SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
There are some who argue that they have the “priority” Greek text, which is supposed to be “better” than all of the others. One of such texts, is the so called “Byzantine Textform”, which has been complied by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. I shall give a couple textual examples, to show how such a claim is unworkable, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone engaged in textual criticism.
There are a few Greek textual “families”, such as The Western Text, The Alexandrian, The Caesarean, The Byzantine, etc. It is interesting, that Robinson and Pierpont, in their effort to make their “text” the “priority” over the others, they unfairly criticize the others. For the Western they call the text, “uncontrolled”, for the Alexandrian, they say that the text is “scribally defective”, the Caesarean, is not a serious text and is generally dismissed? This “evaluation” can be found in the Preface to their New Testament, 2005 edition, available free online.
Some rather bold statements to be made, in their attempt to dismiss and disregard the other Greek textual “families”! This alone, should cause anyone who is a textual student, to question the very basis of their “accepted” text, and the seriousness of their ability as textual scholars. It is like saying, that I believe only the NIV Bible has to it all right, and can be fully trusted, and all the others are basically unreliable!
Very simply put, the claim Robinson and Pierpont, for a “priority” for their “Byzantine Textform”, as “preserving a general consistency of the type of New Testament text”, is no more than conjecture, and equal to the hype by Constantin Tischendorf, the scholar who discovered the Greek manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus! Or, the “Revisers” of the 1881 English Bible, who supposed that their “version” was the best around! These claims are simply nonsense, and cannot be accepted by anyone who is a serious textual student. All the Greek textual “families” of manuscripts, versions, Patristic quotations, etc, are important, and have contributed to our understanding of a better Greek text for the New Testament.
Based on Robinson and Pierpont’s assessment of the textual evidence, important texts, like John 1:18, cannot be examined by the textual evidence, that calls into serious doubt, the “traditionally” accepted reading? In this verse, it reads in Versions like the King James, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son...”. There is very strong textual evidence, which has much older Greek manuscript support, for another reading, which I have no doubt, is the Original work of the Apostle John. Instead of “Son” (υἱὸς), it should read, “God” (θεὸς). The order of the words in the Greek text is important, “Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς”, that is, “God, no one has seen at any time, the Unique God” The Greek mss for this reading is over 100 years older than that for the reading “Son”, and has more principle Greek mss that support it. There is, no doubt, also very strong textual evidence for the reading “Son”, as found in the Old Latin Versions, and others, and some of the early Church theologians who quote this verse. However the Greek Papyri manuscript know as 66, dates from around 200 A.D., and is of great textual value, has the reading “God”. This reading was also known to be in the New Testament of some of the prominent heretics at the same time, who lived very early. We have the Gnostic Valentinus, who lived from 100-160); Ptolemy (100-170), Theodotus of Byzantium, (late 2nd century); another Gnostic, Heracleon, (also 2nd century). We also have Arius, and Origen. Their testimony is important, as it shows that the reading “God” was part of the Gospel of John at a very early time, much earlier than the evidence for “Son”. This shows that the change took place at a very early time, by those who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Greek Interlinear New Testament that is available online, also has “θεὸς”, but because of their theological bias on the Person of Jesus Christ, they render it “god”.
There is no difficulty, as some suppose, in John writing, “God, no one has seen at any time, the Unique God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him”. It is evident that the first “God” is the Father, Who is called “The Father”. In verse 1 John tells us that “The Word was with (Greek, pros, distinct) God (the Father), and The Word was God”. This same Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, is called the “Unique God” in verse 18. Not because He alone is “God”, but, because He of The Three in the Godhead, became Man, and is the God-Man, which is very much Unique! There can really be no real objection, either theologically, or textually, to the reading in John 1:18 being “θεὸς”.
Another very important passage in the New Testament, where the so-called “Byzantine Priority” text also fails, is 1 John 5:7. It is admitted that the earliest Greek manuscript evidence, if this is only considered, does not have the words, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”. This is the clearest passage in the New Testament to the Testimony of the Holy Trinity, which has been corrupted by copyists at a very early time. The early Church theologian, Tertullian (155-240, A.D.), wrote:
"Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV)”
“"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One.""
We also have the same time, a Bishop called Cyprian (200-258), who also wrote:
“Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'” (Treatise I:6).”
“The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."
Both were of the Latin Church, but used Greek New Testaments as well. It is very clear from their quotes, that they were referring to 1 John 5:7, especially important is Cyprians words, “and again as it is written”, thereby joining the quote from John 10:30, to 1 John 5:7.
The far stronger evidence showing that John did write the words as found in Versions like the King James, is in the Greek grammar. The words for verse 7 that are “accepted” by all other Versions, are: “ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (For there are three that bear witness in heaven). To the casual English reader, there is no problem with this. However, reading this in the Greek (even in Robinson and Pierpont), there is a huge problem. The words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, are masculine! The following verse reads, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”. Here the “Three Witnesses” that are the same “Three” in verse 7, “Spirit, water, blood”, and all neuter in the Greek. Why would John have used the “masculine” to describe “neuters”? Some argue, that because John here uses “Spirit”, as in the Holy Spirit, that he used the masculine. Really? In verse 6 John writes, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth”. Note the same “Three” neuters. Also note, that “beareth witness”, is the Greek, “μαρτυροῦν”, which is not masculine, but neuter, because grammatically it “agrees” with the gender of “Spirit” (πνεῦμά), and yet the same Person, the Holy Spirit, Who is The Truth, is referred to, Who is in verse 8! There is only ONE reason that John could have used the masculine “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, in verse 7, and that is because “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος” (The Father, The Word), are masculine nouns, and with “τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα” (the Holy Spirit), would require the masculine words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”. One further important point. In verse 8 John writes, “and these three are one” (και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν). Notice John here uses the Greek definite article, “το”. What is the purpose of this at this place? In Greek grammar, the use of the article here, is for the purpose of “renewed mention”, where it refers back to a pervious use or a word or phrase. At the end of verse 7, as found in the KJV and other Versions, the Apostle John wrote, “οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν” (The Three are one). Here we have the previous use of “ἕν”, which the Greek article “το”, in verse 8 was referring back to. Remove the words from verse 7, and we have yet another problem with the Greek grammar of verse 8! Even the great New Testament Greek scholar, Dr Thomas Fanshawe Middleton, in his work, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament”, admits that the use of the Greek definite article in verse 8, without verse 7, was a grammatical problem in the Greek text. Dr Middleton did not accept the words in verse 7 as genuine. Yet his own testimony to the Greek grammar, is very important.
These are just two of many examples from the New Testament, that clearly show why it is rather foolish for anyone to claim a “Priority Greek Text”, and simply disregard all the other evidence as being not relevant for textual studies.
There are a few Greek textual “families”, such as The Western Text, The Alexandrian, The Caesarean, The Byzantine, etc. It is interesting, that Robinson and Pierpont, in their effort to make their “text” the “priority” over the others, they unfairly criticize the others. For the Western they call the text, “uncontrolled”, for the Alexandrian, they say that the text is “scribally defective”, the Caesarean, is not a serious text and is generally dismissed? This “evaluation” can be found in the Preface to their New Testament, 2005 edition, available free online.
Some rather bold statements to be made, in their attempt to dismiss and disregard the other Greek textual “families”! This alone, should cause anyone who is a textual student, to question the very basis of their “accepted” text, and the seriousness of their ability as textual scholars. It is like saying, that I believe only the NIV Bible has to it all right, and can be fully trusted, and all the others are basically unreliable!
Very simply put, the claim Robinson and Pierpont, for a “priority” for their “Byzantine Textform”, as “preserving a general consistency of the type of New Testament text”, is no more than conjecture, and equal to the hype by Constantin Tischendorf, the scholar who discovered the Greek manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus! Or, the “Revisers” of the 1881 English Bible, who supposed that their “version” was the best around! These claims are simply nonsense, and cannot be accepted by anyone who is a serious textual student. All the Greek textual “families” of manuscripts, versions, Patristic quotations, etc, are important, and have contributed to our understanding of a better Greek text for the New Testament.
Based on Robinson and Pierpont’s assessment of the textual evidence, important texts, like John 1:18, cannot be examined by the textual evidence, that calls into serious doubt, the “traditionally” accepted reading? In this verse, it reads in Versions like the King James, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son...”. There is very strong textual evidence, which has much older Greek manuscript support, for another reading, which I have no doubt, is the Original work of the Apostle John. Instead of “Son” (υἱὸς), it should read, “God” (θεὸς). The order of the words in the Greek text is important, “Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς”, that is, “God, no one has seen at any time, the Unique God” The Greek mss for this reading is over 100 years older than that for the reading “Son”, and has more principle Greek mss that support it. There is, no doubt, also very strong textual evidence for the reading “Son”, as found in the Old Latin Versions, and others, and some of the early Church theologians who quote this verse. However the Greek Papyri manuscript know as 66, dates from around 200 A.D., and is of great textual value, has the reading “God”. This reading was also known to be in the New Testament of some of the prominent heretics at the same time, who lived very early. We have the Gnostic Valentinus, who lived from 100-160); Ptolemy (100-170), Theodotus of Byzantium, (late 2nd century); another Gnostic, Heracleon, (also 2nd century). We also have Arius, and Origen. Their testimony is important, as it shows that the reading “God” was part of the Gospel of John at a very early time, much earlier than the evidence for “Son”. This shows that the change took place at a very early time, by those who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Greek Interlinear New Testament that is available online, also has “θεὸς”, but because of their theological bias on the Person of Jesus Christ, they render it “god”.
There is no difficulty, as some suppose, in John writing, “God, no one has seen at any time, the Unique God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him”. It is evident that the first “God” is the Father, Who is called “The Father”. In verse 1 John tells us that “The Word was with (Greek, pros, distinct) God (the Father), and The Word was God”. This same Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, is called the “Unique God” in verse 18. Not because He alone is “God”, but, because He of The Three in the Godhead, became Man, and is the God-Man, which is very much Unique! There can really be no real objection, either theologically, or textually, to the reading in John 1:18 being “θεὸς”.
Another very important passage in the New Testament, where the so-called “Byzantine Priority” text also fails, is 1 John 5:7. It is admitted that the earliest Greek manuscript evidence, if this is only considered, does not have the words, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”. This is the clearest passage in the New Testament to the Testimony of the Holy Trinity, which has been corrupted by copyists at a very early time. The early Church theologian, Tertullian (155-240, A.D.), wrote:
"Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV)”
“"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One.""
We also have the same time, a Bishop called Cyprian (200-258), who also wrote:
“Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'” (Treatise I:6).”
“The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."
Both were of the Latin Church, but used Greek New Testaments as well. It is very clear from their quotes, that they were referring to 1 John 5:7, especially important is Cyprians words, “and again as it is written”, thereby joining the quote from John 10:30, to 1 John 5:7.
The far stronger evidence showing that John did write the words as found in Versions like the King James, is in the Greek grammar. The words for verse 7 that are “accepted” by all other Versions, are: “ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (For there are three that bear witness in heaven). To the casual English reader, there is no problem with this. However, reading this in the Greek (even in Robinson and Pierpont), there is a huge problem. The words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, are masculine! The following verse reads, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”. Here the “Three Witnesses” that are the same “Three” in verse 7, “Spirit, water, blood”, and all neuter in the Greek. Why would John have used the “masculine” to describe “neuters”? Some argue, that because John here uses “Spirit”, as in the Holy Spirit, that he used the masculine. Really? In verse 6 John writes, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth”. Note the same “Three” neuters. Also note, that “beareth witness”, is the Greek, “μαρτυροῦν”, which is not masculine, but neuter, because grammatically it “agrees” with the gender of “Spirit” (πνεῦμά), and yet the same Person, the Holy Spirit, Who is The Truth, is referred to, Who is in verse 8! There is only ONE reason that John could have used the masculine “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, in verse 7, and that is because “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος” (The Father, The Word), are masculine nouns, and with “τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα” (the Holy Spirit), would require the masculine words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”. One further important point. In verse 8 John writes, “and these three are one” (και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν). Notice John here uses the Greek definite article, “το”. What is the purpose of this at this place? In Greek grammar, the use of the article here, is for the purpose of “renewed mention”, where it refers back to a pervious use or a word or phrase. At the end of verse 7, as found in the KJV and other Versions, the Apostle John wrote, “οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν” (The Three are one). Here we have the previous use of “ἕν”, which the Greek article “το”, in verse 8 was referring back to. Remove the words from verse 7, and we have yet another problem with the Greek grammar of verse 8! Even the great New Testament Greek scholar, Dr Thomas Fanshawe Middleton, in his work, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament”, admits that the use of the Greek definite article in verse 8, without verse 7, was a grammatical problem in the Greek text. Dr Middleton did not accept the words in verse 7 as genuine. Yet his own testimony to the Greek grammar, is very important.
These are just two of many examples from the New Testament, that clearly show why it is rather foolish for anyone to claim a “Priority Greek Text”, and simply disregard all the other evidence as being not relevant for textual studies.
