Byzantine Priority

For Cass:

Dave said,

Now that certainly appears to the untrained eye to mean More = better. But I'm still learning.

Anyway, not going to argue with you anymore. Your years of studying the biblical text obviously haven't taught you anything about graciousness or humility. I don't think I've ever had a reasonable conversation with you yet. You talk down to everyone, insult many, then get defensive when they fight back. You are a bully, and you do not impress me Dr. Cassidy, and I'm certain you are none too fond of me. Let's just leave it at that.

 

Have a good afternoon Cass

 

I’m working with a printed text, no photos.
I'll offer the text of John 7:51ff by Philip Comfort from The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts (2001).
(dont ShOOt the meSsangr )

51μη ο νομος ημων κρινει τον
α̅ν̅ο̅ν̅ εαν μη ακουση πρωτον ›
παρ αυτου και γνω τι ποιει· 52α
πεκριθησαν και ειπαν αυτω μη
και συ εκ της γαλιλαιας ει· ερευ
[leaf 26 verso]
ν̅β̅ [52]
νησον και ϊδε οτιʼ εκ της γαλιλαιας
8
«ο»❏ προφητης,(a) ουκ εγιρεται·(b) 12παλιν
ουν αυτοις ελαλησεν ο ι̅ς̅ λεγων
εγω ειμι το φως του κοσμου ο ακο
footnotes:

«̠Indicates scribal erasure.
❏ ed pr: ο
a Transposition marks indicate a corrected reading to προφητης εκ της γαλιλαιας. The scribe or a corrector attempted to erase the article ο before προφητης, but the article still shows.❏
b This manuscript does not contain 7:53–8:11.
❏ ed pr: change not noted

********************************

The site you posted proclaims the views of the “Prophet/Apostle Brother David Terrell” who declares he ‘knows’ the motives behind what the original scribe was thinking (could it be by a special word of wisdom???).
Sure, I’m suspicious and view the site with a critical eye!

Regarding your question about the difference between P66, P75 and Aleph, Doc Cassidy noted:

I’ll add:

Both Westcott and Hort’s and Tischendorf's critical Greek texts used exemplars (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus respectively) as a standard to which they applied their own form of textual criticism when considering varants. This would give prominence to their particular manuscript.

The modern critical GNT text uses a blend of different modern critical methods, one of which is Reasonable Eclecticism.
The method (be it good or bad) behind reasonable eclecticism is that each variant is considered individually; no single document is considered before another without reason.
The NA27 Greek NT text did not use a single manuscript as a template but evaluated each variant individually within a historical framework considering both internal and external evidences.

Rob

 

Or the local genealogical method. This approach assumes that each variant has an individual genealogy apart from the genealogy of the MS in which it appears. Thus the approach differs greatly from that of Westcott and Hort, who believed in the genealogy of sequences of readings all put together, not in the genealogy of individual readings apart from any actual historical and transmissional considerations. How could it come about that in the most copied document the world has ever known a single sequence of readings in any number of places (according to the new critical text) could not have been passed down correctly in any of the 5000+ MSS extant today? No reasonable historical or transmissional model outlining how this could have happened has ever been offered. BTW, one reason why some like Bart Ehrman, according to his own testimony, have totally abandoned traditional Christianity is because of the complete guesswork surrounding and subjective bias underpinning the Greek of today's NT text.

 

This is the most difficult and time consuming work, comparing various verses, and the agreement and disagreement are not easy to summarize. I notice the people are fighting without doing such painstaking effort, without bringing all the data available but showing the information which fits their own agenda only.
In my view they reveal 3 aspects, they are not so much capable to discuss the balanced views yet, they are not honest as they show only the half truth convenient for them, and they are not dilligent enough to do the honest and balanced surveys but just lazy. This shows the human tragedy eventually.
At the moment I don't have any direct access to texts of Pericope Adulturae as I just rely on the university libraries or the journals but even in there the problems with the prejudices are dominant.

 

Here are pages NA and NB (page 51 and 52) of Papyrus 66 containing text from the end of John 7:32 to the middle of 8:16.

John 7:32-52 (P66)

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/P66-2.jpg

John 7:52-8:16 (P66)

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/P66-4.jpg


lacuna matata

Rob

 

Actually, it looks to me like you are taking one statement out of context. The point I was trying to make was that these documents were transmitted via manual copying. It makes more sense that reliable documents would be copied more than unreliable, all other things being equal. Number of agreeing documents do not alone make a case, but are certainly one indicator.

I think one thing that people forget is how many heretical groups took the Christian scriptures and added or subtracted to them to support their view. Similar to JW's and Mormons today. These modified scriptures would certainly have fallen into disuse as the particular group died out.

I simply offered this as one possible explanation for the lack of agreement with the earliest manuscripts and the text that the church had for many centuries prior to discovery.

Here's another question I have about the views of those supporting critical text. If God was preserving His word, then does it make sense that it should be in a single copy hidden in a cave, out of site for 1500+ years?

 

P66: John 7:38-52

Thank you very much for your post.
7:52-8:16 is very much interesting as it doesn't show any blank in between 7:53-8:12.

It was a little difficult to read the previous part, 7:32-38. It might have been taken when it was not stretched enough and the edges are not shown well.
The photo covers only to 7:38 and therefore 39-52 is not there, and therefore I could not compare it with the one which I posted before.
Anyway it was a good help for understanding and thanks again.

 

Hi Everybody,

Great posts everyone I'm following along and I'm very impressed with your research and dialogue. Very interesting.

Novice Question though... Is it true that what all this research is bringing to bear is the best english translation of Christian Scripture to date?

Thanks everyone.

 

I believe God does that as He chooses. However, bear in mind that He's never promised us a PERFECT Bible. I just thank Him for what He HAS provided.