Textual Criticism?

They (it) should not be disallowed a priori, nor should they (it) be assumed a priori.

One must make a case, and the moment that begins, textual criticism ensues.

 

Let me get this straight ‘37.
A simple Yes or No is sufficient to answer.

Are you saying that the evidence that Family 35 texts are the perfect ‘original autograph’ is the collation of Family 35 manuscripts?

Rob

 

But since you have no proof that it is in fact equal to the autographs it is only speculation on you part. Which is what I have been saying.

Your asking us to believe that F35 is the best rendering of the autographs because the best rendering of the autographs is F35. Circular logic they 37

 

@37818 read this article and understand what it says. F35 may be very accurate within it's family but it is not perfect as you seem to think it is.

Family 35 could be described as a manuscript-cluster, having essentially the Byzantine Text but with enough shared readings to set its members apart from other Byzantine manuscript-groups. (For a brief description of Byzantine sub-groups see Robert Waltz’s description of the Claremont Profile Method.) Do its members agree with each other more closely than B and À? More closely than A and 2474?
To find out, I compared the text of Luke 19:1-27 in GA 155 and GA 691 (two members of family 35 – GA 155 is at the Vatican Library, catalogued as Reg. Gr. 79, and GA 691 is at the British Library, catalogued as Additional MS 22739). I compared their online page-views to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, using the same ground-rules I used for À, B, A, and 2474 (that is, setting aside trivial orthographic variations, not counting contractions as errors, and ignoring most itacisms).
Due to the remarkable uniformity of the text in these two manuscripts, instead of providing a verse-by-verse list of their disagreements with each other, it seems better to just state the differences:

Differences between GA 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27:

1-15 – no differences
16 – 691 reads επραγματεύσατο instead of διεπραγματεύσατο (-2)
17 – no differences
18 – 692 reads μνας instead of μνα before σου (+1)
19-22 – no differences
23 – 691 reads την before τράπεζαν (+3)
Verses 24-27 – no differences

(Both 155 and 691 disagree with RP2005 in verse 15 by not including και, and both MSS read συκομοραίαν instead of RP2005’s συκομωραίαν in verse 4.)
The total amount of disagreement between 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27 thus consists of three disagreements, involving six letters.
I am confident that 155 and 691 display a similarly remarkable level of agreement in Luke 19:28-48.
In Luke 19:1-27, there is obviously a stark difference between the degree of disagreement between two representatives of the Alexandrian Text (20 differences, involving 49 letters), and two relatively early members of the Byzantine Text (14 differences, involving 69 letters), and two members of family 35 (three disagreements, involving six letters).
Unless 155 and 691 are somehow exceptional, it appears that the copyists of the manuscripts in family 35 transcribed with a level of precision and uniformity which was on a whole other level compared to the scribes in the other manuscript-groups. It may be the case that “No two manuscripts agree exactly,” due to trivial differences, but the agreement-rate for members of family 35 appears to be phenomenally higher than the agreement-rate among members of any other major manuscript-group. Whether the copyists of the over 220 manuscripts that represent were physically isolated from exemplars representing other forms of the text, or were intentionally selective about which exemplars to use, they perpetuated the text with remarkably uniformity. So we can say, when asking if Byzantine manuscripts have less disagreements that other forms of the text: not necessarily in early settings where the use of diverse exemplars elicited mixture, but in the Byzantine sub-group known as family 35, yes; those Byzantine MSS have far fewer disagreements. The Text of the Gospels: Do Byzantine MSS Have Less Disagreements? (Part 3)

Posted by James Snapp Jr

 

The Internet, where we solve all of or Textual Criticism issues.

 

You hold to the idea that the F35 is inerrant as it reproduces the autographs which the article shows they do not. That is all one has to show to prove your theory is wrong.

As I have said and now have shown you the bible we have are not inerrant but they are accurate. As scripture says:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Do you not believe this?

 

Correct, that is the claim but it is not the fact.

 

So you are comparing Byzantine text to Byzantine text to show us what? You still do not have the inerrant text that reproduces the autographs.

Actually I am glad we do not have the autographs as we would have people worshiping them just as the Jews worshiped the bronze snake and the golden calf.

 

What kind of logic is that? You may as well have said, IF the claim is false then it is only false to the degree that it is false. But something is only true or false it can not be both at the same time.

"Family 35 is itself its own evidence. The original autographs were perfect. Collation of Family 35 recovers the texts of the autographs." Your post # 53
So are you making the claim that F35 recovered the autograph text or only part of the autographs?

 

Family 35, Pierpont & Robinson, Hodges & Farstad are the most accurate Greek Testaments that we have by far. Then comes editions of the Textus Receptus, then the Critical Texts. The least accurate in existance is Westcott & Hort.

 

So all that to say we have the best text available but we DO NOT have the exact copy of the autographs. We have an accurate bible.

You still dance around the obvious don't you. The F35 produced text is the best of all the F35 texts, which says nothing. You still maintain that the F35 text is the text of the autographs but with no proof, rather just your claim. As you said 10% is in dispute.


.

 

So we see your bias.