user, you were just provided with books proving otherwise, please don't fall for conspiracy theories. The old collotype edition of the NT linked in the thread was published under the papacy of Pio IX, in 1871. The Brooke-McLean edition of the OT, also linked in this thread was published in 1909. There's a newer facsimile edition from 1996, and the newest, beautifully digitalized one from 2015 that's available here: digi.vatlib.it
Documents can be hard to come by when someone has a very specialized interest like yours, so sometimes it takes some serious digging on the internet, and sometimes you even have to examine the references in the scientific literature and track down old editions of primary sources at auctions, but there's no evil catholic conspiracy here.
Need Copy of Codex Alexandrinus in regular type (old testament only)
Thanks. I remember looking for it a few years ago and concluding it was only available in a non-downloadable digital format. Thanks for correcting me.
My real issue with Vaticanus is that it was only discovered in the 1600's, after bible manuscript research started trending after translations into english caused controversy.
I prefer Alexandrinus because there is a history of the book's existence dating to the mid first millenium. Vaticanus, it just POPPED up out of nowhere suddenly "actually WE have one of the oldest most important manuscripts right here too!"
Not trying to piss on catholicism, but I just value a manuscript more when there is historical evidence for it. Nobody knows anything about vaticanus other than it was found in a library in the 1600's.
Correct me again if those facts are wrong.
Oh, I see, your concerns are understandable as far as my very limited understanding of CV and its history goes. Yup, there's a lack of historical provenance from before the late 15th century, and there's no scholarly consensus about its origins, a more serious issue (even though no classical biblical scholar/textual critic treats its as an outright forgery AFAIK).
I guess it "popping out of nowhere" could be semi-convincingly explained by the influx of ancient church documents around the fall of Constantinople combined with the humanist impulse to treat ancient manuscripts in a scholarly manner and to catalogize what was formerly the Popes' private collection, scattered between Rome and Avignon into a single entity, but indeed, no hard facts here.
Then you have the renewed 19th century interest in the text, leading to a lasting controversy between biblical scholars, some with heavy presuppositions, and the overzealous librarians, treating each other in a very distrustful manner, that endorsed all kinds of speculations about the authenticity of the document among textus receptus adherents…
Anyway, may God bless you in your endeavour, and may you come to the right personal conclusions about Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, whatever they may be!
At least call them Bible adherents. Its not like Matthew 24:35 says "my words shall pass away and be returned once again by Tischendorf in 1859."
Witty, but I really can't see how the textus receptus tradition equals, or holds special authority concerning the biblical text.
In my understanding TR is one historical tradition of biblical translation rooted in the northern renaissance and early 16th century bible scholarship with a very pronounced Byzantine text-type preference that became the foundation of the German and English language traditions of Bible translation, thus playing an important part in the reformation as a cultural and political project.
Translations originating in the TR tradition did came to have an immense effect on the evolving national secular literatures and played a defining ecclesiastical function in protestant churches. However, outside its ecclesiastical use St. Jerome's preceding Vulgate continued to be regarded as the standard referential text among bible scholars and intellectuals, catholics and protestants alike.
The TR tradition reflects the state of 16th century bible scholarship and textual criticism: it has its virtues, its errors, its stylistic preferences and its unique beauty, as each and every tradition of translation does. Its not like Matthew 24:35 says "my words shall pass away and be returned once again by Erasmus/Luther/Tyndale in the 1500's, never to be questioned by higher textual criticism."
Ok couple things here.
First of all, the Vulgate didn't precede the original language words, obviously, since according to 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 24:35, Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:160 and more the original language words have never been lost to any generation. This is called the doctrine of preservation and it is firmly rooted in belief and practice in true christian churches today. It's not just an empty saying, it is held as a self evident and reliable truth.
What this means is that we know the original sources are always available. And nothing preceded the originals.
That's point one. Next, There were more than one version of the Vulgate text. There was no standardized version until the Tridentine era and the Sixtine and after that Clementine versions of it. So right away we have two different sorts of Vulgate, Sixtine Vulgate and Clementine. And many more preceding them pre-Tridentine era. And further even before any of these earlier vulgata, before Jerome, we happen to be aware even now of faster copies that existed in Latin that had non-corrupted John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11 text. So what you're referring to is something that changed and morphed, not something that works as a "referential document," that never happened.
Third, you may be simply a priori defining "bible scholars and intellectuals" as those that agree with your point of view. In which case, I question these peoples' scholarship. Fourth, you say catholics and protestants, which were state churches, but what about baptists? Why only include state churches? Fifth, there is no way you seriously believe that scholars in England for instance did this. For instance the over 50 Authorized version translators regarded it very lowly according to their preface. So you might say many do today, but this would be only due to corrupted unbelieving scholarship— The same people who now support sodomy for instance.
You are saying here that there are more than one word of God. Meanwhile, I am saying that there is only one original truth and all others are corrupted! There is a difference between us. Only one of us is consistent to what scripture says, the other one is not. You are the one not being consistent to what scripture says. You say there are many different versions each with corruptions, but the claim of God is that there is one truth and 1 Peter 1:23-25 says it is the incorruptible seed. There are no flaws, no changes and nothing errant about it whatsoever. And I have it right now. You can't find the fault with it.
So you see, there's a difference between me and the people who say that the words have passed away and teach that. I just showed that difference. That's why there is no point in reading Tischendorf's discoveries.
.
1.For me, the existence of a truth that's self evident and reliable in and by itself is entirely alien from any intellectual system, including theology. I really appreciate your honest efforts of remaining very civil and and refraining from interconfessional wrestling during our conversation. I'd like to act in the same spirit so I won't get into sacred scripture and tradition as original sources preserved and interpreted by the magisterium of the church tenant that appears as the valid historical process to me in relation to the texture. I'm sure you've heard it many times and I guess we can't find common ground here. As of the original textual sources, we don't have the autographs, nor do we have a single textual tradition, but three. It's suffice to say that the 16th century humanist supposition that Byzantine text-type manuscripts are more ancient and thus provide a more reliable base for translation in the textus receptus tradition was entirely put into doubt by the discovery of even more earlier Alexandrian text-type documents and the accompanying historical-critical scholarship.
2. Sure, and we had the old italic texts in use before and, for quite a time, after Saint Jerome's translation and compilation was made. Indeed, there were even hybrid codex versions and then the authorized Sistine and Clementine versions and their different editions… However, the vulgate was the standard text in all of pre-reformation period Christianity, including the use of the greek vulgate in eastern orthodoxy. I was exactly trying to point out that while scripture and tradition was preserved, the translation methods, the emphases and structuring of the texture itself indeed changed and morphed with time. What I think you're unwilling to recognize is that it's just as true when it comes to the "textus receptus" tradition. It's not like textural criticism and bible scholarship reached its final stage in the 16th century, and new archeological findings and historical-critical methods contradicting it are just conspiratory means to corrupt the texture.
3-4. I don't mean it in a diminutive manner, but from a historical perspective baptists were a numerically peripherical radical protestant separatist movement with virtually no ties to earlier anabaptist affiliations, one among many during the early 17th century religious turmoil. It swiftly splintered into dissident groups, making it hard to speak of a singlular baptist movement even in the early modern period. The feature that they organized as a "grassroots" movement among the common men and held views incompatible with state authority meant that their representatives were largely cut off from the intellectual public and the scientific infrastructure of the era. Again, it is not meant as criticism. I understand if your personal conviction is that of a baptist perpetuity, but I honestly can't find a historical base for that view.
5. The KJV was as much a cultural and political project as a theological one, and in that context it was important for the translators to denounce the vulgate as a symbol of latin exclusivism and papal authority, even though unlike Tyndale they clearly used it in their translation. What you had then was the kjv as the standard english vernacular version in public use as read by protestant believers and used in public worship, and the vulgate as the common reference among "intellectuals", secular and religious, as latin remained the shared language of learned people and religious literacy regardless of nationality or religious affiliation. That's why you have the vulgate as the referential text at Calvin and Beza, and even at Walton.
6. As you probably recognize, your position, while consistent with what your (!) interpretation of scripture says is largely incompatible with contemporary mainstream history, bible scholarship and textual criticism. At least for me, it gives no rational explanation of why an early 17th century english language protestant translation of the texture, born in a very specific political and theological context, mirroring that era's stage of bible scholarship and textual criticism should be the perfect, final and entirely flawless one. At least for me, it doesn't give a rational explanation why new archeological findings and hermeneutical methods should be entirely discarded.
However, even though I don't think we'll ever come to agree I do respect and understand that it's a hard personal conviction that's based entirely on faith and religious affiliation. I wish you all the best and thank you for the interesting and enjoyable conversation.
For you perhaps. But what did Jesus say in John 8:42-47.
Maybe this is a technicality, but I don't have a confession to defend, only scripture.
It may appear that way, to you. But also "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
I'm always willing to build common ground by appealing to God's eternal word. I think in fact, that this is the only possibility to do it. In fact I might even go so far as to say this is precisely the only reason I come here. 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Whereas all the rest of these matters outside of this are weakly defined and shiftless.
It really doesn't matter how you try to break it down though. There's only one uncorrupt, eternally unchanging waypoint. It's the one that speaks truly of itself in the very assertion.
It was put into doubt for whom?
Only if you define the people (and I can call it that) who safeguarded the Bible as outside of Christianity, which I've seen done. So either this is another case of that as we saw above with the a-priori definition of "scholars and intellectuals," or else a case of wishful thinking.
You admitted this, I will agree here immediately. It changed John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11.
Where?
No of course not. Real Bible scholarship began with the first word of it spoken or written and continues to this day. However, unbelieving corrupt scholarship has existed since long before Mark 7:7-13.
This isn't the supposition or reasoning or the archetype of the faith at all. First of all, humanists were active in state church denominations yes, but they did not affect authentic churches nor did they manage to drag true Biblical scholarship off course. No, not at any time. And whatever they supposed is not relevant here.
No, the reason why we know what the original language sources are is because we know from the doctrine of preservation as I've just explained. Only someone who fundamentally believes that everything they have is corrupt would even start to think about "levels of reliability" and looking for something "more ancient" instead of looking the correct way.
Third, the real reason why the received text is different is because it is the unchanged original language sources, not because of the ancientness of its sources.
It validates everything 2 Corinthians 2:17 says. There be many which corrupt the word of God. I'm not delving into their motivations for doing this.
Are you talking about the confessional baptist denominations? Yeah there were various attempts at political organizations starting around 1529, but these are merely denominations framed after other denominations and state entities. But the only "movement" to speak of is scripture itself. It's inevitable that anything else would splinter and fracture into millions of pieces.
You seriously need to start backing up your claims with hard examples.
Stephanus, Beza, the AV translators, Elzivir were all examples of real scholarship, with the translators among those being named being by far the most time and resources available to them. But you can find collations of all of their work in an apparatus by Mill. You will find that the majority of the variations between these publications have to do with spelling differences that would not amount to any change in the translation. Yet despite this great similarity they all clearly worked diligently on their respective work, going back to the sources, and a careful comparison will reveal this. But it's important to bring up that it's not like every word has a magic spelling that has to be saved, or that the word of God must be written in a certain style or in any certain special way. Only that those original words providentially would be preserved.
And that did happen. There exists scholarship not just from that time but from every time that participated in this, keeping it together even until now.
I personally use the 1900 format, not the 1611 format. There's really no problem with using updated spelling of the same translation. Where's the problem with that? That's also what I've been citing from whenever I post scripture. But also, and even more importantly, if you find another, newer translation that comes afterward that you think does justice to the received text and doesn't change anything, please post it here.
Because God's word wasn't lost and rediscovered in 1859 and at last finally released to the public in 1881, to replace all formerly incorrectly written Bibles in the whole world.
I've shown how that hermeneutical method of assumes that all available sources are corrupt and we're going for the next best thing. It's unfaithful and tacitly admits the premises for demonstrating that this is the case. I could go on to show how "reasoned eclecticism," which is the REAL method behind this, is fundamentally even more flawed and intellectually bankrupt. I could bring up real examples of how independent modern groups cultivate their individual, mutually conflicting cafeteria selections from majority and eclectic readings and their translational methodologies chosen with no semblance of consistency or permanence. I could show how these groups admit this and shrug their shoulders about it. Even while continuously presenting an image of scriptural continuity to the masses it sells them to. Even while posturing themselves as "peerless" and impartial experts. When really how its all done very casually and flippantly and with a mind for retaining business.
Let me quote the following.
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. — 1 John 5:9-10
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. — 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Yep, the KJV translators even had access to it at the time, yet chose not to use it. They would have figuratively put it in the same trash bin where Sinaiticus was placed.