Oldest is best?

[HankD]

Two books spanning almost a century which support (to one degree or another) the "Traditional" or "Byzantine" Text Type:

The Traditional Text of The Holy Gospels, John Burgon; 1896.

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, Harry Sturz; 1984.

Both are available on the Web. Do a Google.

Burgon has written several other books (Most notable: The Revision Revised ) which are available on the Web.

"Oldest is the best" only if it is the original.

The "best" mss IMO most assuredly came out of the apostolic churches.

Sturz book is in two parts 1) the Wescott and Hort theories and their rebuttal and 2) The second part is largely a study of the payrii (especially p66) which support both Byzantine longer "conflated" readings and Alexandrian readings thereby largely disproving the Wescot and Hort theory that (1) oldest is best; (2) shortest reading is best and (3) most difficult reading is best.

There are several pages of comparison charts and a huge bibliography.

At very least it seems highly probable that these two major families of texts existed around AD120 rather than the Byzantine Text being a late 4th century development of "smoothing" and "conflation".


HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Nope, they were dealing with previously understood readings which were inaccurate. Be honest.

Taking a verse out of the Bible and placing it into the margin with the attachment "This verse is not relevent to today" is not considered an allowance.

19,20,21,23?

Oh yeah GOTCHA!

You misunderstood my "gotcha" It meant "I understand."

Can you show me a footnote that says "This verse is not relevant to today" please?

So now are you claiming that only the KJV translators should be permitted to clarify inaccuracies.

You are mighty quick to throw out judgements of dishonesty. Can't you just argue the point without judging character or motivations of your fellow posters?

 

[Deacon]

Hank, I think you slightly misrepresented the conclusions of Harry Sturtz.

Many scholars hold the Byzantine texttype as inferior to the earlier textforms which are typically those of Alexandrian decent.
Sturtz's concludes that the Byzantine text should be regarded as an equal among the other texttypes --- of no greater nor lesser importance.

Burgon on the other hand, believed in the superiority of the Byzantine textform.

Rob

 

[Salamander]

You misunderstood my "gotcha" It meant "I understand."

Can you show me a footnote that says "This verse is not relevant to today" please?

So now are you claiming that only the KJV translators should be permitted to clarify inaccuracies.

You are mighty quick to throw out judgements of dishonesty. Can't you just argue the point without judging character or motivations of your fellow posters?

First: I threw out no judgement, just admonition to be honest.

I try to be honest and it never hurt me to be told to "Be honest". I rather find it instruction in righteousness.

Now if I had said you were lying or being dishonest, your remarks would be justified, but instead they a villified.

Second: It's in the NIV and I won't waste redeemable time searching for it either. It has to do with the Divinity of Christ.

Third: The whole purpose of the KJB is to provide an understandable Bible for English speaking people that can be perfectly defined according to the meaning of words and in the context which those same words are found.

You seem to have a problem with that statement.

Fourth: If I were asked to culminate your character? I find it highly remarkable considering what I see you address and how you respond in many places.

Now go stick a pin in it before it explodes.:wavey:

 

[Salamander]

Hank, I think you slightly misrepresented the conclusions of Harry Sturtz.

Many scholars hold the Byzantine texttype as inferior to the earlier textforms which are typically those of Alexandrian decent.
Sturtz's concludes that the Byzantine text should be regarded as an equal among the other texttypes --- of no greater nor lesser importance.

Burgon on the other hand, believed in the superiority of the Byzantine textform.

Rob

I agree with Burgeon, he's older than Sturtz.

 

[Salamander]

BTW, I apologize Brother C4K if it seemed to you I was judging you and that I misunderstood your "Gotcha", but I believe you can understand my response.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

First: I threw out no judgement, just admonition to be honest.

I try to be honest and it never hurt me to be told to "Be honest". I rather find it instruction in righteousness.

Now if I had said you were lying or being dishonest, your remarks would be justified, but instead they a villified.

Second: It's in the NIV and I won't waste redeemable time searching for it either. It has to do with the Divinity of Christ.

Third: The whole purpose of the KJB is to provide an understandable Bible for English speaking people that can be perfectly defined according to the meaning of words and in the context which those same words are found.

You seem to have a problem with that statement.

Fourth: If I were asked to culminate your character? I find it highly remarkable considering what I see you address and how you respond in many places.

Now go stick a pin in it before it explodes.:wavey:

In other words you won't present your evidence and you still continue to impugn the character of others.

 

[Salamander]

In other words you won't present your evidence and you still continue to impugn the character of others.

I'll have to look it up and I don't have time right now ,nor do I think it's that important.

Prove it's not there.

Telling some one to be honest doesn't impugn anyone's character.

I suppose telling some one to not step on a snake is also impugning character? get real will ya?

 

[Salamander]

BTW, don't think I haven't noticed your obsession with me, is it you have it set up every post I make it sends you a notification or something?

I hope so.raying:

 

[robycop3]

Loox as if the only obsession here is YOURS, Sal, with a doctrine ABOUT Scripture that's NOT SUPPORTED by Scripture. Ya got a lotta justifying to do to tryta make up for lacka Scripture.

For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?
Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free,
use one precisely when we may use another
no less fit, as commodiously?

...AV translators

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'll have to look it up and I don't have time right now ,nor do I think it's that important.

I agree. Why did you bring it up?

 

[HankD]

Hank, I think you slightly misrepresented the conclusions of Harry Sturtz.

Many scholars hold the Byzantine texttype as inferior to the earlier textforms which are typically those of Alexandrian decent.
Sturtz's concludes that the Byzantine text should be regarded as an equal among the other texttypes --- of no greater nor lesser importance.

Burgon on the other hand, believed in the superiority of the Byzantine textform.

Rob

You are right in that I said they both supported the Traditional or Byzantine text to "one degree or another" without quantifying the "degree".

Obviously my personal bias is showing through.

I think I am inadvertantly over-reacting to this idea that "oldest is best".

Burgon uses the general argument of a court room where several hundred witnesses say one thing while one or two say something different as his basis of Traditional Text superiority.

Sturtz basis his conclusion RE: Byzantine Text upon study of the early paypii and certain other documents.


HankD

 

[Salamander]

I agree. Why did you bring it up?

Because I know you know what I'm talking about in the NIV.

The question now is why won't you allude to the verse? or the footnote in the column reference.

 

[Salamander]

Loox as if the only obsession here is YOURS, Sal, with a doctrine ABOUT Scripture that's NOT SUPPORTED by Scripture. Ya got a lotta justifying to do to tryta make up for lacka Scripture.

...AV translators

Learn to differentiate between the word of God and the Kingdom of God please.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Because I know you know what I'm talking about in the NIV.

The question now is why won't you allude to the verse? or the footnote in the column reference.

Because you are the one who claimed it was there. I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not going to read my NIV from cover to cover to find something that may not even be there. I am not an NIV fan.

When you make a claim like "A footnote says this is not relevant to today" the burden of proof is on you!

And would you please stop stalking me .

 

[EdSutton]

Because you are the one who claimed it was there. I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not going to read my NIV from cover to cover to find something that may not even be there. I am not an NIV fan.

When you make a claim like "A footnote says this is not relevant to today" the burden of proof is on you!

And would you please stop stalking me .

One man's stalking is another man's curiosity, maybe? Just readin' and wonderin' - :smilewinkgrin: :thumbsup: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Because you are the one who claimed it was there. I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not going to read my NIV from cover to cover to find something that may not even be there. I am not an NIV fan.

When you make a claim like "A footnote says this is not relevant to today" the burden of proof is on you!

And would you please stop stalking me .

Stalking you?:laugh:

It's in the Book of Mark. I don't have the NIV. I've learned not to confuse the word of God.

BTW, either you're insinuating my pastor lied or maybe I have lied. I heard it read from the pulpit. I highly esteem our pastor to never lie about the word of God. I have no burden of proof except the one you're placing on me which I am unable to bare since I won't even pick up the NIV to look for anything.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

One man's stalking is another man's curiosity, maybe? Just readin' and wonderin' - :smilewinkgrin: :thumbsup: :laugh:

Ed

If "he" wants a more curious exchange with me, I will suggest his pm's to me to hash out his indifference towards me.:sleep:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I wonder if I would be asked to prove it if I said

"The KJV1611 translators marginal notes cast doubts on the preservation of the scriptures."

 

[Salamander]

I wonder if I would be asked to prove it if I said

"The KJV1611 translators marginal notes cast doubts on the preservation of the scriptures."

Not by some one who is sure that isn't the truth.