Featured Textual Criticism.

Yes, I am serious. Your over use of the word "common" clouded your intent. The word "common" can mean shared or often occurring. Often occurring does not necessitate a shared origin.

I wanted to know what you meant.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Are you suggesting that is anything more than a spelling error? Or was he just a bad speller and should have put γινομένου?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Uh, The original?

 

Then the rest of the statement is illogical though.

"A common text exists between all the variants. The more common reading among any variant has more in common with the common text between the variants. Think about this truth"

He basically just said the original text is closer to the original text. To say the original reading has more in common with the original text is like saying blue is blue.

Textual criticism now views text = equal to reading. Text does not equal manuscript.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Just because we don't have the originals doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist.

 

Of course they did.

The disconnect was mere terminology. I suspect due to changes in how textual critics speak of manuscripts, texts, etc...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Another recent development which i think will not go over well. Is the abandonment of "text types". The Alexandrian and western text types are no longer recognized to exist. Only the Byzantine text type is still recognized. But it seems that text type has even narrowed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Again the different text types exist whether they are recognized or not or if the lines of demarcation are muddled or not.

 

The lines are blurred quit a bit now. Their is Byzantine text type and everyone else. It is frustrating at times. To relearn vocabulary and let go of the use of text type. But with CBGM being the major driver of textual criticism, it doesn't take long to see why the Alexandrian text type is said not to exist. Even the use of the term text has changed. It doesn't refer to a manuscript. It is always about the reading.

One of the fears that CBGM has brought is a dehistorizing of the text. You now have 11th century manuscript, That is said to have an older text than a 4th century manuscript(I will check dating once I get back to office and update if incorrect--this is ballpark). Which should excite Byzantine priority people. The NA/UBS series will likely become more "Byzantine" in its reading. This is already seen in the NA28. Acts, and the general epistles all took a swing towards Byzantine priority. The vast majority of changes favor the Byzantine text type.

Unfortunately, anything you learned about textual criticism in seminary or college in the last 5 years or more....is now horribly outdated. The use of computers is changing everything and the world of textual criticism is changing fast.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I believe that is also kind of the point I think. They are more concerned with text, than with manuscripts. When processing the the text of the manuscript into a computer and comparing it others....text type quickly becomes irrelevant to a significant degree.

It will be interesting to see how CBGM effects the Gospels. The 5th century or older manuscripts seem to be on a trend of losing "weight".

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Eh, I am old school and will always be - until of course I am in the New Jerusalem - there we have the word of God without variants.

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

I understand that brother!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yes, have a couple of paper and ink publications in my random access library to that end, one of them is because of the early papyri (schwarz?) containing both Byzantine and Alexandrian text types evenly distributed.

 

On Luke 4:4 do you know WHY those words are omitted? This is your problem, you are going with percentages and not reasons for textual decisions.

Let's give this example:

Say I write a letter. There is the original and from the original are made 5 copies. We now only have 2 of those copies left from the original. Since then, there have been hundreds of copies made from a copy that was made from one of those five copies but the person who made that copy changed or added a line to the original letter.

The evidence would show that 90% have the incorrect reading but that does not make it correct to the original.

The point is, you need a better argument than percentages. Not all manuscripts hold equal weight.

 

The nose counting is not as signficant as the "weight" of manuscripts with the shortest reading. When you look at the Greek, there is nothing that would explain an accidental omission, such as a similar word or case ending that causes them to get lost.

However it is easy to see a copyists, who would be following logic similar to yours, lenthening the text to make it match the Septuagint or the reading found in Matthew.

*With that being said. I will be surprised if CBGM does not facilitate the change on the NA to reflect the Byzatine tradition here. Age of manuscripts is becoming less important in the new model. Unless they weight the Syriac and Coptic manuscripts heavily, I think it will change.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

If I understand the CBGM correctly, it doesn't make use of the ancient versions but only the Greek manuscripts. The editors may later give more emphasis to versional data than CBGM results (as in the 2 Peter 3:10 conjecture), but that is an override and not due to CBGM itself, at least so far as I understand.

 

In this example they did translate the Syraic and Coptic variant into Greek and placed it within CBGM. So, yes and no. Did didnt make use of those manuscripts, but they did enter the variant in. I cant understand why, but I am looking at it right now. It is listed as variant "a".

This is the biggest example of the CBGMethod that gives me concern. Not a single Greek has this reading yet CBGM lists it as the most likely original reading.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk