Textual Criticism

God bless the bible!The New Testament (for those of you who may not be familiar with the history of the bible) was originally written in Greek by more than one personMatthew (Levi the tax collector) wrote the gospel that bears his name.John “Mark” was the apostle Peter’s “right hand man” and he is credited with recording the gospel according to Mark.Luke, a well-educated, gentile physician was a close friend and companion to the apostle Paul. It was he who penned the gospel that bears his name as well as the book of the Acts of the Apostles.John the son of Zebedee five books of the new testament: John’s gospel, the three general epistles (1, 2, & 3 John) , and the book of Revelation.Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) wrote the “Pauline epistles” (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon.The person who penned the book of Hebrews is unknown A man named Jacob wrote the book of “James” (The Greek name is actually “Iakoboy” - which we would transliterate into “Yacob” or “Jacob.” The French language heavily influenced English during the time when the bible was first being translated into English. The “Anglo-Saxon” equivalent of Jacobin at that time was James - and at the time it didn’t seem inappropriate to use one or the other. The “Anglo Saxon” version was used in the translation, and has been ever since.) Jacob was very likely the brother of Jesus Christ.The Apostle Peter also wrote two epistles.It should be obvious then that the books of the New Testament were not all penned by the same person, nor were they written in the same place or even at the same time. Yet within the first hundred years of the church, these hand written gospels, epistles etc. were being copied and distributed as far and wide as the church had grown.As would be expected, the “copying” process wasn’t always perfect. We have this wonderful imagine of the dedicated medieval monk copying one letter at a time, carefully, oh so reverentially and painstakingly copying the word of God. Such images are nice, but they do little justice to the history of the bible. The reality is that many of the early copies were copied as faithfully as could be expected. If a man visiting a church in Syria came to hear the first epistles of Peter being used as scripture there, and wanted to take a copy back to his church in Macedonia - well, he would have to make a copy for himself. How good that copy would be would depend on many things - was the original copy legible - that is, was it easy to make out what was written? What time of day was it being copied (there were no electric lights back then)? How much time did the man have to copy it - was he rushed? Could he afford to buy another paper and try again with new ink (two months salary?) Recall that this was before the exactitude of the printing press - that is, we now have a standard that was unheard of during the first century - an “exact copy” back then didn’t mean you copied it perfectly - it meant that aside from the usual spelling errors, the occasional missed or repeated word or phrase, etc - your copy matched the one you were copying. Sometimes the copy corrects the spelling of it’s parent - sometimes the grammar, etc. It wasn’t considered demonic/evil/corruption to copy a document in this way Imagine yourself sitting down right now with a hand written copy of the book of Acts. You don’t know who wrote it, but from what it says, you know it is scripture, and not having your own copy, you set about making your own personal copy. By the time you are done you are satisfied that you have made a good and accurate copy. Granted, you are English, and prefer to say “colour” rather than “color” , and “plough” rather than “plow” - you do not consider these changes to be satanic corruptions of the original text - and they are not. Likewise, you correct some spelling errors from the original. You are not aware of it, but it is likely that you have also introduced some of your own spelling errors. You may also have dropped a word here or there, or even doubled up a word. Perhaps in copying the text, you make a note to yourself in the margin, etc.Now imagine that someone copies your copy. They are hyper-diligent - that is, they want an exact copy. They copy all your changes, and when they come to your superfluous note in the margin - they aren’t sure whether you accidentally missed a verse and tried to squeeze it in, or if this is a personal note or what - so, because they want to be safe, they copy it into their text, but put a line over it so that they remember later that it was a marginal note and they are not really sure if it is original or not. Now imagine that someone makes a copy of this last copy. They are copying it for their grandmother who doesn’t read English very well. They determine to soften the grammar a bit as they do - simplifying complex phrases, and even going so far as to remove redundant phrases. When they come to the “marginal note” they have no idea what the line over it is supposed to mean, so they ignore the line and copy your note into the text as though it were part of the original script. Your marginal note becomes “scripture” in their copy.I paint these pictures to demonstrate the way in which texts become corrupted over time.By the time Desiderius Erasmus, in 1515, compiled a complete “Greek” version of the New Testament (the Textus Receptus) there were many “versions” of the various manuscripts, all of them differing from one another here and there - but likewise all of them saying more or less the same things. There were no “complete” copies of the whole New Testament from any one source - rather you had compendiums - say all the Pauline epistles in a bunch. Or all the gospels, etc.Erasmus had six such compendiums, none of which contained the whole NT, and none of which agreed perfectly with the other five - that is, it wasn’t like he had six versions that all said the same thing - each text differed from the others in some minor way. Whenever the texts disagreed with one another, Erasmus compared them to one another, and determined which part of the texts were most likely original, that is, if He had say, five versions of say a passage from 1 Peter:“In this you are greatly happy, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials,”“You greatly rejoice in this, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials,”“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been made sad by various trials,”“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if it has to be, you have been grieved by various trials,”“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials”From these he would see that “in this you greatly rejoice” occurs in three versions, while the other two are saying something similar - so he might select that part as being most likely part of the original text. All the texts say “though now for a little while” - most say “If need be” most say, “you have been grieved” and all say, “by various trials” so Erasmus selects the fifth “version” as original, but doesn’t throw the other four versions in the trash calling them horrible corruptions and the spawn of Satan or some such silliness - rather he understands that these others texts differed because that is how they were copied. The texts that agree with one another he reasons were copied accurately. Not that the version they were copied from is superior to the others - but rather that this part of that copy seems better preserved than the same part in other copies.Erasmus has only six manuscripts, yet he manages to compile a complete Greek New Testament from them. Not even one of his six manuscripts actually agrees with the finished product (the Textus Receptus), but that isn’t to say that these six Byzantine manuscripts are corrupted and vile - rather it just demonstrates that having as few as six manuscripts Erasmus was able to put together a very reasonable facsimile of what the original texts likely looked like.I personally prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I prefer them I say because believe that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts than the Byzantine texts do. That is not to say that I believe the Byzantine texts are pristine and without corruption - they most certainly are corrupted, if less so than the Alexandrian texts.Yet, even if all the versions were horribly mutilated (most of the deviances are extremely minor), so long as they are copies of the original documents, or copies of copies (and they are), we can very easily, and accurately compare them one to another, and every deviance stands out against the fabric of the whole. The fact is, the texts agree with one another a mind boggling 97% of the time. Even in that 3% where there is deviance - the over whelming reason for the discrepancy is a spelling mistake or a change in grammatical case. There are statistically very few “corruptions” even within the 5400 manuscripts that exist today.That is level of accuracy is practically a statistical impossibility. As Christians, this number alone should give us much assurance that God has done an amazing job at keeping the bible pure.Three percent may seem like a large number, but if you think about it, that means that given one hundred flavors that a particular verse is rendered in - there will only be three variances in the hundred - and nine times out of ten those will just be variant spellings.Given this level of accuracy - it isn’t difficult to deduce what the original manuscripts said, even if we were dealing with exceptionally corrupt manuscripts (which we are not).Daniel Wallace sometimes takes a church through a wonderful exercise with regards to textual criticism and textual transmission. He takes half the church, and gives them the English rendering of a Greek passage from some first century, but extra-canonical Christian source, and has them copy it out a bunch of times - he instructs some to copy it with a feminist agenda - that is, removing all pronoun gender - some copy it letter for letter, others must have it dictated to them, etc. etc. In this way, much error is introduced into the copies - then they copy the copies, and run through a few such iterations. This is done in the morning. In the afternoon the other half of the church comes in, and are given the copies, which by carry far more corruption that can be found in any of the biblical manuscripts - and these people over the course of a couple of hours - compare the copies to one another - and most of the time are able to produce a perfect copy of the original document.Consider that for a moment. A group of laymen, having received minimal coaching, were still able to compile the original document even though all they had was a motley collection of horribly (and purposefully) corrupted copies.Wallace’s point is that educated men train for decades in this field, have thousands of manuscripts to compare, and spend decades doing so. The 27 version of Nestle & Aland’s Greek New Testament is --not-- some slap together document - as though hillbillies sat down one day and selected their favorite Alexandrian texts and used them “verbatim” to create a new Greek source! The United Bible Society, working from the same texts, independent of the Nestle and Aland’s group - using the same basic principles, have produced their own Greek version which is identical to NA27. That is enough to convince most people that the “modern” versions are not being translated from some corrupt and evil source - but rather, are being translated from a Greek compendium that reflects perhaps the most accurate image of the original texts that we will ever have.A final thought. There is a diminishing return with regards to the number of manuscripts that could cause the NA27/UBS4 to change much further. Consider that the differences between the Textus Receptus and the NA27/UBS four are fairly insignificant even though one is comprised of only six manuscripts, and the other more than 5400. Statistically speaking, even if we had a million more manuscripts - that would significantly change Greek text of the NA27/UBS4. In fact, until we got into “trillions” of manuscripts it would be a bother looking after the decimal places (this differs from that by 0.000001% etc.)So what is the bottom line then? Well for me it is that even though I prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts - I wouldn’t exalt them as a body above the Alexandrian texts. I don’t believe, as some do, that God endorses one family, and the Devil the other. Rather, I take the whole of it and consider it all together. No one text is better than another - rather no matter how the devil has attempted to corrupt the word - and no matter how many partially corrupt versions there are - yet God has given us the ability to produce from these “corruptions” the original - and I think that is amazing. For that reason I prefer not to call one text corrupt, as though the other were not. They are all corrupt, but their corruption doesn’t invalidate them unless we consider them individually - which in my opinion would be the very height of folly.Erasmus worked with texts that disagreed with one another - and didn’t imagine that one was of the Devil, and the other from God. He simply appreciated that man is imperfect, and the work of our hands is imperfect, but God’s word hasn’t been lost due to our imperfection.You can imagine then how pointless it is to discuss whether a text based on six manuscripts is compared to a text based on the same six manuscripts + 5394 others… It wastes my time to engage in such folly, but for the sake of those who know absolutely nothing about the history of the bible, textual criticism, and biblical transmission, I have endeavored to post this hopefully helpful introduction. For His gloryDan/\\/\\/\\

yet God has given us the ability to produce from these “corruptions” the originalSo, in your opinion, where is it?RT

Have you read not my post? Perhaps a second, and thorough reading will help?:-)Dan

That is enough to convince most people that the “modern” versions are not being translated from some corrupt and evil source - but rather, are being translated from a Greek compendium that reflects perhaps the most accurate image of the original texts that we will ever have.So from your response and the quote above, I gather that in saying that the NA/UBS text is "perhaps the most accurate image of the original texts that we will ever have", you are REALLY saying that this is the Bible you look to as pure and perfectly preserved?Funny. You didn't exactly come out and use words like "pure" and "perfectly preserved", you danced around is with a "perhaps" which precludes doubt and reveals your true view of Scripture if I am understanding you right...Which is why I asked where you pure Bible was. But if you have doubts, though small, as to what belongs in the Bible, come out and say it.To be conciliatory and helpful to you, I think your difference in opinion may stem from your thinking that the NT "was originally written in Greek by more than one person." We would be well served to phrase it this way: We are led to assume that the NT was origianally written in Greek because the oldest MSS (papyri) we have extant today were all written in Greek. We cannot, though, be absolutely certain that the apostles were limited to Greek. We know only that Greek was the common language throughout the empire and would have been the most universally known. This seems to be why most of the manuscripts we possess that date back to this period are in Greek. But we do have very reliable reports of translations such as the Old Latin and the Peshitta dating back to apostolic times as well, which cause us to wonder how many languages the apostles translated the Bible into.The above would be a more correct statement. The doubt should fall upon using "Greek only", not Textus Receptus only. The KJV was translated using a polyglot of other languages as checks and balances. All translations of the Bible should have this same privilege. In this way we can assure to have a pure product every time.RT

Thanks Dann on your most enjoyable article on textual criticism.

Hi Dan, a nice try.Original recipe....now that could be an interesting consideration. 'How about taste and see that the Lord is good.' I have tasted the NIV and got bones in my throat. After a double portion of the Lord's blessing and a huge slice of the AKJV...Isaiah, to be precise, I am decidedly better and my thirst is doubly quenched too. In Jesus,Aeryck:-P ps. a blessing for you: 'With joy I will draw water from the wells of salvation.'I love the song by Daniel Amos, that goes, 'I'm thirsty Lord my souls on fire, ....so put a double portion of your Word Lord on my plate.../nothing quite like a huge chunk of God's word to lay to rest all the doubts about ?...? :-P edit-add link

Aeryck, Thanks for the encouragement. I am not sure I understand what you think I am trying (re:nice try), but I am glad that you have encouraged me in it.Like yourself, I have tasted the NIV and found it lacking. I cannot imagine anyone choking on a bone from that translation, since it is served up boneless and pre-chewed in my opinion. :-)Grace and peace,Dan/\\/\\/\\

NASB all the way baby!!!!

By the way, I jokingly from the pulpit call the NASB the "New And Super Bible" :)

:-P:-P:-P:-P:-P:-P:-PI nearly chocked again!In Jesus,Aeryck.

You folk on this thread are all a lot more advanced then me - regarding literary skills. It seems that the "prechewed" NIV worked for me. That is what the Spirit used to get passed the false understanding of many spiritual concepts - what I accumulated when I was leaning on my own understanding. Through the NIV I met the Lord and learned his truths in ways that I had never known all those years that I thought I was a born again Christian but wasn't. I must admit that I had been reading the NIV for years and learned a lot, but it wasn't till the Spirit filled me, gave me sight, and gave me new life in Christ that the Scripture came alive like never before. Funny that God didn't ask me to change translations even though he called me to make many other changes. The Spirit often directed me to precise verses - the exact ones I needed for whatever he was teaching me at the time. I put the dates beside the verses that he directed me to. I have put some of the things I learned on my site. I realize it is a work in progress and far from ideal. However, I wouldn't mind if any of you felt inspired to check me out, and correct weak arguments. Seriously, I know that no one has the line on the truth, and I could easily be wrong in various areas. I would love to know if the NIV got me off track in any area of my spiriutal understanding and walk.I have no partiality to the NIV or any one translation. I like the way the NLT explains various verses. Generally speaking, I find that while I read the KJV I do a lot of in-my-head interpreting, and I could easily be wrong doing that. KJV is just not my language. It's great that I can easily check out various translations of passages on the web. That is a special privelege few of human civilization has ever had. Diane

But we do have very reliable reports of translations such as the Old Latin and the Peshitta dating back to apostolic times as well, which cause us to wonder how many languages the apostles translated the Bible into.Neither the Old Latin nor the Peshitta date back to apostolic times.

KrispyKrittr wrote:... those who hold to the modern versions must deny this doctrine (preservation).I respect the NA27/UBS4 compendium, but that respect is not transmitted to the myriad of "modern versions" translated from it. of the 130+ English translations farmed out of the NA27/UBS4 - I personally find only one authoritative (the NASB). I do have an ESV, which I use to compare - but it takes a back seat to the NASB. I make the distinction because you have lumped all modern versions together as though they were equal translations - an over-simplification that must be regarded as such in order for my reply to make sense.While I respect the NA27/UBS4, that in no way implies that I do not believe that God has preserved his word.Your definition of what "preservation" looks rests itself upon a ideal that isn't warranted or necessary - that is, your position is that God preserved one flavor of manuscript - and this preserved singular is to be preferred. Such reasonsing as this, if imposed upon the New Testament would demand that God could only preserve one version of the gospel, and that (necessarily) the other three gospels were "corrupt" etc. We know that this is folly and small minded, and we all dismiss it as soon as we hear it because it is obviously poor reasoning.In the same way, I can dismiss your reasoning with regards to preservation. You imagine that God preserves only one text - and that all others are corrupt. I on the other hand, believe that God has preserved all the manuscripts - and that like the gospels, when combined they produce one clear picture - preserved perfectly by God.To suggest therefore that one must abandon the notion that God has preserved his word just because one has a respect for the critical text is therefore not accurate.I certainly believe that God preserves his word - I just don't accept your own definition of what that looks like.Dan/\\/\\/\\

What Dann is saying on this topic is making a whole lot of sense to me. Moreover we cannot argue on the one hand apologetically that the abundance of manuscripts gives great weight to the authenticity of the New Testament while simultaneously asserting that many or most of them are "spawned of the devil" or any such thing. We have to be consistent in our arguments across the entire apologetics spectrum.

dann wrote:...God has preserved all the manuscripts - and that like the gospels, when combined they produce one clear picture - preserved perfectly by God.From a bible origins babe, that sounded very good. :smart:

Pride cometh before the fall, my friend. And that has to be the most pride-filled responses I've ever read on here. If I responded to someone in that way people would find a tall tree and a short piece of rope and let me swing in the wind.But since it's you... nothing will be said.I wont argue this point with someone who views himself as being all knowing and intellectual. There is no pointWould it not be poor reasoning to assert that one of the Gospel's is sufficient record of the life of Christ and His teachings when God has clearly given us 4 of them? I actually dealt with this a while back and there are those who assert that the Gospel of Mark is all we need. It is way off base to suggest that we ought to disregard ANY of the Gospels- even if one of them contains information that destroys our pet-doctrines. There must be a willingness to accept the truth no matter what that truth is. Which leads me to wonder why such a view of 'limited light' would be held unless there is some doctrine or teaching to be protected that falls apart in view of all the resources. I'm a KJV guy myself through and through- but I am not KJV only. One of my most recent concerns with the KJV is its translation of words that tend to allow for Romanism's church government to form in the minds of the readers. If I responded to someone in that way people would find a tall tree and a short piece of rope and let me swing in the wind.But since it's you... nothing will be said.Come on now Krispy, this thread started out as a response to a challenge from you on another thread. Lets look at some quotes from the original post:It is a more literal translation of the same corrupted Greek text that the NIV and the other modern versions are based on. The Old Testament is a translation of an inferior Hebrew Text.I would recommend you avoid this "bible" as much as I would the NIV "bible".No doubt I'mm get hammered on this thread, but watch... not one person will come to the defense of the Alexandrian text... or explain why they reject the Received Text (which the KJV is based on). I'll just be called mean spirited, divisive, etc etc. But in all my time on this site not one supporter of the modern versions has ever tried to offer any argument for the Alexandrian Text.And yes... thats a friendly challenge. Anyone wanna step up to the plate and show us why the stream of Greek texts that underly the modern versions is superior?By the way, this is a friendly challenge for a friendly debate. Any and all overly emotional hot-heads will be ignored. (You know who you are)You received your challenge and I would hold your feet to the fire and say offer up a rebuttal to his points. We will listen and no one will get a rope or the like.

RobertW wrote:...no one will get a rope or the like.I might. :-P On second thoughts, how do I get my hands on the little Kritter? :-D

Come on now Krispy. I'm sure we can work this out without any mud slinging. I did not think Dann's comments were referring to anyone in particular- but the 'reasoning' itself. That's the distinction I made. He didn't refer to anyone as a 'hot-head' or anything like that. Let's thicken our skins and get on with it? I'm interested to see how this will go. You guys are doing great!God Bless,-Robert

Krispy, and Dann,You are two brothers I respect and love in the Lord. Krispy is correct, let's continue a discussion such as this in a spirit of humility. Let's not let our comments and attitudes fall short of the documents we're trying to defend. Let's let "iron sharpen iron."In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Regarding the doctrine of preservation, what do we do about words in the Hebrew and such that we have no idea what they actually mean anymore? For example, in a study of Job I did in school recently, the commentator noted how the "that" (KJV) "something" (NASB) of Job 6:6 is actually some sort of food, but totally unknown to scholars of what it actually is. All we know is that it cannot be eaten without salt, but we don't know what it is that cannot be eaten without salt.

I apologize to the readers of this thread for taking so long to deal with this.After reading my post again, I can see where Krispy is offended, and I should have been more careful in my words. I do not know Krispy well enough to slur him so, and even if I did, it wouldn't be very loving to do so. So I want to make it plain to all, that I do not consider Krispy "small minded" - and I regret having chosen my words so callously.The remark was never intended to be a slur against Krispy personally, but was directed indiscriminately at the sort of reasoning that would demand a person dismiss three of the four gospels as corrupt while insisting that one and only one was divinely inspired. I characterized this sort of reasoning as "small minded" - and in so doing, implied that the one who was using that sort of reasoning was likewise small minded. This was not simply poor judgment on my part, but needlessly hurtful, and inappropriate, and I apologize to Krispy, and the readers of this thread. I am by no means perfect, and discrepencies of this nature continually remind me of it.Dan/\\/\\/\\

We are led to assume that the NT was origianally written in Greek because the oldest MSS (papyri) we have extant today were all written in Greek. This is not the reason that most evangelical scholars opt for a primacy of Greek autographs. In fact, I have never heard this reasoning. We believe that the original autographs were in Greek because the extant mss do not show signs of translation and that is confirmed by what limited historical evidence we have to hand.

I personally prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I prefer them I say because believe that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts than the Byzantine texts do. what does this mean? How can you say that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts when you don't know what the original texts were? You would have to know the original texts before such a sentence would make sense, and if you knew the originals why would you want anything more? The whole point of textual criticism is that we don't know what the originals said so we are trying to reconstuct them.

philologos wrote:

I personally prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I prefer them I say because believe that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts than the Byzantine texts do. what does this mean? How can you say that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts when you don't know what the original texts were?

The superiority of one text form over the other however, does little to impact the overall textual criticisms leveled against the whole - which was my point - that even though I prefer the byzantine text to the alexandrian text - even if with my whole heart I zealously consider the byzantine text superior; such a preference in no makes the the critical text less accurate.Forgive my ignorance here, but the books I have read on this topic seem to give preference to the Alexandrian texts because they are supposedly older. The theories of the authors was that the 'newer' Byzantine texts contained added materials inserted by copiests. It has been a long time ago so I can't reconstruct their point any more than that. However, I reasoned then that the age of the manuscripts alone cannot make for a 'superior' document. I also reasoned that the Byzantine texts could have been the fullest texts and we simply don't have any copies that are as old as the Alexandrian. It seems reasonable to me to then accept the fullest amount of material that we have to which there are more than say 'x amount' of sources. If codex 'a' has material that codex 'b' does not- then go with the fullest text. If this is any where near how the process plays out- then the material not found in all or most texts comes into question. I see this as to where the theories start coming in such as "marginal notes slowly being 'added' to the text." At the end of the day it seems then that Dann is saying that our 'theories' will follow our preferences or doctrines. Is there any other way of knowing 'objectively' what the final product should look like or are we perpetually locked up in these preference based theories?

Thanks Krispy,Patience is a must when dealing with a topic here. I'm glad we have the freedom to talk about topics like this because they rarely (if ever) are discussed in our churches.After so many months now of seeing where things go 'wrong' in our discussions here on any number of topics, more and more what I am noticing is very much that brother, that is needed. Beyond that what I keep seeing is that when we read others words here and they seem to be conveying one thing, often that is or may not have been the intent. As you mentioned elsewhere it is very difficult to pick up the inflection often times, others times it can be overt, but what seems to be needed is to ask questions rather than to presume or jump to conclusions, a lot of times there seems to be a projecting of motives and intent that is not even there. Clarifying and correcting and doing just this, that you guy's did privately and then bringing it forth to all of us... it's a tremendous help to keeping the right focus and manner, 'direction' if you will, here.Very much appreciated brother. Now, if everyone would just see things my way we would have perfect unity!:-P But then Zekeo would become bored... :-? 8-)

RobertW wrote:It seems reasonable to me to then accept the fullest amount of material that we have to which there are more than say 'x amount' of sources. If codex 'a' has material that codex 'b' does not- then go with the fullest text. There are two lines of reasoning that ought to be considered.The first line of reasoning is that we select one particular form and promote it above the other - and it has been my experience that the majority would fall into this category. They feel that either the Alexandrian or Byzantine ought to be selected as the "most divine" text and that these texts in relative isolation should be used to generate a full greek new testament - in fact, many of the KJVO enthusiasts imagine that this is what has been done - that a binary selection was made for the alexandrian texts - and that the modern translations are "alexandrian" by choice.The other line of reasoning (and this is the camp into which I fall) doesn't favor one text above another, as though one body of manuscripts had to be selected over the other, and some Greek compendium compiled exclusively from some root body of texts -- This line of reasoning examines every known Greek manuscript pertaining to a particular passage (be that Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western or whatever) and organizes them according to ancestry - that is, by tracing the deviations and similarities according to the age of the manuscripts etc, it is possible to build isolate and identify what portions from each manuscript are likely "sound" - and what portions are less sound. If every known manuscript has the same reading for a particular verse or part of a verse - that is considered solid. If there are variant readings, the original can be determined with some degree of confidence even from a collection of horribly deviated manuscripts.It is a similar phenomenon in court - a hundred witnesses testify - and even though their stories vary widely - if they are true witnesses - the truth will shine through their collective testimony, because it will remain true throughout.I believe that God's word is truth, and that even if a thousand manuscripts deviate from one another, yet the overall truth will be known by through the cumulative agreement of the texts. We are not interested in where the texts deviate as some are, instead we are interested in what they agree upon - just as the truth is determined in a court of law by the multitude of witnesses (even if they disagree on some points) - so too I believe the truth of God can be known through many witnesses - however deviant they happen to be; there deviation does not concern me - what concerns me is where these texts -do- agree! :-)I hope that clears it up. One can see then why I don't care how corrupt a body of texts happens to be - I may have my preferences, but I haven't taken the first option - that is, I am not suggesting we adopt one body of manuscripts and discard the other - but rather that we take all the witnesses (just as we take all the gospels), and determine from the whole what is true (rather than elect one particular stream and exult it as the only source of light - as though God only preserved that stream, and the devil preserved the rest.)Dan/\\/\\/\\

dann writesThe superiority of one text form over the other however, does little to impact the overall textual criticisms leveled against the whole - which was my point - that even though I prefer the byzantine text to the alexandrian text - even if with my whole heart I zealously consider the byzantine text superior; such a preference in no makes the the critical text less accurate.The text produced by Erasmus was the result of 'textual criticism'. And the 'textual critic' must have an opinion as to which mss are closest to an exact copy of the original autographs. Erasmus produced his 'edited text' which was not to be found in any single Greek mss. However, once his text was created it is a simple process to compare any single mss against that edited text and to pass a judgment on the relative accuracy of each mss copy.I appreciate your emotional link to the Byzantine textform but that cannot be a consideration in this kind of discussion. The problem with the philosophy of each person engaged in textual criticism is that it has a circular effect. Westcott and Hort developed a philosophy of textual criticism which resulted in them concluding that the Sinai and Vatican mss were the most accurate copies of the original Greek autographs. They then used this conclusion to grade the accuracy of all other mss and textforms. It results in the kind of footnotes which appear in some Bible saying 'better mss have...' What is the definition of 'better'? mss which are closer to the Sinai and Vatican mss.Their philosophy depended on a deductive history of the text of the New Testament; their own deductive history. In the main they have decided that a longer text is likely to be one which the copyists have 'added to'. Robinson has shown that this presumed history of the NT text is deeply flawed; but their whole philosophy is dependent upon their supposed history.Subsequent editors have modified some of the extremes of Westcott and Hort but they still base their 'eclectic' texts on the same assumed history of the NT text. Other than those who argue for the Byzantine textform, all subsequently Greek texts are 'children' of Westcott and Hort.If you have not read Robinson's The Case for Byzantine Primacy I would heartily recommend that you do. From what you have posted you have sufficient understanding of textual criticism to appreciate what Robinson is saying and why. I think his case for Byzantine primacy is far more convincing that that of Westcott/Hort and their disciples.

Thanks Ron - I will definitely give it a sober and thoughtful read.Dan/\\/\\/\\

Hi dannthere are some text critical points in the "concerning baptism" which might interest you.

Thanks again Ron.I am still reading the first link you sent! :-)You may want to examine Some basic obersvations on Text-types. (Dr. Wielland Willker). It is just his own musings coupled with some statistical information etc, but it may shed some light into my own reasoning in the matter.Dan