jiggyfly
New Member
We've been through this already. WH are not the basis for modern New Testaments. And no, the NA text is not based predominately on the Alexandrian text type like WH. I already pointed out the NA text is 'eclectic.' It draws on a wide range of source material.
The vast major of scholars follows the perspective that has given rise to such modern Greek texts as the United Bible Societies' 4th Edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. This approach would basically be characterized as "eclectic," in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide every variant. - Dr. James R. White - The King James Only Controversy, p. 151, 1995 edition
. . .Its basic difference from the text of the 16th to the 18th centuries is that the new text is not based on a small group of manuscripts (selected by chance, mostly of late date and poor quality), but on a review of all the evidence that is in any way relevant to the establishing of the original text, whether Greek manuscripts as early as the second century, or versions, or writngs of the early Church Fathers in various languages - always examining the original texts while constantly reviewing the external factors which affect the value of their testimony. - Kurt Aland - The Text of the New Testament, p. 36
. . .the editorial committee (or morer precisely its majority), decided to abandon the theories of Wescott-Hort and the "Western non-interpolations" as Kurt Aland had urged consistently in personal discussion and also in numerous esays. - Kurt Aland - The Text of the New Testament, p. 33
Now on to another matter. If you want to impugn the text of WH, you should do it on a textual critical basis, not on supposed personal character or anything else some might find distasteful in WH's lives. If you insist on this fallacious course then be consistent and forsake your KJV. First, the TR was compiled by a dyed-in-the-wool Roman Catholic priest, named Erasmus. As a Roman Catholic priest he would have believed and done things that I'm sure you would find repugnant.
Erasmus' Vision Of The Church by Hilmar M. Pabel, p. 72
He (Erasmus) was quick to point out that he did not belong to Luther's camp and often professed his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church. In Sept. 1520 he assured Pope Leo that he was "not mad enough to make some bold move against the supreme vicar of Christ. 85
To another correspndent he affirmed, "Assailed as I have been from so many quarters which I could name and wooed with honeyed words from others, it has never been possible to detach me from my veneration from the Church of Rome. 86
In a letter of Dec. 6, 1520 to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggi he expressed his belief that the Roman Church does not dissent from the catholic church and declared, "I am not impius enough to dissent from the Catholic Church, I am not ungreatful enough to dissent from Leo. 87
One last thing. If you don't like the methods of modern textual criticism, then you should have a problem with how the KJV was compiled. The KJV translators did not utilize the Majority Text approach. They chose readings from the various versions of the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. That's right, not only did Erasmus publish 5 ammended editions of his TR, Stephanus and Beza each compiled their own editions of Erasmus' work, which the KJV translators utilized. They also did not shy away from using other resources as well, including latin texts. Here's an excerpt from the preface of the original 1611 KJV, which by the way, almost no one uses any more. Most who use the KJV don't even realize that they're most likely using the 1769 Blaney revision.
Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see. -The Translators to the Readers - Preface to the King James Version 1611, page 10
The full document can be seen here: http://www.ccel.org/...eface/pref1.htm
Very good post, Erasmus used the text that was available but also used Jerome's corrupted translation to fill in the gaps.