A better English Bible.

[Silverhair]

Thanks.
Of course.

Why would you assume that?

True! Agreed.

Why? It's not like I am Byzantine Text only or something. Shoot, even the Byzantine Text divides at times.

That's why I like the "The Text-Critical English New Testament" Byzantine Text Version.
It's text is translated from the Byzantine Text, but it has the variants from many other Greek New Testament Texts in the footnotes in English, including Nestle/Aland 28. So if the Text above is mistaken, the correct reading will be in the footnotes. I can compare all the variants on the same page. Even if one did not like the Byzantine Text, the other Greek Text that they prefer is in the footnotes, and they could read the footnote in the main body of the text. Modern Versions, KJV, all texts (not translations) are represented.

I do not mean too. I apologize!

I have the TCENT in PDF on my system. I have not spent much time with it as it is a recent download. What I have found in the various threads on this subject is that some think the Byzantine text is the only true text and forget that what they are looking at is just someones translation of a copy of a copy etc.

The same goes with any translation. I trust that what we have in our hands is the best translation of God's word that gives us all that we need to know Him and come to trust in Him for our salvation.

When we are arguing over plural or single, a letter added or missing, word order etc. that does not alter any doctrine then it just becomes an exercise in nit picking. My two cents anyway.

 

[37818]

Just because the Byzantine was copied does not make it correct. But as I point out before it does not make any difference. NOTE none of the doctrines are in dispute. You are trying to pick out gnats. It makes zero difference in the understanding of the text of scripture.

You like the late date texts and that is your right I will go with the early texts. You seem to think the early texts are correct because they agree with the late ones but your thinking is wrong.

The text between known variants are the same. You have NA28 and Byzantine 2018? Check a reading for yourself.

The text with the most variants will determine the common text.

 

[37818]

@Silverhair,
The simple fact is some variants do change a teaching. If such didn't exist this would be a non issue.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair,
The simple fact is some variants do change a teaching. If such didn't exist this would be a non issue.

I find that to be a questionable claim on your part. Various scholars have said that no doctrine is called into question and now you say they are.

What teaching/s are you saying are in question?

 

[37818]

What teaching/s are you saying are in question?

An event. During the supper versus the supper being ended. John 13:2 the supper being ended and after Luke 22:19-21.

 

[Silverhair]

An event. During the supper versus the supper being ended. John 13:2 the supper being ended and after Luke 22:19-21.

Whether the meal was over or not is not a teaching. It does not call any doctrine into question. You have two writers describing something from the past. John had been there and Luke was relating what he was told.

So again I ask you what verses call into question any doctrine?

 

[37818]

.

Whether the meal was over or not is not a teaching. It does not call any doctrine into question. You have two writers describing something from the past. John had been there and Luke was relating what he was told.

So again I ask you what verses call into question any doctrine?

John 13:2 is to correctly teach the supper was ended. During the supper is the wrong teaching. John 1:18 teaches it is the Son of God by whom the invisible God can be seen. Not by some other God.

 

[Silverhair]

.

John 13:2 is to correctly teach the supper was ended. During the supper is the wrong teaching. John 1:18 teaches it is the Son of God by whom the invisible God can be seen. Not by some other God.

Re John 13:2 the oldest texts do not support you view. You seem to be basing your view on the TR the critical text indicates during the meal time.

Re John 1:18 how do you get that teaching some other God? You do not base your understanding of scripture on a single verse. You are sounding like some of those that love to cherry pick verses to support their errant views.

 

[Silverhair]

Whether the meal was over or not is not a teaching. It does not call any doctrine into question. You have two writers describing something from the past. John had been there and Luke was relating what he was told.

So again I ask you what verses call into question any doctrine?

What is funny is that you continue to major in the minors. What verse or verses have called into question any doctrine?

 

[37818]

Re John 13:2 the oldest texts do not support you view.

What text do you have older than Papyrus 66? γεναμενου.

 

[37818]

Re John 1:18 how do you get that teaching some other God?

John 1:18 should read, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Should read Son, not God.

 

[Silverhair]

What text do you have older than Papyrus 66? γεναμενου.

That is what I have been saying , the Alexandrian text is correct not the Byzantine. P66 is from the Alexandrian line.

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,

The earliest text do not support your word choice and neither does the TR which is the basis for the KJV & NKJV bibles. So the question is why do you hold to

 

[37818]

That is what I have been saying , the Alexandrian text is correct not the Byzantine. P66 is from the Alexandrian line.

Papyrus 66 dated to c. 200 AD. and supports the Majority Text reading for John 13:2, . . . supper being ended, . . . Which I am persuaded is the correct reading.

 

[Silverhair]

Papyrus 66 dated to c. 200 AD. and supports the Majority Text reading for John 13:2, . . . supper being ended, . . . Which I am persuaded is the correct reading.

P66 is of the Alexandrian text line and does not support your contention of supper being ended as the following Greek scholars and context clearly show the meal was still in progress.

Ellicott: As a matter of fact, the supper was not ended (John 13:12; John 13:26); but they had already reclined, and were, as we say, ready for supper.

Benson: δειπνου γενομενου should rather be translated, supper, or supper-time, being come, or, while they were at supper, as Dr. Campbell renders it.

Barnes: The original means while they were at supper; and that this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we find them still eating after this.

JFB: from John 13:26 it seems plain that the supper was not even then ended. So the same word is used, as Alford notices, in Matthew 26:6 "While Jesus was in Bethany" [ genomenou (G1096)], and in John 21:4, "when it was morning" [ prooias (G4405) genomenees (G1096)].

VWS: The A.V. is wrong, even if the reading of the Received Text be retained; for in John 13:12 Jesus reclined again, and in John 13:26, the supper is still in progress.

Nelson's: In any case, it appears that the supper had not ended, but was in progress.

RWP: During supper (deipnou ginomenou). Correct text, present middle participle of ginomai (not genomenou, second aorist middle participle, “being ended”) genitive absolute. John 13:4 shows plainly that the meal was still going on.

 

[Conan]

P66 is of the Alexandrian text line and does not support your contention of supper being ended as the following Greek scholars and context clearly show the meal was still in progress.

You are greatly mistaken. P66, the earliest text of John follows the Byzantine Text reading, not the Alexandrian @ John 13:2. Your interpretation that the meal was in progress may/may not be correct. But the reading of p66 matches the Byzantine Text, not the Alexandrian @ John 13:2.

 

[37818]

P66 is of the Alexandrian text line and does not support your contention of supper being ended as the following Greek scholars and context clearly show the meal was still in progress.

Ellicott: As a matter of fact, the supper was not ended (John 13:12; John 13:26); but they had already reclined, and were, as we say, ready for supper.

Benson: δειπνου γενομενου should rather be translated, supper, or supper-time, being come, or, while they were at supper, as Dr. Campbell renders it.

Barnes: The original means while they were at supper; and that this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we find them still eating after this.

JFB: from John 13:26 it seems plain that the supper was not even then ended. So the same word is used, as Alford notices, in Matthew 26:6 "While Jesus was in Bethany" [ genomenou (G1096)], and in John 21:4, "when it was morning" [ prooias (G4405) genomenees (G1096)].

VWS: The A.V. is wrong, even if the reading of the Received Text be retained; for in John 13:12 Jesus reclined again, and in John 13:26, the supper is still in progress.

Nelson's: In any case, it appears that the supper had not ended, but was in progress.

RWP: During supper (deipnou ginomenou). Correct text, present middle participle of ginomai (not genomenou, second aorist middle participle, “being ended”) genitive absolute. John 13:4 shows plainly that the meal was still going on.

Again, my understanding is not changed.

The supper in John 13:4 is the location of the supper. And so there would still be *food present. The supper being ended per John 13:2. The events in *John 13:26-30, follows the events of Luke 22:19-21, which took place before John 13:2.

My notes are from over 30 years ago. From a verse by verse study. Judas with believing disciples eat Passover, followed by the institution of the remembrance. Following the foot washing.

 

[Silverhair]

You are greatly mistaken. P66, the earliest text of John follows the Byzantine Text reading, not the Alexandrian @ John 13:2. Your interpretation that the meal was in progress may/may not be correct. But the reading of p66 matches the Byzantine Text, not the Alexandrian @ John 13:2.

View attachment 9660

Sorry but the Byzantine text is not the earliest P66 is and it is in the Alexandrian text form. The context also shows that your understanding of the word is wrong. But why would you bother trusting what several Greek scholars say when you have your late Byzantine text.

 

[Silverhair]

Again, my understanding is not changed.

The supper in John 13:4 is the location of the supper. And so there would still be *food present. The supper being ended per John 13:2. The events in *John 13:26-30, follows the events of Luke 22:19-21, which took place before John 13:2.

My notes are from over 30 years ago. From a verse by verse study. Judas with believing disciples eat Passover, followed by the institution of the remembrance. Following the foot washing.

Since your notes are from over thirty years ago then perhaps it is time you up date them to a proper understanding of the text. I do find it amazing how you and calvinists will ignore context when it does not fit their preconceived conclusions. As I told @Conan why trust biblical scholars when you have your late Byzantine text.

 

[Conan]

Sorry but the Byzantine text is not the earliest P66 is and it is in the Alexandrian text form.

Now in this statement you are being untrue. P66 reads like the Byzantine Text here. It goes against the Alexandrian Text at John 13:2. At John 13:2 p66 is not Alexandrian. I proved it by adding the attachment. The first 2 lines are witnesses for genomenou.

P66 is listed 1st (because it's the oldest), followed by the 2 corrector of Sinaiticus followed by 21 Unciales then Family 1 and it's manuscripts then family 13 and it's manuscripts then 21 independent minuscule manuscripts. Then the gothic "M" symbol which represents hundreds of Byzantine manuscripts. Then the lectionary manuscripts, then 9 old latin manuscripts then the Latin Vulgate and slavic manuscripts. I won't list the early church fathers.

Then (ginomenou) the 3rd line starts the Alexandrian witnesses Codex Vaticanus and the original reading of codex Sinaiticus and 6 Unciales. Followed by 2 miniscule manuscripts. 2 old latins , Then the Armenian and Ethiopian manuscripts.

Let that sink in.

The context also shows that your understanding of the word is wrong. But why would you bother trusting what several Greek scholars say when you have your late Byzantine text.

My understanding of the word may be wrong, but not the fact that the oldest Greek manuscript, papyrus 66 agrees with the Byzantine Text and the majority of independent manuscripts at John 13:2. Genomenou verses the Alexandrian Ginomenou

 

[Silverhair]

Now in this statement you are being untrue. P66 reads like the Byzantine Text here. It goes against the Alexandrian Text at John 13:2. At John 13:2 p66 is not Alexandrian. I proved it by adding the attachment. The first 2 lines are witnesses for genomenou.

P66 is listed 1st (because it's the oldest), followed by the 2 corrector of Sinaiticus followed by 21 Unciales then Family 1 and it's manuscripts then family 13 and it's manuscripts then 21 independent minuscule manuscripts. Then the gothic "M" symbol which represents hundreds of Byzantine manuscripts. Then the lectionary manuscripts, then 9 old latin manuscripts then the Latin Vulgate and slavic manuscripts. I won't list the early church fathers.

Then (ginomenou) the 3rd line starts the Alexandrian witnesses Codex Vaticanus and the original reading of codex Sinaiticus and 6 Unciales. Followed by 2 miniscule manuscripts. 2 old latins , Then the Armenian and Ethiopian manuscripts.

Let that sink in.



My understanding of the word may be wrong, but not the fact that the oldest Greek manuscript, papyrus 66 agrees with the Byzantine Text and the majority of independent manuscripts at John 13:2. Genomenou verses the Alexandrian Ginomenou

Let it sink in that P66 is an Alexandrian text. The Byzantine would have copied the Alexandrian. Or are you saying the P66 copied the latter Byzantine texts. You are so committed to your view that you can not even see clearly.

You must think all those biblical scholars I listed do not know any Greek.