A Dialogue on Biblical Text Sources

Dear friends & brothers in the Spirit

All of the energy expended in debating whether or not these versions are acceptable or not would probably be better turned to learning more about the earliest manuscripts still extant. Such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

Where we learn that scripture written on papyri are generally the oldest of all such remnants of scripture, often no more than a few verses, often fragmentary (only one exists from the 2nd - or possibly 3rd - century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_0189 - which is the oldest parchment manuscript of any New Testament text, a portion of the Acts of the Apostles), the other types being miniscules which were mostly written on parchment (& mostly slightly more recent from the 9th century with the newest being much less ancient) & lectionaries which were written a variety of materials such as parchment, papyrus, vellum & paper (the oldest of these is from the 7th century & the newest are also much less ancient).

Also: Devoting some time to being acquainted with some of the history & comparative merits of the codices (codexes) should be a focus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex), these are also "uncials". For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae

Some study on the matters pertaining to the Byzantine & Alexandrian text types should also be given importance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

Please also study my posting from last night (which is a copy of an email that I sent to a former correspondent around one year ago), as the relatively new E.O.B. New Testament is in my opinion the most accurate New Testament translation to date, being derived from the earliest of Byzantine texts (the basis of the Geneva, the KJV by contrast being a thoroughly mixed combination of Byzantine & corrupted Alexandrian (via the undeniable & significant Douay-Rheims influence).

Especially worth reading is the piece at the bottom of my post, an article headed "Byzantine Text History".

Let's deal in scholarly discussion & go to the source(s), or at least the earliest materials of the text-types & consider the evidence as it presents itself in the light of critical thinking & honest analysis.

Peace be with you -

Troy

---

>

PLEASE FIND BELOW SOME CORRESPONDENCE EXCERPTS OF MINE REGARDING MY RESEARCHES INTO BIBLE/N.T. TRANSLATIONS:

The EOB link is to a PDF text-based book, not an audio-book:

> http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download/eobntpublic.pdf

Note that I am not advocating the Eastern/Greek Orthodox church rituals & hierarchy as such, but giving this translation of the Byzantine text serious consideration, seeing as the Geneva (& thus the majority of the KJV - not including its Alexandrian-based Vulgate/Douay-Rheimsisms) is also Byzantine-based.
---

The links that I just sent you (to the EOB NT, the Magiera Peshitta NT& the Tolle Lege Geneva 4th edition) are the fruits of much research. If I posted all the whys & wherefores of how I eliminated the other English translations of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Koine Greek NT texts or the Peshitta Aramaic NT then I wouldn't have time to study them. Not having a go, just explaining that it is tough to cover all the bases that I wish to even for personal research.
...

I have also just received delivery of the following very new Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church English translation of the New Testament, the first decent translation into English (there are at least three other English translations that I know of, none of which I was particularly enthused to get) taken from the Byzantine-type "Patriarchal Text".

The Textus Receptus was also derived from the Byzantine texts & is the basis of the Geneva Bible; the KJV being largely derived from both the Geneva & the Latin Vulgate-derived Douay Rheims Roman Catholic translations. The Patriarchal text & Textus Receptus (both being Byzantine-type texts) are both different to the Alexandrian-type texts [as used in the numerous & varied translations derived from the Nestle-Aland-UBS "Critical Text"].

Have not had time to study/read the paper hard copy EOB, but did a fair bit of research before purchasing it.

Here's a PDF copy for you to download & peruse:

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download/eobntpublic.pdf

The hardcopy is only available via the print-to-order outlet Lulu.com ( http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/eob-new-testament-6x9-hardcover/5004567 ).

Note that the colour artwork in the PDF version is printed as black & white in the hardcopy. Which for the price is surprising, but is probably explained by the fact that it is print-to-order from Lulu.com, who have a low overheads type operation.

My copy has a small "ding" in the back cover's edge, presumably from where postman tried to shove it through our front door mailbox (the shipping box had a big ding in it). I considered sending it back as it wasn't cheap (£25 plus shipping), but it is a hassle & as it is neither clothbound nor leather bound I am thinking that it is not worth being fussed about it. After all my Hendrickson 1560 Geneva Bible has got some coffee stains on the edge of the pages at the bottom of the book that I don't recall that happening, so things happen even on one's own watch! I prefer reading scripture from hard copy paper books than PDF's.

I also wish to get the Janet Magiera translation of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament ( http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta-New-Testament-Translation/dp/096796136X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297358079&sr=8-1 ). This appears to be the most scholarly translation of the Aramiac Peshitta NT, although I would suggest that it is also worth having a copy of George Lamsa's classic English translation of the Peshitta.
...

I hope to find some time this year to compare the EOB NT, Magiera's Peshitta NT with the Tolle Lege Geneva Bible. I still have to purchase the Tolle Lege edition of the Geneva. My Geneva hard copy is the Hendrickson hardback, which due to its weight & original 1560 spelling & layout gets used less than my computer PDF's of the Geneva! So I would recommend the 4th (& latest) Tolle Lege edition of the Geneva:

http://www.reformationbookstore.com/1599genevabiblehardback.aspx

& perhaps also the audio versions:

http://www.reformationbookstore.com/1599genevaaudiobible.aspx

Anyway, here's the EOB NT:

E.O.B. NEW TESTAMENT (THE EASTERN/GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE, VOLUME III)

http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/eob-new-testament-6x9-hardcover/5004567

EOB New Testament 6x9 Hardcover
By Laurent Cleenewerck, Editor
View this Author's Spotlight
Hardcover, 672 pages
*****
(2 Ratings)
EOB New Testament 6x9 Hardcover
Preview
Price: £24.43
Ships in 5–7 business days
The EOB (Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible) is an Orthodox edition of the Holy Scriptures based on the Septuagint (with variants to the Masoretic text) and on the Patriarchal Text for the New Testament. This is the New Testament volume.

Product Details
Copyright Standard Copyright License
Published June 11, 2009
Language English
Pages 672

Binding Hardcover (casewrap)
Interior Ink Black & white
Dimensions (cm) 15.2 wide × 22.9 tall



God bless -

Troy

P.S.: Some info on the text that the EOB is based on is below:

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/about.asp

The New Testament (completed and available) is based on the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (again documenting all significant variants to the Critical Text, Majority Text and Textus Receptus). It also provides extensive footnotes and Appendices dealing with significant verses such as Matthew 16:18; John 1:1,18; John 15:26. The Patriarchal text was selected on Mount Athos from among a large number of reliable ecclesiastical manuscripts and appears to be identical or similar to Minuscule 1495 (KR subgroup).

http://www.standardbearers.net/R.D.html

Byzantine Text History
Why The ‘Patriarchal’ Text of Greek New Testament ?
By R.D. Dedman (April 2005) v1.1


What is the ‘Patriarchal’ Text of the New Testament?

It is the official text of the Greek speaking churches. This Greek New Testament, obtainable from http://kainh.homestead.com/English.html is the 1904 ‘Patriarchal’ edition of the Greek Orthodox Church.

“The Patriarchal text arose from the need for a uniform text throughout the Greek Orthodox Churches. During the Turkish occupation there were various editions of the NT with the result that in different places a different NT was read. To avoid this the Ecumenical Patriarchate appointed a committee in 1902 to decide on a text that would be adopted as the official text. The committee retired in Mount Athos and studied about 20 Byzantine manuscripts from which they decided on one taking into consideration some parts of the other manuscripts. This text was published in 1904 and it has been since then adopted by all Greek Orthodox Churches.” by Petros Petallides (kainh.homestead.com)


How was the New Testament Text Transmitted?

The Hebrew scriptures (“Old Testament”), were written and compiled over a long period (approx. 1450 – 400 BC). These Scriptures were entrusted for their keeping to the Jews (Romans 3:2). But that part of Scripture called the “New Testament” has been preserved in a different manner. Written in the common Greek (Koine Greek) language of the 1st century AD it was completed in a relatively short period following Jesus’ death and resurrection, probably by 90 AD. It was anapostolic production fulfilling the promise Jesus made to them prior to His death (John 15:27, 17:20). The apostles wrote as well as preached the truth.

Thus the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and later Revelation became copied and distributed, firstly, we may reasonably suppose, among the Christian communities themselves and later more broadly as non-Christians began to take notice. By the late-fourth century, however, knowledge of Greek was in sharp decline in the western half of the empire. A century later and knowledge of Greek had almost entirely vanished in the west. But the knowledge of Greek did not vanish in the eastern half of the empire. And it was within the Byzantine empire that the work of preserving the sacred Greek texts – copying and proof-reading – continued unabated, as we shall now see.


Why is the ‘Patriarchal’ Text Important?

Monks – the scholars of their day – first came to Mount Athos as early as the fifth century, according to the official history of Mount Athos.1 Monastries later became established and the number of manuscripts, including those of the NT, rapidly accumulated. The work of copying and transcribing manuscripts continued unabated at Mount Athos over the centuries. From the midninth century this work included the transcribing of the very oldest manuscripts:

“The Greek manuscripts up to the 9th century and sporadically in the 10th and early 11th centuries were written in majuscule writing, today’s capital letters, Few samples of manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts in majuscule writing are preserved to this day in the libraries of Mount Athos. The reason is that since the mid-9th century miniscule writing became predominant, and all the manuscripts of the previous centuries were transcribed in that writing and therefore became unused and little by little disappeared.” 2


By the time of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, in 1453, the bulk of these same NT manuscripts still existed in the East. As some Greek-speaking scholars fled West they carried with them copies of some of these NT manuscripts.

These few copies formed the basis of Erasmus’ first Greek New Testament.3 Tyndale’s New Testament, which still remains as a model of clarity4 is essentially based on Erasmus’ text. In 1550, an edition by Robert Stephanus was published, the third edition of which became one of the two ‘standard’ texts of the ‘Textus Receptus’ on which the King James Version is essentially based.

However, the majority of the Greek manuscripts of the new Testament remained in Greece at Mount Athos. The Moslem Turks allowed the work of the copyists at Mount Athos to continue during their occupation.


Conclusion

For those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the Byzantine text form has long held an esteemed position over self-contradicting Western text forms such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus: these last two often disagree with one another and so their witness is
unreliable.

By contrast, the Byzantine texts are in substantial agreement. They have a proven lineage. Indeed no other textual history stretching back centuries even exists elsewhere. Unambiguously from the 5th century onwards the focus for copyists and scholars was Mount Athos. And it is from this source that the ‘Patriarchal’ official text was taken.

1 www.inathos.gr/athos/uk/general/top.htm

2 Libraries and manuscripts in Mount Athos: A survey; Efthimios Litsas, Senior Researcher, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Associate Professor of Paleography, Ionian Senior Cataloguer, Mount AthosManuscripts Digital Library, December 2001.

3 First edition published in 1516, subsequent revised editions in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.

4 Witness his correct translation of ekklesia to ‘congregation’ rather than ‘church’, a word of very different etymology.

(source: http://kainh.homestead.com/files/noteptxt.pdf )

On 21 Dec 2011, at 21:23, maxi aguaisol wrote:

> Although my mails sent to you are rejected by "Sieve Systems", and some of you added mister Phelps to this conversation and he does not want to talk with me, or even answer my refutation of his anti-biblical racist doctrine, i will reply this mail of you.
>
> You can not prove it, mister Oxley. You can not prove that the Old Versions like the King James Version, are better translations than the New Versions, while i can prove that the opposite. Nevermind the scholars, which you wrongly name as "jesuits", without any proof whatsoever... Just see this partial list of several errors in the KJV http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-errors-in-king-james-version-bible.html
>
> I really do not care about the Copyright of the KJV owned by the British Crown, as i do not care about the Copyright of the NIV or any other version. I am sorry but the NASB and NIV are not false Bibles. I already checked the greek texts in both Alexandrian and Byzantine texts and found that you and the old versions are wrong about this issue. Or Jesus was crucified in a tree, Craig? Becouse that is what the KJV says. Maybe if you make some real investigation you would be not so much amazed.
>
> Of the Geneva i can promote the great marginal notes that the KJV taked away, yes. But there is still many errors of translation in that version. I am also amazed that an inteligent person like you can fall in this mis-translations like the KJV. NIV sect? By the way, i believe the NASB is a better version than the NIV. And now the christians that accept the new versions are heretics?
>
> Later you say that you "are from the lands were the Reformation originatred", well, let's see what Tyndale thinks about it. William Tyndale said in the preface of his first English New Testament that if anyone could find an inaccuracy that did not give the exact sense of the original language, he should correct it. Tyndale said, "remembering that so is their duty to do so." So even the same Tyndale disagree with you, mister Oxley.
>
> You can wonder if i am a Jesuit all the time that you want, but, please, we are not your slaves, presents some proof for your afirmations, becouse if not then we all will end calling us "jesuit" one to another. Remember GOD HATES the FALSE TESTIMONY. If a were a Jesuit i will not waste my time talking to nobody, but acting in the shadows like they do, not answering nothing. Again, you can doubt all you want, i also doubt, but i do not call every one that disagree with me a "jesuit".
>
> Maybe i must remind you what Matthew 12:36 says: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
>
> It seems that you forget that i was one of the first to attack and denounce the KJV-Onlytes/Richlings doctrines of Marco Ponce not so much different that the KJV-Onlysm of which i attack in this conversation. But i do not hate Marco, nor i hate you, nor i hate Eric, etc. I only believe you have some errors, that's all. I belive is an insult to all when you use the "Ad Hominem" logical falacy.
>
> If this would be a trial, and i a lawyer and you a prosecutor, i would be declared innocent. Never the less, i really do not care how you call me, the truth is that i respect you so much as i respect all the members of the "Anti-Jesuit Movement". Remember this is not an attack against you Craig. Is just i do not believe the arcaic translations are better than the new ones. I already saw the greek texts and i know what i saw.
>
> Yes, i come from South America. That's all you got? Come on, mister Oxley. Let's use documentation to back our statements.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brother Maxi from South America.

From: annunaki@fastmail.fm
To: dmaxi_gsl@hotmail.com; troy_space@me.com; avenueoflight@gmail.com; dougwill2001@yahoo.com; vsamuelbenitez@hotmail.com; eric@vaticanassassins.org
Subject: RE: All-Seeing Eye of Satan at oil painting of Francisco de Borgia made by Alonso Cano.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:45:27 +0000

Claptrap Maxi, the only Bibles are the Lutheran, Geneva and King James Authorized. I do not care for so-called high Christian scholars who're up the arse of the Jesuits and their deceptions. Next you'll be saying that Charles Windsor's Green Bible is better than the KJV. Whether you like the fact of the Crown copyright or not doesn't mean you have to knock this Bible at all costs and bloody promote false Bibles. I wouldn't mind if you did what Troy has done and knock the KJV for the Geneva, thats acceptable even to a strong KJV follower somewhat, but to push those claptraps you're doing amazes me. I wonder just why you do not promote the Geneva bible and continue with his NIV heresy etc? Very strange indeed. At the end of the day I'm from the lands where the Reformation originated and it came from the Bibles mentioned not the NIV and therefore I wouldn't entertain one in the slightest and even if they were legit I'd rather a real Bible. I wonder if you're a Jesuit because you do not make any sense unless you were a Jesuit then it would make sense. Things you've done in the past have been topsy turvy also and thus I have doubts on you. Also you're from South America which is an arse wipe for the Emperor and I do not trust that land. You also came along with Marco Ponce who's turned out to be a right deviant and using swine.


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 03:25 PM, maxi aguaisol wrote:

Have peace, mister Oxley.

Please, do not start calling me a "jesuit", because is False Testimony, and God hates it (Exodus 20:16). Remember what Proverbs 6:16-19 says: "These six things doth the LORD (Yahweh) hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

I have only 24 years of age, i always lived here in the south of Argentina, where is no jesuit intitutions... I have pictures, documentations, and all this city as my witness that i was raised here, that i went to a public school, and in Buenos Aires to a public University. So, you do not have any proof that connects me with the Jesuit Order, so please, do not use the "you-are-a-jesuit" card with me. Of course, you can and will do whatever you want... is just a recommendation. Notice that this is exactly what i am talking about... is exactly this kind of behaviour, namely: to make afirmations without proofs, that we are called "Conspiracy THEORISTS" and not "Conspiracy Theoremists" or better yet, "Conspiracy Scientists".

In the same way like you i also believed, or was forced to believe, that doctrine that tells that "the new versions are satanical and jesuitical versions" (boooo). Later, i made my own homework and investigated this issue and saw that: Westcott & Hort weren't satanists, nor theosophists, nor spiritualists, nor homosexuals, that the Ghostly Guild was not different that the CE4 Research Group of Joseph Jordan, that the name Philological Society was named "Hermes" not for Westcott but by others much more later. If you learn some greek you will find that the King James Version wrongly translates many many versicles, while the New Versions like the NASB and NIV do not commit so much errors like those, and again, is not Maxi who is saying it but the majority of the more respectable christian scholars. If you stop to just accepting what the fanatics Riplingerists, Ruckmanists, and many others in the sect of the KJV-Onlyism say, you will find that this is true. I and many, many others had refuted that the New Versions of the Bible based in better manuscripts texts are "satanical" or even "jesuitical".

By example, mister Phelps say that becouse the Jesuit scholar José Maria Montini was part of a revision of the NIV therefore that means that that version is "jesuitical", but Phelps do not say (i do not if he knows it or not) that the New International Version as we know it today was finished in 1978, and a revision made by a group wich was conformed with at least one member of every mayor "christians" denominations, in which Montini was just one of them, was made in 1993! and nothing was changed! so Montini S.J. does not changed NOTHING of the NIV! , Please, documentate yourself about this, Craig.

I do not understand what you mean when you say "the sun does not shine" on the New Version of the Bible. ¿Do not have known Christ and was saved many thanks to these versions? Please, mister Craig, notice what this following article of Apologetics Index rightly says:

"Some KJV-onlyists go so far as to insist that people who do not use the King James Version (or even a specific edition of the King James Version) are not saved. In doing so they believe and teach a heresy -- one that violates the Biblical doctrine of salvation by adding conditions not taught in Scripture. [See: Essential doctrines of the Christian faith] Those KJV-Onlyists who teach this in so doing place themselves outside the boundaries of the Christian faith, and should be considered heretics.Many in the King James Only movement insist that there are conspiracies behind new Bible translations, meant to take away, diminish or introduce various doctrines.

Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, responds:

"So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy." - Source: Daniel B. Wallace [1] ,The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translationsoffsite "


In conclusion, mister Oxley, the new versions are good version, just do you homework and you will see it. Even Phelps say that in a discussion we must go to the greek, well, even using the Textvs Recetvs you will find that the KJV has errors, and that the New Versions not so much.

Have Greace and Peace,

Brother Maximiliano Aguaisol.

From: annunaki@fastmail.fm
To: dmaxi_gsl@hotmail.com; troy_space@me.com; avenueoflight@gmail.com; dougwill2001@yahoo.com; vsamuelbenitez@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: All-Seeing Eye of Satan at oil painting of Francisco de Borgia made by Alonso Cano.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:48:01 +0000

You can stick those Bibles you mention where the sun does not shine, I only will deal with Geneva, Lutheran and KJV the rest are JESUITISM PERIOD! Are you a JESUIT Maxi? Well if not then stop acting like one and using FALSE BIBLES


On Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 09:29 PM, maxi aguaisol wrote:

???????? Don't know really, but the new versions are good versions despite what kjv-onlytes cultists can claim without real proofs or without using misquotes and false testimony. Rightly the bests christians apologists and scholars use the new versions like the NASB or the NIV. "Anti-Jesuitism" is no necessarily equal to "Good Christian". Or did nobody finds it strange that a Seventh-day Adventist as Wilkinson was the first to preach the doctrine of KJV-Onlysm when this version contradicts much of what preaches this same sect? ...