|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #4 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:34:05 GMT |
|
|
 | PAPYRI (c.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS The papyri (around 200
A.D.), which dates 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, support the
Textus Receptus readings. This may come as somewhat of a shock to those
familiar with the problem of textual criticism, as most have been informed
that the early papyri are listed as Alexandrian or Western. True,
nevertheless the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papyri, even though placed in
those families, have many renderings which are strictly Syrian - strictly
Textus Receptus. After a thorough study of P46, Gunther Zuntz concluded: "A
number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were
discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P46". Having several years earlier
already acknowledged that with regard to the Byzantine New Testament "Most
of its readings existed in the second century", Colwell noted Zuntz's remark
and concurred. Many of these readings had been considered to be "late
readings", but the papyri testify that they date back at least to the second
century!
In his recent book, the late (d.1989) Harry A. Sturz surveyed "all the
available papyri" to determine how many papyrus-supported "Byzantine"
readings were extant. In deciding which readings were "distinctively
Byzantine", Dr. Sturz states that he made a conscious effort to "err on the
conservative side" and thus his list is shorter than it could have been.
Sturz lists 150 Byzantine readings which, though not supported by the early
Alexandrian and Western uncials, are present in the bulk of later
manuscripts and by the early papyri. Sturz lists a further 170 additional
Byzantine readings which also read differently from the A-B text but are
supported by Western manuscripts. These are also supported in the ancient
papyri. This support may seem minimal, but nothing can diminish the fact
that the total number of papyri citations favor the so-called "late"
Byzantine readings against their rivals in the two lists by two to one.
Sturz demonstrates papyri support for a total of 839 readings which in
varying degrees would be classified as Byzantine. This forever dismantles
Hort's theory that the Byzantine text was created as an official compromise
text during the 4th-century by combining readings from earlier text-types.
Hills declared that the Chester Beatty readings vindicate "distinctive
Syrian readings" twenty-six times in the Gospels, eight times in the Book of
Acts, and thirty-one times in Paul's Epistles. Hills goes on to state that
Papyrus Bodmer II (Papyri 66) confirms 13% of the so-called "late" Syrian
readings (18 out of 138). To properly appreciate this one must consider the
fact that only about thirty percent of the New Testament has any papyri
support, and much of that thirty percent has only one papyrus. Thus this is
seen as a major confirmation to the antiquity of the text of the Traditional
Text in direct contradiction to the theory previously outlined in which the
Syrian readings were said by Westcott and Hort to be fourth and fifth
century. May we not reasonably project that subsequent discoveries of papyri
will give similar support to readings now only extant in Byzantine text?
A most telling fact concerning the papyri is that several of them have texts
of Revelation (P-47 for example). How does the destructive critic explain
the fact that Vaticanus (written c.350) does not include the Book of
Revelation whereas the 1611 Authorized Version (written nearly 1260 years
later) contains this book? Can one reasonably explain how Erasmus' "late"
manuscripts contained an entire book missing in the "pure, neutral Vatican"
text? How did Erasmus know that the book of Revelation should be in the
canon when the "oldest and best" manuscript did not contain it?
ECCLESIASTIC REVISION?
Remember Westcott and Hort proposed that Lucian had been the leader of an
official ecclesiastical revision carried out by editors which had taken
place in two stages between 250 and 350 A.D. This recension supposedly was
for the purpose of producing an official compromise text "to resolve the
problems arising in the various provinces over the existence of competing
textual families" (Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral - see p. 30). The
theory concluded that the Syrian (Byzantine) text was a composite of these
pre-existing texts resulting in readings that "elevated" Jesus (which is
what the Syrian/Textus Receptus readings do) as compared with the others.
Thus, the theory accused the Christians of deliberately altering the true
text of the New Testament for the purpose of making Jesus appear more
God-like, more divine.
The hard fact is there is not one mention of such an ecclesiastical revision
in all history. Indeed, the emphasis on this cornerstone of the W-H theory
has been abandoned by most present-day scholars. Colwell acknowledged this
when he wrote:
|
|
|
