean it when they say God has kept pure His Greek words in all ages, but do not expect further response from me.
By the way, Ellen White plagiarized huge portions of her writings. Have you demonstrated that she invented the idea of a stream of pure Bibles, set in contrast to a corrupt stream,
rather than plagiarizing that idea from Christians? Thanks again.
Thanks again.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Van Soden for R-P?

28 line footnote
While an examination of pre-Reformation Baptist groups such as the Waldenses is also pertinent to this study,[10]

Here are the errors in the 28-line footnote.

spelling errors
Bejamin Waldensies
the aol url http://members.aol.com/dwibclc/waldbib.htm
should be updated to https://libcfl.com/articles/waldbib.htm

[10]
Pre-reformation Baptists used the Textus Receptus.
(All from Benjamin Wilkinson writing of the "pure Bible of the Waldenses, David Cloud and Thomas Holland and Robert L. Webb)

The Waldenses employed the Textus Receptus text type, as evidenced by the Codex Teplensis ( Thomas Strouse).

The Albigenses used the European Old Latin type of text, which is a largely TR translation, evidenced by the 13th century Old Latin Codex C (cf. “Latin Version, the Old,” T. Nicol, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ( 1939).

There is an emphasis, using Jean Paul Perrin, and Conybeare by Thomas Strouse, on 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, which are similarly in the Vulgate text.

There is a claim of Anabaptist knowing of NT autographs at Thessalonica, using Thieleman J. Van Braght,
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas Ross
"From your comment, are you saying that pre-Reformation Anabaptists did NOT use a TR-type text?"

Christians before the Erasmus text NOT use a TR type text, and in the west they used Latin or similar Bibles, like the German. The Anabaptist movement began alongside the TR editions.

"Do you think Greek orthodox monks constituted the true churches before the Reformation, or was the TR not in use by anyone"

Both the Greek orthodox text and the Latin Vulgate text had corruptions, there is no known TR text in use "before the Reformation". You attempt to get around that by patching together Greek variants from differing manuscripts.

"Benjamin Wilkerson or the patristic Jerome ... I can still critically look at their works and get what may be valuable from them."

Definitely, agreed.

The point in this thread is a major error by Wilkinson that has polluted TR-AV defense in many ways, by creating the mythology of a pristine Waldensian TR text. Wilkinson even directly uses the "Spirit of Prophecy" (Ellen G. White) as his wacky defense of his theory, since his error was quickly challenged by other Adventists.

"I believe I may have spent too long on this discussion already."

And I believe this has been one of the most important discussions in the TR-AV defense world for quite awhile.

"thanks in advance for pointing out where Baptist confessions have said that God has preserved His Words if they have disappeared without a trace but been translated into a different language:\"

Note, I have not made claims about the Baptist confessions. Above, I showed how the perspective changed from Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza in the 1500s to the Confessions of the 1600s. I see a problem in how the term "original Greek" is used without any reference to how the Latin contributed to the Reformation Bible development.

"while also pointing out why Baptist confessions don’t really mean it when they say God has kept pure His Greek words in all ages"

Your theory is that this is by patch-quilting variants from differing Greek manuscripts by apparatus analysis, and simply ignoring situations where there is not a Greek ms. And I find this unsatisfactory.

"By the way, Ellen White plagiarized huge portions of her writings. Have you demonstrated that she invented the idea of a stream of pure Bibles, set in contrast to a corrupt stream, rather than plagiarizing that idea from Christians?"

Ellen White did not make a claim of a stream of pure Bibles. That comes directly from Benjamin Wilkinson. He uses a couple of quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White) to denigrate the Vulgate and uplift the Waldensian Bibles. Then he uses a false theory that their better doctrines must have been due to their pristine Bibles. This theory was smashed to pieces in the "Reply" paper.

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas
"Thanks for the critique of (mainly) one footnote in my essay on Baptist confessions..."

My pleasure, and it has been a study and learning endeavor on my end.

That one footnote is fundamental to your claims of the Textus Receptus and "perpetual availability". All three quotes on the TR in footnote [10] are essentially the Wilkinson error to be corrected, using Wilkinson along with multiple secondary sources.

Similarly you mangle a historian in Footnote [120] for the same purpose, wrongly claiming that George Richard Potter says that the:

Textus Receptus “was also the Bible of the Middle Ages ... "

Zwingli (1985)
G. R. Potter
https://books.google.com/books?id=TMw8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA172

Essentially, you have a "quote" put together Riplinger-style, (I know that sounds harsh) and you add your additional extrapolation about historians in general, using the errant quoting.

All this is to support your thesis that goes against actual textual history and the Greek and Latin combined contributions to the Reformation Bible:

"manuscript evidence exists to testify to the perpetual availability of the perfectly preserved Bible"

And I realize that you are stuck with that thesis, and that is why footnotes [10] and [120] are misinformation. You felt you had to try to support the thesis, and the Wilkinson, Waldenses and Albigenses errors were handy-dandy for that purpose.

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thomas, you seem to take two opposite positions at the same time.

“Perpetual availability” means the TR-AV text, accepted as an autographic reflection (English as derivative) existed in every age, starting in the first centuries. (This is closely related to Wilkinson’s pointing to the Waldesnian pristine text, compared to the corrupt RCC Vulgate, which Waldesnian text became, through Fuller, AV textual mythology.) While “perpetual availability” is conceptually attractive, it simply can not be supported by ‘the facts on the ground’. However, in your essay and most recent posts, you believe that it is a preservational imperative.

Your second position on preservation says that the individual Greek words existed … somewhere … through the ages. Maybe hundreds of Greek manuscripts from AD 700 to 1200 (Lateran Council) did not have the heavenly witnesses, but still the fact that the Greek words are found, somewhere at some time, es suficiente. Thus the concern that GA 76 was thought to support ‘her’ purification and that the Revelation verses must all have some Greek support.

Do you understand that these are radically differing positions?

Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Kent,

Your comment "You seem to be staggering in unbelief" is itself a rather staggering and false accusation.

And I have the pure and perfect Bible in my Authorized Version. Every word, Genesis to Revelation. And yes, the Bible I read is the inspired 2 Timothy 3:16 word of God, I do not need a "derivative" qualifier. If a person wants to use the word "derivative", we can use it for the Scrivener 1881 text, which was developed for the purpose of helping along the limping, decrepit Revision, and was derivative from the AV.

And I believe we can see Noah's Ark in Turkey, today, in the mountains of Ararat (note: a region). And I even consider a visit :).

You seem to be concerned that I do not jump to accept the "perpetual availability" doctrine. Fair enough.

If your iteration of that doctrine was true, there was absolutely no need for the Reformation Bible labours of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. All they had to do was pick up the perpetually available text from 1500 and give it to the printers. I mentioned this before, and you passed it by. So now I look forward to your response.

And I do hope you do not consider the 1525 Ben Hayim Second Rabbinic Bible text as a perpetually available Old Testament edition. Its text is missing two verses in Joshua, one in Nehemiah and it has a major corruption in Psalm 22:16. (The claims for the Ben Hayim by some, including the DBS, involves another AV myth.)

And I think you should be careful as to how you accuse those who see preservation of the word of God as occurring in a different manner than your belief. Such accusations can be idle tales.

And I believe I have shown proper respect for your belief on preservation of the word of God.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Andrew,

Please allow me to focus first on one critical point.

Andrew
"the provenance of the Latin translations, which doesn’t have a bearing on that of the original Received text"

"the TR editors based everything on their manuscripts, which were all in the original Greek"

As pointed out above, Beza (also Erasmus) actually produced TWO Latin texts, one was the Vulgate, one was closer to the Greek text.

How and why do you believe they came upon these source texts, and produced the new resulting text, if they were only using Greek manuscripts, and the Latin had no bearing on TR development?

Thanks!

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
FOR LATER


you say there’s a “consistent false undercurrent” where people are assuming the position of a Seventh-day adventist. But is that really the case or is it simply the fact that people who reject the preservation of Scripture seek to pin this man’s views on others without them actually expressing it?

When I say it is a new theory, I am talking about your attempts to make a patch-quilt of variant support from various apparatuses and disjointed references. There is nothing like that from Whitaker, the AV learned men, the Confessions, etc.

t the TR editors indeed always had Greek manuscript support for every word in the TR editions at the time they were made

Waldensian and Beza
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Andrew
you say there’s a “consistent false undercurrent” where people are assuming the position of a Seventh-day adventist. But is that really the case or is it simply the fact that people who reject the preservation of Scripture seek to pin this man’s views on others without them actually expressing it?

Hi Andrew,

This is why we know the source of this group of beliefs:

Two Streams,
pristine Waldensian Old Latin Bible good,
Vulgate Bible bad
Tepl excellence.

There is nobody known who talks of two streams of Bible before Wilkinson. Kent gave some “two streams” quotes but they are not Bibles.

Wilkinson offers zero textual evidence for the theories. No verses are given showing the Tepl or Waldesnian Bible as superior to the Vulgate.

Wilkinson uses two positions from the “Spirit of Prophecy” (Ellen G. White) to defend his theory, one talks of Vulgate corruption, another lauds the Waldensians, although not their Bible. That was an additional, logically deficient, Wilkinson extrapolation.

We can trace Wilkinson to Fuller to about 50 TR-AV defenders.

The facts on the ground refute the theory. Even as early as Howell in 1931 (SDA) and then Kutilek and Conjurske in the 1990s, the “two streams of Bibles” theory was dismantled.

Bryan Ross has researched the history.

====

The theory must ignore

Even ih the places where “two streams” can hold up to scrutiny , like the Peshitta, it is only partial, since the Peshitta has major corruptions at 1 Timo

Bryan Ross has researched the history.
 
Top