Steven Avery
Administrator
Matthew 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2031251930300019/
Writers like James Snapp appear to be clueless as to how the corruption within the Greek line, which largely developed in the first centuries, was cleansed and eliminated in the Reformation Bible by skillfully using the wide range of evidences. Including the Latin lines and the early church writers, and also applying sharp thinking tools to the textual issues.
Erasmus and the learned textual men of the 1500s, emphasis on Stephanus and Beza, were well aware that the Byzantine Greek was a line that had suffered corruption. And the Alexandrian "text-line" (which I view as a misnomer) was barely a radar blip, and when the variants appeared, they were rejected as corruptions.
Even in the mid-1800s skilled men simply saw the Vaticanus text as an abbreviated Readers Digest abomination, even before Burgon. (This was before the Hortian textual criticism apostasy.) And these men in the Reformation era of the 1500s knew the early church writers, and the Greek and Latin mss, from their personal studies. And thus they produced the providential, pure "eclectic" received text.
James likely picked this Matthew 5:27 Byzantine majority omission, which is in the Received Text, from the Edward Miller publication from John William Burgon notes.
A textual commentary upon the Holy Gospels largely from the use of materials, and mainly on the text, left by the late John William Burgon (1899)
Edward Miller
https://archive.org/details/textualcommentar00mill/page/28
And James tends to include his own superficial textual value-minus analysis. Ironically, James does not tell his readers that Burgon-Miller actually show strong support for the phrase, even while supporting omission.
Our purpose here is to show how limited was the analysis of James Snapp. If your view of the Bible is not faith-based, you could understandably disagree on inclusion or omission, and come up with your personal probability pcts. That is the game today. And, like James Snapp, you will be de facto producing your own private version text, a plague of our times.
And if you are a textual critic dupe, you will pretend to be objective, and then you will hide the evidences supporting the pure Bible reading, as done by James Snapp in his article. The pure Reformation Bible, and the majestic AV, becomes your enemy, because it tells you the truth.
Galatians 4:16
Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?
This study came out of looking at:
We can get much more information from:
A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament
The Gospel According to Matthew
Gavin Basil McGrath
Matthew 5:27 - p. 92-04
http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/pdfs/1net3.pdf
After going through the Greek minuscule evidence, and the solid Latin ms. evidence and inclusion in Jerome's Vulgate which had access to ancient Greek and Latin mss, McGrath adds the pivotal:
Plus, Miller using Burgon above, showed lots of additional church writer support.
==========================================
Gavin Basil McGrath essentially calls the Received Text Neo-Byzantine as here:
Additions planned.
Steven Avery
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2031251930300019/
Writers like James Snapp appear to be clueless as to how the corruption within the Greek line, which largely developed in the first centuries, was cleansed and eliminated in the Reformation Bible by skillfully using the wide range of evidences. Including the Latin lines and the early church writers, and also applying sharp thinking tools to the textual issues.
Erasmus and the learned textual men of the 1500s, emphasis on Stephanus and Beza, were well aware that the Byzantine Greek was a line that had suffered corruption. And the Alexandrian "text-line" (which I view as a misnomer) was barely a radar blip, and when the variants appeared, they were rejected as corruptions.
Even in the mid-1800s skilled men simply saw the Vaticanus text as an abbreviated Readers Digest abomination, even before Burgon. (This was before the Hortian textual criticism apostasy.) And these men in the Reformation era of the 1500s knew the early church writers, and the Greek and Latin mss, from their personal studies. And thus they produced the providential, pure "eclectic" received text.
James likely picked this Matthew 5:27 Byzantine majority omission, which is in the Received Text, from the Edward Miller publication from John William Burgon notes.
A textual commentary upon the Holy Gospels largely from the use of materials, and mainly on the text, left by the late John William Burgon (1899)
Edward Miller
https://archive.org/details/textualcommentar00mill/page/28
And James tends to include his own superficial textual value-minus analysis. Ironically, James does not tell his readers that Burgon-Miller actually show strong support for the phrase, even while supporting omission.
Our purpose here is to show how limited was the analysis of James Snapp. If your view of the Bible is not faith-based, you could understandably disagree on inclusion or omission, and come up with your personal probability pcts. That is the game today. And, like James Snapp, you will be de facto producing your own private version text, a plague of our times.
And if you are a textual critic dupe, you will pretend to be objective, and then you will hide the evidences supporting the pure Bible reading, as done by James Snapp in his article. The pure Reformation Bible, and the majestic AV, becomes your enemy, because it tells you the truth.
Galatians 4:16
Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?
This study came out of looking at:
Typical superficial textcrit nonsense from James Snapp.Facebook - Today at The Text of the Gospels:
The Mumpsimus Mentality
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10156478904446693/
The Mumpsimus Mentality - January 3, 2019
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/01/the-mumpsimus-mentality.html
● Matthew 5:27: ερρεθη (it was said).
KJV/TR: ερρεθη τοις αρχαίος (it was said by them of old time).
... the causes of corruption in the Textus Receptus are usually not difficult to perceive:
● Matthew 5:27: Conformation to 5:21.
We can get much more information from:
A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament
The Gospel According to Matthew
Gavin Basil McGrath
Matthew 5:27 - p. 92-04
http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/pdfs/1net3.pdf
After going through the Greek minuscule evidence, and the solid Latin ms. evidence and inclusion in Jerome's Vulgate which had access to ancient Greek and Latin mss, McGrath adds the pivotal:
Next is the sytlistic, internal evidences, strongly supporting inclusion. It is a good read, at the PDF.They are further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, Irenaeus (2nd century) in a Latin translation (c. 395), Origen (d. 254) in a Latin translation, Eusebius (d. 339), and Chrysostom (d. 407); and the early mediaeval church Latin writer, Gregory the Great (d. 604).
Plus, Miller using Burgon above, showed lots of additional church writer support.
==========================================
Gavin Basil McGrath essentially calls the Received Text Neo-Byzantine as here:
A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Being the Greek Text used in the AUTHORIZED VERSION also known as the AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION also known as the KING JAMES BIBLE
Gavin Basil McGrath
http://www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/pdfs/1net1.pdf
The rich storehouse of neo-Byzantine textual jewels includes the beauties of the Greek Byzantine textual tradition and the glories of the Latin textual tradition. There are several thousand Greek Byzantine texts that lie behind the representative or majority Byzantine Text. Everyone of them has some beauty in its own unique way. p. v
... I humbly pray God that this commentary may be used to help such persons, as it acts to “build ... a bridge” across the many omissions and changes of the neo-Byzantine Received Text that appear in the modern neo-Alexandrian texts and / or Burgonite Majority texts, and their associated English (or other) versions. p. vii
Additions planned.
Steven Avery
Last edited: