Hey there student,
Originally Posted by student1
I read every word very carefully. Bullinger made exactly the same error as Martin. He merely ASSERTED that the Vulgate order was due to the "arbitrary judgment of one man." Neither Martin nor Bullinger provided any EVIDENCE to support their assertions, and they IGNORED the evidence that the order used in the Vulgate already existed before Jerome was born.
The question is NOT whether the manuscript order usually had the catholic epistles first - that is a fact of history. But another FACT is that the manuscript orders have a HUGE number of variations. Here is what a real scholar who analyzed pretty much everything factually known about the "orginal manuscript order" has to about it (from article 27 of The Canon Debate by Daryl Schmidt):
The variety of actual arrangements is quite surprising, and rarely mentioned by current textual critics. After noting that the sequence varies within each group [Gospels, Acts+Catholic, Paul, Rev], the Alands state: "The only characteristic common to the whole manuscript tradition ... is that the Gospels stand at the beginning and Revelation at the end" with "all variations of sequence to occur" in the middle sections. As we will see, even these characteristics vary.Martin's assertions are completely untenable given the actual factual knowledge we have of the manuscript order.
And there is another fundamental fact that Martin ignored. Do you have any idea of the age of the oldest complete manuscript from which we can determine the order? I hope you are sitting down: the oldest manuscript is very recent (in terms relevent to our dicussion). Here is what Schmidt wrote:
The earliest two "complete New Testament" codices on our list, ninth/tenth century and tenth/eleventh century, are both pecular in having the Pauline Epistles last. ... The next oldest codex (175) is a Vatican manuscript that has never been cited in any critical edition of a printed Greek New Testament and apparently never carefully studied. It has the unique distinction of being the only codex with Revelation located between Acts and the Catholic Epistles.
Schmidt went on to document the extremely wide set of variations amongst the existing ancient Greek codices. His conclusion, based on solid scholarship with a huge amount of real evidence directly contradicts Martin's assertions. Schmidt concludes that there probably never was an "original order" of the Greek manuscripts, and that the order Martin selected was probably established ...
possibly in the eleventh or twelfth century, but apparently did not become at all widespread before the thirteenth, if surviving manuscripts are a reliable indication. Even then, the Athanasian sequence [followed by Martin] had not become fixed [as the order of the Greek manuscripts].In contast with the very late date of the Greek manuscripts with many many variations from which Martin based his thesis, we have many witnesses from the fifth century and before that support the Christian order. Of course, there are also witnesses that support Martin's order. Thus, if you want to claim that one is the "original" then you need to provide evidence. Martin never did that, and so his entire house of cards has fallen to the ground.
It's not the number of quotes that matters, it is the quality of those quotes and how well they represent the scholastic concensus, and more importantly, whether they contain any EVIDENCE or are merely a statement of someones UNSUPPORTED OPINION. Neither of the quotes that Martin cited contain any evidence whatsoever for his assertions. My criticism that he failed to support his assertions with evidence stands.
Originally Posted by student1
And let's look at the works that Martin cited in chapter 1:
Look at that! Almost all citations are from very old sholarship dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. He seemed to avoid modern research like the plague it was to his false assertions. Here are the stats for the scholars that he cited:
- 1 F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., vol. 1 (London, 1894), p. 72.
- 2 It ought to be stated that the word 'Catholic' in Scrivener’s statement does not refer to any Christian denomination. It only signifies that the epistles in content are reckoned by scholars as being 'Universal' or 'General,' which is what the word 'Catholic' means.
- 3 James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible Dealing, vol. 1 (New York: Scribener, 1911–12), p. 360.
- 4 John M'Clintock and James Strong, eds., Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York, Arno Press, 1969 [original 1871–1881 ed.]).
- 5 Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., corr. and enl. Edition, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, ), p. 253.
- 6 Horne, Introduction, vol. IV, p. 253.
- 7 James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (T&T Clark Ltd, 1981), p. 13.
- 8 'Synod of Laodicea,' Canon LX, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], 2nd Series, vol. XIV, p. 159.
- 9 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, First Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, §36, 'Of the Divine Scriptures,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VII.
- 10 Nathaniel Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. V (London, 1788), p. 147.
- 11 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 14.
- 12 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, pp. 89, 154–155.
- 13 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 437–438
- 14 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 483–484.
- 15 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p. 487.
- 16 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p.586)
- 17 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, p. 76.
- 18 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 292–293.
- 19 New York: Harper, 1882.
- 20 Ivan Panin, ed., The New Testament from the Greek Text as Established by Bible Numerics, 2nd ed. (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Bible Numerics, 1935).
- 21 Jerome, 'Preface to Daniel,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 493.
- 22 Jerome, 'Preface to Samuel and Kings,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 489.
- 23 Westcott & Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 320–321.
- 24 Caspar Renee Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), pp. 467–469.
1788 - 8 citations
1807 - 2
1881 - 1
1882 - 1
1894 - 1
1912 - 1
1924 - 1
1935 - 1
1981 - 2
Martin cited only one contemporary scholar, and only four that wrote in the twentieth century! A weighted average gives the average "age" of his scholastic sources as 1850 AD. In other words, most of Martin's citations were written by people who were ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT of everything learned in the twentieth century concerning the origin of the New Testament.
You still don't understand. Neither the Jewish Tanakh nor Martin's order of the NT are in and of themselves a "hybrid." I was talking about his comination of those two items into a single book called "The Restored Bible." It is that combination that is the "hybrid" formed by combining the two pieces. It is absolutely meaningless to assert that a single thing not mixed with anything else is a "hybrid." My point stands.
Originally Posted by student1