Why Did the Byzantine Monks ADD to the Greek NT?

"(3) Some passages were not included in the parchments, so copyists added to the text as best they could. They often "reverse translated" back from Latin to Greek like Erasmus would later do, making a fictional verse included in Revelation today!"
I have my doubts about this one ever happening in any selfrespecting Byzantine convent. But all the others, absolutely!

 

Dear Dr. Bob,

Your hypothesis has yet to be proven.

In fact, as has been posted here before, papyrus P66 (which pre-dates Aleph and B) has many "conflated" passages which agree with the Byzantine type as evidence to the contrary.

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/received.htm

We are going to have to wait for more historical evidence to show empirically whether the logic of your hypothesis is valid.

Have you published yet?

This would be a good hypothesis.

Until then opinions abound.

HankD

 

Here is a right-sided blurb which contains some data concerning Alexandrinus (and other uncials).

For instance it contains writings which are dated much later than Alexandrinus itself!

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/uncials.htm

HankD

 

Matthew 4
1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil.
2 And having fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards He hungered.
3 And coming near to Him, the Tempter said, If You are the Son of God, speak that these stones may become loaves.
4 But answering, He said, It has been written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every Word going out of the mouth of God." Deut. 8:3

What we can ascertain from the above passage, is that Jesus realized the importance of fasting before entering into a spiritual battle with the adversary. From the Byzantine texts we read this as the words of Jesus:

Matthew 17
20 And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith as a grain of mustard, you will say to this mountain, Move from here to there! And it will move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.

21 But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

Here is what the Alexandrian text is rendered as:

20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."[1]

21 There is no verse listed

How can this be when Jesus stressed the importance of fasting in another key passage? From another verse:

1 Corinthians 7

5 Do not deprive one another, unless by agreement for a time, that you may be free for fasting and prayer. And come together again on the same place, that Satan may not tempt you through your incontinence.

From the TeNaKh [OT]:

A man after God's own heart [1Ki 11:4, Acts 13:22] named David thought it was important:

Psalms 35
13 But in their sickness, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fastings; and my prayer returned to my bosom.

Another man of great faith named Daniel also thought it to be imporant:

Daniel 9
3 And I set my face toward the Lord God, to seek by prayer and holy desires, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.


Many of the renderings from the Alexandrian texts turn a "two edged sword" into a sword with one sharp edge and one dull one. The scriptures prove themselves from cover to cover. I will choose that over the scholarly imagination of men. Just my opinion.

 

Dr Bob stated:

S&T you prove the point. The Eastern Orthodox monks, knowing many verse on fasting, added a commentary to the inspired text. Good stuff. Found elsewhere in the Bible. So stuck it in. Happens with regularity.

Remember it is NOT that the words were DROPPED in the old text; it is that they were ADDED in the modern (Byzantine) text.

S&T:

Now Dr Bob, this is a nice theory, but there is no substantiated proof throughout all of the camps of TC's. So, if God can't preserve His word, then is He a liar? Wouldn't want to be there for that one. Next question. How many texts in the Byzantine family versus the Alexandrian, and wasn't the area that the Alexandrian texts originated from a bastion of gnostic teaching? Just a few of the many questions that are rolling through my inquiring mind.

 

I think not;according to scripture(KJB),Satan's main goal is to call into doubt God's word,and as per scripture(KJB),Satan(and his ilk;knowingly or not) OMITS from God's word(little w);scripture references for this are:Gen 3,Numbers 22:12-13,Luke 4:10..To think that Bibles that come from the protestant texts of the reformation ADD to God's word is not the thinking of a sound mind;people who teach such nonsense are full of baloney..

 

Dr. Bob stated:

But God, of course, DID preserve His Word. We have Greek documents, bits and pieces, copies of copies, old and not-so-old, and we can put together an accurate text.

S&T:

I am sure that God is relieved to know that He has men here who can fix these problems that He did not foresee. How convoluted can this thought process get and what are the possible outcomes? Check out this thread:


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001118;p=1


1 Corinthians 2

4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.


1 Corinthians 3

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it has been written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness." Job 5:13
20 And again, " The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are worthless." MT-Psa. 94:11

 

But S&T, this is exactly what the KJV translators did "put together" what they believed to be an accurate text from various sources.

Then they translated that text.

It is not in the least bit convoluted, that is what they did, plain and simple.

In reality it is the KJVO whose logic is convoluted with double-speak such as "things which are different are not the same" (unless it is the several hundred differences in the several revisions of KJV of the Bible since 1611).

HankD

 

First of all, I am not KJVO. Secondly, I am not ignorant of anything. I have read the TC's opinions from the divided camps for quite a while. There are a lot of theories, much speculation, and in all of this it seems that some of the translations are getting worse, not better. Read the message thread for further explanation.

 

the thread topic was:

Why Did the Byzantine Monks ADD to the Greek NT?

S&T:

I am currently reading "Unholy hands on the bible" .
Mr. Burgon has some interesting points. TC is an interesting science.

 

I'm especially annoyed by all those verses they added denouncing the pope....

 

Ya know, Arch, I get quite tickled at that Goliath thing. The KJVOs act as if the only person possibly named Goliath in the great city of Gath was the nine-footer whom David rocked to sleep. Doubtlessly, he was very famous among the Gittites(name for the citizens of Gath) as well as among the other Philistines. There was probably more than one baby boy named after him long before he died. And he well could've been the father of a Goliath, Jr.

The battle described in 2 Samuel 21 took place YEARS after David had killed the first known Goliath. All four of the giants killed in these battles in the latter years of David's life were said to have been born of the giant in Gath. That giant father could well have been the Goliath slain by David maybe 30 years earlier, and the Goliath slain by Elhanan could well have been Goliath Jr.

I reckon the time that elapsed between David's use of his sling & the battle at Gob is unimportant to the Onlyist view, as is the fact that there's no reason to believe the Goliath slain by David was the only man named Goliath who ever lived in Gath, which was no small city.