Featured The real TR

Mere "readings" do not a text-type make.

Yes, there aren't many examples of the Byzantine text type among early Church Fathers.

There was no "sudden" overwhelming going on. The Byzantine text-type didn't become the majority-text until the 9th century. It developed incrementally.

 

Proof, dear boy! Proof! Even some evidence would be nice, but mere assertions do not persuade me at all. As an unconverted youngster I read books about this stuff as it applied to secular authors, and it didn't persuade me then.

Until you give me hard facts, I go with 95-98% of the extant texts. It makes much more sense.

 

Mr Cassidy,
Should not one sentence in your post read:

John (Dean) Burgon published evidence showing that there was more support for the Byzantine Text among the Early Church Fathers than for the Alexandrian (J.W. Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels). Although his work is obviously somewhat out-of-date now with the discovery of new manuscripts and fragments, Burgon's scholarship is remarkable.

 

Indeed.

Extracts follow:

"The earliest Syriac translation that is Byzantine is the Harclean version of the sixth century."

"...it is significant that the more research is done on the versions and fathers the less they look Byzantine." [He noted that the evidence is overwhelming.]

"...the great mass of evidence found in the last century largely confirms [Hort's] general direction and has certainly done nothing to give comfort to KJV advocates."

 

"In all this material I have found one invariable:A good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions."

"The idea that the majority text of the middle Ages reflected the 'broad stream' of the transmission of the text going back to the autographs is simply a myth." (p.29)

"By the fourth century...there had emerged the trained Christian scribe, whose work was being produced in scriptura. This began in Alexandria, as the Egyptian MSS bear abundant witness, and probably was thoroughgoing after Constantine." (p.29)

 

I'll be quoting from Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss in their book How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth

"[It] is probably the result of the ascetic worldview that emerged in the church in the third and fouth centuries. At this point in the letter Paul has been arguing against the practice of Corinthian men going to prostitutes, which they apparently justified with the belief that what happened in the body did not really affect one's spiritual nature. At the end of his argument, Paul concludes: 'therefore honor God with your bodies' (TNIV). By the fourth century scribes had added: 'and with your spirit, which belongs to God.' It is not that this is untrue; rather it is irrelevant to the present argument, which has to do with men using their bodies for sexually immoral purposes." (p.117)

"Similarly, in John 7:39, John interprets something Jesus had just said in verse 37. John explains that what Jesus said was pointing to the future coming of the spirit. But John concluded with the abbreviated clause, 'for the Spirit was not yet.' since this could be understood to mean that the Spirit did not yet exist, early scribes, besides often adding the word 'Holy' to 'Spirit,' made two independent changes to make sure John was not misunderstood. One set of manuscripts has, 'the Spirit was not yet on them,' while others have, 'the Spirit had not yet been given.' " (pgs.117,118)

 

Once again, no evidence. Just an assertion that these things happened. And if it were as they say, how very strange that a scribal embellishment should become so widespread as to dominate the world of Greek manuscripts so completely.

 

My cliche, as you put it, is rooted in truth. The following is taken from Stanley E. Porter's book How We Got The New Testament

"Harry Sturtz has argued there are Byzantine readings in early papyri; however, this argument does not prove a Byzantine text-type, but only that there are readings in the papyri that are found in Byzantine texts --they are virtually always found in other text-types as well." (pgs.54,55)

 

A single verse doesn't cut it.

"Scattered readings do not a text-form make." Deacon 2/11/2007

 

Sufficient enough to satisfy an open-minded person.

Leave it to the Byzantine tradition.

From Wikipedia I found just a few works from the Alexandrian text-type from a later period.

Codex Regius 8th century
Minuscule 9th century
Minuscule 81 1044 AD
Minuscule 892 9th century

The scribes from the Byzantine tradition heavily-out-produced any scribe of the Alexandrian way.
I was surprised that any Alexandrian works were even made after 642 AD.

 

It's not absolutely clear to me that you are that person. :tongue3:

 

So, if you take issue with what I said, you must believe the reverse.

You must believe that a single verse establishes a text-type.

Or scatted readings establish a text-type.

You have to make your position clear. Right now it's kind of fuzzy.

TC: less sarcasm from you would be appreciated.

 

What Fee and Strauss have said is very credible. I am open-minded enough to accept what they say.