Featured Festshrift for Maurice Robinson

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.

 

The above is an assertion with no proof.

 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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!).

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?