Festshrift for Maurice Robinson

[Rippon]

No.

You are not making sense. On the one hand you quoted Edgar favorably who thinks the best mss. exist today because they were either discarded or forgotten by the church.

Then you claimed that many manuscripts discovered in the 20th century are Byzantine.

Let me run this past you again. You think (along with Edgar) that the best manuscripts are around today because they were discarded or forgotten by the church. Further, you think that many of these (discarded and forgotten) manuscrips discovered in the twentieth century are of the Byzantine text-type.

But putting this together for you your response is simply no. That does not compute.

I'd like you to document some of these "many" Byzantine text-types you claim were discovered in the 20th century. I don't think there are any, much less many. At best a few of the papyrus fragments are mixed --but the majority are Alexandrian.

 

[John of Japan]

You are not making sense. On the one hand you quoted Edgar favorably who thinks the best mss. exist today because they were either discarded or forgotten by the church.

Then you claimed that many manuscripts discovered in the 20th century are Byzantine.

Let me run this past you again. You think (along with Edgar) that the best manuscripts are around today because they were discarded or forgotten by the church. Further, you think that many of these (discarded and forgotten) manuscrips discovered in the twentieth century are of the Byzantine text-type.

But putting this together for you your response is simply no. That does not compute.

I'd like you to document some of these "many" Byzantine text-types you claim were discovered in the 20th century. I don't think there are any, much less many. At best a few of the papyrus fragments are mixed --but the majority are Alexandrian.

I simply said "No" because I don't want to get into the whole thing on this thread. Frankly, you've shown little actual knowledge of textual criticism to date. I would have to spend too much time teaching the basics of textual criticism to you and others--all about the "manuscrips" (your corruption ).

How about if after this thread I do one teaching what Byzantine Priority is, and you can then pontificate to your soul's delight, and maybe even learn something. :type:

 

[John of Japan]

The next essay is another by Andrew Wilson, "The Adulteress and Her Accusers." The subtitle is: "An Examination of the Internal Arguments relating (sic; should be capitalized) to the Pericope Adulterae."

As the subtitle states, this is about the internal evidence in favor of the PA. Wilson writes in the Introduction, "The two commonly-voiced internal arguments against the incident are, firstly, that its style and vocabulary differ markedly from the rest of John's Gospel and secondly, that it interrupts the flow and themes of John's Gospel" (p. 124).

The next two sections debunk those two objections in detail, which is really not a hard thing to do, but Wilson does it well.

The following section is an excellent examination of "The Characteristic Features of Literary Interpolations," which are not matched by the PA.

Wilson then deals with the subject, "The PA does not Harmonize with the Themes of John chapters 7-10." (The title is verbatim, even with the lower case where there should be upper case letters, illustrating once again that the book needed an experienced editor and proofreader.)

He continues this idea with a discourse analysis of John 7-10, showing that the PA well fits the themes of the context.

Interestingly, the essay ends with both a "Summary" and "Conclusion." All in all, this is a good essay, though it must be said that Byzantine Priority majors on external evidence. Who am I to criticize, though, since my own essay was on internal evidence. :type:

 

[Rippon]

Concerning the mss discovered in the 20th century, many of them are Byzantine also.

The above is an assertion with no proof.

 

[John of Japan]

The above is an assertion with no proof.

Look, whether some Byz. mss were discovered in the 20th century has no bearing on Byzantine Priority or any other position in textual criticism. It's a non-starter.

What is much more important is the fact that there are Byz. readings in the papyrii such as in P45, P46, P66, etc. For example, "Bruce Metzger, in 'The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,' gives a list of seven examples of papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. In a footnote, he lists some sixteen other references of 'distinctively' Byzantine readings which are also found in p66" (The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, Harry A. Sturz, 56).

But if you really must pursue this irrelevant issue, go to Daniel Wallace's website and note that 300 mss await digitization. Do you actually believe none of those are Byz.? Byz. mss are still being discovered, as are those of other textual families. Link: http://www.csntm.org/News/Archive/2015/1/12/CSNTMtoDigitizeManuscriptsattheNationalLibraryofGreece.

Or look here, where a Byz. ms of the Gospels is discussed: http://www.csntm.org/News/Archive/2010/6/18/PreviouslyUncataloguedGospelsManuscript

 

[Rippon]

Look, whether some Byz. mss were discovered in the 20th century has no bearing on Byzantine Priority or any other position in textual criticism. It's a non-starter.

Really? But I thought that you are a major proponent of the view that the Byzantine text-type is just as old as the Alexandrian.

What is much more important is the fact that there are Byz. readings in the papyrii such as in P45,

There is a mixture. It's an eclectic text-type. So even though there are some readings that are Byzantine, doesn't mean the entire thing can be characterized as that.

P46, P66, etc. For example, "Bruce Metzger, in 'The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,' gives a list of seven examples of papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. In a footnote, he lists some sixteen other references of 'distinctively' Byzantine readings which are also found in p66"

Some Byzantine readings does not make these Byzantine text-types. Both are Alexandrian and Category 1.

But if you really must pursue this irrelevant issue,

How can you say it is irrelevant? It has everything to do with your Byzantine fascination.

go to Daniel Wallace's website and note that 300 mss await digitization. Do you actually believe none of those are Byz.? Byz. mss are still being discovered, as are those of other textual families.

I'm a big fan of Daniel Wallace. You have put him down a number of times in the past. His work is valuable and necessary.

I am very glad that he and others on his team are taking digital pictures of everything they can get their hands on.

I am primarily interested in the older works --the papyri written before the 4th century. It is overwhelmingly of the Alexandrian text-type. This should interest you.

According to Wikipedia before 1900 only nine papyri manuscripts were known. In 1963 -76 were listed. Now there are 127 and counting.
__________________________________________________________

Another thing :This is a debate forum. Don't expect everyone to be a yes-man to your posts. I respect you and the other contributors for Dr. Robinson's Festshrift. But I will not let a number of statements of yours and the other authors to go unchallenged.

Now it's time for you to be condescending. But you could surprise me with graciousness.

 

[John of Japan]

Really? But I thought that you are a major proponent of the view that the Byzantine text-type is just as old as the Alexandrian.

So?

There is a mixture. It's an eclectic text-type. So even though there are some readings that are Byzantine, doesn't mean the entire thing can be characterized as that.

So?

Some Byzantine readings does not make these Byzantine text-types. Both are Alexandrian and Category 1.

So?

How can you say it is irrelevant? It has everything to do with your Byzantine fascination.

Really? Not.

I'm a big fan of Daniel Wallace. You have put him down a number of times in the past. His work is valuable and necessary.

False accusation. I have never put him down, though I disagree with him on textual criticism. I have his intermediate and advanced grammars and they are excellent.

I am very glad that he and others on his team are taking digital pictures of everything they can get their hands on.

So am I.

I am primarily interested in the older works --the papyri written before the 4th century. It is overwhelmingly of the Alexandrian text-type. This should interest you.

It does.

According to Wikipedia before 1900 only nine papyri manuscripts were known. In 1963 -76 were listed. Now there are 127 and counting.

This is a very untrustworthy source.
__________________________________________________________

Another thing :This is a debate forum. Don't expect everyone to be a yes-man to your posts. I respect you and the other contributors for Dr. Robinson's Festshrift. But I will not let a number of statements of yours and the other authors to go unchallenged.

Sure, as long as it is about the OP.

Now it's time for you to be condescending. But you could surprise me with graciousness.

I could just list the errors concerning textual criticism you've made so far on this thread. But perhaps you could be humble and admit you are a beginner in this area. For example, have you actually read any books on the subject?

 

[Rippon]

I just purchased and finished reading Stanley E. Porter's book : How We Got The New Testament : Text, Transmission, Translation

It's very informative. He deals with Maurice Robinson's theories among many other things.

I can't access many things on the web. I am in the middle of a move and don't have access to my books.

 

[John of Japan]

I just purchased and finished reading Stanley E. Porter's book : How We Got The New Testament : Text, Transmission, Translation

It's very informative. He deals with Maurice Robinson's theories among many other things.

I can't access many things on the web. I am in the middle of a move and don't have access to my books.

Great. Porter is a start, but if all you know about Byz. Pri. is from that book, you don't yet understand it.

David Alan Black's New Testament Textual Criticism is a good basic guide to understand the eclectic position, though it needs updating. Other books for the eclectic position are Metzger's textual commentary and Metzger/Ehrman.

On the Byz/Maj side, Black's edited Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism is quite balanced and has an essay by Dr. Robinson as well as others. The Byzantine Textform Gr. NT has two essays by Dr. Robinson. Then there are Burgon, Sturz, Pickering and others. The Hodges/Farstad Majority Greek NT has an essay, but it's quite technical. Also edited by Black is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, in which both Dr. Black (an eclectic) and Dr. Robinson argue for the longer ending.

 

[Rippon]

Great. Porter is a start, but if all you know about Byz. Pri. is from that book, you don't yet understand it.

That is not the only source from which I know about it. I have read articles by Robinson. I have also read your past links that featured interviews with Robinson.

A book I do not have (and have no interest in) is "Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament" by Porter. According to one reviewer Porter is a scholar's scholar.

Do you know of Michael Kruger? I listened to an interview he had with James White a while ago. He has a few relatively recent books out. I like his website Canon Fodder.

 

[Rippon]

I'm a big fan of Daniel Wallace. You have put him down a number of times in the past. His work is valuable and necessary.

I searched the archives and found that I was wrong. You have never put Dr. Wallace down. I am sorry for that false statement.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Ugggh, I missed a chance to connect with our good BaptistBaord buddy when I attended my daughter's graduation last month.

I'll get a second chance as my oldest daughter is taking distance classes there and hopes to graduate in another year or two.

Rob

Haha, I'm pretty sure my dad's not on baptistboard.

 

[jonathan.borland]

You are not making sense. On the one hand you quoted Edgar favorably who thinks the best mss. exist today because they were either discarded or forgotten by the church.

Come on, Rippon, this isn't really fair. Brother John is simply giving a synopsis of each article with pertinent quotes, and for this he should be commended. And he answered your yes/no question with a yes/no. He also says he doesn't want to derail his book review thread (very handy, btw, thanks, John!).

Then you claimed that many manuscripts discovered in the 20th century are Byzantine.

Good grief. Just read Dr. Wallace's CSNTM notes that show how he and his team seem to find a new Byz manuscript every month on average, not that that's important. It's easier to find uncatalogued mss in libraries than in some archaeological dig site. And most of those mss are post 10th cent. and with nothing we don't already have in other mss. In comparison, it is rare to find old Alex mss.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The "best and earliest" mss "exist today only because they were either discarded or forgotten by the church" (p. 114).

I've never really liked the argument. However, the argument might have some validity for those mss found in rubbish heaps (think the Oxyrhyncus rubbish dump finds). However, with a ms like Sinaiticus with umpteen different correctors who instituted over 20,000 corrections over the course of hundreds of years, obviously the ms was in use for long after it was copied. So the argument might be true for some mss, but how can one prove that it is true for all or even most old mss? They can't. In fact one can't prove that it's true for any mss, only surmise and surmise again, and therefore it's not a good argument.

 

[Rippon]

I've never really liked the argument.

That the best manuscripts were saved because they were either disgraded or forgotten by the Church?

 

[Rippon]

Brother John is simply giving a synopsis of each article with pertinent quotes, and for this he should be commended.

I like his reviews. But I find some statements objectionable. This is still a dabate forum --not a "Yes sir." forum. I agree sometimes and I disagree sometimes.

read Dr. Wallace's CSNTM notes that show how he and his team seem to find a new Byz manuscript every month on average, not that that's important. It's easier to find uncatalogued mss in libraries than in some archaeological dig site. And most of those mss are post 10th cent. and with nothing we don't already have in other mss. In comparison, it is rare to find old Alex mss.

I agree that the later mss. are usually not that significant. Occasionally something like a minuscule 1739 will turn up. I read that though it was made in the 10th century, it was based on a 4th century exemplar.

What I am interested in are mss. in Greek (or even Latin) dated from before the 4th or 5th centuries. When those come to light they are overwhelmingly in the Alexandrian text-type. I put more value on them than most of the finds dated beyond the 10th century.

 

[jonathan.borland]

That the best manuscripts were saved because they were either disgraded or forgotten by the Church?

That old Alexandrian mss survived only because they never wore out from use, and that old Byzantine mss didn't survive because they wore out from use and perished, I don't like the argument.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I like his reviews. But I find some statements objectionable. This is still a dabate forum --not a "Yes sir." forum. I agree sometimes and I disagree sometimes.

Right, so wouldn't it be better to start a new thread to debate this argument that you object to, so as not to derail or make this review thread untidy?

 

[John of Japan]

That is not the only source from which I know about it. I have read articles by Robinson. I have also read your past links that featured interviews with Robinson.

If I decide to start a thread on it soon, you may test your knowledge.

A book I do not have (and have no interest in) is "Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament" by Porter. According to one reviewer Porter is a scholar's scholar.

My son wants to order this. We'll see how it is. Porter's views on verbal aspect are way out there.

Do you know of Michael Kruger? I listened to an interview he had with James White a while ago. He has a few relatively recent books out. I like his website Canon Fodder.

I don't know of him. I have books on the canon, but it's not an interest of mine other than for my church history class.

 

[John of Japan]

I searched the archives and found that I was wrong. You have never put Dr. Wallace down. I am sorry for that false statement.

Thank you for your honesty.