Search Results
6/23/2025, 12:22:48 AM
>>17783690
>Vaticanus is the vatican manuscript Erasmus was attempting to get his hands on, incidentally.
Actually, according to a paper, he got his hands on some readings from it and didn't accept it.
The TR editors were well aware of minority or Alexandrian readings, for instance from Codex Bezae. They rejected those manuscript readings as being unsupported by the evidence, and were correct to do so. Of course, you can speculate which corruptions were a result of trivial error (whether easily detectable as such or not) and which corruptions were the result of theological bias or error. The Alexandrian manuscripts on the whole clearly exhibit a theological bias.
Even if this is not accepted, there is also conclusive evidence which can't be explained away which shows that those particular manuscripts are also actually back-translations of the coptic versions into Greek, since they have a statistically significant number of examples of this, as pointed out by Hoskier in his book "Codex B and its Allies."
>all the translators did was faithfully translate their Greek text.
They chose the wrong text. Period.
>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases. Interestingly, since it was pointed out that only non-trinitarian writers used or referenced that minority reading of John 1:18, other modern translations, even ones that have egregious errors in other places, are now backing away from that reading of John 1:18. That's why only the ESV and a few others even switches to it. (1/2)
>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
What is dishonest on their part is picking and choosing which readings from which text they want. That is supremely dishonest.
>Vaticanus is the vatican manuscript Erasmus was attempting to get his hands on, incidentally.
Actually, according to a paper, he got his hands on some readings from it and didn't accept it.
The TR editors were well aware of minority or Alexandrian readings, for instance from Codex Bezae. They rejected those manuscript readings as being unsupported by the evidence, and were correct to do so. Of course, you can speculate which corruptions were a result of trivial error (whether easily detectable as such or not) and which corruptions were the result of theological bias or error. The Alexandrian manuscripts on the whole clearly exhibit a theological bias.
Even if this is not accepted, there is also conclusive evidence which can't be explained away which shows that those particular manuscripts are also actually back-translations of the coptic versions into Greek, since they have a statistically significant number of examples of this, as pointed out by Hoskier in his book "Codex B and its Allies."
>all the translators did was faithfully translate their Greek text.
They chose the wrong text. Period.
>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
They chose the gnostic reading because they have the same theological biases. Interestingly, since it was pointed out that only non-trinitarian writers used or referenced that minority reading of John 1:18, other modern translations, even ones that have egregious errors in other places, are now backing away from that reading of John 1:18. That's why only the ESV and a few others even switches to it. (1/2)
>Whatever we think about that text, it could not possibly be construed as the translators inserting their theological biases into the text, that is dishonest.
What is dishonest on their part is picking and choosing which readings from which text they want. That is supremely dishonest.
Page 1