When he admits that Christology or the doctrine of Christ is impacted by variant readings in the New Testament Text. In the book depicted below Ehrman argues two things: 1) the doctrine of Christ is impacted by Textual variants and 2) orthodox believers were the ones who altered the text to bolster their belief in who Christ was. While I reject the second point, the first dispels the myth that it doesn’t matter which text or translation you use because they all teach the same doctrine. — with Jeffrey Newnum.
Steven Avery
Good point and post.
George Vance Smith was on the Revision committee, had a very low Unitarian Christology and even seemed to be an Ebionite. He understood how helpful were the new variants (actually corruptions.)
Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed (1881)
George Vance Smith (1816-1902)
http://books.google.com/books?id=M0bT2G8amUsC
http://archive.org/details/textsmarginsofre00smit
1 Timothy 3:16
http://books.google.com/books?id=xKM9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39
========================
And I give some background here:
[W-V] George Vance Smith, revisionist, & the virgin birth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/40699
[TC-Alternate-list] Thurcaston, 1884: Doctrinal Nuances in the Revised Version
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/5493
========================
Anthony Collins (1876-1729) was an interesting precursor of Ehrman as well.
========================
Hi Folks,
Here is a new tidbit about the unbelief of a major worker on the decrepit revision, the Unitarian George Vance Smith (1816-1902). Westcott and Hort pushed hard for the inclusion of Smith in the revision committee. And Smith wrote afterwards pointing out the doctrinal motivations and purpose and effect of the new text and translation. (Simple, true points that are denied today by the modern versionists and the Hortian dupe cornfuseniks.)
================================
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
George Vance Smith specifically preferred the bumbling "young wife" for Isaiah 7:14.
The Quarterly journal of prophecy
Review of The Prophecies Relating to Nineveh and the Assyrians by George Vance Smith (1857)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3vkDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67
The words, "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son," &c., were not meant, or is really to apply to Christ, but came afterwards to be used in a Messianic sense! (p. 99); nay, "virgin" ought to be rendered "young wife". In chap, xxxii. the king spoken of as reigning in righteousness, &c, is probably Hezekiah ! (p. 187).
And he maintained this position through the Revision, as here.
The Bible and popular theology: a restatement of truths and principles (1871)
http://books.google.com/books?id=4_MrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA324
However, his position gets much worse. The GVS writing shows a hostility even to the historical fact of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and to Jesus Christ as "God manifest in the flesh" (one of the major verses he attacks).
Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed (1881)
George Vance Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=xKM9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23
Such words shew us that the Evangelist could have had no real idea of ... the man Jesus of Nazareth as being God upon earth disguised in a human form, just as the Father was God in heaven, unseen and inaccessible to man, revealed only by an 'only begotten God,' (sic) who had 'come down from heaven' and was conceived by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. Of conceptions so gross as these there is no trace in this fourth Gospel, which nowhere mentions the miraculous conception.
Thus George Vance Smith included the virgin birth "conceived by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" as among "conceptions so gross". The only explanation that makes sense: Smith actually rejects the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
==============
Note: "only begotten God" is the modern version corruption, nothing like that is in the pure Bible. So Smith is right in a sense in that limited part, his own preferred Hortian version has a gross and false conception of an "only begotten God".
==============
George Vance Smith made it very clear that he wanted the changes (the Hortian corruptions from Vaticanus) against the historic English Bible specifically to argue for a low Christology. Now I have not gone through much of his material, but I did wonder if his Isaiah 7:14 hostility to the virgin birth carried forth to the New Testament ... and the answer is clearly yes. I would challenge any supporters of the revision to find a single statement of George Vance Smith that actually confirms the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is the GVS attack on:
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Which he clearly considers another false "conception so gross":
Texts and margins of the revised New Testament
http://books.google.com/books?id=xKM9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39
"The alteration here is important..."
To unbeliever George Vance Smith, Jesus was simply a "Humble Teacher" and to George Vance Smith only later unscriptural additions would describe him as "God ... manifest in the flesh". GVS understood that the pure Reformation Bible, the Authorized Version, basically refutes his false conceptions of the Lord Jesus and wanted the Bible changed to his own image.
Oh, Smith is hiding a mountain of evidence that support the pure Bible, especially from the early church writers, as describe by John Berriman, Frederick Nolan, Ebenezer Henderson and then John William Burgon. Deception comes natural to such writers as GVS struggling against the pure word of God.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
James Snapp
I just now stumbled across an interesting book written in 1884 by someone named E. F. O. Thurcaston. It can be downloaded online. The title is "Does the "Revised Version" Affect the Doctrine of the New Testament as Exhibited in the Authorized Translation?". I wonder why Metzger didn't ever mention it.
Steven
Thanks, James. Good question. We can always expect agitprop from Metzger and the parrots, so it is no surprise that books like this one simply are ignored. However, no harm in asking, even if a tad rhetorical to their careful word-parsing and source-parsing.
Does the 'Revised version' affect the doctrine of the New Testament ? (1884)
E. F. O. Thurcaston
http://books.google.com/books?id=LTcHAAAAQAAJ
If then our Authorized Translation is founded upon such weak and defective authority, we cannot be surprised at the innumerable and gross errors which it must contain; we can only be surprised at its excellence. However, let. us not be deceived. The following are some of the criticisms cast upon it by advocates and supporters of the Revised Version who have written upon the subject:
"clumsy, and often absurd repetition,"
"completely perverts the meaning,"
"almost unintelligible,"
"utterly impossible rendering,"
"meaning quite obscured,"
"melodious glosses and mistaken' interpretation,"
"familiar inaccuracy, and pretty-sounding error,"
"confuses the entire meaning of the passage"
"hopelessly obscured."
These are the constantly recurring criticisms of the Authorized Translation; while of the Revised Version we read :
"an important light is thrown upon the passage,"
"a new meaning, and unquestionably a true meaning,"
"for the first time suggests to an English reader the true meaning,"
"the force of the Greek is brought out as in none of the previous versions,"
"a marked improvement"'
"how much the passage gains,"
"the gain is indisputable,"
"something to get rid of the false interpretation,"
"unquestionable errors exist in the Authorised Version, and it will be a practical gain to get rid of them"
"some were indisputable blunders, and of these the correction will be universally welcomed."
(p. 5-6, discussion of revision agitprop)
On p. 5-6 Thurcaston shows his familiarity with the Quarterly Reviewer (John William Burgon, mentioned specifically in regard to the Mark ending, p. 37)
And Solomon Caesar Malan (1812-1894) :
Seven chapters, S. Matthew i-vi; S . Luke xi., of the Revision of 1881 revised (1881)
Solomon Caesar Malan
http://books.google.com/books?id=tMACAAAAQAAJ
Also from Malan, not online afawk - "Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament," in The Quiver, Part 191.
There is a book by that name by Robert Longmore in 1888 in NOVIEW mode http://books.google.com/books?id=7lqDNAAACAAJ , published in Sydney, Australia, 232 pages. Maybe our Aussie friends can find out more about that book, one review notes that Longmore himself is weak on English grammar.
Earlier Malan had written an important book:
A plea for the Received Greek Text: and for the Authorized Version of the New Testament in answer to some of the Dean of Canterbury's Criticism of both (1869)
http://books.google.com/books?id=n4UNAAAAYAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/apleaforreceive01malagoog
Frederick Charles Cook (1804-1889), ?? (Check the birthdate) Canon of Exeter
http://m.ccel.org/browse/authorInfo?id=cook_fc
is one source referenced by Thurcaston.
Two Letters to the Bishop of London, on 'Deliver us from Evil,' and on the Revised Version of the First Three Gospels
Frederic Charles Cook
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA344 - not easy to find
Frederic Charles Cook (?? 1810-1889)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Charles_Cook
The Revised Version of the first three Gospels considered in its bearings upon the record of our Lord's words and of incidents in his life (1882)
Frederic Charles Cook
http://books.google.com/books?id=B3Y_AAAAYAAJ
http://archive.org/details/revisedversionof00cook
"Value of the Two Oldest Manuscripts Aleph and B" p. 148-158
http://books.google.com/books?id=B3Y_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148
On p. 11-13 he quotes and discusses from Christopher Wordsworth (1807-1885), Bishop of Lincoln, what was spoken in a speech:
"Not one of these 36,000 changes affects a single tittle or iota of the Christian faith."
"All faithful and devout Christians will rejoice to see that the Authorized Version, in all essentials, is fully to be relied on, and that after a severe critical examination of eleven years it has come forth triumphantly from the ordeal."
"Although this revised version cannot take the place of the Authorised Version, yet it ought to be made subsidiary and supplementary to it, as one of the best commentaries we have. It ought therefore to be in the hands of every student of God's word."
======================================
Verse sections - couple of notes
p. 64-68 is on 1 Timothy 3:16. A section worthy of some special note.
Note that Thurcaston fell into the GSE - Granville Sharp Errror, on the Titus and 1 Peter verses. Similarly, he discusses the heavenly witnesses on p. 72-73, succumbing to the propaganda campaign, yet concerned that they "hide the omission".
Clearly, there is a lot that can be studied from this book, and other books mentioned here.
======================================
E. F. O. Thurcaston is a pseudonym for:
Edward Falkener - (1814-1896)
http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/9/101009123/
Edward Falkener of Thurcaston
Who also wrote two books about the Psalms, hymns and prophecy.
======================================
These related books that can be included here for easy reference.
The English revisers' Greek text shown to be unauthorized except by Egyptian copies discarded by Greeks and to be opposed to the historic text of all ages and churches (1882)
George Whitefield Samson (1819-1896)
http://books.google.com/books?id=BXeGP3GWPxAC
http://archive.org/details/englishrevisersg00sams
Should the Revised New Testament be authorised? (1882)
Edmund Beckett (1816-1905)
http://books.google.com/books?id=FsUnAAAAYAAJ
http://archive.org/details/shouldrevisedne00grimgoog
Which Version: Authorized Or Revised? (1924)
Philip Mauro (1859-1952)
http://archive.org/details/WhichVersionByPhilipMauro
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html
======================================
And one that shows that many of the changes were conscious, deliberate, doctrinally.
Texts and margins of the revised New Testament affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed (1881)
George Vance Smith (1816-1902)
http://books.google.com/books?id=M0bT2G8amUsC
http://archive.org/details/textsmarginsofre00smit
======================================
Archived at:
[TC-Alternate-list] Thurcaston, 1884: Doctrinal Nuances in the Revised Version
Steven Avery - January 28, 2012
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/5493
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
http://purebible.blogspot.com/
http://www.purebibleforum.com
James Snapp
Steven,SA: " . . . . These are the constantly recurring criticisms of the Authorized Translation; while of the Revised Version we read : " an important light is thrown upon the passage," " a new meaning, and unquestionably a true meaning," etc."
Indeed. One wonders, then, why last year, as the KJV's 400th "birthday" arrived, no less avid a supporter of the Alexandrian Text than Daniel Wallace heartily invited his readers to possess a copy of the KJV, and even gave the impression that he wanted them to read it. Whereas if all these criticisms are true, then recommendations of the KJV by promoters of modern translations based on the Alexandrian Text are mystifying; it is like hearing a mechanic state that many of an engine's component parts are faulty and in need of replacement, but that the machine, as a whole, is admirable.
SA: "Also from Malan, not online afawk - "Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament," in The Quiver, Part 191."
It is online. But the article in question is not by Malan; it is by Alexander Roberts, one of the members of the Revision Committee of the New Testament. He attended about one-fourth of the Committee-meetings. I printed out the four pages (58-61) of his "Criticisms" article that focuses on shortcomings of the RV in the Epistles and Revelation. (I figure that there must be another issue of "The Quiver" out there somewhere containing criticisms of features of the
RV in the Gospels and Acts.)
Roberts acknowledged that the RV-Committee exceeded its mandate, and gives a list of changes in the RV which, in his view, were not necessary. He also maintains, regarding the base-text:
"The exaggerated respect, amounting sometimes almost to servility, displayed towards a few of the most ancient manuscripts, has, in my humble judgment, gravely injured the Revised Version. Yet common sense has sometimes compelled a revolt from their authority. Thus, at I Thess. 2:7, we find this note on the margin, "Most of the ancient authorities read /babes," instead of 'gentle.' But it would have been absurd to make St. Paul say, "we were /babes/ among you;" and therefore the common text has very properly been retained, in spite of the preponderance of ancient authority. It would have been well had this course been more generally followed."
Roberts, near the end of the article, mentions that he composed the main portion of the article very shortly before the RV NT was published. It is interesting that he seems to have considered the RV's prospects of replacing the KJV rather dubious, especially considering how gung-ho a writer such as Frank Ballard was about the RV fourteen years later.
It occurs to me that considering Roberts' measured reservations against adopting Alexandrian readings, the Committee's votes must have been very close when he attended and Smith was absent.
SA: "E. F. O. Thurcaston is a pseudonym for: Edward Falkener - (1814-1896)."
Ah; thanks!
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Oops... my apologies for a type of double-post (length-wise) on William Craig Brownlee.
Related discussions to our grammatical discussions were going on at CARM, my participation has been limited for awhile by a one-week vacation, whose cause is unrelated to the discussion. And it might actually help me to travel in the USA heartland (Smokey Mountains high, not Colorado) !
grammatical gender, natural gender and multiple referent
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...-gender-natural-gender-and-multiple-referents
Jim1, on many forums, is actually the main person arguing against the grammatical gender solecism argument today. BVDB and other contras piggy-back on his writings, ignoring deficiencies.
The modern scholars mostly tap-dance (no stars) around the solecism and grammar issue, as hopefully you can see as the recent thread continues. Remember, since they are nicely duped by Metzger, they do not have to consider real evidences.
As for the CARM threads, Jim1 (anonymous, refuses to post on scholarly forums, see the Comma Johanneum Talk section) developed his arguments as classic special pleading, simply working backwards from the Greek New Testament to try to make a construct that excludes the grammatical importance. The irony is that he still has to fall back on a decrepit "personalization" attempt, however in his convoluted grammatical construct verse 7 does not help. ;-) Thus Jim pretends there is no grammatical argument (well, he actually believes what he pretends, which is fascinating). The BVDB cornfuseniks even had the astute James Snapp mildly hornswaggled (hope you are recovering, James) by a very limited focus on one grammar book, by following, Jim1ian logic.
Related to the discussion above is this one, I take you right to the most interesting post.
Discussion with Jim1
Robert H. Gundry responds to Jim1 accusation of inaccuracy
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...on-with-Jim1&p=3926213&viewfull=1#post3926213
Earlier in the thread you can the reaction of some posters with some Greek skills to the posts of Jim. His main base of operation is less astute forums (CARM is clearly risky, as it could lead to a Wiki knock-down), those dozen and more blogs he puts up, and the Wikipedia Comma Johanneum grammatical section.
In the older days it all seemed very strange, now that I am familiar with Eugenius, Knittel, Travis and Brownlee and (many) other strong writers, it all seems more like a nice little class and learning experience. Edifying, thank you Lord Jesus for learning about your word.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
The grammatical argument is clearly sound. A person can doubt that it is probative, eg. Daniel is looking for the ECW approach to solecisms. However it is hard for anyone astute to contend that it is not both sound, and strong. And it was only hidden by the Porson-mania and the Griesbach sleight of hand the Hortian Fog, and some weird Internet smoke. To give an example, 10 years ago, a forerunner to Jim, Gary Hudson, sparred with Jeffrey Nachimson, in a similar type of conversation. While very interesting, neither side was overly impressive. Also Thomas Strouse sparred a bit, even challenging Daniel Wallace, but did not follow up.
About Griesbach - I would especially like to know if his 1793-1794 dialog with William Friedrich Hezel includes the grammatical. He managed to keep it out of his Diatribe, a very strange omission. Hmm.. I didn't realize we have what might be the full Griesbach contra Hezel text.
Hezel had written
Über die Aechtheit der Stelle Johannis 1. Joh. 5, 7. "drey sind da zeugen im Himmel etc." aus Gründen der höhern Kritik: (1793) NOVIEW
nebst einer Erklarung des ganzen Abschnitts,
Wilhelm Friedrich Hezel
http://books.google.com/books/about/Über_die_Aechtheit_der_Stelle_Johannis.html?id=vyX_tgAACAAJ
And yet, this next one we have:
Bemerkungen uber des Herrn Geheimen in Regierungsraths Hezel : (1794)
Vertheidigung der Aechtheit der Stelle 1 Joh. 5, 7 Drey sind die da zeugen im Himmel.
William Friedrich Hezel (1754-1824)
http://www.archive.org/details/MN40351ucmf_4
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n5/mode/2up - Greisbach p. 5-80
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n81/mode/2up Hezel 81-98
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n99/mode/2up a section on 1 John 5
Anybody handy with the heavy German and tuff font, who can share about grammatical possibilities there (and anything else of interest)
Thanks !
Also the Council of Carthage material from August Bludau appeared online.
"Comma Ioanneum" (1. Joh. 5, 7) in dem Glaubensbekenntnis von Karthago vom Jahre 484
Theologie und Glaube vol. 11 (1919) p. 9-15 -
August Bludau
http://archive.org/stream/theologieundglau11padeuoft#page/n23/mode/2up
============================================================
Now to the post of James:
My first quote is from Falkener.
Show message history
Indeed. One wonders, then, why last year, as the KJV's 400th "birthday" arrived, no less avid a supporter of the Alexandrian Text than Daniel Wallace heartily invited his readers to possess a copy of the KJV, and even gave the impression that he wanted them to read it. Whereas if all these criticisms are true, then recommendations of the KJV by promoters of modern translations based on the Alexandrian Text are mystifying; it is like hearing a mechanic state that many of an engine's component parts are faulty and in need of replacement, but that the machine, as a whole, is admirable.
Steven
Right. Consistency is not their forte. Especially about the AV. Lots of little games.
SA: "Also from Malan, not online afawk - "Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament," in The Quiver, Part 191."
James Snapp
It is online. But the article in question is not by Malan; it is by Alexander Roberts, one of the members of the Revision Committee of the New Testament. He attended about one-fourth of the Committee-meetings. I printed out the four pages (58-61) of his "Criticisms" article that focuses on shortcomings of the RV in the Epistles and Revelation. (I figure that there must be another issue of "The Quiver" out there somewhere containing criticisms of features of the
RV in the Gospels and Acts.)
Steven
Thanks for this update and correction Right, I think Frederic Gardner got upset with Roberts for spilling the beans.
Here is one of the Roberts works
Notice that here, with Milligan, he did not tow the party line on 1 John 5:7, allowing it to be an open question.
The words of the New Testament: as altered by transmission and ascertained (1873)
William Milligan (1821-1892), Alexander Roberts (1826-1901)
http://books.google.com/books?id=uqM8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14
Later Roberts tried to speak prophetically
Companion to the Revised version of the New Testament : explaining the reasons for the changes made on the Authorized version (1881)
Alexander Roberts
http://www.archive.org/details/companiontorevis00robe.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rcwLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA71
No defender of the genuineness of 1 John 7, 8, will probably arise in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and will never be renewed. ... so decidedly have the minds of all scholars now been made up as to the spuriousness of the words, that they have been omitted in the Revised Version without a line even on the margin to indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place in the sacred text.
An important Arthur Cleveland Coxe note on the heavenly witnesses, Cyprian, Tertullian, Porson, Grabe and more made it into one of the Alexander Roberts ECW books.
James Snapp
Roberts acknowledged that the RV-Committee exceeded its mandate, and gives a list of changes in the RV which, in his view, were not necessary. He also maintains, regarding the base-text:
"The exaggerated respect, amounting sometimes almost to servility, displayed towards a few of the most ancient manuscripts, has, in my humble judgment, gravely injured the Revised Version. Yet common sense has sometimes compelled a revolt from their authority. Thus, at I Thess. 2:7, we find this note on the margin, "Most of the ancient authorities read /babes," instead of 'gentle.' But it would have been absurd to make St. Paul say, "we were /babes/ among you;" and therefore the common text has very properly been retained, in spite of the preponderance of ancient authority. It would have been well had this course been more generally followed."
Roberts, near the end of the article, mentions that he composed the main portion of the article very shortly before the RV NT was published. It is interesting that he seems to have considered the RV's prospects of replacing the KJV rather dubious, especially considering how gung-ho a writer such as Frank Ballard was about the RV fourteen years later.
It occurs to me that considering Roberts' measured reservations against adopting Alexandrian readings, the Committee's votes must have been very close when he attended and Smith was absent.
Steven
Right, my conjecture (only a conjecture) is that Hort mesmerized them, using techniques from his seance occult friend, Augustus de Morgan.
They were not the sturdiest bunch.
SA: "E. F. O. Thurcaston is a pseudonym for: Edward Falkener - (1814-1896)."> Ah; thanks!
Welcome. He had me puzzled for awhile, too.
Steven Avery - January 28, 2013
[TC-Alternate-list] Falkener & Alexander Roberts on Revision, Hezel and Griesbach, Bludau on Carthage, CARM on grammar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/5497
'
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery