My position explained

Sorry, in my last post I said "Dr Bob" when I should have meant "Pastor Bob"; too many Bobs! Apologies to both gentlemen

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

One more...

Conflation : verb [T] to combine (two or more separate things, esp. texts) to form a whole (Cambridge on-line dictionary).

Conflation is one of the elements of the Wescott and Hort theory, that Byzantine readings normally being longer are conflated readings from other differing sources.

Here is an example from p66 (John 10:19) which gives pause to that premise.

KJV John 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

Western : SCHISMA OUN Division therefore
Alexandrian: SCHISMA PALIN Division again
Byzantine: SCHISMA OUN PALIN Division therefore again

In Harry Sturz The Byzantine Text-Type: New Testament Textual Criticism he states that p45 and p75 support the Alexandrian reading but p66 which is earlier than p45, p75 has SCHISMA OUN PALIN, which supports the Byzantine text type.

He also says that this does not conclusively prove an early date for the entire Byzantine text-type but that it profoundly invalidates that longer readings are "always" due to conflation and that it may be just the opposite. Perhaps the Western scribe omitted PALIN and the Alexandrian scribe omitted OUN.

He documents well over 100 such evidences.

HankD

[ March 06, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I don't think any one argues that the longer reading is "always" due to conflation. It is a principle whose validity has been demonstrated. But it is only a principle. It is not ironclad ... just as the opposite isn't.

 

Probably one of the most scholarly defenses for
the Byzantine Priority position is by Robinson:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

He makes some good points. If you go down to para 73 he answers the "no early manuscripts" objections.

-kman

 

Amen Pastor Larry.

HankD

 

I will grant that most existing copies of manuscripts supporting the Received Text were produced between the tenth and fifteenth centuries. However, I'm sure you'll agree that an extant manuscript has to have been produced from an older manuscript. By virtue of use, these "forerunners" of the extant manuscripts were destroyed.

It is only logical that the majority of extant manuscripts accurately represent their forerunners all the way back to the autographa. </font>[/QUOTE]Granted; and Hort himself agreed with this. However, the principle applies only where there has been a normal transmissional history unaffected by major disruptions. This certainly isn't the case for the text of the NT, which had a transmissional history that was anything but normal. To understand how the Byzantine text type became predominant, it is necessary to know something about this history.

In the 1st century A.D., Greek was the universal language throughout the ancient Roman Empire. By 200 A.D., Latin eclipsed Greek as the major language of the Roman Empire, so Latin versions predominated throughout the West.

The result: few Greek MSS of the Western text type.

In 303, Diocletian's persecution began, and by imperial edict copies of the Scriptures were collected and destroyed. (Alexandria was particularly hard hit during Diocletian's persecution.) In 313, Constantine converted to Christianity and ordered Eusebius to oversee the creation of fifty copies of the Scriptures. It was safe for churches to make copies of the Scriptures again, so the major Church centers in Alexandria and Antioch were able to standardize and copy their local Greek texts to replace those destroyed in the persecution. Many of the bishops in Eastern regions came from Antioch bringing copies of the local text of Antioch with them as far as Constantinople. In the 7th century, the rise of Islam saw North Africa (Alexandria's region), Palestine and Syria fall under Moslem control. Christians in these areas again found it difficult to keep and copy the Scriptures.

The result: few Greek MSS of the Alexandrian text type.

By the 9th century, only the region around Constantinople remained free of Moslem control (unlike Palestine and North Africa), and only the region around Constantinople continued to use Greek (unlike the Latin West), so the churches in that region were able to continue using, copying, and distributing the text type originally brought from Antioch.

The result: a great number of Greek MSS of the Byzantine text type.

Those numbers haven't changed much. Some 90% of all Greek MSS are of the Byzantine text type; however, some 90% of these Byzantine MSS date from the 9th century and later and come from the only area in the ancient world still making Greek copies. In other words, because of the historical factors mentioned above, the text used in Constantinople would have predominated regardless of its textual character.

A few comments are in order. (1) Jewish scribes didn't always destroy their examplars. Sometimes they simply stored them in a small building called a ginizeh. Some astonishing caches of ancient MSS have been found in such places. (2) Lake visited three ancient monastic libraries and noted that there were very few MSS of demonstrably direct descent from exemplars. From this he concuded that exemplars were likely destroyed -- a reasonable inference in the case of those three monasteries, but hardly applicable to every Christian center of copying in the ancient world. (3) If the Byzantine text really were the most commonly used text everywhere in the ancient world (including Egypt) from the very beginning, then we would expect to find at least one surviving copy older than the late 4th century -- yet there are none.

 

But all of these MSS are Old Latin copies having a "Western" text type. Therefore, none of their readings can be proven to be distinctly Byzantine (i.e., are exclusive to the Byzantine text and not found in MSS of any other text type.) So there's no way of knowing if they aren't really "Western" readings which were taken up into the Byzantine text when it was created at a later date.

Not only Matthew, but all four Gospels show a Byzantine text of a certain character. The Byzantine text itself has several identifiable sub-families which differ from each other, and the Gospels in Alexandrinus are leading members of Family π. This doesn't help your case, though, since Alexandrinus is 5th century

 

Sturz offers a list of 150 alleged "distinctively Byzantine" readings in the papyri. However, Sturz' study is flawed for two reasons.

(1) Many of the readings in his list are not "distinctively Byzantine" as he claims -- e.g., the reading εξεστησαν at Mk. 5:42, which is listed as "distinctively Byzantine" even though it's supported by the majority of Latin MSS which have a "Western" text type.

(2) The existence of some ancient distinctively Byzantine readings doesn't establish the existence of an ancient Byzantine text type. There's a huge difference between two documents which share a handful of similar readings and two documents which are of the same text type. The KJV and NIV both have identical readings in Mt. 5:3, Jn. 1:1, Jn. 11:35, 1 Cor. 13:9, 1 Cor. 15:43-44a, and Eph. 6:1; however, it would be incorrect to conclude that the KJV and NIV have the same text type (and it would be doubly incorrect to conclude that the NIV as a whole existed back in 1611!

 

Dear Archangel,

Thanks for the input.
I gave the Sturz hard evidence of a Byzantine reading in papyri p66. Perhaps not conclusive but hard evidence none the less. There are many others. I admit that the vice versa is also possible.
Your objection comparing KJV/NIV with Byz/Alex however is faulty because the papyri are Greek, early and very close to the source, there is no translation or equivalence involved just a copying of the raw text.
As to the translations, the Itala readings are "decidedly" Byzantine/Alexandrian because of reading such as "tree" versus "book" Or words or phrases added/missing. I'm sure you know that translation readings (as opposed to mss copies) can be decidedly one text type or another and the rules and principles involved (Textual Criticism 101) in the text type determination of translations. In fact you used this knowledge in an observation of the the Latin of Mark 5:42.
My observation from the Alexandrinus is that the Byzantine text type was contemporary with the other types within.
I also cited others (Metzger and Aland) who agree with Sturz and state that a strong argument for the Byzantine text type can be made from the papyri.
Anyone may page back and read the posts along with the proofs and citations.
Also for those who are interested here is a URL below for anyone who wants to study and research the text types. It is a starting place.
If you are so inclined but you need to be able decide for yourself.
The exchange between Archangel and I could go on until the Lord returns.
Most of what happens in a text type debate (among others) is wheel-spinning.
But one does need to hear the various points of view and to see the evidences.
Start at the URL.

Be forewarned

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

I made my choice thirty years ago : that the Traditional Text is oldest and cleanest.
And everyone is entitled to my opinion.
Others of greater intellect and faith than mine have chosen the same, but some otherwise.
To be honest, my inclination was towards the TR anyway.

Peace to all…

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm#texttype

HankD

 

I'm not sure you're grasping the nature of my argument. My point is that there's an enormous difference between finding isolated Byzantine readings scattered around in early MSS with an obviously non-Byzantine text overall (like P66) and finding an actual early MS with an overall Byzantine text (i.e., all these Byzantine readings together in a single document). This is where the KJV/NIV illustration comes in: just because the two documents share similar readings in a few isolated places doesn't mean that they both share the same overall type of text. What would prove beyond all doubt that the Byzantine text as a text type existed before the 4th century would be the existence of an actual MS with an overall Byzantine text, or of a Father who used such a text, from the 3rd century or earlier. No such evidence exists.

Agreed, if we're speaking about the 5th century. However, my observation is that there's no evidence for the Byzantine text type being contemporary with the "Western" and Alexandrian text types before the 4th century. We have early documents with an overall "Western" text (e.g., p38) and with an overall Alexandrian text (e.g., p75), but we have no such early documents with an overall Byzantine text.

To my knowledge, Metzger and Aland don't agree with Sturz on this point. They readily acknowledge the presence of early Byzantine readings, but for the reasons above they do not believe that the papyri prove the existence of a Byzantine text type.

 

I believe we are "on the same page" as "they" say.
Are evidences growing? yes and many admit to a "trend" but conclusive proof? no. More documents, more research...

The problem has been that opposing views are impassioned about this.

Yes, I know KJVO, you have the one and only and it's in Olde English (would that be the 1611 or the 1769? Cambridge or Oxford? Apocrypha/marginal Notes or no?).

HankD

 

King James 1611 for me.

 

Homeboudn, I think Hank's question was "Which KJV?" He listed only a few of the many options, all of which are different, and none of which are actually the 1611.

 

Do you truly use the 1611 edition? You are probably using the 1769 one.

Neal