|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #12 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:23:33 GMT |
|
|
 | This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
WEIGH, BUT THEN COUNT
After weighing the witnesses, they must be counted. However, before doing
so prudence would demand that we examine to determine possible collusion
between the witnesses. Those mutually dependent must be lumped together as
only one voice. Westcott and Hort were right in maintaining the correctness
of that axiom. Only then should each witness appearing to be both
independent and trustworthy have a vote.
If several hundred such witnesses agree against three or four inveterate
liars, can any doubt really exist as to the true reading? If a manuscript
goes wrong continually, as a witness he is of low character. Again, the
oldest extant uncial manuscripts, when viewed objectively, habitually are
shown to be liars.
For example, in the last three chapters of Luke (22-24) Codex D omits 329
words from what Westcott and Hort considered to be the true text. In
addition, Codex D was judged to have added 173 words, substituted 146 words
and made 243 transpositions to the Received Text by these same men. Yet in
eight places they omitted material from the text of the Textus Receptus
based solely on the witness of Codex D. As Pickering exclaimed, how can any
value be given to the depraved testimony of Codex D in these chapters, much
less prefer it above the united voice of all other witnesses?
The focus here is not as much on Codex D as it is on the men, Westcott and
Hort. They selected readings from an area in a MS which they acknowledged as
having been heavily altered and yet chose them in eight places in those
three chapters because they liked what D said. The point is made that
textual criticism, by utilizing subjective methods, has been reduced to
nothing more than the intellect of the scholar and his personal views.
Modern texts are based 90% on Vaticanus B, 7% on A, about 2.5% on
Alexandrinus A and the remaining 1/2% on a few other early MSS. Convicted
liars all! Textual critics have ignored the consideration of respectability
as an objective and very necessary criterion in weighing. However, if
respectability is considered and implemented, the result will be the
complete overthrow of the type text currently in vogue and return us to the
Textus Receptus. THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIETY IN SELECTING EVIDENCE The use of
a variety of evidence will support the Textus Receptus, return the body of
Christ to it as its final source of authority, and return to the Church
absolute confidence that we still possess the God inspired, infallible
Word - that He has preserved it for His followers as He promised. It must be
seen that to believe in the inspiration of the Holy Writ without believing
in its preservation within the believing remnant of the church is
meaningless.
By "variety" is meant that evidence would come from:
(1) many theological and geographical areas rather than from Egypt alone.
(2) materials that differ in age. In order for a reading to be a serious
candidate for the original text, it would have to have attestation down
through the ages of transmission. In other words, there should be consistent
traces of its existence through the years.
(3) different kinds of witnesses. Consideration should be given to all
available evidence, i.e., not only Greek manuscripts but to data from the
church "Fathers", lectionaries and different old versions.
When these are objectively weighed and counted, the Textus Receptus will be
vindicated - as will the King James Bible, which is the God guided faithful
English rendering. Finally:
ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS SUPPORT THE RECEIVED TEXT From the second and early
third centuries, Latin (the original Latin "Vulgate") and Syriac New
Testaments circulated all over Asia Minor, Africa, and Palestine. These
Bibles were revised respectively by Jerome (382-405 A.D.) and presumably
Bishop Rabbula (411-435). Where they followed the corrupt Alexandrian
(Hesychian) scholarship of Origen (c.245) in editing they disfigured the New
Testament text. Errors in the Peshitta and in the Vulgate can be traced to
the Vatican (B) manuscript and its ancestors.
The Peshitta Syriac version is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian
Church. It agrees closely with the Traditional Text. Until around one
hundred years ago it was almost universally accepted as having originated in
the 2nd-century, thus being one of the most ancient N.T. versions. Because
the Syriac Peshitta text is "Byzantine", Hort had to nullify its witness by
denying its antiquity. This he did by placing its inception out of the
second and third centuries. Accordingly, He proposed that its origin was
connected to the so-called "Lucianic Recension" in the 4th-century. Burgon
pointed out that there was a total lack of evidence for Hort's assertion.
Hills recounts that F.C. Burkitt (1904) pressed Hort's theory even further
by naming Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa - the capital city of Syria, as the
author of the revision.
However, Arthur Voobus countered Hort, Burkitt, and other naturalistic
critics by - like Burgon - first noting that their reconstruction of textual
history was "pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it." After
concluding that Rabbula used the Old Syriac type of text, Voobus judged from
his research that the Peshitta went back to at least the mid-fourth century
and that it was not the result of an authorative revision. Yet it is Burgon
who long before noted a deciding historical difficulty for the Hort-Burkitt
theory. He pointed out that the Peshitta had to have been in existence
before Rabbula's episcopate because during his time a schism occurred in
which the
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #16 | | Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:10:42 GMT |
|
|
| #16 & Last one of this series-This is the end of Chapter 7-a continuing post
from the Book "Which Version
is theBible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
Hence it must be recognized and acknowledged that the advocates of these
views are not practicing real science; they, like the adherents of the
opposing side, are engaged in a philosophic belief system. Such practices of
faith have long been defined by a well known term - and that appellation is
"religion". Thus both sides are going through life practicing their beliefs
and in so doing are being "religious". One side honestly admits this; the
other is self-deceived and does not so concede.
Regarding organic evolution, we are not referring to genetic variation
within the dog kind (whereby c.120 different varieties ranging from
dachshund to Great Dane may be produced by selective breeding), varieties of
mosquitoes adapting to DDT, or population changes occurring between the dark
and light varieties of peppered moths. Such are only "horizontal" changes
(micro-evolution) revealing the inherent ability to adapt which is built
into the DNA code of living creatures that allows them to survive limited
changes in the environment so as not to readily become extinct. Such
occurrences, though often cited as examples of evolution, have nothing
whatsoever to do with macro-evolution (which is, after all, what evolution -
neo-Darwinian or punctuated equilibrium - is really all about) whereby
organisms progress upward over time toward more complexity and higher
degrees of order - for in the cited examples neither of these prerequisites
takes place.
That is, we are referring to the alleged type of change in which the dog
kind and cat kind originated from a common ancestor. All the dog varieties
produced by the aforementioned selective breeding are still "Canis
familiaris" and, being the genus Canis, are interfertile (although size
differences can produce physical difficulties) and can produce fertile
offspring (the scientific prerequisites for determining Genera). Moreover,
the mosquitoes remain the same variety and can still reproduce with others
like it was before the adaptation took place and the dark and light forms of
the moths are internally identical remaining the same genera and species,
Biston betularia. Absolutely no upward progress over time toward more
complexity and higher degrees of order has taken place.
Finally, the fossil record which is offered by evolutionists as physical
proof of their belief is totally against them. Time and space forbid a
prolonged exposition along these lines as such would be beyond the purpose
of this paper, but in passing it should be noted that not only are the
transitional forms missing between all the major animal and plant groups,
the presence of which would be necessary to maintain such an hypothesis, the
gaps are of unimaginable magnitude. The fossil record is one of mass
destruction, death, and burial (almost exclusively by water and its
suspended sediments), not that of transformation of one kind into another.
Contrary and hostile to the evolutionary scenario, the fossil record not
only reveals a systematic absence of transitional forms, it reveals the
sudden explosive appearance of highly diverse forms of life without any
preceding intermediate types. Furthermore, since all of the major phyla are
found in the Cambrian, the bulk of evolutionary diversity had to have taken
place before that era, yet - even granting the legitimacy of the pitifully
few Pre-Cambrian supposed "microfossils" (which this author does not) - the
gap between these so-called microfossils and the highly organized,
diversified life forms found in the Cambrian is immense. The ancestors of
the Cambrian organisms simply are not to be found. In short, the laws of
thermodynamics tell us that evolution could not happen and the fossil record
tells us that evolution did not happen - and that is real science.
Being un-observable, un-testable and thus un-provable, these nature myths
(Big Bang etc. - there being several other plausible scientific explanations
to account for the "red shift" besides that of an expanding universe) are
outside the realm of science. Hence, their adherents must be seen as
continuing on in faith with regard to these theories and hypotheses and
moreover in so pursuing invariably violate many other well established laws
and principles of real science - especially the first and second laws of
thermodynamics. Therefore, the Christian should not be intellectually
intimidated by them. Rather, we mean the logic and method of true empirical
observable science.
Furthermore, textual criticism is not "scientific" because over the years
nearly all of its leading proponents have systematically ignored the massive
contrary evidence, refusing to give serious consideration to the objections,
questions, and deliberations of the men who present such hostile testimony
against their liberal views. It is not scientific because it continues to
scorn and disregard the vast majority of manuscript data even though the
supposed justification for so doing, the late text hypothesis and that of
the Antiochian recension, has been completely exposed as untrue and
baseless. Indeed, the notable works of Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener,
Hills, Pickering, and others who have championed the antithetical position
have yet to obtain the hearing they deserve; yet such should be found in a
truly open "scientific" forum where the supposed objective is to examine all
the data and arrive at the truth. Today, extremely few Greek New Testament
students have ever heard of these men, other than perhaps a few aside
derogatory remarks such as "Burgon was the champion of lost causes", much
less seen a copy of their works or actually read them.
Yet Burgon, despite his witticisms and taunts, presented innumerable
documented hard facts and in so doing followed along a true scientific
approach much more so than did Westcott and Hort who, lacking hard proof,
often resorted to fanciful imagination. Nevertheless W&H have been allowed a
full hearing and attracted a large following. And why is this so? Part of
the answer may be seen in Hoskier's remark: "The reason is sadly obvious,
the latter method is taken easy, and at first sight plausible to the
beginner. The former is horribly laborious, although precious in results."
Moreover, the undeniable truth, as Letis has been documenting for the past
several years, is that textual criticism leads to higher criticism which
inevitably leads to the rejection of the historical and miraculous in the
Word of God. Further, the 18th-century myth that "text criticism does not
affect doctrine or the fundamental truths of Christianity" seizes,
mesmerizes, and seduces all who have been formally instructed at educational
institutions of higher learning, especially those who have attained advanced
theological training. Indeed, it is precisely the denial of these points
that has lead to the destruction the faith of many of today's pastors and
priest with regard to the written Word of the Living God and has, since
about the turn of the century, allowed for the free promotion of the modern
translations which are all founded on the critical (eclectic) text.
Kenyon's words: "It is true (and cannot be too emphatically stated) that
none of the fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which
the genuineness is doubtful" are simply naive in the extreme as well as
untrue. Regardless of the eminence of whosoever utters Kenyon's sentiment -
it is a deception devoid of truth. Again, the plain errors of fact and
contradictions incorporated in the eclectic text of the New Testament
invalidates the doctrine of Divine Inspiration as it thereby becomes
relative as well as rendering untenable the doctrine of the Scriptures as
being the infallible deposit of God's Word to man.
Finally, this author concludes with Hoskier that without a demonstrable
history of the transmission of the text (sans flights of the imagination) as
well as an understanding of the interaction of the versions upon each other
and upon the Greek texts, text criticism can never be said to rest on a
"scientific" foundation. Indeed, Hoskier stated that it was this lack of
scientific basis in the field of textual criticism that most concerned Dean
Burgon.
God bless, Steve Goltra
|
|
|
