New Interview with Dr. Robinson

[Martin Marprelate]

That's because of the Westcott/Hort presupposition that the Alexandrian was superior. Putting the Byzantine above the Alexandrian is based to some extent on the proven canon that the shorter reading is, in fact, not the best.

I'm in full agreement with you, and have long argued that the idea that the shorter reading must be correct is slightly bonkers, but may I ask you for any 'proof' you have that this is indeed the case?

 

[John of Japan]

I'm in full agreement with you, and have long argued that the idea that the shorter reading must be correct is slightly bonkers, but may I ask you for any 'proof' you have that this is indeed the case?

See:
1. Dr. Maurice Robinson's dissertation;
2. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the NT, by Ernest Colwell, ch. VIII, "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits";
3. My own experience as a translator--I always leave stuff out accidentally, never add anything.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think about it. Which textform is more likely to represent the original"

One that has been in constant use in churches for 1500 years (that we know of) or one that never existed until 1850 and after?

Except that those varients/texts were being used back in time of the early church though...

And that same reasoning could also be used to discredit all Dispy theology, as that only originated from about that same time frame onward, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

That's because of the Westcott/Hort presupposition that the Alexandrian was superior. Putting the Byzantine above the Alexandrian is based to some extent on the proven canon that the shorter reading is, in fact, not the best.

Not all the time, as think even the editors of the Critical tect do acknowledge that fact, but would also say that the CT is closer to original than Majority text would be more of the time...

Good thing is that BOTH of them are reliable/close enough to be considered the word of god to us for today!

 

[TCassidy]

Except that those varients/texts were being used back in time of the early church though...

No. The Critical Text did not exist until the eclectic methodology of modern textual criticism produced it sometime after about 1850. Another term for the Byzantine Textform is the "Traditional Text." It is called that for a reason. It is the textform that was traditionally used for centuries by the churches, and is still used, exclusively, by the Greek speaking church.

And that same reasoning could also be used to discredit all Dispy theology, as that only originated from about that same time frame onward, correct?

One of the reasons I am an Historic Chilliast, and not a Classic/Darby Dispensationalist.

 

[John of Japan]

Not all the time, as think even the editors of the Critical tect do acknowledge that fact, but would also say that the CT is closer to original than Majority text would be more of the time...

Actually, this is still a canon of eclectic textual criticism, so they don't really yet acknowledge the fact.

Good thing is that BOTH of them are reliable/close enough to be considered the word of god to us for today!

Agreed, as long as you capitalize "God."

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, this is still a canon of eclectic textual criticism, so they don't really yet acknowledge the fact.

Agreed, as long as you capitalize "God."

Didn't the latest NA28 though include for some of their additional variatreadindsth Bzt ones?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. The Critical Text did not exist until the eclectic methodology of modern textual criticism produced it sometime after about 1850. Another term for the Byzantine Textform is the "Traditional Text." It is called that for a reason. It is the textform that was traditionally used for centuries by the churches, and is still used, exclusively, by the Greek speaking church.

One of the reasons I am an Historic Chilliast, and not a Classic/Darby Dispensationalist.

Actually, there were uses of it even maong the fist 3 centuries of te Churc though...
Bits and pieces.....

 

[TCassidy]

Actually, there were uses of it even maong the fist 3 centuries of te Churc though...
Bits and pieces.....

<Sigh> And how did a text that took a word from one manuscript and a word from another manuscript and a third word from another manuscript and put them all together in 1850 and following, exist 1500 years before those words were put together to form that text?

Yeshua1, I fear the problem is that you don't understand the difference between a text and a manuscript and have confused the two. Eclecticism in bible texts existed only from the mid 19th century.

 

[Yeshua1]

<Sigh> And how did a text that took a word from one manuscript and a word from another manuscript and a third word from another manuscript and put them all together in 1850 and following, exist 1500 years before those words were put together to form that text?

Yeshua1, I fear the problem is that you don't understand the difference between a text and a manuscript and have confused the two. Eclecticism in bible texts existed only from the mid 19th century.

You are right , as I was thinking of the manuscripts and variants from early on, not the actual Greek yexts such as Wescott and Hort!

 

[John of Japan]

Didn't the latest NA28 though include for some of their additional variatreadindsth Bzt ones?

Like where? Metzger's commentary is very sparse on such readings. Variant readings in the apparatus, perhaps. In the text? No.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Luke 6:1 has the second Sabbath after the first. Does that refer to the second one in a month, or to the third, the second one after the first, which would be the third. Matthew 12:1, and Mark 2:23 refer to a or the Sabbath. It certainly seems more likely that the odd-ball designation was omitted by accident or by intention, than someone would add it to make it read different from the parallel passages. So why did the doctrine of the more difficult reading not put the designation in the CT?

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%203,%201,%202,%203.Pentecost.pdf pp 193,194

7.3.2.2.3.1. “Second Sabbath After the First” Notwithstanding various attempts of scholars to explain, others’ admittance of being perplexed, and textual variants, one is compelled to interpret Luke’s expression “on the second Sabbath after the first” – deuteroprohtohi – differently. Nestle omits the term. Usual explanations rest on the assumption of a ceremonial Sabbath being the point of reference. Deuteroprohtos / -n, is “an epithet of uncertain meaning, but probably appropriated to the Sabbath following the first day of unleavened bread”, says Wigram. “Already from ancient times many have admitted to be at wit’s end with it”, says Bauer. The basis of the argument that Jesus offered his rest on a Sabbath should be concluded from the expression deuteroprohtohi’s contextual and historic joint. Matthew records the events – Jesus’ teaching and healing – of the second Sabbath after the Sabbath in Nazareth – see Table Par. 7.3.2.1.2. Epiphanius’ description of the expression in Luke 6:1 “Deuteroprohton = deuteron sabbaton meta to prohton – the second Sabbath after the first”, Haeresis 30:32; 51:31. Quoted from Bauer. needs no relevance with any ceremonial feast or ceremonial “sabbath”. It perfectly appropriates the context and historic course of events of Jesus’ early ministry without relation to a ceremonial sabbath. Luke introduces his account of Christ’s ministry in chapter 4 with the Sabbath episode in the Nazareth Synagogue, in Jesus’ “own country (“father’s” town)”, verse 16. Then Jesus was “thrust out of the city … and came down to Capernaum a city of Galilee”, verses 29 to 31. This must have been the development that Matthew 11:1 describes as Christ’s “departing to their cities”. The four Gospels regard this chronology of events as the beginning of Jesus’ miracles which He did in Galilee. John describes the two very first but incidental miracles, both in Cana in Galilee. The Synoptists deal with the beginning of Jesus’ formal ministry after John had been imprisoned and the voice of the one who had prepared the way for the One who was greater, was silenced. Matthew mentions Christ’s first Capernaum experience when He healed Simon’s mother in law without reference to the fact that the day was a Sabbath. But the other Synoptists tell of Jesus having arrived in “Capernaum a city in Galilee” then. He “taught on the Sabbath … in the

194

Synagogue”. Jesus on this occasion healed a man with “an unclean devil”, says Lk.4:31-37. “And he arose out of the synagogue and entered Simon’s house”, verse 38. That was Jesus’ “first Sabbath” spent “preaching to their cities”! Two weeks followed, chapter 5, Lake of Genesareth verse 2 Night at sea fishing 5 Healing leper, multitudes gathered 12 Withdrew to wilderness 16 Certain days, healing of man with palsy 18-26 After these things, calling of Levi 29-39 Second Sabbath after the first, Jesus went through corn fields, 6:1