Debate On Luke 2:22; Seventh Letter

Letter dated 12/21/96 from James White:

[Edited information concerning personal greating]

>>Anyway, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions on Luke 2:22.<<

It took me long enough. :)

>>I do not think that others must agree with me, or even believe the King James Bible, in order to be right with God. I know of many who use the KJV and do not walk with God, and many who use modern versions and do.<<

I'm glad to hear that.

[Edited information concerning indiviguals we both know]


>> I had assumed that the statistics were by no means "exact measurements, "which is why I included in my question if you were, " simply giving a general statistical statement based upon observation without any real hard core information". We both know that the Greek manuscripts of Luke by far read "of their" purification and not "of her" purification. In general conversation a phrase such as "99.9%" might be considered as a synonym for "almost all." However, in technical writings, debates, research, and documentaries, it most likely will be considered exact measurements. My suggestion, if I may, is that you might want to change your phraseology as to avoid confusion.<<

I gladly admit that I don't have a lot of respect for Peter Ruckman, and hence, am not exactly concerned about writing in response to him in the same way I'd write for a graduate course or something like that. I'm sorry if I am constantly over-defensive to your questions. But again, it comes from having every word, every syllable, I have ever spoken in conversation with people like Adair or Snead taken out of context, misrepresented, and twisted, in reply.

>> The second point causes me some distress. I had asked, "When you state, 'KJV's reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century,' were you unaware of the Latin support?" Your response was: >>I was speaking specifically of the Greek manuscript tradition. I do not find secondary language references overly weighty, and anyone who places great weight upon them is normally seeking to defend only a few specific readings, and is never consistent in applying such secondary-source weighting to the entire NT. As you are well aware, if the Latin texts are given such weight, the entire character of the NT text in Greek (including the Byzantine texts, or the TR specifically) would have to be radically altered. Since I am not aware that you specfically are promoting a radical change of the TR on the basis of Latin texts, I don't see that the Latin would be relevant at this point.<< Of course, I would not suggest that we replace the Greek witnesses with the Latin.<<

Have you shared this conclusion with Michael Maynard?

>>That would be imprudent, almost as excessive as claiming that there were no readings containing "of her" before the 14th century. This was the point. Not the weightiness of the evidence, nor that the evidence was a "secondary-source". But the EXISTENCE of the evidence, well before the 14th century. On your web page, you do refer to the Greek manuscripts. But in your debate with me you stated, "That means the KJV's reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century," (Dated 95-08-21 22:09:17 EDT and entitled simply Luke 2:22). <<

And, in context, I was referring to the Greek, too. You can find all sorts of readings in D, for example, and in some rather "free" Latin translations, almost none of which are even slightly relevant to the issue at hand. For example, my Mormon friends might find some off-the-wall reading in a manuscript, or even group of manuscripts, and cling to such a reading as supportive of some strange doctrine they wish to put forth. Such would not be meaningful on a scholarly level. When I insisted that the KJV's reading could not be traced before the 14th century, I based that upon two items: 1) the dating contained in the NA27 regarding 76 (which I now see is in dispute), and 2) the assumption that unless it is found in a Greek manuscript somewhere, the appearance of such a reading in a secondary language (especially since it has to do with gender) is not relevant.

>> Perhaps we have two different meanings of the phrase, "cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century." I have always taken "anywhere" to mean "anywhere." <<

Anywhere within a particular context: "anywhere in the Greek manuscript tradition" does not, logically, mean "anywhere in any language tradition at all."

> >You provide me with your source for the dating of minuscule 76, thank you. I cannot help but wonder if NA27 has a misprint, since NA26, UBS 2nd, and Aland's "The Text of The New Testament" all give the date of the 12th century (although it is possible that these sources were copying off each other and originally gave the wrong date). Since the science of paleography is generally correct within fifty years and not usually off by two hundred years, it seems that a misprint has occurred somewhere . . . don't you think? Anyway, again, thank you for providing your source.<<

And thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Any idea how we can get hold of Aland to find out which is which? Ever seen a web address for the Alands? I've not seen one, but personally, I'd be more than a bit surprised if he's not available through that means.

>>not at all conclusive. It is much stronger to point out the reading in the Latin manuscripts containing "eius" and the other early versions reading "of her."<<

By the way, would you not agree that the "push" for this reading is most probably due to the rise of monasticism and the resultant increase in Mariolatry?

>>Beza's Latin text of Luke 2 would, however, classify itself as a conjectural emendation since it reads, "Et quum impletr fuissent dies purgationis Mariae secundum legem Mosis, . . ." There are, as far as I know, no manuscripts of any kind, anywhere, which read this way. As you recall, Beza's text had a column containing his Greek text, his Latin text, and the Latin Vulgate. Underneath he provides commentary. I have the good fortune to live near the University of Dayton, which has a1589 edition of Beza. I have seen and read from it many times, it really makes for some interesting reading (even if the Latin is written in a difficult style).<<

Did you agree with me that Beza did not have access to 76? I couldn't tell from what you wrote.

James>>>

On to Eighth Letter
Or
Back to Debate Page