RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
They (it) should not be disallowed a priori, nor should they (it) be assumed a priori.
One must make a case, and the moment that begins, textual criticism ensues.
-
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!
Textual Criticism?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
One must make a case, and the moment that begins, textual criticism ensues.
Let me get this straight ‘37.
A simple Yes or No is sufficient to answer.
Are you saying that the evidence that Family 35 texts are the perfect ‘original autograph’ is the collation of Family 35 manuscripts?
Rob
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
But since you have no proof that it is in fact equal to the autographs it is only speculation on you part. Which is what I have been saying.
Your asking us to believe that F35 is the best rendering of the autographs because the best rendering of the autographs is F35. Circular logic they 37
Last edited:
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@37818 read this article and understand what it says. F35 may be very accurate within it's family but it is not perfect as you seem to think it is.
Family 35 could be described as a manuscript-cluster, having essentially the Byzantine Text but with enough shared readings to set its members apart from other Byzantine manuscript-groups. (For a brief description of Byzantine sub-groups see Robert Waltz’s description of the Claremont Profile Method.) Do its members agree with each other more closely than B and À? More closely than A and 2474?
To find out, I compared the text of Luke 19:1-27 in GA 155 and GA 691 (two members of family 35 – GA 155 is at the Vatican Library, catalogued as Reg. Gr. 79, and GA 691 is at the British Library, catalogued as Additional MS 22739). I compared their online page-views to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, using the same ground-rules I used for À, B, A, and 2474 (that is, setting aside trivial orthographic variations, not counting contractions as errors, and ignoring most itacisms).
Due to the remarkable uniformity of the text in these two manuscripts, instead of providing a verse-by-verse list of their disagreements with each other, it seems better to just state the differences:
Differences between GA 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27:
1-15 – no differences
16 – 691 reads επραγματεύσατο instead of διεπραγματεύσατο (-2)
17 – no differences
18 – 692 reads μνας instead of μνα before σου (+1)
19-22 – no differences
23 – 691 reads την before τράπεζαν (+3)
Verses 24-27 – no differences
(Both 155 and 691 disagree with RP2005 in verse 15 by not including και, and both MSS read συκομοραίαν instead of RP2005’s συκομωραίαν in verse 4.)
The total amount of disagreement between 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27 thus consists of three disagreements, involving six letters.
I am confident that 155 and 691 display a similarly remarkable level of agreement in Luke 19:28-48.
In Luke 19:1-27, there is obviously a stark difference between the degree of disagreement between two representatives of the Alexandrian Text (20 differences, involving 49 letters), and two relatively early members of the Byzantine Text (14 differences, involving 69 letters), and two members of family 35 (three disagreements, involving six letters).
Unless 155 and 691 are somehow exceptional, it appears that the copyists of the manuscripts in family 35 transcribed with a level of precision and uniformity which was on a whole other level compared to the scribes in the other manuscript-groups. It may be the case that “No two manuscripts agree exactly,” due to trivial differences, but the agreement-rate for members of family 35 appears to be phenomenally higher than the agreement-rate among members of any other major manuscript-group. Whether the copyists of the over 220 manuscripts that represent were physically isolated from exemplars representing other forms of the text, or were intentionally selective about which exemplars to use, they perpetuated the text with remarkably uniformity. So we can say, when asking if Byzantine manuscripts have less disagreements that other forms of the text: not necessarily in early settings where the use of diverse exemplars elicited mixture, but in the Byzantine sub-group known as family 35, yes; those Byzantine MSS have far fewer disagreements. The Text of the Gospels: Do Byzantine MSS Have Less Disagreements? (Part 3)
Posted by James Snapp Jr
Family 35 could be described as a manuscript-cluster, having essentially the Byzantine Text but with enough shared readings to set its members apart from other Byzantine manuscript-groups. (For a brief description of Byzantine sub-groups see Robert Waltz’s description of the Claremont Profile Method.) Do its members agree with each other more closely than B and À? More closely than A and 2474?
To find out, I compared the text of Luke 19:1-27 in GA 155 and GA 691 (two members of family 35 – GA 155 is at the Vatican Library, catalogued as Reg. Gr. 79, and GA 691 is at the British Library, catalogued as Additional MS 22739). I compared their online page-views to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, using the same ground-rules I used for À, B, A, and 2474 (that is, setting aside trivial orthographic variations, not counting contractions as errors, and ignoring most itacisms).
Due to the remarkable uniformity of the text in these two manuscripts, instead of providing a verse-by-verse list of their disagreements with each other, it seems better to just state the differences:
Differences between GA 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27:
1-15 – no differences
16 – 691 reads επραγματεύσατο instead of διεπραγματεύσατο (-2)
17 – no differences
18 – 692 reads μνας instead of μνα before σου (+1)
19-22 – no differences
23 – 691 reads την before τράπεζαν (+3)
Verses 24-27 – no differences
(Both 155 and 691 disagree with RP2005 in verse 15 by not including και, and both MSS read συκομοραίαν instead of RP2005’s συκομωραίαν in verse 4.)
The total amount of disagreement between 155 and 691 in Luke 19:1-27 thus consists of three disagreements, involving six letters.
I am confident that 155 and 691 display a similarly remarkable level of agreement in Luke 19:28-48.
In Luke 19:1-27, there is obviously a stark difference between the degree of disagreement between two representatives of the Alexandrian Text (20 differences, involving 49 letters), and two relatively early members of the Byzantine Text (14 differences, involving 69 letters), and two members of family 35 (three disagreements, involving six letters).
Unless 155 and 691 are somehow exceptional, it appears that the copyists of the manuscripts in family 35 transcribed with a level of precision and uniformity which was on a whole other level compared to the scribes in the other manuscript-groups. It may be the case that “No two manuscripts agree exactly,” due to trivial differences, but the agreement-rate for members of family 35 appears to be phenomenally higher than the agreement-rate among members of any other major manuscript-group. Whether the copyists of the over 220 manuscripts that represent were physically isolated from exemplars representing other forms of the text, or were intentionally selective about which exemplars to use, they perpetuated the text with remarkably uniformity. So we can say, when asking if Byzantine manuscripts have less disagreements that other forms of the text: not necessarily in early settings where the use of diverse exemplars elicited mixture, but in the Byzantine sub-group known as family 35, yes; those Byzantine MSS have far fewer disagreements. The Text of the Gospels: Do Byzantine MSS Have Less Disagreements? (Part 3)
Posted by James Snapp Jr
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
If there be a major problem with F35GNT it only shows f35 for the one reading from f35 used. If there is percentage difference within f35 it would be useful to show it's percentages along with whole book percentage as currently done uniquely in F35GNT.
37818
Well-Known Member
Textual criticism has not.
37818
Well-Known Member
That seems to be the claimed discoverty.
37818
Well-Known Member
Another comparison in Luke 19:,
"19:4 συκομωραιαν ] συκομοραιαν
εμελλεν ] ημελλεν
19:15 και ειπεν ] ειπεν
19:23 τραπεζαν ] την τραπεζαν"
In PDF on post #34.
So one are the unique variants between two K^r f35 mss.
This second is between two collations of GNT texts.
_______________
Verse reading is in 15 not 16.
Regarding διεπραγματεύσατο. W-H διεπραγματεύσαντο. TR διεπραγματεύσατο.
Last edited:
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You hold to the idea that the F35 is inerrant as it reproduces the autographs which the article shows they do not. That is all one has to show to prove your theory is wrong.
As I have said and now have shown you the bible we have are not inerrant but they are accurate. As scripture says:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Do you not believe this?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Correct, that is the claim but it is not the fact.
37818
Well-Known Member
If the claim is true it is to the degree that it is true.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So you are comparing Byzantine text to Byzantine text to show us what? You still do not have the inerrant text that reproduces the autographs.
Actually I am glad we do not have the autographs as we would have people worshiping them just as the Jews worshiped the bronze snake and the golden calf.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
What kind of logic is that? You may as well have said, IF the claim is false then it is only false to the degree that it is false. But something is only true or false it can not be both at the same time.
"Family 35 is itself its own evidence. The original autographs were perfect. Collation of Family 35 recovers the texts of the autographs." Your post # 53
So are you making the claim that F35 recovered the autograph text or only part of the autographs?
37818
Well-Known Member
That would be the case to the degree the full text of the autograghs have been recoverted by collation.
Not in the way you do. I hold 2 Timothy 3:16-17 refers to God's inerrant word. From what I understand, only 90% of our New Testament text is agreed on accross all English translations. The remaining 10% is then in dispute.
The F35 Greek New Testament text is limiting the name Family 35 to the it's collated archetype text. Being identified as the text from the original autographs. 90% is already agreed upon. The percentage of text not agreed upon has as a whole has never been collated. And the 2% of New Testament texts regarded as "oldest and best" is not enough manuscripts to collate to recover their archetype text. I have not in this thread argued what I might not agree with in f35 as defined.
I do believe in the thousands of New Testament manuscripts the original text is preserved by God. Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. . . ."
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So all that to say we have the best text available but we DO NOT have the exact copy of the autographs. We have an accurate bible.
You still dance around the obvious don't you. The F35 produced text is the best of all the F35 texts, which says nothing. You still maintain that the F35 text is the text of the autographs but with no proof, rather just your claim. As you said 10% is in dispute.
.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
So we see your bias.
37818
Well-Known Member
Everyone has some kind of bias.
37818
Well-Known Member
90% or better of the Greek New Testament texts chosen to be taranslated in English is identifiable being the inerrant word of God. Do you deny this? Collating K^r Greek texts it's archetype text is recovered. It is being defined as Family 35 Greek New Testament text. How do you prove its archetype text is not the same text as the autographs from which the text of the New Testament came?
- Status