Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Matthews]

Donovan said:

Quote:

I think you'll find with some research that EGW did not ever use the RV for doctrinal paragraphs. She did use when the wording made more sense to what she was writing, but never for doctrine.

R & H, 9/11/1894, "Study the Bible for Yourself" By EGW

Quote:

The Lord says, "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching." John 7:17, Revised Version. {RH, September 11, 1894 par. 2}

Just one the occasions where EGW used the Revised Version for a doctrinal statement.

[Gregory Matthews]

The White estate comments on EGW & the Revised Version of the Bible.

Quote:

On Mrs. White’s attitude toward the English revision of the 1880’s, her son, W. C. White, reports:

“Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother’s attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us.” — W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

It is significant that almost immediately after the appearance of the English Revised Version, Mrs. White made use of it in her books, as she did also of the American Standard Revision when it became available in 1901. It is also significant that four major statements from Mrs. White’s pen concerning the Bible and the Bible writers were penned during this decade of the appearance of the revised versions of the New and Old Testaments.

[Gregory Matthews]

Donovan said:

Quote:

I think you'll find with some research that EGW did not ever use the RV for doctrinal paragraphs. She did use when the wording made more sense to what she was writing, but never for doctrine.

The EGW Estate comments further on her use of the Revised versions.

Quote:

As noted earlier, Mrs. White occasionally used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885, the year of the appearance of the complete English Revised Version.

In The Great Controversy, published in 1888, seven texts from the newly issued revision were employed, and she also used the marginal rendering of eight other texts. The proportion of Revised Version and marginal rendering of texts is very small when we consider that there are more than 850 scriptures quoted in The Great Controversy, or an average of a little more than one scripture text to a page, whereas there is approximately one Revised Version rendering and one marginal rendering for each one hundred pages.

In 1901 the American Revised Version came from the press, and from that time forward we find that Mrs. White occasionally employed both the English Revised and the American Revised versions.

In 1911, when The Great Controversy was reset, Mrs. White retained six of the seven texts previously quoted from the English Revised Version. For the other text she substituted the American Revised rendering. The eight marginal renderings were used as in the earlier edition.

In the publication of The Ministry of Healing (1905) Mrs. White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser, and four from Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings.

Other volumes in which Revised Version texts frequently appear are Patriarchs and Prophets (1890); Steps to Christ (1892); Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896); The Desire of Ages (1898); Education (1903); and Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (1904).

The E. G. White books using a few Revised Version or marginal renderings are Christ’s Object Lessons (1900); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7 (1902); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (1909); The Acts of the Apostles (1911); Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (1913); Gospel Workers (1915); and Prophets and Kings (1917).

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation.

In the five volumes of the Conflict of the Ages Series, we find the revised versions quoted. As might be expected, those volumes that enter into an exposition of Bible truth dealing with points of doctrine or the teachings of Christ, contain more texts quoted from the revised versions than do volumes of counsel to the church and those presenting largely historical description. In the three-volume Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White use of revised versions is indicated in the Scripture Index.

Read carefully above where it clearly tells us that EGW did use Revised Versions when she dealt with doctrinal issues.

Never for doctrine: I do not think so. Careful research leads me to believe that she did use the Revised Versions for doctrine.

[Gregory Matthews]

Donovon said:

Quote:

I think you'll find with some research that EGW did not ever use the RV for doctrinal paragraphs. She did use when the wording made more sense to what she was writing, but never for doctrine.

The Comprehensive Index takes 156 pages of close type to list the places where EGW has cited a Biblical text. E.G. She cited Genesis 1, verse 2 (standing alone) twice and each time that citation was from the Revised Version. NOTE: She also used that verse in combination with other verses.

But it takes 33 lines of text to list the number of times that she cited Exodus 20: 8-11.

Question for you Donovon: With a listing of the times that she used revised versions of the Bible available to you, how many of them did you check to see if they were used in a doctrinal manner?

Donovon, my question to you is fair. I have read the majority of those references. No, I was not reading them to see how she used passages from the revised versions. I was reading for another purpose. but, I have read the majority of them.

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is a confusing statement that I do not believe that you intended to make:

Quote:

To contrast the procedures used to translate the King James Bible(KJV) from the Revised Version(RV). . .

Some people may read the above to think that you are suggestign that the KJV was translated from the RV. Of course you did not intend to state that the 1611 translation of the KJV was made from a 1881 translation. You meant to contrast the translation proceedures of the KJV with that of the RV, as you understood them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt.

Your outline of the texts is based upon the work of Westcott & Hort. They developed the thesis that the body of MSS could be classified into three (3) types--the Alexandrian, the Neutral and the Western. I find it interesting that those who reject the work of Westcott & Hort often accept their classification of the text types.

B. F. Streeter analized the above classification and determined that Westcott & Hort had made an error. By 1924, Streeter had determined that W & H had confused the Neutral text type with the Alexandrian and he proposed that the MSS should be classified into the following three (3) types--Alexandrian. Eastern and Western.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Alexandrian text:

In the time of Westcott & Hort, the two main examples of the Alexandrian text were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which date from about the middle of the 4th century. It is these two MSS that draw a lot of criticism, for various reasons.

In fact, those who so criticize fail to recognize that modern scholarship traces the Alexandrian text to a much earlier time. The Bodmer Papyri fragments are clearly Alexandrian and they date to the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd century.

However, the Bodmer Papyri indicate that there was an earlier form of text that is commonly called the Proto-Alexandrian. So, the reality is that the Alexandrian text is much earlier in form than is thought by many.

[Gregory Matthews]

A moment ago, I mentioned that Streeter had suggsted that there were three (3) text types--Alexandrian, Eastern & Wstern. Let us look at the Western, for a moment.

Scholars often trace the Western text type back to the 2nd century. That presents a problem for some. In the 2nd century the West and the East shared the same textual tradition. They had not yet gone their seperate ways.

It is of interest to note that this Western text is thought, by some, to be an undisciplined approach to the text. It can be traced back to 150 and earlier. A disciplined approch to the text probably did not begin until about 180.

As Lee J. Gugliotto said (page 316):

Quote:

The chief characteristic of the Western readings is fondness for paraphrase, Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive apears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material.

In the early days, scholars tended to beleive that the Western Text were representative of the original. With the finding of the Bodmer Papyri scholars have changed their thinking and now commonly believe that the Western MSS are corrupted. In other words, The Alexandrian text may be the better text but due to the Bodmer Papyri and not because of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

[Gregory Matthews]

It would be nice if we could stop at this pont. But, we can not. While skipping over the Caesarean text, I would like to comment on the Byzantine text. It developed in Alexandria and is often refered to as the Lucian text.

As Metzgar said about the Byzantine text (page 3170:

Quote:

The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. . .

The Byzantine text became known as the authorative text up until the invention of printing. Erasmus and others based their Greek New Testaments on this text.

Beza in publishing his nine (9) editions used this Byzantine text which became known as the Textus Receptus (TR)!

As older MSS were discovered it became known that the TR was not the best version of what the Biblical writers had written. Nestle & Aland were two scholars who worked to develop a more accurate text of the Greek NT.

Their work influenced the translation of the O.T. The 1881 RV and the ASV are two examples of this.

Additional knowledge has been gained related to the Biblical languages which have resulted in better translations--NRSV is one example.

[Gregory Matthews]

Much of what I have posted the the preceeding several posts, while often in my own language came from:

Guglliotto, Lee J., HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY: A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING, TEACHING AND PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD. 464 pages, Review & Herald, 1995 & 2000.

In my posts, I am clearly endebted to his work.

[Gregory Matthews]

To criticize a specific verse in the Bible, one should know the MSS that the verse was based upon.

Gugliotto has given a handy, brief, reference to the N.T. You will find this beginning on page 338 in his book.

[Gregory Matthews]

For those interested, the photo is of me, taken this morning in my office as I am working today, by the camera on my laptop.

Gregory Matthews.

[phkrause]

For those interested, the photo is of me, taken this morning in my office as I am working today, by the camera on my laptop.

Gregory Matthews.

Excellent

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said:

Quote:

To contrast the procedures used to translate the King James Bible(KJV) from the Revised Version(RV) the following is offered from ‘Our Authorized Bible Vindicated’ by Benjamin Wilkinson:

The above (I mean the entire quote, not just what I have copied.) is an interesting collection of charges, statements and comments. What can we learn from it?

1st: Your quotation comes from 83 years ago? You see, the book, OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED was published in 1930! Did it occur to you that in the 83 years since it was published we might have learned more about the subject than we knew then.

NOTE: I was not even born when it was published. :)

As a historical piece, that book has served for its many years as the foundation for claims made today. But, as I said, we know much more today than we did in 1930. It is clearly not up to date. It lacks current knowledge. People who use it simply demonstrate that they have nothing better to support their claims than an 83 year-old document.

While they may have nothing better in support, that does not mean that there is nothing better in support. It simply means that the people making the claim do not know of anything better.

2nd: Benjamin Wilkinson, what do we know about him? Was he a scholar recognized as an expert? If so, what was his field of expertise? It is not enough to say that a person is an expert, one must support that expertese in the subject under discussion. It is not enough to say that someone has published a book. The Jehovah's Witnesses publish many books. That does not make their books authorative.

I wonder, why did you not think it of value to tell us that Wilkinson, who died in 1968, at the time he wrote the book you cited was the Dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary?

O.K., he was an educator of some repute in the SDA Church. What repute did he have in the area in which he wrote his book? Not much prior to writing the book. After it was published he had reppute--it was not all positive.

Oh, well, these are just a couple of items of interest that you did not share with us.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson, Wilkerson has made inflamatory statemets about the 1881 Revised Version and its production that have some basis in fact, but that go beyond the factual, overstate, speculate and otherwise smear good people who attempted to be faithful to the Word of God.

For a better perspective on the translation of the 1881 Revised Version, one should read the following:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html

Of course, if one already has their mind made up, there will be no need to read the above.

[Tom Wetmore]

Wilkinson's book has been widely critiqued as unreliable, inaccurate, etc. If I understand correctly, the denomination declined or refused to publish it. Yet it still continues to be relied upon among the KJV-only adherents.

[Gail]

Another example where a modern translation makes our work easier:

Take Isaiah 33:14, talking about "sinners in Jerusalem".

Why get into a battle about "everlasting burnings" (KJV) when you can use your NLT which renders the term as "all-consuming fire"?

[Green Cochoa]

Wilkinson's book has been widely critiqued as unreliable, inaccurate, etc. If I understand correctly, the denomination declined or refused to publish it. Yet it still continues to be relied upon among the KJV-only adherents.

Tom,

Wilkinson was a gentleman. The critique made by one of the GC-affiliated individuals against his book had many flaws and lapses in scholarship. To put down his work, they offered a critique that was on par with Gail Riplinger's book ("New Age Bible Versions") supporting the KJV--thoroughly off the mark in terms of scholarship. Wilkinson wrote a response to the critique. He was a high-level church worker in one of our universities at the time, and as his scholarship had been called into question, it was only natural that he should be allowed to defend it. However, the GC, realizing that this was turning into a big fiasco that turned many people's attention away from present truth, wrote a letter to Wilkinson requesting that he not publish his defense, but to let things rest. He followed their counsel.

Now, after his death, that defense has been published. I have read it. It amazes me that Wilkinson would have accepted the GC's invitation to let it rest. He had been totally misaligned and and misrepresented in the critique against his work. Yet he was meek enough to let it go unanswered. That took a lot of character.

For those wishing to know the truth of it all, look for the book called "Answers to Objections (available online at that link).

EDIT: Gregory reports the link I first gave as not working, so here is ANOTHER LINK, from a different source. If for some strange reason neither works, just Google ["Answers to Objections" Wilkinson], and there are several other online copies available.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Another example where a modern translation makes our work easier:

Take Isaiah 33:14, talking about "sinners in Jerusalem".

Why get into a battle about "everlasting burnings" (KJV) when you can use your NLT which renders the term as "all-consuming fire"?

I would humbly submit that "everlasting burnings" is more truthful. Jesus also called hell fire eternal, and in multiple other places in the Bible we find the same. The fire burns forever. Most Adventists don't understand this fully. The truth is, GOD is a fire.

If God is a fire, and God is eternal, so is the fire. Now, sinners are not eternal. They are "consumed." But if we were to call God an "all-consuming fire," that would be inaccurate--because God does not consume the righteous. Only sinners are consumed.

The KJV says it best on that one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Of course there are basic facts in Wilkerson's statement that are true. He stated them in a manner that went beyond those facts and was intended to inflame.

As to the use of an 83 year-old publication: My comment was quite fair. In many areas of knowledge, our understanding of the subject increases over the years. If I were to discuss the basic building blocks of the atom, I would be foolish to claim that our understanding of the atom in 1930 was normative for today. We know today that the atom is constructed of much more than electrons, protons and neutrons.

The same is true for our understanding of the Biblical languages. It is true for our understanding of the Biblical MSS. It is true for our understanding of the Biblical text. An 83 year-old book may (?) have reflected the best that was known in 1930. If so (?) it certainly does not reflect what we know today.

My comments about Wilkinson's educational background are appropriate. If I am an expert in geology (I am not.), that does not mean that I am an expert in sociology. A friend of mine was an attorney who litigated Social Security cases for a living. That did not make her an expert in criminal law. The wife of a friend of mine made her living as an expert in international space law. That did not make her an expert in labor law.

These comments are appropriate. Life is full of people who publish in fields outside of their areas of knowledge. I could give you many examples.

Wilkinson may have been able to read Biblical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Perhaps not? I Do not know. In any case, that did not make him an expert in either the Biblical text or the Biblical languages. I strongly suspect that neither you nor I are such an expert.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, your link is not available. Could you please fix it.?

[Green Cochoa]

Green, your link is not available. Could you please fix it.?

Thank you for letting me know. I added a backup link, and as of this moment both appear to be working. When I first clicked the link, I found it broken as you had reported. Sorry about that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me tell you a true story to illustrate why it is always appropriate to evaluate the source.

My 90 year-old mother-in-law has dementia. My wife read a comment about a miracle product that reduced the symptoms of dementia. It was written by a scientist who had done research. His research was published in a respected journal. It did not claim perfection, but a reduction in symptoms. My wife was hooked on it because that product did not come from a lab, but was a natural product. She asked me if I could obtain that prescription item for her mother.

I told her that it was junk science, but agreed to try. Wallmart pharmacy carried the prescription item for about $100 for a 3-month supply. She found a physician who agreed to write the prescription. I purchased it and it was administered to her mother. It did not provide any level of relief, which is what I expected.

Why did I say it was junk science?

1) The respected journal that published the research was a journal related to food and diet. It was not related to clinical care.

2) The respected scientist was not a qualified physician in that area of clinical care.

3) The total group of people studied in the research project was less than 18 (yes I said eighteen) people!

4) Out of this group of 18, the author claimed that less than six (6) underwent a reduction in dementia symptoms.

IT is always appropriate to look into the background of people who make claims, to include people like Wilkerson.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

In the interest of accuracy, and should anyone wish to follow your advice and look up B. G. Wilkinson's background, please note that his name is "Wilkinson" and not "Wilkerson" as you have been posting.

Here's a short biographical note about him to be found online.

Quote:

WILKINSON, BENJAMIN GEORGE (1872-1968). Dean, administrator, evangelist, author. Wilkinson was born in Canada and began to study for the ministry at Battle Creek College in 1891. The following year he worked in evangelism in Wisconsin. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1897 and that same year became dean of theology at Battle Creek College. The following year he became president of the Canadian Conference and in 1899 he was asked to serve as dean of theology at Union College. He served for four years as president of the Latin Conference, which later became the Southern European Division. During this time he started the work in Rome, Paris, and in Spain. Returning to the United States, he held evangelistic meetings in large cities of the Columbia Union, including Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Charleston, West Virginia. He also served as dean of theology at Washington Missionary College for five years. In 1908 he received his doctoral degree from George Washington University and the following year became president of Columbia Union Conference, where he served for 10 years. In 1920 he accepted the presidency of the Kansas Conference. He then served for a short time as temporary mission superintendent in Haiti. After a time as president of the East Pennsylvania Conference he gave 24 consecutive years of service to Washington Missionary College, serving as president from 1936 to 1946. He is the author of Truth Triumphant and Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. He retired from active work after 56 years of service.

Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, 1976, page 1609. (emphasis supplied).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Of course there are basic facts in Wilkerson's statement that are true. He stated them in a manner that went beyond those facts and was intended to inflame.

Please, Gregory, show me a statement of his that corroborates this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.