John 8:1-11

What you seem to have over looked is that those "paltry 5-7 documents" are representative of the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts, and also represent the vast majority of all patristic cites, and, as if that were not enough, such readings have been dated to earlier than the "paltry 3 or 4 documents" championed by the Alexandrian text type supporters. One of the most eye opening books I have ever read is "The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism" By Harry A. Sturz (required reading for my class on Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence). I highly recommend it, as well as the works of Hermann von Soden and Herman C. Hoskier. The later works of Frederic Kenyon are also very valuable as he had originally accepted the Alexandrian text type as being closest to the original, then, after studying all of the data available, reversed his position and became convinced the Byzantine text type was closest to the original.

 

I've tried to find this book, where can I get one?

Thanks.

HankD

 

http://www.bibleviews.com/sturz.html states:

But I just checked it out of the Seminary library.

 

Then by your own programmed standards,the people of old that had the Old Latin,the French Olivtan,the 1865/1602 Valera,et al- you know,the ones that rejected the pro Roman Catholic,Dark Age Jesuit manuscripts(and the "bibles" that came from them)in favor of the Bibles from the protestant texts of the reformation- were liberals;What you "struggle" against is nothing new;people back then knew a snake when they saw one,and they know one(200+ to be exact)when they see one today..

Give it your best shot..

 

Aren't Mormons KJVO when it comes to the Bible?

 

It seems as though some can't figure it out or are ignorant about the fact that we have many more manuscripts available to us today than ever before. Becuase of that we can make better decisions.

But some still like to keep the added verses that they once thought were correct and now they are convinced of the same thing despite evidence otherwise. They are afraid that their faith might crash over a correct text and they are proven wrong. It's much like driving an old car that gets 17 miles per gallon and refusing to make use of the newer technology that gets 35 miles per gallon. They claim that the old car is better but they really do not have any knowledge about a newer fuel injected car. So in their ognorance they continue to drive the machine that pollutes. They spew out their ignorance to others while making great claims that they are quite knowledgable. At the same time others laugh or feel sorry for them because they are so ignorant and don't even know it.

 

Thanks Skan.

HankD

 

I suppose to an extent;mighty pitiful though,even THEY know whats right.Sad.

 

You know, I was just thinking the same thing of you! What manuscripts have been discovered which represent a text type, which conclusively disproves the Byzantine text type, which were unknown to the compilers of the most well known 16th-19th century texts?

Oh, and, "knowledgable" is spelled "knowledgeable."

 

You know, I was just thinking the same thing of you! What manuscripts have been discovered which represent a text type, which conclusively disproves the Byzantine text type, which were unknown to the compilers of the most well known 16th-19th century texts?

Oh, and, "knowledgable" is spelled "knowledgeable." </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for your spelling correction and thinking of me. However I was not thinking of you when I posted. It was much more of a general statement that I made. But if describes you then you responded accordingly.

You may want to read some of the more modern scholars since that time. If you will get " A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger it will prove to be quite helpful. It would help to explain why the committee made the decisons they did. Another good book on the subject is Manuscripts of the Greek Bible by Metzger. A good examination of the textual evidence does help, rather than trust someone else'sview on the subject.

The Byzantine manuscript majority text method was thrown out some years ago. Few even believe it has any value today. Even some of the schools that taught it a few years ago do not teach it today. Using the majority text method is much like saying the greater the number of copies the better the evidence. That is much like saying that those who go to church are wrong because they are outnumbered by those who do not. Therefore going to church must be wrong. Manuscripts are to be weighed on both internal and external evidence not on numbers alone and poundage. If we found an original there would only be one and it wouldn't have much weight. The copies must have more weight according to the majority text method.

I must assume that you did not read my earlier post because you ignored it. So here it is:

posted December 23, 2003 10:20 PM In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Metzger states that there are many early and diverse manuscripts that do not have the pericope.

Later he states, "At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52. Others placed it after 7.36 or after 7.44 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38. Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."

 

I have read it. It was required reading in one of my many classes on Textual Criticism. We discussed it at length.

Read that too. And discussed it in class.

Did that too. I trust what I have been able to study for myself. I don't put a lot of stock in someone else's view without carefully researching all the available data.

By some, but no means all, of the textual scholars. In fact some of the very best have abandonded the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type.

Quite a few, actually.

Yes, the error is spreading.

Logical fallacy of the false analogy.

Nobody has suggested numbers alone nor poundage. Logical fallacy of the straw man argument.

Erroneous assumption. I read it. But you must have missed HankD's response. Here it is for your perusal:

and here is another of HankD's excellent responses:

 

Hoskier, von Soden, Kenyon, Hodges, Farstad, Pierpont, Robinson.

 

What you seem to have over looked is that those "paltry 5-7 documents" are representative of the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts, and also represent the vast majority of all patristic cites, and, as if that were not enough, such readings have been dated to earlier than the "paltry 3 or 4 documents" championed by the Alexandrian text type supporters. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, those "paltry 5-7 documents" represent the vast majority of *late* Greek MSS and *late* patristic sources -- which is one reason why they are not highly valued. And while there are a number of early Byzantine *readings* in the earlier Alexandrian MSS (which number far more that a "paltry 3 or 4 documents" BTW), no pre-4th C. source of *any* kind has an overall Byzantine *text*. This is exceedingly odd if, as the Byzantine priority theorists believe, the Byzantine text were the earliest and most widely used text thoughout the ancient world.

 

Because of the sheer mass of manuscripts compared to non-Byzantine.

More funding and research are needed for archeological pursuits. The more I read about this problem of unclassified documents the more need I see for an expanded and more balanced inventory. One recent article claims as many as 10000 unclassified mss in the Vatican archives alone (probably Vulgate, but no one knows for sure).


HankD

 

I wouldn't label them "good" or "bad" even after an analysis and classification.

They are what they are and I don't think we should label them with words which have their roots in a system which implies a determination of motive of the scribe (if that is what you mean).

Eastern, Western, old, late, fine.
Beautiful, ugly, sloppy workmanship, mutilated, OK too.
Defective or poor quality is as far as I am willing to go with descriptives and I would want too elaborate on what that means.

For instance I believe that Aleph is a defective MSS because I am prejudiced torwards the accuracy and consistency of the Byzantine MSS coming out of the apostolic churches of Asia Minor.

Yet I realize that I don't know when the "Byzantine" text type started. However it may not have "started", it may be the faithful reproduction of the NT writings, but I don't know for sure.

In the mean time we have (when the obvious is resolved) 98% of the NT even taking the TR and W&H differences into account. Of course this depends upon the grading system of the apparatus used.

HankD