Alexandrian corruptions

My point is that one should not just write off the Alexandrian witness since it is among the earliest witnesses to the original text.

You have picked some excellent examples.
After reading your well-written response I looked at Matthew 5:44 more closely and realized its textual history was a bit too complicated for a posting board (or for me) to deal with.
It was a poor example.

Let’s look at your second example (1 Corinthians 15:51) then I will offer a second verse.

Again, I’m not familiar with the error in the text you mentioned.
But no defense is offered.
Can the variant be found in any other document?

This particular variant highlights the hurdles encountered when comparing a single text of any tradition to a mature textual tradition of another.
I think you may have cheated, picking an example that was corrected within the very text where it occurred; someone (at an unknown time) caught and corrected the error.

We might guess that the scribe had a rough night before sitting down with the manuscript he was copying.
Who knows?

Now for the second part:

What HankD wrote in the current thread:”Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?” applies very well here.

The Byzantine textform has evolved over time too.
Reacting to perceived weakness, scribes inserted text to strengthen orthodox doctrine. So of course the majority text is without error!
BUT IS IT ORIGINAL???

You are counting the numbers of the later documents (where scribes manipulated and changed the text over vast periods of time) when earlier versions should display a text closest to the original?
Find an early Byzantine exemplar!

You write, “I do not know for sure any place in the NT where an overwhelming majority of the Byzantines are definitely corrupt”?.
Why is this true?
Because both of these are true:

1) The original text was without error.
2) Where there was a perceived fault, in the original text, it was manipulated (changed, altered, corrupted) to deal with the supposed weakness.

Case in point: Mark 1:2

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Mark 1:2 quotes from both Malachi and Isaiah.

Perceived problem: Mark doesn’t acknowledge his quote from Malachi.
Scribes would want to correct this deficiency.

Both parallels in the gospels of Matthew (3:3) and Luke (3:4) use Isaiah’s name.


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

“Isaiah” – Modern text
Alex: ‭א B L Δ 33 892 1241 1243 2427 cop[sa] cop[bo] NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM WH
Alex/Cæs: Origen[1/4] Origen[lat]
Alex/Byz: 892
Cæs: 22 565 205 1071 f1 arm geo
Cæs/Byz: 700
West: D Augustine Ambrosiaster (Chromatius) (Jerome) Irenaeus[gr] (Victorinus-Pettau) vg Irenaeus[lat1/3]
Byz: Θ 372 2174 2737 pc l[253] Basil Epiphanius Hesychius Serapion Severian Titus-Bostra Victor-Antioch syr[p] syr[pal] syr[h(mg)] goth


“the prophets” - Majority text
Alex: A 1006 1342 cop[bo(ms)(mg) ]
Alex/Byz: 579
Cæs: f13 1424 arm
West: W 1292 1505 1646 vg[ms] Irenaeus[at2/3]
Byz: E F G H K P Π Σ 28 180 597 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 Byz Lect syr[h] eth slav Asterius Photius Theophylact ς ND Dio

Again, unfortunately the earliest text that may have helped doesn’t help (in P45 -P. Chester Beatty I, [dated early third century ] the gospel of Mark takes up at Mark 4:36).

Both traditions show the variant.
But the earliest texts and the early church fathers use “Isaiah”.

Problem: Since there are many more later (Byzantine) texts and the majority them use “the prophets” the numbers dictate it is the Majority text reading.

Rob

 

Well we are at a deadlock here.

All you need to prove your theory is a pure Byzantine text dated sometime before Constantine.

And since there is not a predominantly Byzantine manuscript yet discovered from that time, your argument is based upon conjecture and my argument is based on (Byzantine) silence.

Further discoveries of Alexandrian texttype documents would strengthen my position but would not change your beliefs.

Rob

 

Please provide the name and the estimated date of these “earliest documents from Asia Minor”.

Agreed, given that the earliest Byzantine manuscripts are from 400 to 500 years and more after the original autographs, that would be anticipated.

No one, not even the authors of the critical text, would say that the “Alexandrian Chiefs” [your term] are perfect documents
but they are among the earliest witnesses to the original text.
True, distinctly Byzantine readings have been found in early papyri.
It lead textual critics to distance themselves from the earlier theory offered by Westcott and Hort.

I recognize the need for a diversity of regional textual witnesses (something the Byzantine Majority text does not do)!
The modern critical texts are not distinctively Egyptian texts.
The critical text draws from all the earliest texts (which have all been found in Egypt) but also compares these with early witnesses from all regions.

I’m no expert (obviously) and during my own study time I personally evaluate the decisions of the experts concerning a passage I am studying; there are times when I disagree with the choices made in the critical text.
You can find threads here where I disagree with the decisions made in my version of choice (NAS).
When choosing between multiple textual witnesses, balance is the key.
Metzger’s textual commentary provides ample fodder for showing possible Alexandrian bias.
The Majority text puts its Byzantine bias right out front.
However the variant in Mark 1:2 provides for such diversity over both region and age (until the burgeoning of the Catholic Byzantine dynasty when the overwhelming majority of the texts become Byzantine).

???

Rob