Featured A better English Bible.

Not at John 13:2 it is not. It agrees with the Byzantine Text at John 13:2. The proof is in the apparatus I gave.

We know that is not true, because p66 is not usually Byzantine Text but is to different. Sometimes its Alexandrian. Sometimes it's Byzantine. Sometimes it's independent and disagrees with both.

WE know that is not true. If it were it would have been Byzantine Text throughout. But it is only sometimes Byzantine, not enough to be of the Text type. It is usually described as Alexandrian, but corrected with Byzantine corrections before it left the scriptorium by the corrector.

I clearly printed the apparatus of a Greek Text with supporting witnesses for genomenou and for ginomenou. P66, virtually all independents and the byzantine Text agreed against a tiny hand full of manuscripts at John 13:2. I listed it out for you.
In other words, p66, along with virtually all Greek Manuscripts (way over a 1000) read genomenou, and a tiny amount (10) read ginomenou.

There are no Greek scholars claiming p66 reads ginomenou at John 13:2. All of them know that p66 reads genomenou at John 13:2.

 

Scribal habits in early Greek New Testament papyri : Royse, James Ronald : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


In textual criticism, the 'scribal habits' in a manuscript (tendencies to make various sorts of changes) must be known in order to evaluate its testimony. Colwell analyzed the scribal habits in P45, P66, and P75, by examining their singular readings. This book expands on Colwell's work by studying P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75, the six most extensive early New Testament manuscripts. All the singular readings in these papyri are studied along with all the corrections. The results, which incorporate many revised readings of these papyri, make possible the more precise use of these papyri in textual criticism. Among the important discoveries is that the general tendency of these early scribes was to omit rather than to add

 

I see how you continue to claim that the text from the 400's was copied by the text from 1-200's. Amazing how that happened, time machine i would guess.

You point to the number of Byzantine copies as if they are to be believed over the oldest manuscripts. A mistake copied 100 times is still a mistake.

I will trust the bible scholars that disagree with what you and 37 are claiming is the correct translation of John 13:2.

 

I have claimed no such thing. You are the one suggesting this because you don't understand How Greek Manuscripts were made, copied or came to be.

A more accurate description would be 1500 independent witnesses verses 10 independent witnesses. Since virtually none of our manuscripts are copies of one another. What maybe less than 10 were copied from each other.

I made no claim to the correct translation. You may well be correct there. BUT what we have been talking about was what the oldest manuscript, p66 read. It agrees with the Byzantine Text, not Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the Alexandrian Text) and a mere 8 other Greek Manuscripts said verses well over 1500 Greek manuscripts, not all of the Byzantine. All the independent manuscripts as well. This is a separate issue than translation. There are two issues. Text and translation. I nave been talking text. You apparently translation.

 

You have made some funny comments before but to say that you have 1500 independent witnesses really is pushing the boundaries of logic. Do you think each manuscript was divinely inspired. You seem to think some copied a 400's text into a 1-200's text when the 400's text did not even exist yet. But even then the translation that you say is correct is wrong.

The KJV & NKJV which come from the TR both have supper G1173 being ended G1096 even though the TR has Supper G1173 N-GSN γενομένου, Taking Place, G1096


We also see this in
(ABPs+) AndG2532 supperG1173 taking place,G1096

(Alford+) καὶG2532 δείπνουG1173 γενομένου,G1096

(BSB 1.2) The evening meal was underway,

(NASB 95) During supper,

(NET+) The evening mealN4 was in progress

(NRSV) ...And during supper

(UASV+) During supper,

We could go over this until the cows come home and you are going to hold to your view and I will disagree with your view.

 

It's called textual criticism. We have over 5,000 plus Greek Manuscripts. A few of the whole New Testaments. Most of them divided into sections. The 4 Gospels. The Letters of Paul. Acts + the General Letters. Revelation. Some of them only a few verses.
P66 only has
John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist.

They are handwritten copies of The New Testament. God's word.

Come on. You can't figure it out. When the scribe of p66 copied his manuscript the word genomenou was in his earlier made copy text. When someone from the 400's copied their text from an earlier made text genomenou was there. They both copied what was in their text. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Yes I can figure out that you need everyone to trust that the Byzantine text is the only true text. The fact it is a much later text is of no concern to you. You ignore the early texts that disagree with your view.

As I said to @Conan we could go over this until the cows come home and you will still hold to your view and I will disagree with that view. And so do all the scholars that I posted.

 

You don't even know what it is.

If it is really a later Text why did it agree with p66, the earliest substantial manuscript of John?

We did not ignore p66. P66 is the earliest substantial manuscript of John!

 

Here is where the major difference come in to play, it is how we view the translation criteria. You and @Conan put more weight on numbers and I put more on date, location etc. If you are happy with the late date so be it.

Methods used to translate the Bible
There are generally three methods used by modern-day translators when choosing the ancient texts to use during translation – Majority Text, Textus Receptus, and Eclectic Text or Critical Text.


Majority Text
The Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine and Ecclesiastical Text, can be thought of as a democratic vote on the best translation. The Majority Text considers all known manuscripts. Each is given an equal weight and thus, the “majority rules”. For instance, if a phrase reads “X” in 100 manuscripts and “Y” in only 50, “X” is considered the acceptable translation.

The problem with this method is that equal weight is given to later manuscripts, manuscripts we would expect to have more errors because they are copied from earlier versions. The second problem with Majority Text is that the location of the manuscripts is not taken into consideration.

Textus Receptus
The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text and is the method used to translate the King One of the 12 disciples. James may refer to James the Elder or James the Younger, both disciples of Jesus.<br />James the Elder was the brother of John the Apostle and son of Zebedee and Salome. He was a fisherman when Jesus called him to service. James the Elder was beheaded by Herod in 44 AD. His name always appears alongside his brother John hinting that they were inseparable.<br />James the Younger (or James the Lesser) was the brother of Apostle Jude. He was the son of Alpheus, or Cleophas and Mary.
" data-gt-translate-attributes="[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]" tabindex="0" role="link">James Version and the New King James Version. The Textus Receptus was compiled in the 16th century by a man named Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts (eastern church manuscripts) to create the Textus Receptus.

It is important to note that Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them Eastern, and all dating to around 12th century AD. Erasmus did not have access to all Greek manuscripts and thus, his interpretation efforts were limited.

Eclectic Text or Critical Text
Eclectic Text (or Critical Text) considers a variety of manuscript factors such as age, location, difficulty of the reading, and so on in order to determine which variant explains the origin of other variants. Each of these factors is given a weight when making translation decisions. It is the most complex translation process and except for the King James Version and the New King James Version, all modern-day English translations are based on the Eclectic Text.

 

They were written closer to the event.

 

Your source lied to you about methods of the Byzantine Text. It is also (just so you know) wrong as there are at least 4 translations maybe 5 that use the Byzantine Text type. Just so that you know. Also Byzantine Manuscripts are found all over the Mediterranean area. Greece, Italy , Spain, Jerusalem, St Cathrine’s at the Sinai.

 

When you claim that text scholars have lied then you have lost your case. Your bias is clearly in view.

Byzantine text is a late text and you just can not accept that fact.

Further discussion is of no point. You have a closed mind. Have a good day.

 

An error that is copied 100 times is still an error.

Having a discussion on the merits of one line over the other is interesting but in the end we can trust the text that we have in our hands. The logic expressed in the video actually points to a major flaw in the Byzantine is better idea. In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John's Gospel – P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11), Philip Comfort and David Barrett. Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.) p. 376.

It is apparent that the author of the video places more weight on numbers than on age. He refers to some of the early church fathers as using Byzantine text as with Jerome but then says none of the Byzantine texts now exist. It is more likely that the text was Alexandrian and was later copied into Byzantine manuscripts by the Byzantine scribes.

 

You are giving false witness. It was not a textual scholar that wrote your piece. That is a lie. I have read Textual Scholars. Your article was by an unknowledgeable person. So I called no textual scholar a liar. I said the author of your piece, because of his ignorance lied to you. That was no textual scholar.