Byzantine Priority

Good points, but here I wasnt actually discussing whether or not it is spurious, only that since the KJV assumes it is authentic, they must also admit that the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupted here.
Would you not agree?

Whats interesting Doc, is even though you give a clear reason for why you believe as you do about the various scribal errors, I have seen each of those explained in a defense of ADDING phrases. I find some cases where I agree with the former, and some with the latter.

 

Uh-Oh!

I read DC's #2 almost as readily as I did the correct spellings elsewhere! But a spelling I think is incorrect in anything I'm reading jumps out at me like a scared frog.

That, and the fact that I have hair growing on the backa my fingers, indicates I'm nuts, according to some old psychiatrists' manual.

 

We agree! MY WORD, might wanna stop the presses, and mark the time!

OK, but seriously, from your point of view, how do you explain this reading nearly disappearing from the Byzantine line, and being preserved only in the Latin? I have heard arguments that 1 John was written in Latin, which didnt seem to make sense. What is your position on this matter?

that makes sense. Forgive my mistake, but perhaps I can explain what I meant: each of those types of errors have been claimed to arrise by other means, meaning that they were ADDED in by later errors of a different kind. Of course an ADDITION error would be for a different reason than a SUBTRACTION error, that is a given. I shall think my response through more clearly next time.

There isnt really much historical evidence to support either textform's claims, is there? Its pretty much just a logical choice, and in this case, logic is split. On one hand, there are alot of Byzantine mms, but on the other hand, Vaticanus and Sinaticus outdate all other complete manuscripts. There is logic for both theories, but no way to trace which one is accurate. It just comes down to an educated decision. I am sure I am oversimplifying, but I think you get my point.

Good luck getting that one addressed.

Actually, I find some of their theories interesting at worst. I dont think they were right in every case of course, but several of these "harmonizations" seem to me to be the most likely scenario for the variation. I am certain that you have studied this more thoroughly, so perhaps you can explain that part better.

 

Careless copying by way of h.t. error (or error by homoioteleuton = similarity in the ending of words) is how phrases and even verses dropped out of the sacred text (e.g., Mt. 23:14, Mk. 11:26 as obvious examples). Harmonization also explains certain peculiarities (e.g., 'Isaiah the prophet' in the Alexandrians).

 

M. Robinson says:

"The Byzantine Textform has been criticized because its specific pattern of readings is not found among surviving pre-fourth century textual witnesses. Yet the text produced by the various forms of modern eclecticism creates a sequence of claimed 'original' readings whose pattern cannot be demonstrated ever to have existed within transmissional history. The Byzantine Textform, on the other hand, does in its aggregate reflect a legitimate and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus of support among its related witnesses."

Let's see...a text whose pattern of readings has never existed at any time in history (i.e. the Critical Text), or that which is well-supported and legitimate throughout history (i.e. the Byzantine Text). I know which one I choose.

 

“The Byzantine Textform, on the other hand, does in its aggregate reflect a legitimate and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus of support among its related witnesses."

Lets breakdown that sentence a bit and try to figure out what he’s saying.

“The Byzantine Textform [SNIP] in its aggregate (combined, collective consensus) reflect (imitate, show, mirror) a legitimate (justifiable, reasonable, valid) and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus (agreement) of support among its related witnesses."

Or in other words….
The consensus of Byzantine texts are historically reasonable during the time we can support it through its witnesses.

Rob

 

It's awesome that the majority of MSS from all over the world (i.e., not just from Egypt) from the earliest evidence made available by the providence of God supports the Byzantine Consensus! It's unfortunate that the new Critical Text has a pattern of readings that never existed!

 

One thing in Robinson's "Case for Byzantine Priority" that I found interesting is that Homeric scholarship is united in rejecting the Alexandrian streams of Homer because they are shorter and reflect an editorial recension deemed harmful to the original text. Homer's rythmic prose apparently made it easier for modern scholarship to determine the comparatively untrustworthy nature of the Alexandrian tradition in the classics of Homer. The question is left open as to whether or not the same Alexandrian "scholarship" so affected the NT texts to whom they had been entrusted.

 

How would you compromise p66 with Majority on John 7:39 while it coincides with Minority in Pericope Adulturae? Have you ever thought about it?

Read this
http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html


What I pursue is to keep the balance, bringing all the facts on the table.


If we try to expose one sided facts we cheat ourselves.

 

Part of the reason there are more copies of the Byzantine texts is simply because Greek continued to be spoken in that region (and still is in some areas) far longer than it was in the areas the more eclectic texts were.

This is often ignored. More does not always equal better.

 

How is that different from what I said?

... How is that different from what I said? The Alexandrian textform, which are generally older mss's, came from an area that quit using Greek as the common language.

That was my whole point. They would not continue reproducing mss's in a language they did not continue to use. Saying more Byzantine mss's prove that the Byzantine texts should be trusted over the Alexandrian texts is faulty. That would be like shipping 100 English Bibles and 100 Spanish Bibles to Mexico and then claiming the Spanish Bibles must be the authority because they used and copied them more.

 

Larryjf made the most profound observation in this thread at the top of page 2.

I really like the CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY [LINK]!

Would anyone claim the Byzantine Majority text was pure?
Could you make the same claim for the Eclectic text?

I would suggest that the doctrine of preservation was modified rather than really changed,
although that may just be semantics.

He asked: "How would you define your belief of preservation?"

Rob

[ May 24, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Your link may be giving a slanted view of things.

The early Christian scribes used special contractions or abbreviations for divine names These abbreviations for God's name can be identified by capital letters with a horizontal line above the letters.
We call them nomina sacra (latin for "names of God").

π̅ν̅α̅, π̅ν̅ς̅/(used in vs. 39, P66) π̅ν̅ο̅ς̅, π̅ν̅ι̅ were abbreviations for πνευμα, πνευματος, πνευματι

Rob

 

Actually Dave suggested something along these lines in the first page of this thread. Sorry I didn't quote that in my OP. But hey, thanks for acting like a jerk!

Now that I've been put in my place and told to shut up, I'll sit back and wait for the infinite, unquestionable wisdom which can only proceed from Dr. Cassidy. Sorry I attempted to add anything to the conversation.

 

Your link may be giving a slanted view of things.

The early Christian scribes used special contractions or abbreviations for divine names These abbreviations for God's name can be identified by capital letters with a horizontal line above the letters.
We call them nomina sacra (latin for "names of God").

π̅ν̅α̅, π̅ν̅ς̅/(used in vs. 39, P66) π̅ν̅ο̅ς̅, π̅ν̅ι̅ were abbreviations for πνευμα, πνευματος, πνευματι

Rob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I think you don't understand which problem I was pointing out.

The point is not the Pneuma, but the omission of Hagion ( Αγιον), not the matter of abbreviation.

This is not the probem with the slanted site but the question about the Old Text of John, p66 which agrees with the Majority Texts, disagreeing with P75 and Aleph.
We can notice that even the minority text agrees with Majority Text sometimes, and the minority texts disagree each other as Vaticanus disagree with Aleph again ( Hagion Dedomenon).

Finally, what the true scholars have to pursue is the Neutral Approach, bringing all the evidences on the table.

When you mention P66 as omitting Pericope Adultrae(John 7:53-8:11), disagreeing with Majority Text, you didn't mention It agrees with Majority Texts in John 7:39.

You say the site is slanted, but I am not sure whether your comment is slanted as well.

Therefore, for everyone's benefit, we'd better pursue the unbiased approach, which can be possible when we are guided by Holy Spirit.