Featured Textual Criticism.

We can be fully confident that regardless of the Greek text preferred to use today, we have the word of the Lord to us in Koine Greek, and any English translation rightly made off any of them is also English word of the Lord!

 

I would like to know that. Are you suggesting that manuscripts are missing the word Ιερουσαλήμ?

Which manuscript has the first variant listed?
Also, not sure what you are saying about sinatiticus....what does your [/B] mean? 01 does not say "from" (εξ). It says εις (in, into, towards).



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Actually, I don't know of any scholar who argues that it should read to Antioch. There are other solutions to the problem but changing it to straight "to Antioch" is not one of them.

We know from the context of the passage that they were going to Antioch. But we also have early manuscripts that say "to Jerusalem" which, obviously, does not make sense.

There are grammatical construct solutions as well as cultural solutions but in no way was the original likely "to Antioch" and I would love to know how in the world you came up with that idea.

 

Exactly, he doesn't cite anything.

 

According to CBGM, there are 8 variants found in Acts 12:25. None of which read just "εις αντιοχειαν". They are as follows...

• a υπεστρεψαν εις ιερουσαλημ
  
  • A. 01. 03. 014. 020. 025. 049. 0142. 1. 5. 6. 35. 43. 61. 81. 88. 93. 218. 254. 319. 321. 326. 330. 365. 378. 383. 398. 467.468. 607. 617. 629. 665. 808. 915. 1241. 1243. 1359. 1409. 1448. 1501. 1505. 1563. 1609. 1642. 1718. 1729. 1735. 1837. 1842. 1852. 1874. 2147. 2243. 2495. 2652.L23. L60. L156. L1188. L1825.
• b υπεστρεψαν εξ ιερουσαλημ
  
  • P74. 02. 33. 459. 2344.
• c υπεστρεψαν απο ιερουσαλημ
  
  • 044. 18. 94. 180. 181. 307. 424. 431. 436. 441. 453. 610. 614. 619. 621. 623. 1127. 1162. 1270. 1292. 1297. 1595. 1611.1678. 1827. 1890. 2138. 2374. 2718. 2805. 2818. L587. L809.
• d υπεστρεψεν απο ιερουσαλημ
  
  • 
    2412.
• e απεστρεψεν απο ιερουσαλημ
  
  • 
    05.
• f υπεστρεψαν εξ ιερουσαλημ εις αντιοχειαν
  
  • 103. 104. 206. 429. 522. 630. 636. 876. 945. 1003. 1251. 1490. 1509. 1704. 1739. 1831. 1832. 1838.1891. 2200. 2298. L2010.
• g υπεστρεψεν εξ ιερουσαλημ εις αντιοχεια
  
  • 
    1751.
• h υπεστρεψαν απο ιερουσαλημ εις αντιοχειαν
  
  • 08. 228. 323. 996. 1175. 1875. 1884. 2774. L1178.

 

Exactly

 

37818
My question here is about the bracketed back slash B beside sinatiticus. If I type it on my phone like you have it, it disappears when I post it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

It would be nice to see his manuscript list. The only reading I can find in CBGM for family 35 is
"υπεστρεψαν απο ιερουσαλημ", which is from manuscript 18.

I will look tomorrow in greater detail for further readings.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Pickering recommended changing family Kr to f35 after minuscule 35 saying that "Minuscule 35 contains the whole NT and reflects Kr throughout".

35 says "a υπεστρεψαν εις ιερουσαλημ" here.
Minuscule 18 is other one Pickering is high on, but he says it departs from the tradition in Revelation. I posted 18's reading above.

I am not sure why Pickering would not go with one of what seems to be his 2 favorite minuscules of this family....

Does Pickering have it listed in the text or as a footnote?


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I seen his book and I seen I can buy his GNT on Amazon. I will have a look for the pdf. I never ran across it, but I wasn't looking for a pdf

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, the writer notes what I have.

"He notes that his edition relies on the “segment” known as Family 35 (f35), “because cursive 35 is the complete New Testament, faithful to the family archetype, with the smallest number” (i). Manuscript 18 would be the family name, but it “defects from the family in Revelation.”

However, neither of these 2 read like Pickering's GNT in Acts 12:25. I have yet to run across a manuscript from antiquity that reads like Pickering's GNT. He says some do, but I do not see him cite one. JoJ is much more familiar with the Byzantine families than I am, maybe he will swing by and enlighten us. This is one of the moments TCassidy and his Byzantine knowledge is missed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Pickering is a strange animal. He will speak of how family 35 is where the autographs are preserved, yet he only uses 31 of the 221 manuscripts. He also doesn't seem to be straight forward with what manuscript days what. Maybe he wants us to buy the book

Anywho, Pickering's presuppositional stance on the f35 gives me concern. In an exchange between Maurice Robinson, Pickering once said,

"The Original Text is the ultimate archetype; any candidate must also be an archetype—a real, honest to goodness, objectively verifiable archetype; there is only one—Family 35. I affirm that God used Family 35 to preserve the precise original wording of the New Testament Text; it is reproduced in my edition of the Greek Text. I affirm that God has preserved the precise original wording of the New Testament, and that we can, and do, know what it is. It is reproduced precisely in my edition of the Greek New Testament.”

The guy says he has reproduced the autographs of the NT. Seems arrogant to me. Yet has he himself points out, there is 7 variants in Acts 12:25 in f35 alone. Not counting other manuscripts outside of this family. So he seems to believe he has been granted special insight to decide what the autographs read.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

That's correct, Dave.

I see no reason to update the TR, and the only reason to update the AV is to replace what are now obscure words, with words that are more commonly used.
As for Burgon seeing the need to update and revise both of them, I think you may wish to go back and re-read his conclusions.

I believe that I have the actual words of God in my own language when I read the "KJV".
I see no need to "re-invent the wheel"...which is what Textual Criticism is all about.

To use an analogy, trying to continually come up with a recipe for bread that "tastes better" when the basic ingredients stay unchanged, is only going to put ones' self on a merry-go-round that never ends... and each loaf of bread that comes out is a pointless experiment in baking that need not ever have been started, IMO.

In my opinion, the only reason people want different breads is because they're not happy with the taste.



From my perspective, too many people on this forum have bought into the idea that the Bible needs revision...
It doesn't.
But for the sake of people who think that it does, I have this question:
Where does it end?
When men stop finding manuscripts?

As far as I am aware, there's been nothing new recently... and Bible translators are still using revisions of something that continue to rely on the CT, which is a snapshot of basically 1-2% of all the existing pieces.

Why?
Why purposely use something that is pretty much built on two major manuscripts that don't even agree with each other in several thousand places?
To me, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus constitute the worst foundation a translation committee could ever rely on.


A better question, IMO, is this:
Why continue to use two Catholic manuscripts, one of which was in the process of being discarded, as the basic foundation for NA / UBS?

I've asked this repeatedly, and no one can seem to answer me straightly on it.



All these ( and many more ) need to be answered by those who think Textual Criticism is necessary, in order to get me to agree with them.
Otherwise, I'm not getting on the train.
I'll let you guys ride it, since the destination will never be arrived at.

With respect, I'm already sitting at my intended destination ( the actual words of the living God in my own language), and I got there a long time ago.