Debate On Luke 2:22; Third Letter

Letter dated 09/13/96 from Thomas Holland:

Dear Brother James,

In your letter dated 9/12/96 you write,
>>I will get to your questions as time permits.<<

I am delighted to hear this as I will be looking forward to your response.

You continue with,
>>however, I have to ask you: are you asserting that a person going by the
Greek manuscript evidence should read "her" at Luke 2:22? <<

Of course not. I am not debating you one way or the other concerning the
Greek reading in Luke 2:22. The issues I raised are not asking if the correct
reading is "of her" or if it is "of them." I am simply showing that your data
which was stated in your web site and in you correspondence with me is in error.
You claimed that there was no evidence for the reading "of her" until the 14th
century and that it found its way into the KJV because of a conjectural
emendation placed in the text by Beza. Your information on this is incorrect.

You also ask,
>>"Shall be" at Revelation 16:5? "Christ" at 2 Timothy 2:19?<<

As to Revelation 16:5, you wish to know if I am asserting according to the
Greek evidence that the reading should be "shall be." No I am not. The same
with 2 Timothy 2:19. I said nothing to this effect in my letter to you nor did I
even mention 2 Timothy 2:19. I will be addressing these and other verses in my
next lesson. If you would like a copy, I will gladly send you one when I mail the
lesson.

Then you ask,
>>And if so, do you likewise champion all the readings *rejected* by the KJV
that have the same, or even better "attestation" in this ancient Latin or that
Syriac manuscript?<<

No I do not. Any more than you would champion all the readings found in
Sinaiticus or the Majority Text. And yet you used the MT in Luke 2:22 with the
statical information of 99.5% (or 99.9%). I cited the Latin and other texts to
show that the reading existed before the 14th century. This only shows that the
reading was there before you claimed it was, not that I support these texts.
Please do not confuse the point.

Next you state the following:
>>I have to admit that of late I have been very strongly encouraged to ignore
correspondence from anyone who comes to the issue without a willingness to
even consider the other side. I admit, as I grow older, I find time more precious,
and the tasks far greater than my strength. In light of that, I hesitate a great deal
to invest time with those who are seeking little more than a fight "over words" to
borrow a biblical phrase.<<

This debate is not over words (i.e. "of her" verses "of them"). It is over your
claim that the reading was a conjectural emendation by Beza, without any textual
support before the 14th century.

You continue with:
>>Add to such concerns the fact that I have gotten so much
Ruckman/Riplinger/Marrs-style "hate letters" from KJV Only advocates, that I've
lost count of the times I've read "apostate," "Bible-hater," "devil-worshipper"
and the like, that I have pretty much come to the conclusion to allow my book to
just continue on doing what it has done so well already. Hence, in light of the
type of writing I've seen posted in various KJV Only lists by BasFawlty, and our
own less than pleasant encounter in the past, I admit that the writing of a book
on the Trinity, due 12/1 to Bethany House, my preaching responsibilities, my
teaching of Church History and Systematic Theology classes, and my upcoming
debate against a former Baptist, Tim Staples, now staff apologist for St. Joseph
Catholic Radio, take a good bit of precedence over disputes about a manuscript
here or there on a reading that, to be quite honest, is so obvious with reference
to the original that it's hard to see otherwise. However, I likewise hate having
mail cluttering up my mailbox, so I will probably get back to you sooner than I
*should.* The Internet is killing my book writing time-table. :)<<

1. This is irrelevant. I am sorry that you receive hate mail. I receive it as well.
This has nothing to do with the points I made.

2. The last time I pointed out that you were historically incorrect concerning the
Cum Privilegio you likewise informed me of your schedule and how much work
you have to do. Then you avoided your historical error and to the best of my
knowledge have not made any attempt to amend it.

3. As to being busy, I myself am busy. However, you have made a claim which
is simply incorrect. If you are wrong, I expect and hope that you will gladly
correct the error as I am sure you would not want to mislead anyone with false
information and thus weaken your whole argument. I myself do not like it when
I am mistaken about something. But when it is pointed out and I correct the
error, I benifet from it as do my readers. If, on the other hand, you are correct, I
would expect to see some evidence to support you claim. Please document your
claims about Luke 2:22, Beza, that 76 is from the14th century, and the 99.5%.
That is simple enough.

Your final question to me was as follows:
>>One question, also, for clarification: you say Irenaeus cited this passage as
"her purification" in A.D. 202. Since we lose sight of him after 190, and most
sources put his death at A.D. 200, and since a search for katharismou comes up
empty in TLG, might you have a reference, please? The only reference I can find
is in Ad Her. 3:10:4, but that is from the Latin, and only says, "When the days of
purification were accomplished," skipping over the pronoun completely.<<

First of all, the date. The UBS give 202 AD and states, >>Dates given are
generally those accepted for their death; in many cases these are approximate.<<
(UBS. 2nd ed. 1968, p. xxx). On page xxxii they give the date of 202 AD. The
same is true of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. Kurt and Barbara Aland simply
give Irenaeus as the second century. If you would prefer, I will gladly change it
to that general date.

Next, you point out that Irenaeus skipped over the pronoun completely. Roberts
and Donaldson agree with you. In their English translation of Irenaeus' *Against
Heresies* they give the reading you provided (*The Writings of Irenaeus,*
London: Hamilton & Co., 1868). However, the Latin text uses the word
*purgationis,* which is the feminine genitive singular of *purgatio.* Latin, like
Greek, does not always have the personal pronoun as it can be understood in the
word itself. But, since this is somewhat questionable and is omitted by Roberts
and Donaldson, I will gladly remove the reference of Irenaeus.

This does not, however, respond to the main issue. Once I remove the reference
to any Church Father, you are still faced with the problem of early translations
other than Latin which contained the reading "of her." As concisely as possible,
I will again restate my points.

1). You changed your statistical information from 99.5% to 99.9%. What is this
based on. Is this a generalized guess or statistical fact. If the latter, please give
your source and state why it was changed by .4%.

2). When you state, >>KJV's reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the
14th century,<< were you unaware of the Latin support? I gave several Latin
Codices which do not read "of them" but read "of her." All of these date long
before the 14th century.

3) While Codex D does not read "of her" it also does not read "of them." As a
Greek teacher you know that Codex D reads, "of it" or perhaps "of him." Either
way, it stands in the genitive SINGULAR and not the genitive PLURAL. Yet
you did not mention this either. Why?

4) What source do you have for the date of minuscule 76 belonging to the 14th
century? All sources I found listed it in the 12th century. I ask again, will you
change your date? Also, you did not list 2174 (which is from the 14th century).
Why not?

5) You also did not mention that the phrase "of her" is in the Old Syriac Version
(Sinaitic, second century), the Sahidic Coptic Version (third century). Why did
you leave the impression, in both the citation you made to me and the one on
your web site, that the evidence for the reading did not begin until the 14th
century?

6) I cited Metzger's definition of a conjectural emendation. This does not seem
to match what you claim. Beza owned Codex D and had access to the Old Latin
manuscripts. Upon these, this would not have been a conjectural emendation.
Yet you wrote me and said of Luke 2:22 >> most feel that this is actually a
conjectural emendation made by Beza<<. Please explain your reasoning and
give your sources.

7) My questions on Rev. 16:5 were these.
a. Are you aware of why and how Beza made his conjectural emendation?
b. Have you ever read his reasoning?
c. Are you aware that there is additional support before Beza which dates to786
AD, and even possibly as early as 380 AD?

There is nothing in this question which tries to justify the reading based on the
Greek manuscripts as your above response indicates.

I do look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland
Psalm 118:8

On to Fourth Letter
Or
Back to Debate Page