Good points. I've always had reservations about this point myself when applied to specific mss. I know that the KJVO crowd likes to use this one about Sinaiticus being found in a wastebasket--which only proves the ignorance of the monks, if true.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Festshrift for Maurice Robinson
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
The problem is, you're not debating me, just what I record that others have said, or what you think I think. But I'm glad you like my reviews.
The next essay is by Dr. Paul A. Himes, a Petrine scholar with his PhD under Dr. David Alan Black in NT, specializing in NT Greek Linguistics. His dissertation was Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter, published by Pickwick Publications last year. He also has articles published in various journals, such as JETS, Science and Christian Belief and Filologia Neotestamentaria. I am privileged to teach with this fine scholar.
The title of Dr. Himes' contribution is "Burned Up' or 'Discovered'?" with the subtitle being, "The Peculiar Textual Problem of 2 Peter 3:10d. The Alexandrian reading in this verse is the future of "found," but the Byzantine reading is the future of "burned up." The axiom/canon used by eclectics here is that "found" is the more difficult reading, therefore more likely to be correct. Dr. Himes disputes this.
In his intro, he writes that "a thorough examination of 2 Pet 3:210 will demonstrate both that the expression 'the earth and the works in her will be found/discovered' does not make sense in the context (despite various scholarly attempts to clarify it), and that the argument from internal evidence is not quite so obviously in favor of the Alexandrian reading. Consequently the Byzantine reading should be given serious consideration once again" (p. 144).
In the next section, "The Problem of 2 Peter 3:10," Dr. Himes discusses the various readings, pointing out that the UBS committee only gave "found" a D reading, meaning there was quite a bit of doubt in spite of this being the oldest reading (Aleph and B). The Byz reading of "burned up" is almost as old, being in A and 48 (5th century). He also quotes Colwell as deploring the 20th century tendency in textual criticism to major on internal evidence.
Next, Dr. Himes delineates the "Various Views on Eurethesetai," including "Conjectural Emendation" (strictly speculation), "Eurisko as a Metallurgical Expression" (unproven), "Eurethesetai as a Rhetorical Question" (no interrogative particles), and "Eurisko in the Sense of Judgment" (iffy). In particular, Dr. Himes researches "the works of the earth," concluding that it refers in Jewish Hellenistic works (LXX, Josephus) to "agriculture production or vegetation," making a sense of judgement very unlikely.
Next, Dr. Himes gives "The Argument from Internal Evidence for Byzantine Reading." He says, "While this writer would ultimately hold to the priority of external considerations over internal, it is also this writer's contention that a significant argument can be made from the internal evidence alone for the Byzantine reading katakaesetai." (Note: the Greek font is not working for me, but all of the Greek words in this essay are in Greek font in the essay.")
Dr. Himes in his Conclusion points out that his examination of the evidence shows that the "attempts of scholars to make sense of the UBS reading have not been successful" (p. 153). This is certainly true. The Byz reading remains as the only valid alternative.
The title of Dr. Himes' contribution is "Burned Up' or 'Discovered'?" with the subtitle being, "The Peculiar Textual Problem of 2 Peter 3:10d. The Alexandrian reading in this verse is the future of "found," but the Byzantine reading is the future of "burned up." The axiom/canon used by eclectics here is that "found" is the more difficult reading, therefore more likely to be correct. Dr. Himes disputes this.
In his intro, he writes that "a thorough examination of 2 Pet 3:210 will demonstrate both that the expression 'the earth and the works in her will be found/discovered' does not make sense in the context (despite various scholarly attempts to clarify it), and that the argument from internal evidence is not quite so obviously in favor of the Alexandrian reading. Consequently the Byzantine reading should be given serious consideration once again" (p. 144).
In the next section, "The Problem of 2 Peter 3:10," Dr. Himes discusses the various readings, pointing out that the UBS committee only gave "found" a D reading, meaning there was quite a bit of doubt in spite of this being the oldest reading (Aleph and B). The Byz reading of "burned up" is almost as old, being in A and 48 (5th century). He also quotes Colwell as deploring the 20th century tendency in textual criticism to major on internal evidence.
Next, Dr. Himes delineates the "Various Views on Eurethesetai," including "Conjectural Emendation" (strictly speculation), "Eurisko as a Metallurgical Expression" (unproven), "Eurethesetai as a Rhetorical Question" (no interrogative particles), and "Eurisko in the Sense of Judgment" (iffy). In particular, Dr. Himes researches "the works of the earth," concluding that it refers in Jewish Hellenistic works (LXX, Josephus) to "agriculture production or vegetation," making a sense of judgement very unlikely.
Next, Dr. Himes gives "The Argument from Internal Evidence for Byzantine Reading." He says, "While this writer would ultimately hold to the priority of external considerations over internal, it is also this writer's contention that a significant argument can be made from the internal evidence alone for the Byzantine reading katakaesetai." (Note: the Greek font is not working for me, but all of the Greek words in this essay are in Greek font in the essay.")
Dr. Himes in his Conclusion points out that his examination of the evidence shows that the "attempts of scholars to make sense of the UBS reading have not been successful" (p. 153). This is certainly true. The Byz reading remains as the only valid alternative.
Based on what a scholar friend has shared with me, I'm going to correct some misconceptions of Rippon.
1. There are currently 131 papyri. Less than half are pre-4th century.
2. Only the following mss have enough text to establish a text type: p4, p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75, p115.
3. Among pre-4th century papyri, only two are classified Alexandrian: p4 and p75. The rest are all mixed.
So, "overwhelmingly Alexandrian"? Not at all.
Hmm...I had said 127 and counting in post 46. Not terribly off.
Really?
They are all classified as Alexandrian, with the exception of p45 which is eclectic.
Wouldn't a fair number of textual critics say other papyri can be classified as Alexandrian? For instance, p90 has all of 1 John and that papyrus is dated at 250 and in the Alexandrian text-type.
Really?
Well, what about :
p20 dated at 250
p23 dated at 250
p32 dated at 200
p53 dated at 250
p77 dated at 200
p87 dated at 250
p90 dated at 150
p91 dated at 250
p92 dated at 300 (right on the cusp)
p103 dated at 200
p64/67 dated at 200
Yes, all Alexandrian.
I really don't have time right now to answer all of this post. Have to run shortly. All I will say is that of this list, only p23 was important enough to be listed in the chart that came with my UBS III Greek NT, "Principal Manuscripts and Versions Cited in the Textual Apparatus." And that ms only has the general epistles.
None of the mss--repeat none--are listed in Metzger/Ehrman as being important witnesses. Are they all Alexandrian? I doubt that but don't have time to check right now.
Now, Rippon, care to give your source? That's what we are supposed to do on the BB, give sources (not to mention it's simply ethical).
It has just 5 verses from James.
Well, check it out later.
Wikipedia. As I have said, I'm in the middle of a move. I don't have access to my books, including Porter's where he gives a lot of information regarding all of this.
There you go. It's not Alexandrian or Byzantine. It is impossible to determine text type from only 5 verses.
Wikipedia is such a lousy source for anything scholarly that all the professors at my college and seminary forbid it as a source for research papers for our classes.
True.
As JofJ, et.al., already know, any "source," be from Stinkapedia or else where, will always reflect the biases of that source's author.
EXAMPLE: Suppose WPE3BQL lived in Russia/the USSR prior to Al(Jazera) Gore "inventing" the internet.
Being curious about other lands/nations, he wanted to find out about this place called the USA.
Of course, his only "accurate and/or reliable" sources would probably be what he was permitted to learn from Government-controlled sources such as Pravda and/or Isvestia and/or Radio Moscow's "clear and balanced" reporting.
What do you suppose his opinion(s) of the USA might be?
Probably something close to "Wow! Sure glad I live in this 'enlightened' nation!" :smilewinkgrin:
My point is that just because you use a source doesn't mean per se that it is totally unbiased.
FWIW, even God's Word is somewhat biased, but it's 110+% TRUTH! :thumbsup:
Stinkapedia may be OK for things unrelated to Christianity and/or the Bible. OTOH, one needs to take what it may have concerning Christianity and/or the Bible with a grain of sodium chloride.
As JofJ, et.al., already know, any "source," be from Stinkapedia or else where, will always reflect the biases of that source's author.
EXAMPLE: Suppose WPE3BQL lived in Russia/the USSR prior to Al(Jazera) Gore "inventing" the internet.
Being curious about other lands/nations, he wanted to find out about this place called the USA.
Of course, his only "accurate and/or reliable" sources would probably be what he was permitted to learn from Government-controlled sources such as Pravda and/or Isvestia and/or Radio Moscow's "clear and balanced" reporting.
What do you suppose his opinion(s) of the USA might be?
Probably something close to "Wow! Sure glad I live in this 'enlightened' nation!" :smilewinkgrin:
My point is that just because you use a source doesn't mean per se that it is totally unbiased.
FWIW, even God's Word is somewhat biased, but it's 110+% TRUTH! :thumbsup:
Stinkapedia may be OK for things unrelated to Christianity and/or the Bible. OTOH, one needs to take what it may have concerning Christianity and/or the Bible with a grain of sodium chloride.
Last edited by a moderator:
JoJ, you really need to slow down and examine things before you speak off the cuff. Wikipedia needs to be used with discernment, but there is a lot of solid information there as well.
For your information :
P13 has 44 verses
P15 has 26 verses
P16 has 15 verses
P18 has 3 verses
P22 has 17 verses
P27 has 30 verses
P32 has 11 verses
P39 has 9 verses
P18 has the fewest number of verses, but apparently a lot of scholarship went into investigating the Oxyrhyncus papyri.
The main problem with Wikipedia is not specifically that it is biased, but that it is error-ridden. Amateurs or ill-informed people have as much right to correct an article on Wikipedia as the most educated scholars, making the typical article on scholarly subjects to be error-prone.
For example, in the article "Textual Criticism" in Wikiedia there are a number of basic errors. One is that in the chart about OT textual criticism, the far left column is labeled "Manuscript" when it should really be labeled "Text." The list there includes "Septuagint," "Peshitta," "Vulgate," "Masoretic," etc. These are not manuscripts, so this is an amateur, uninformed mistake.
Again, in the chart on New Testament text types in the same article it says that the Western text is sometimes called the Caesarean. This is in error. The Casesarean is a separate text type postulated by some textual critics, though others deny its independent existence.
Another basic error is that in one place the article mixes up "textual criticism, lower and higher." The truth is that only lower criticism is textual criticism. I could go on and on.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Off the cuff?" Hardly. This is an issue that I've carefully thought through as a college and Bible school teacher since well before Wikipedia was invented.
The problem for the amateur reading Wikipedia is that he or she has no way to know if the information they are reading is "solid" or mistaken. Therefore in a college or grad school paper Wikipedia is forbidden as a source, and my son and I specifically state that to the students in our syllabi.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, off-the-cuff. You spoke (typed) in a knee-jerk reaction. You didn't bother to check how many verses were in the papyri that I listed.
I do agree that the more verses,chapters and books a mss. has the better. But experts can make their classifications with less information than you are comfortable with.
What sources do have to support your belief that only two mss. dated before the 4th century are of the Alexandrian text-type?
Yep, and I said specifically that I didn't have time to answer in more detail.
Where do you think I got the information that I gave? I am often in correspondence with experts in the field. In fact, my son with the office two doors down and I talk about textual criticism often, and he's far more expert than anyone on Wikipedia. And I have about 40 books in my library on textual criticism by experts--50 if you count Greek NTs (including Westcott and Hort's 2 volume American edition).
I'll match my sources against Wikipedia any time of the day or night.
Tell you what. Start your own thread based on Wikipedia. But I really don't feel like continuing with you here, since your source is so poor. Have a good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
The final essay is another by T. David Anderson, the Wycliffe translator in Cameroon. (There is also a bibliography after this essay which I will comment on.) It might be called a "flow of thought" essay. (I just invented that term. ) It is basically his discussion with himself comparing the eclectic method with the Byzantine Priority method.
He is not yet completely convinced of Byz. Pri., but writes in the first paragraph, "Until recently, I assumed that I could trust the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament to give a reliable evaluation of the relative merit of variant readings. Recently, however, my faith has been shaken by reading and discussing arguments in favour of the Byzantine Text type as being closer to the original autographs than the Alexandrian text type which is favoured by the editors of the eclectic text found in the UBS Greek New Testament. As a way of clarifying my thinking on this topic, I have attempted to set out a number of arguments for and against the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types with regard to which one is closer to the original autographs" (p. 154).
This is a long essay, stretching out for 33 pages including his "References," so I'll not try to comment on the whole thing. Anyway, his first section is "Competing text types." In this he simply gives an intro to the text types, then gives arguments pro and con for the Byz. and Alex. In particular, he discusses the Byz. lack of early mss, then gives Dr. Robinson's answer. He discusses "Lack of attestation in early patristic writings," then gives the truth from Dr. Robinson that the fathers are 3:2 for the Byz. when it is taken into account that the fathers may quote a text with both the Byz. and Alex. reading being the same.
A key section is "Relative uniformity of Byzantine manuscripts." This is an important argument for the Byz. He writes as the Byz. position, "The relative uniformity of Byzantine manuscripts is due to the fact that they are relatively accurate reflections of the original autographs" (p. 159).
I'm skipping quite a bit here because the essay is so long, but on p. 166 he gives a strong argument ag. the Alex.: "Lack of attestation in the main Greek-speaking areas." Being bilingual, I know what it is like to operate in another language than one's own--difficult. Greek was the second language of native Alexandrians (not that the text type was exclusively used there), so that must be taken into account when discussing the accuracy of the scribes.
After this he discusses briefly the Western and Caesarean text types. Then he becomes more reflective, kind of thinking out loud about the arguments, before launching into the competing arguments. He closes the whole essay with six points which would ultimately convince him of Byz. Priority.
I'm going to stop here, since I've already written six paragraphs and have quite a ways to go in the essay. I will say in conclusion that if one is wavering between the two main positions in textual criticism, this is an excellent essay to read.
) It is basically his discussion with himself comparing the eclectic method with the Byzantine Priority method. He is not yet completely convinced of Byz. Pri., but writes in the first paragraph, "Until recently, I assumed that I could trust the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament to give a reliable evaluation of the relative merit of variant readings. Recently, however, my faith has been shaken by reading and discussing arguments in favour of the Byzantine Text type as being closer to the original autographs than the Alexandrian text type which is favoured by the editors of the eclectic text found in the UBS Greek New Testament. As a way of clarifying my thinking on this topic, I have attempted to set out a number of arguments for and against the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types with regard to which one is closer to the original autographs" (p. 154).
This is a long essay, stretching out for 33 pages including his "References," so I'll not try to comment on the whole thing. Anyway, his first section is "Competing text types." In this he simply gives an intro to the text types, then gives arguments pro and con for the Byz. and Alex. In particular, he discusses the Byz. lack of early mss, then gives Dr. Robinson's answer. He discusses "Lack of attestation in early patristic writings," then gives the truth from Dr. Robinson that the fathers are 3:2 for the Byz. when it is taken into account that the fathers may quote a text with both the Byz. and Alex. reading being the same.
A key section is "Relative uniformity of Byzantine manuscripts." This is an important argument for the Byz. He writes as the Byz. position, "The relative uniformity of Byzantine manuscripts is due to the fact that they are relatively accurate reflections of the original autographs" (p. 159).
I'm skipping quite a bit here because the essay is so long, but on p. 166 he gives a strong argument ag. the Alex.: "Lack of attestation in the main Greek-speaking areas." Being bilingual, I know what it is like to operate in another language than one's own--difficult. Greek was the second language of native Alexandrians (not that the text type was exclusively used there), so that must be taken into account when discussing the accuracy of the scribes.
After this he discusses briefly the Western and Caesarean text types. Then he becomes more reflective, kind of thinking out loud about the arguments, before launching into the competing arguments. He closes the whole essay with six points which would ultimately convince him of Byz. Priority.
I'm going to stop here, since I've already written six paragraphs and have quite a ways to go in the essay. I will say in conclusion that if one is wavering between the two main positions in textual criticism, this is an excellent essay to read.
The final section of the book is "Byzantine Bibliography," by Mike Arcieri. Dr. Arcieri earnec his PhD in Religious Studies in 2008 from McGill U. Thesis Topic: The text of Didymus the blind in the Book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. Professor of New Testament at Faculté de théologie Acadie, Montreal, Canada. Arcieri himself lists four of his own articles, so he is active in the field.
This bibliography is an excellent resource for anyone interested in NT textual criticism. The 17 pages of listings give proof positive that the Byzantine Priority position has plenty of scholarship behind it. There have been Byzantine text advocates for a long time. Note, however that Alexandrian and eclectic advocates are included here when they interact with the Byzantine position, including such widely various scholars as David Alan Black, Bart Ehrman, Kirsopp Lake, Eugene Nida, Daniel Wallace, etc. Please note that no one but credentialed scholars are listed here. Also note that none who are listed here are KJV-only advocates, including Edward F. Hills who did key work on the Caesarean text, or D. A. Waite who has solid degrees but is strong KJV-only. Whatever you do, don't mistake the Byzantine Priority position for a KJV-only position. It is not.
The first section is "Articles," and there are 10 pages of listings! Many Byzantine/Majority stalwarts have articles listed here, including of course Dr. Robinson (20 articles), Zane Hodges (14 articles), Wilbur Pickering and William Pierpont.
Next we have "Books and Dissertations." I have to say there are some books on this list that I would love to have, especially the ones by Jakob Van Bruggen. Other key works are those by John Burgon (Why do people persist in calling him Dean Burgon?), a couple by Frederick Scrivener, etc.
The next section is "Greek New Testaments," of which I have several on the list (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont, Scholz, etc.) but wish for more, such as "Family P in Matthew," edited by R. Champlin, and The Second Century Greek New Testament, ed. by Harry Sturz.
The final section is "Internet," with some key articles, including one by BB denizen Johathan Borland, "A Collation of the Text of Hodges and Farstad with the Text of Robinson and Pierpont."
This bibliography is an excellent resource for anyone interested in NT textual criticism. The 17 pages of listings give proof positive that the Byzantine Priority position has plenty of scholarship behind it. There have been Byzantine text advocates for a long time. Note, however that Alexandrian and eclectic advocates are included here when they interact with the Byzantine position, including such widely various scholars as David Alan Black, Bart Ehrman, Kirsopp Lake, Eugene Nida, Daniel Wallace, etc. Please note that no one but credentialed scholars are listed here. Also note that none who are listed here are KJV-only advocates, including Edward F. Hills who did key work on the Caesarean text, or D. A. Waite who has solid degrees but is strong KJV-only. Whatever you do, don't mistake the Byzantine Priority position for a KJV-only position. It is not.
The first section is "Articles," and there are 10 pages of listings! Many Byzantine/Majority stalwarts have articles listed here, including of course Dr. Robinson (20 articles), Zane Hodges (14 articles), Wilbur Pickering and William Pierpont.
Next we have "Books and Dissertations." I have to say there are some books on this list that I would love to have, especially the ones by Jakob Van Bruggen. Other key works are those by John Burgon (Why do people persist in calling him Dean Burgon?), a couple by Frederick Scrivener, etc.
The next section is "Greek New Testaments," of which I have several on the list (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont, Scholz, etc.) but wish for more, such as "Family P in Matthew," edited by R. Champlin, and The Second Century Greek New Testament, ed. by Harry Sturz.
The final section is "Internet," with some key articles, including one by BB denizen Johathan Borland, "A Collation of the Text of Hodges and Farstad with the Text of Robinson and Pierpont."
With this I have finished my BB review of the book. I have purposefully refused attempts to make this into a debate about textual criticism per se, though any discussion about the book itself is welcome.
I have challenged anyone who wants to (especially Rippon) to start another thread to discuss textual criticism. I may or may not participate, depending on the level of civility and knowledge displayed. (As I have made perfectly clear, I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source.) In fact, I am considering starting my own thread to present the Byz. Pri. position. We'll see if I can find time.
God bless all.
I have challenged anyone who wants to (especially Rippon) to start another thread to discuss textual criticism. I may or may not participate, depending on the level of civility and knowledge displayed. (As I have made perfectly clear, I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source.) In fact, I am considering starting my own thread to present the Byz. Pri. position. We'll see if I can find time.
God bless all.
Would you be agreeable to the position that one can use with profot any reputable greek text, for serious studying of the text, as while you would prefer the bzt/MT for that ise, myself the CT, we can still use either one with condfidence that we are studying the very word of God to us?
More of a case of being a preferred greek text, not only Greek text?