Post by iris89 on Apr 17, 2006 10:12:34 GMT -5
Discourse On Apparent Bible Contradictions and Divine Inspiration:
INTRODUCTION:
Some misguided ones who lack true Bible knowledge often contend that the Bible contradicts itself and/or promotes wrong doing, killing, or some other error. But in reality this is not the case. The Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.
EXPLANATION OF WARS OF JUDGMENT:
There are many passages that require real study since on the surface they appear to be contradictory, but when carefully examined this has been found to NOT be the case. One example of this they point to is God's (YHWH's) Commandment at Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), and the many wars Israel engaged in at God's (YHWH's)direction in which they killed the enemy, a seeming contradiction. But in reality it is NOT a contradiction since a loving God (YHWH) needed to execute judgment against the evil ones to protect his then chosen people. This is shown at Deuteronomy 20:16-18, "`Only, of the cities of these peoples which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee `for' an inheritance, thou dost not keep alive any breathing; 17 for thou dost certainly devote the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee, 18 so that they teach you not to do according to all their abominations which they have done to their gods, and ye have sinned against Jehovah your God." (Young's Literal Translation; YT); and at Deuteronomy 7:16, "`And thou hast consumed all the peoples whom Jehovah thy God is giving to thee; thine eye hath no pity on them, and thou dost not serve their gods, for a snare it `is' to thee." (YLT).
The fact is that God (YHWH) himself actually used his forces to fight for Israel in these wars in these wars of execution of judgment as testified to at Joshua 10:14, "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Jehovah hearkened unto the voice of a man: for Jehovah fought for Israel." (American Standard Version; ASV); and at Joshua 10:42, "And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, fought for Israel." (ASV). In fact, the dread of the true God (YHWH) came to be on all of the pagans as shown at 2 Chronicles 20:29, "And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of the countries, when they heard that Jehovah fought against the enemies of Israel." (ASV). However, early true Christians did NOT participate in the wars of men, i.e., the pagan Roman Empire as shown in a book by Professor Jesse E. Wrench, "The Christians refused to show their loyalty by burning incense to the emperor. Being men of peace, they would not serve in the Roman armies." [source - "The March of Civilization, Ancient and Medieval World," by Jesse E. Wrench, Professor of History at the University of Missouri, 1931, page 205] showing their respect for God's (YHWH's) law in Exodus. Another writer, Eugene A. Colligan, stated in his book, "They preferred the Kingdom of God to any kingdom that they might serve on earth....Since they believed in peace, they would not serve in Rome's imperial armies." [source - "From the Old World to the New," Eugene A. Colligan, Associate Superintendent of Schools, City of New York, and Maxwell F. Littwin, Principal, New York City Public Schools, pages 88-89].
EXPLANATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM THE WRITINGS OF DR. GRIESBACH:
A Jewish scholar, ri Kuchinsky, wrote this about Dr. Griesbach:
"Eminent German rationalist theologian & father of modern literary/historical analysis of the biblical text. Born in Hesse, Griesbach studied under Johann S. Semler at Halle (Prussia). He expanded the base of the Greek with what he discovered during extensive travels & published (1774-75) the first revised edition of the traditional Greek complete with an extensive critical apparatus. He was appointed professor of NT studies at the U of Jena (1775). In 1776 he published A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke, the work that launched modern gospel studies. Since that time these three gospels have been referred to as "the synoptics."
Pointing to discrepancies between gospel narratives, Griesbach dismissed traditional attempts to harmonize these accounts & focused attention on their literary dependence instead. He accepted J. B. Koppe's observation that the text of Mark is often closer Luke. This led him to turn Augustine's theory that Luke used Matthew & Mark around and claim that Mark was an uninspired compilation from Matthew & Luke. In 1789 he published his defense of this thesis as "A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke." In the 19th c. Griesbach's thesis was championed by his student, W. L. de Wette. After years of neglect it was revived in 1964 by the American scholar, W.R. Farmer as "the Two Gospel hypothesis."
In his Demonstration, Griesbach summed up his argument as follows:
This is a summary of the thesis we are defending:
* When writing his book, Mark had not only Matthew but also Luke positioned before his eyes;
* and from these (texts) he excerpted whatever deeds, speeches and sayings of the Savior he committed to memory;
* so that mainly & most often he followed Matthew as a guide;
yet sometimes, leaving Matthew, he allied himself with Luke;
* where he would stick to Matthew's tracks, he still would not let Luke out of his eyesight, but would compare him with Matthew and vice-versa;
* he would try to be brief, as he wanted to write a book with minimum mass; So not only did he leave out what was not pertinent to the role of teacher, which the Lord performed in public..., he also passed over several of Christ's wordier speeches.
* Furthermore, ...he kept in mind his readers: that is, people far from Palestine, among whom the maxims & customs of Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees, were not well known, nor were necessary to know; so, partly for this reason,
* he would cut out some things found in Matthew or Luke that were meant only for Jews, especially those in Palestine, or fit their way of thinking...,
* he would be stingier in citing OT passages...,
* he would add things that he thought necessary as illustration or useful for his readers to understand the narrative....
Thus, in Griesbach's view, Mark worked like a cross between a researcher & a Reader's Digest editor to produce for non-Jewish readers a single condensed version of two books, adding only minor details & 24 new sentences to passages quoted from his sources. Other scholars, like J. G. Herder, were not persuaded that this presented a realistic picture of how ancient scribes functioned.
[For full text & further information see J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text- critical studies 1776-1976 (ed. by B. Orchard & T. R. W. Longstaff) Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1978. The passage translated here from Latin is found on pp. 76-77].
New Testament Textual Criticism is often seen as the most obscure of all biblical disciplines. The textual scholars are the folks whose responsibility it is actually to produce the text of the NT that the Christians are reading today. All English translations of the gospels are based on the work of these Textual Critics, who have assembled the Greek text of the gospels from many old biblical manuscripts as they saw fit.
Yes, generally, it's quite an obscure field... The disputes among the professional Textual Critics are still many and bitter. They still keep disputing about the simplest things. For example, they still cannot agree among themselves, Which of the three main NT texts-types -- Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western -- is the earliest?
But, actually, I'm saying that the Textual Criticism isn't such a difficult area at all... In fact, the whole thing is extremely simple!
Just how simple it is? It's actually so simple that, as I see it, the biggest problem in this area had already been solved over 200 years ago! And it seems like it's been downhill ever since...
Thus, today's NT Textual Criticism seems to be mostly smoke and mirrors. Indeed, it now looks to me like these folks spend far more time obscuring some of the most obvious things in this area, rather than clarifying them. And, as a result -- sorry to say, friends -- our mainstream "eclectic" text of the gospels, as well as all the English translations based on it, appear to be all wrong...
The following is a brief review of the work of Griesbach, and of some other famous Textual Critics of the times long past -- the scholars such as Hug and Lachmann. This review is based on the information that I've assembled from other biblical historians. All this can be easily verified.
GRIESBACH HAD IT RIGHT!
looks to me like the Textual problem of the NT had been solved by J. J. Griesbach -- who was one of the great pioneers of biblical criticism -- already by the end of the 18th century! And so, everything that happened in biblical studies ever since was simply footnotes...
And the reason why it was so easy for Griesbach to solve this main textual problem was... because it was so easy! At least that's how it seems to me...
In modern TC textbooks, Dr. J. J. Griesbach is cited as the originator of the classification of all our NT MSS into the three basic families, Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine (although we can also note that he relied on the work of his mentors, such as Semler). Griesbach also formulated almost all of the major rules of TC that are still in use even now.
The following account is based on an overview by Dr. A. Klijn (see the ref below), who is, himself, one of the big Textual Critics today.
According to Klijn, Griesbach started his analysis by studying the works of Origen, an early Alexandrian Church Father, and the biblical quotations as found in these writings. He observed that Origen had used two different texts of Mark; one of them close to the Alexandrian type, and the other one close to the text of Codex Bezae -- that famous very ancient NT manuscript of "Western" type. Of course, Western text was already very well known in Europe prior to Griesbach, because this was the text as represented by numerous versions of the gospels that still survive in the Old Latin.
Furthermore, Griesbach observed that these Western gospel texts, as found in Europe, had many similarities to the Syriac Penutsta -- a very important observation. So these unusual old texts of "Western type" could be found both in the West and in the East!
Griesbach could see clearly that both Western and the Alexandrian texts deviate widely from the Majority Text (which is represented for us now by the KJV). The Majority Text was the text that was most popular since the Middle Ages; thus it is found in the majority of old biblical MSS.
One of Griesbach's most noteworthy observations was that Western text represented a pre-recension text. In other words, according to him, these Western texts were current before the NT had been published as a whole. In Griesbach's view, when the canon was finally closed and settled upon, that older text came to be rejected by Church authorities.
And so, Griesbach was somewhat hesitant to describe Western text as a "recension". The only true recensions, according to him, were the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, because there's a lot more consistency within these two textual families. Thus, Western text was a pre-recension text.
So, as we can see, it was the Patristic evidence that led Griesbach to all these revolutionary discoveries. It was the quotes from the old Church Fathers that, according to him, still preserve for us the earliest pre-recension gospel text.
So this is how Klijn summarises these matters,
"Griesbach noticed that Marcion, Irenaeus and even Clement of Alexandria, who wrote before the recensions used a Western text." [SOURCE -(A. Klijn, A SURVEY OF THE RESEARCHES INTO THE WESTERN TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS: Part 1, Utrecht, 1948, p. 7)]
Also, Lachmann, another great pioneer of TC, continued the work of both Griesbach and Hug. Writing in 1831, he stated that, based on the extant NT manuscripts, it was not possible to construct a text which would go any farther back than the fourth century.
So this was an extremely honest observation on the part of Lachmann. Indeed, to all intents and purposes, our canonical Greek texts -- whether Alexandrian or Byzantine -- are really nothing other than the Catholic texts as commonly accepted in the fourth century. (The former was popular in Egypt, but then abandoned; the latter was popular in Constantinople, and became the standard text in the early middle ages.)
So Griesbach was right; the earliest text was Western. (I, myself, prefer to describe it as the Peripheral text -- after all, the name "Western text" is just such an obvious misnomer, in light of the fact that it's the eastern MSS that are its key representatives. See this article where I explain this matter some more.) And he was working at the time when the ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels -- our main Western/Peripheral texts today -- were still unknown to scholarship! Yet, still and all, he put this whole puzzle together quite easily, using the Syriac Penutsta as his reference.
Sure, he was a very talented biblical scholar. But, still, how could TC wander in the wilderness so long after him? Are our modern TC scholars really so incompetent?
Maybe so... But, in my view, it's mostly their political bias that's to blame. They are simply not brave enough to challenge today's academic-ecclesiastical consensus -- something that Griesbach obviously wasn't afraid to do even back in the eighteenth century! [SOURCE - Yuri].
DR. GRIESBACH TRANSLATION FROM KOINE GREEK TO ENGLISH THE GREEK ENGLISH PORTION OF THE EMPHATIC DIALOGTT CLEARS UP AN APPARENT BIBLE CONTRADICTION:
With respect the Emphatic Dialogtt, the word-for-word section was done by a very renown Koine Greek expert and Bible scholar, Dr. Griesbach. the standard or 'flowing-language' part, this was done by a newspaper reporter, Bengemin Wilson, who was not a translator, but knew how to take from what Dr. Griesbach had done as a word-for-word translation and put it into flowing English. Reporters would naturally be good at this.
"Now with respect to one scripture to which the poster pointed special attention, John 1:1, I had reached exactly the same conclusion as Dr. Griesbach, but from a very different analysis as follows:
"John 1:1 could in no way support the doctrine of the Trinity, as follows:
John 1:1, "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was" (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.
However, in very careful careful analysis as an independent thinker and using my knowledge of language and translation constructs, I am able to prove it can not even support a Duality. Let's take the poor construct of this verse found in the Authorized King James Bible (AV) which is as follows and break it down into its three sub-constructs.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Sub-construct # 1 "In the beginning was the Word."
Sub-construct # 2 "and the Word was with God"
Sub-construct # 3 "and the Word was God."
It is clear that there is a mutually exclusive condition existing between sub-construct # 2 and # 3 in that sub-construct # 2 clearly says, "the Word was with God" which clearly denotes two distinct beings, one with the other; whereas, sub-construct # 3 clearly says, "and the word was God," now obviously both can NOT be true. No individual can be with another individual and at the same time be that other individual so obviously both can NOT be so. When we look at how the New English Translation; NEB, renders these two sub-constructs we get two sub-constructs that no longer are mutually exclusive thus accurately reflecting the intent or thought of the original writer, see sub-construct #2 "The Word dwelt with God," and sub-construct # 3 "and what God was, the Word was."
Of course the New English Translation; NEB, would clearly be in line with the fact that a Son, Jesus (Yeshua), would be a lot like his Father (YHWH); therefore, he would be both divine like his Father (YHWH) and a god. To use an analogy to make this even clearer, we would expect a son dog to be a lot like father dog; a dog pure and simple; so we would also expect a son o***od to be both divine and a god.
See Page 2
INTRODUCTION:
Some misguided ones who lack true Bible knowledge often contend that the Bible contradicts itself and/or promotes wrong doing, killing, or some other error. But in reality this is not the case. The Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.
EXPLANATION OF WARS OF JUDGMENT:
There are many passages that require real study since on the surface they appear to be contradictory, but when carefully examined this has been found to NOT be the case. One example of this they point to is God's (YHWH's) Commandment at Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), and the many wars Israel engaged in at God's (YHWH's)direction in which they killed the enemy, a seeming contradiction. But in reality it is NOT a contradiction since a loving God (YHWH) needed to execute judgment against the evil ones to protect his then chosen people. This is shown at Deuteronomy 20:16-18, "`Only, of the cities of these peoples which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee `for' an inheritance, thou dost not keep alive any breathing; 17 for thou dost certainly devote the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee, 18 so that they teach you not to do according to all their abominations which they have done to their gods, and ye have sinned against Jehovah your God." (Young's Literal Translation; YT); and at Deuteronomy 7:16, "`And thou hast consumed all the peoples whom Jehovah thy God is giving to thee; thine eye hath no pity on them, and thou dost not serve their gods, for a snare it `is' to thee." (YLT).
The fact is that God (YHWH) himself actually used his forces to fight for Israel in these wars in these wars of execution of judgment as testified to at Joshua 10:14, "And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Jehovah hearkened unto the voice of a man: for Jehovah fought for Israel." (American Standard Version; ASV); and at Joshua 10:42, "And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, fought for Israel." (ASV). In fact, the dread of the true God (YHWH) came to be on all of the pagans as shown at 2 Chronicles 20:29, "And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of the countries, when they heard that Jehovah fought against the enemies of Israel." (ASV). However, early true Christians did NOT participate in the wars of men, i.e., the pagan Roman Empire as shown in a book by Professor Jesse E. Wrench, "The Christians refused to show their loyalty by burning incense to the emperor. Being men of peace, they would not serve in the Roman armies." [source - "The March of Civilization, Ancient and Medieval World," by Jesse E. Wrench, Professor of History at the University of Missouri, 1931, page 205] showing their respect for God's (YHWH's) law in Exodus. Another writer, Eugene A. Colligan, stated in his book, "They preferred the Kingdom of God to any kingdom that they might serve on earth....Since they believed in peace, they would not serve in Rome's imperial armies." [source - "From the Old World to the New," Eugene A. Colligan, Associate Superintendent of Schools, City of New York, and Maxwell F. Littwin, Principal, New York City Public Schools, pages 88-89].
EXPLANATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM THE WRITINGS OF DR. GRIESBACH:
A Jewish scholar, ri Kuchinsky, wrote this about Dr. Griesbach:
"Eminent German rationalist theologian & father of modern literary/historical analysis of the biblical text. Born in Hesse, Griesbach studied under Johann S. Semler at Halle (Prussia). He expanded the base of the Greek with what he discovered during extensive travels & published (1774-75) the first revised edition of the traditional Greek complete with an extensive critical apparatus. He was appointed professor of NT studies at the U of Jena (1775). In 1776 he published A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke, the work that launched modern gospel studies. Since that time these three gospels have been referred to as "the synoptics."
Pointing to discrepancies between gospel narratives, Griesbach dismissed traditional attempts to harmonize these accounts & focused attention on their literary dependence instead. He accepted J. B. Koppe's observation that the text of Mark is often closer Luke. This led him to turn Augustine's theory that Luke used Matthew & Mark around and claim that Mark was an uninspired compilation from Matthew & Luke. In 1789 he published his defense of this thesis as "A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke." In the 19th c. Griesbach's thesis was championed by his student, W. L. de Wette. After years of neglect it was revived in 1964 by the American scholar, W.R. Farmer as "the Two Gospel hypothesis."
In his Demonstration, Griesbach summed up his argument as follows:
This is a summary of the thesis we are defending:
* When writing his book, Mark had not only Matthew but also Luke positioned before his eyes;
* and from these (texts) he excerpted whatever deeds, speeches and sayings of the Savior he committed to memory;
* so that mainly & most often he followed Matthew as a guide;
yet sometimes, leaving Matthew, he allied himself with Luke;
* where he would stick to Matthew's tracks, he still would not let Luke out of his eyesight, but would compare him with Matthew and vice-versa;
* he would try to be brief, as he wanted to write a book with minimum mass; So not only did he leave out what was not pertinent to the role of teacher, which the Lord performed in public..., he also passed over several of Christ's wordier speeches.
* Furthermore, ...he kept in mind his readers: that is, people far from Palestine, among whom the maxims & customs of Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees, were not well known, nor were necessary to know; so, partly for this reason,
* he would cut out some things found in Matthew or Luke that were meant only for Jews, especially those in Palestine, or fit their way of thinking...,
* he would be stingier in citing OT passages...,
* he would add things that he thought necessary as illustration or useful for his readers to understand the narrative....
Thus, in Griesbach's view, Mark worked like a cross between a researcher & a Reader's Digest editor to produce for non-Jewish readers a single condensed version of two books, adding only minor details & 24 new sentences to passages quoted from his sources. Other scholars, like J. G. Herder, were not persuaded that this presented a realistic picture of how ancient scribes functioned.
[For full text & further information see J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text- critical studies 1776-1976 (ed. by B. Orchard & T. R. W. Longstaff) Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1978. The passage translated here from Latin is found on pp. 76-77].
New Testament Textual Criticism is often seen as the most obscure of all biblical disciplines. The textual scholars are the folks whose responsibility it is actually to produce the text of the NT that the Christians are reading today. All English translations of the gospels are based on the work of these Textual Critics, who have assembled the Greek text of the gospels from many old biblical manuscripts as they saw fit.
Yes, generally, it's quite an obscure field... The disputes among the professional Textual Critics are still many and bitter. They still keep disputing about the simplest things. For example, they still cannot agree among themselves, Which of the three main NT texts-types -- Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western -- is the earliest?
But, actually, I'm saying that the Textual Criticism isn't such a difficult area at all... In fact, the whole thing is extremely simple!
Just how simple it is? It's actually so simple that, as I see it, the biggest problem in this area had already been solved over 200 years ago! And it seems like it's been downhill ever since...
Thus, today's NT Textual Criticism seems to be mostly smoke and mirrors. Indeed, it now looks to me like these folks spend far more time obscuring some of the most obvious things in this area, rather than clarifying them. And, as a result -- sorry to say, friends -- our mainstream "eclectic" text of the gospels, as well as all the English translations based on it, appear to be all wrong...
The following is a brief review of the work of Griesbach, and of some other famous Textual Critics of the times long past -- the scholars such as Hug and Lachmann. This review is based on the information that I've assembled from other biblical historians. All this can be easily verified.
GRIESBACH HAD IT RIGHT!
looks to me like the Textual problem of the NT had been solved by J. J. Griesbach -- who was one of the great pioneers of biblical criticism -- already by the end of the 18th century! And so, everything that happened in biblical studies ever since was simply footnotes...
And the reason why it was so easy for Griesbach to solve this main textual problem was... because it was so easy! At least that's how it seems to me...
In modern TC textbooks, Dr. J. J. Griesbach is cited as the originator of the classification of all our NT MSS into the three basic families, Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine (although we can also note that he relied on the work of his mentors, such as Semler). Griesbach also formulated almost all of the major rules of TC that are still in use even now.
The following account is based on an overview by Dr. A. Klijn (see the ref below), who is, himself, one of the big Textual Critics today.
According to Klijn, Griesbach started his analysis by studying the works of Origen, an early Alexandrian Church Father, and the biblical quotations as found in these writings. He observed that Origen had used two different texts of Mark; one of them close to the Alexandrian type, and the other one close to the text of Codex Bezae -- that famous very ancient NT manuscript of "Western" type. Of course, Western text was already very well known in Europe prior to Griesbach, because this was the text as represented by numerous versions of the gospels that still survive in the Old Latin.
Furthermore, Griesbach observed that these Western gospel texts, as found in Europe, had many similarities to the Syriac Penutsta -- a very important observation. So these unusual old texts of "Western type" could be found both in the West and in the East!
Griesbach could see clearly that both Western and the Alexandrian texts deviate widely from the Majority Text (which is represented for us now by the KJV). The Majority Text was the text that was most popular since the Middle Ages; thus it is found in the majority of old biblical MSS.
One of Griesbach's most noteworthy observations was that Western text represented a pre-recension text. In other words, according to him, these Western texts were current before the NT had been published as a whole. In Griesbach's view, when the canon was finally closed and settled upon, that older text came to be rejected by Church authorities.
And so, Griesbach was somewhat hesitant to describe Western text as a "recension". The only true recensions, according to him, were the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, because there's a lot more consistency within these two textual families. Thus, Western text was a pre-recension text.
So, as we can see, it was the Patristic evidence that led Griesbach to all these revolutionary discoveries. It was the quotes from the old Church Fathers that, according to him, still preserve for us the earliest pre-recension gospel text.
So this is how Klijn summarises these matters,
"Griesbach noticed that Marcion, Irenaeus and even Clement of Alexandria, who wrote before the recensions used a Western text." [SOURCE -(A. Klijn, A SURVEY OF THE RESEARCHES INTO THE WESTERN TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS: Part 1, Utrecht, 1948, p. 7)]
Also, Lachmann, another great pioneer of TC, continued the work of both Griesbach and Hug. Writing in 1831, he stated that, based on the extant NT manuscripts, it was not possible to construct a text which would go any farther back than the fourth century.
So this was an extremely honest observation on the part of Lachmann. Indeed, to all intents and purposes, our canonical Greek texts -- whether Alexandrian or Byzantine -- are really nothing other than the Catholic texts as commonly accepted in the fourth century. (The former was popular in Egypt, but then abandoned; the latter was popular in Constantinople, and became the standard text in the early middle ages.)
So Griesbach was right; the earliest text was Western. (I, myself, prefer to describe it as the Peripheral text -- after all, the name "Western text" is just such an obvious misnomer, in light of the fact that it's the eastern MSS that are its key representatives. See this article where I explain this matter some more.) And he was working at the time when the ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels -- our main Western/Peripheral texts today -- were still unknown to scholarship! Yet, still and all, he put this whole puzzle together quite easily, using the Syriac Penutsta as his reference.
Sure, he was a very talented biblical scholar. But, still, how could TC wander in the wilderness so long after him? Are our modern TC scholars really so incompetent?
Maybe so... But, in my view, it's mostly their political bias that's to blame. They are simply not brave enough to challenge today's academic-ecclesiastical consensus -- something that Griesbach obviously wasn't afraid to do even back in the eighteenth century! [SOURCE - Yuri].
DR. GRIESBACH TRANSLATION FROM KOINE GREEK TO ENGLISH THE GREEK ENGLISH PORTION OF THE EMPHATIC DIALOGTT CLEARS UP AN APPARENT BIBLE CONTRADICTION:
With respect the Emphatic Dialogtt, the word-for-word section was done by a very renown Koine Greek expert and Bible scholar, Dr. Griesbach. the standard or 'flowing-language' part, this was done by a newspaper reporter, Bengemin Wilson, who was not a translator, but knew how to take from what Dr. Griesbach had done as a word-for-word translation and put it into flowing English. Reporters would naturally be good at this.
"Now with respect to one scripture to which the poster pointed special attention, John 1:1, I had reached exactly the same conclusion as Dr. Griesbach, but from a very different analysis as follows:
"John 1:1 could in no way support the doctrine of the Trinity, as follows:
John 1:1, "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was" (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.
However, in very careful careful analysis as an independent thinker and using my knowledge of language and translation constructs, I am able to prove it can not even support a Duality. Let's take the poor construct of this verse found in the Authorized King James Bible (AV) which is as follows and break it down into its three sub-constructs.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Sub-construct # 1 "In the beginning was the Word."
Sub-construct # 2 "and the Word was with God"
Sub-construct # 3 "and the Word was God."
It is clear that there is a mutually exclusive condition existing between sub-construct # 2 and # 3 in that sub-construct # 2 clearly says, "the Word was with God" which clearly denotes two distinct beings, one with the other; whereas, sub-construct # 3 clearly says, "and the word was God," now obviously both can NOT be true. No individual can be with another individual and at the same time be that other individual so obviously both can NOT be so. When we look at how the New English Translation; NEB, renders these two sub-constructs we get two sub-constructs that no longer are mutually exclusive thus accurately reflecting the intent or thought of the original writer, see sub-construct #2 "The Word dwelt with God," and sub-construct # 3 "and what God was, the Word was."
Of course the New English Translation; NEB, would clearly be in line with the fact that a Son, Jesus (Yeshua), would be a lot like his Father (YHWH); therefore, he would be both divine like his Father (YHWH) and a god. To use an analogy to make this even clearer, we would expect a son dog to be a lot like father dog; a dog pure and simple; so we would also expect a son o***od to be both divine and a god.
See Page 2