Debate On Luke 2:22; Sixth Letter

Letter dated 12/05/96 from Thomas Holland:

Hello Brother James,

[Edited information concerning personal greating and indiviguals we both know]

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions on Luke 2:22. 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. For myself, I would rather have the right walk, with the right book. Since we cannot agree on the "right book," I most certainly hope that we will agree on the right walk. With this in mind, my friend, I would like to readdress some things you raised.

I had asked about the statistical information provided by you concerning Luke 2:22 (99.5% and such). You responded with:

>>Dr. Holland, it is this kind of question that often causes me to wonder about the investment of time in correspondence with those who start with the belief that the KJV is God's "preserved Word for the English speaking people." I would think that it would be painfully obvious that 99.5 and 99.8 are simply ways of saying "vast majority" and nothing more. Neither are meant to be taken as specific, exact measurements.<<

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.

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. 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). 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." This clearly leaves the impression that there were no readings, anywhere, which read "of her" before the date given. And, we know, that this simply is not accurate since the reading can be found in the 3rd century onward in the Latin manuscripts, and in the 2nd century on in the Old Syrian and Copic Versions.

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.

You comment:
>>I believe I have already disputed your use of Irenaeus---I do not recall if you responded to that post, or what your response was. As to the others, they are listed by the NA text and are available to anyone who wishes to look. I was speaking of the Greek manuscript tradition, period.<<

Yes, you did dispute this in your first letter to me concerning Luke 2 back in September of this year. I responded, so that you may recall, by suggesting that Irenaeus was not a good source since he does not use the Latin "eius" as the Latin manuscripts do. He does, nonetheless, use "purgationis," which is the feminine genitive singular of "purgatio." Thus one could translate it "of her" or without the "of her" (Latin, as Greek, allows for the adjective to be used as a noun). To your favor, this point is 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."

Concerning the conjectural emendation, I cited Metzger's definition which would exclude Luke 2:22 from being such. You had stated that many considered Luke 2:22 in the Greek to be a conjectural emendation by Beza. I had asked for any source and still have not seen one. You had written to me, "and most feel that this is actually a conjectural emendation made by Beza as he wouldn't have known of minuscule 76." (Dated 95-08-21 22:09:17 EDT). If you know who any of these "most" are, I would certainly like to have the reference.

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).

[Letter edited: The information which followed concerned the Cum Privilegio and not Luke 2:22. The edited informatin on the Cum Privilegio is located in that debate.]

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland
Psalm 118:8

On to Seventh Letter
Or
Back to Debate Page