Replies

Wow, they keep you as much in the dark regarding manuscript evidence as does the Vatican keep Roman Catholics in the dark. Why would you think that common believers (there were many educated enough to read and write Greek and Syrian) would not have been copying the New Testament books and distributing them just as soon as they had them in their hands. And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond. And why would you think that the Holy Spirit could not superintend the preservation of His word through such common believers who had no desire to build ecclesiastical or political positions for themselves? The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is a product of just such manuscript copying. From Palestine -- through Antioch of Syria -- through Byzantinia -- Westward and Northward. There are plenty of very scholarly volumes written on manuscript evidence, written by men over several hundred years that bring this to light. David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills, Phillip Morrow, Samuel Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Donald Waite, and many others have done fine research. None of these have been connected to each other, but their research concurs, and none of them have done their work to either protect, defend or bolster any particular church.

The text type you are referring to of the late 4th Century comes from Alexandrian manuscripts through Rome (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as far as the Greek NT), from whence Jerome's Vulgate is derived. There was much going on in manuscript copying and translating, and the Holy Spirit was doing His work in fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Words, long before 300 A.D.

"Why would you think that common believers (there were many educated enough to read and write Greek and Syrian) would not have been copying the New Testament books and distributing them just as soon as they had them in their hands. And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond."

Which texts did they copy, friend? Certainly the Shepherd and the Didache, the Protoevangelion of James, the letter of +Clement, +Ignatius and +Polycarp, but what about the Gospel of Thomas, or of Peter or of Mary, etc or even the Muratorian canon? Its a long list, friend. Did they include Revelations?

"The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is a product of just such manuscript copying."

That was put together in 1516. I didn't know any serious theologians even used that anymore. Its shot through with text with little or very weak support.

"David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills, Phillip Morrow, Samuel Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Donald Waite, and many others have done fine research. None of these have been connected to each other, but their research concurs, and none of them have done their work to either protect, defend or bolster any particular church."

Interesting group; not one of them a member of The Church so far as I can see, but rather all members of Protestant ecclesial assemblies. If they do not know the Faith of the Fathers, if they are unaware or contemptuous of the consensus patrum, it seems to me presumptious almost beyond description for them to opine on what The Church determined to be the NT and what it means. How do they account for Luther's changing of the canon of the NT and the acceptance of the Hebrew Canon of about 90 AD for the OT?

"There was much going on in manuscript copying and translating, and the Holy Spirit was doing His work in fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Words, long before 300 A.D."

Agreed. Did the Holy Spirit let people get it wrong for 1500 years until the Protestant reformers came along, monkeyed with the canon of the NT (and the OT for that matter)and apostasized?

Why would you think that common believers (there were many educated enough to read and write Greek and Syrian) would not have been copying the New Testament books and distributing them just as soon as they had them in their hands.

Because parchment and vellum were very expensive (paper was not yet invented), and literacy not at all widespread (90% of the Roman population were rustics in the countryside, another 5%+ were the illiterate urban rabble). Parchment and vellum were so hard to come by that oftentimes, when a new book was to be written, an old one would be erased, and the vellum leaves reused.

And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond.

They did translate them, but that began much later than you seem to think. The first Germanic language Bible, that of Wulfilas, was not done until the mid 4th Century.

And why would you think that the Holy Spirit could not superintend the preservation of His word through such common believers who had no desire to build ecclesiastical or political positions for themselves?

The Holy Spirit certainly did a poor job then of preventing textual variants and errors in this copyign and translating.