Talk:Edward F. Hills

Untitled

I can't believe Dr. Edward F. Hills had no article on Wikipedia. He rightly deserves a hearing on this important controversy. Bhardecker 02:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How you can write "the greatest 20th Century Traditional (“Byzantine”) Text, and Received Text defender"? The Byzantine text and Textus Receptus were identified in the 19th century, but after the work of Scrivener all textual critics distiguish these two different texts. Only in non-professional literature these two texts are still identified. Sorry but I do not know textual critics which support TR. There are some supporters of the Alexandrian (Aland, Metzger, Wallace, Ehrman), Byzantine (Zuns), Caesarean (Streeter), and Western text (Boismard), but no one who support TR. Some scholars support ecclectic text. There is not only two possibilities as you think. Only people who do not examine manuscripts can support TR. It is even impossible to defend. In every professional book you can read: "It is not doubt that TR is conflate". Do you believe for the arguments of D. A. Waite? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise some important points, my article simply lays out the facts. Dr. Hills is considered a champion for the maj. text, then the TR, and then the KJV. Hence he is KJVO. As for the TR scholarly proponents would be Luther, Calvin, Beza, Cartwright, Whitaker, Jewel, Gibbens, Quenstedt, Leigh, Watson, Owen, Buxtorf, Rollock, Walker, Confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Formula Consensus Helvetica. Passages like I John 5:7, Acts 8:37, Longer ending of Mark are cited in early Baptist confessions of faith which means they are pro-TR. Anyway, I am doing research on this topic so I would also cite current scholars like Dr. Thomas Strouse, Pastor Kent Brandenburg, Pastor Peter Van Kleeck, Dr. Paul S. Furgeson - these are men who champion the TR (in our day and age). I would place Dr. Waite in this crowd, of course he has a slightly different emphasis, but yet, a scholar and pro-TR nonetheless. Dr. Fuller of course another scholar, prior to Dr. Waite, is pro-TR/KJVO. Bhardecker (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The longer ending of Mark was cited by Westcott and Hort, by von Soden, Nestle, Aland, etc. It is cited in all editions. What is your point? The pericope adultera is also cited in all editions. 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 are not authentical, they were added by Erasmus. Waite, Furgeson are not reliable authors. They do not examine manuscripts. According to them New Testament of Peshitta was translated in the 2nd century. It is not true. All that we know NT of Peshitta originated before 540 C.E. Only Old Testament of Peshitta is from the 2nd century. In books of Waite you can read that 85% of papyri manuscripts support "traditional text". Of course it is not true. Only one papyrus support the Byzantine text but it is very fragmentary manuscript (and from 7th century). All their arguments are not reliable, and they do not know Greek (TR is written in mediaeval Greek, it is not Koine Greek). As you see well you can not give names of the present scholars at all. Zuns is cosidered - by scholars - as a champion for the majority text, not Hills as wrongly wrote (see B. Aland & J. Delobel, New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History Pharos 1994; E. J. Epp & G. D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism Wm Eerdmans 1993). People like Dr. Thomas Strouse, Pastor Kent Brandenburg, Pastor Peter Van Kleeck, Dr. Paul S. Furgeson are not professional. They do not examine manuscript. A lot of lies, a lot of errors in their books. They lie about manuscripts, about textual families, about versions. KJV is in 410 places departed from TR and usually used Vulgate textual variants. I did not find any explanation in books of Waite about using of Vulgate by translators of KJV. Luther also changed sometimes his text. In these books can read f.e. "the edition of Westcott and Hort is today regarded as poor scholarship" (see [1]). Of course it is not true. Text WH is still high estemeed by all scholars (with exception for Luke 22-24). According to Ph. Comfort text WH is even better than text of Nestle-Aland. According to Waite Ireneus used TR. It is not true. A lot of other errors you can find in these books of these "scholars". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"The one great fact, which especially troubles him (meaning Dr. Hort) and his joint Editor, as well as it may, is The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian, - the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, - call it the "Received," or The Traditional Greek Text of whatever other name you please; - the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his vitual admission that, - Beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Graeco-Syrian Text of A.D. 350 to A.D. 400." Burgon, Revision Revised, page 269. Is Burgon a good enough scholar for you? Bhardecker (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardecker (talk • contribs)

Burgon was professional, but he lived in the 19th century. He thought that the Byzantine manuscripts are older than Alexandrian. Now we have the Alexandrian manuscripts even from the 2nd century (Papyri), but the oldest Greek manuscripts with the Byzantine text were written in the 5th century (Alexandrinus and Washingtonianus). In books of Waite you can read that Peshitta supported TR, but I can give you many examples that Peshitta supported the Alexandrian text. Peshitta has different text. Greek lectionaries in many instances support the Alexandrian text against TR (usually support TR). There arre more possibilities. Old Latin versions represent the Western text, but according to Waite it represent "traditional text". Armenian and Georgian versions represent the Caesarean text-type, Coptic versions represents the Alexandrian text-type. Wait do not know all these things. Only Gothic version represents the Byzantine text-type (but subfamily Π). The text of Peshitta is very complicated, usually it supports the Byzantine text in teh Gospels (subfamily Π), but there are Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean readings. It can not be used as an argument by supporters of TR. Family Π is different than TR. Codex Alexandrinus - in the Gospels - is close to this family, but it has many Alexandrian readings. Codex Alexandrinus does not belong to any of the Byzantine subfamilies. I do not think you are supporter of the Family Π. The Byzantine part of the Codex Washingtonianus represents different Byzantine subfamily, but it is still far from TR. In the writtings of the apostolic Fathers from the 2nd century we can find many textual variants not supported by any of the four main text-types. You are right every of the TR editors changed text of the New Testament. According to Scrivener and Metzger 3rd edition of Stephanus is the standart TR text. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Leszek Janczuk, If I didn't know better I would say you are the greatest Byzantine defender of the "21st" century. You do bring up some amazing things, and if I were involved in the Byzantine vs. TR debate like you, I would feel competent enough to argue with you. I don't think I am close to your level of awareness within the textual debate. What I do know is that the Reformers, Burgon, Hills, and a host of others defend both the Byzantine and the TR with preference to the TR. By any standards they were scholars and firm believers in God's providential preservation of His words. Bhardecker (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Burkitt

There are some small errors in book of Hills, e.g. work of Burkitt about Peshitta was published in 1901 not in 1904 as Hills wrote. Of course every body do mistakes, even in books of Aland we can find some errors, and it is not problem. The dating of Peshitta to the end of the 2nd century is more serious. Syriac Church Fathers did not quote Peshitta before the 5th century. It has Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian readings. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)