There is No “Priority” Greek Text

[Yeshua1]

none of your arguments show by any means, that the Byzantine Text is "better" than the others, or to be used "above" the others. I think my main point has been missed here. I am saying that ALL the text-types are important, however small their witness might be, and must be considered TOGETHER in any serious study of the text. Neither has Robinson demonstrated this.

This seems to be a reasonable article on textual criticism, as the author likes all 3 Greek texts, but seems to support using the CT, but amending and correcting it with Bzt readings when needed!
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

 

[John of Japan]

This seems to be a reasonable article on textual criticism, as the author likes all 3 Greek texts, but seems to support using the CT, but amending and correcting it with Bzt readings when needed!
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

Not a bad article, but our students would not be allowed to cite it because (1) it's anonymous, and (2) it uses Wikipedia for an important source (about the papyri). So it's not really very scholarly.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not a bad article, but our students would not be allowed to cite it because (1) it's anonymous, and (2) it uses Wikipedia for an important source (about the papyri). So it's not really very scholarly.

What did you think of his main Gist?

 

[SavedByGrace]

ninth century and later

indeed, quite a late date. while the greater majority of the very early Papyri mss are not Byzantine, but Alexandrian text. Do you not think that the earlier mss are of great value for textual stuides.

You said that the mss for 1 John 5:7 were Byzantine, so why didn't Robinson include the words, or did her simply follow the masses who exculde them because of their late date? Anyhow, I don't accept 1 John 5:7 on the mss evidence, but mainly because the Greek grammar compels their acceptance, along with the solid witness borne by Tertullian and Cyprian, but who used the Greek NT.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The solution just might be to use the Critical greek text, but also to amend and correct it with Bzt readings when they seem to fit better in those certain areas!

blah, blah, blah...

 

[Conan]

indeed, quite a late date. while the greater majority of the very early Papyri mss are not Byzantine, but Alexandrian text. Do you not think that the earlier mss are of great value for textual stuides.

They are not Alexandrian Text, but have many Alexandrian readings. The exception is p75. That Text agrees with Codex Vaticanus 78% of the time. But all of the rest of the Alexandrian readings are far less. The other papyri has much lower agreements and are all mixed texts.

You said that the mss for 1 John 5:7 were Byzantine, so why didn't Robinson include the words, or did her simply follow the masses who exculde them because of their late date? Anyhow, I don't accept 1 John 5:7 on the mss evidence, but mainly because the Greek grammar compels their acceptance, along with the solid witness borne by Tertullian and Cyprian, but who used the Greek NT.

You are greatly mistaken. Tertullian and Cyprian were Latin speaking and used Latin Bibles. All, and I do mean all Greek Fathers do not know the extra words added from the Latin. The words do not appear in Greek until the 12th century, and it is a Greek translation of a Latin Church council (not a Bible).

 

[Conan]

blah, blah, blah...

Yeshua1 just spoke your position. Or so it seems to me.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You are greatly mistaken. Tertullian and Cyprian were Latin speaking and used Latin Bibles

"Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, but at one time resident in Rome, who wrote both in Greek and Latin" (Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.159)

"Tertullian, writing in Africa in Latin, quites the Scriptures freely, but he is by no means an accurate writer, and he seems often to have made his own translation from the Greek" (Frederic Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)

Cyprian, we are told, received “a good Greek education” (Elgin S Moyer; The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, p.108)

Enough evidence to show that these two from the Latin Church, as did Jerome and Augustine, knew of and used the Greek New Testament.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yeshua1 just spoke your position. Or so it seems to me.

I know that he did, but it is more banging on how great the Byzantine text is, when it is NOT!!!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The words do not appear in Greek until the 12th century, and it is a Greek translation of a Latin Church council (not a Bible).

you, like the great majority, are more concerned with the external textual evidence, rather than the internal Greek grammitical evidence, which I have briefly shown, proves beyond any doubt, that the words in 1 John 5:7, as found in the KJV/NKJV, etc, are 100% that of John. If you don't agree, then prove this wrong from the Greek.

 

[Deacon]

What do you call it then? Or how would you describe it?

Earliest
Best preserved

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have my own thread going, and so forth

which is this?

 

[Yeshua1]

They are not Alexandrian Text, but have many Alexandrian readings. The exception is p75. That Text agrees with Codex Vaticanus 78% of the time. But all of the rest of the Alexandrian readings are far less. The other papyri has much lower agreements and are all mixed texts.


You are greatly mistaken. Tertullian and Cyprian were Latin speaking and used Latin Bibles. All, and I do mean all Greek Fathers do not know the extra words added from the Latin. The words do not appear in Greek until the 12th century, and it is a Greek translation of a Latin Church council (not a Bible).

Think that even Eramus did not find any evidence to include it into his Greek NT until third edition...

 

[Yeshua1]

indeed, quite a late date. while the greater majority of the very early Papyri mss are not Byzantine, but Alexandrian text. Do you not think that the earlier mss are of great value for textual stuides.

You said that the mss for 1 John 5:7 were Byzantine, so why didn't Robinson include the words, or did her simply follow the masses who exculde them because of their late date? Anyhow, I don't accept 1 John 5:7 on the mss evidence, but mainly because the Greek grammar compels their acceptance, along with the solid witness borne by Tertullian and Cyprian, but who used the Greek NT.

Many of the Ecf writings seems to be much more akin to Alexandrian type Greek text passages....

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that he did, but it is more banging on how great the Byzantine text is, when it is NOT!!!

No, more that while the Critical Greek text is the best one, they should not just totally disregard the Bzt, as it might have it right in some places!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Many of the Ecf writings seems to be much more akin to Alexandrian type Greek text passages....

indeed, which is why I would stress that ALL mss types, including the MT be considered for textual purposes

 

[SavedByGrace]

Critical Greek text

you mean the text produced by the UBS?

 

[Yeshua1]

indeed, which is why I would stress that ALL mss types, including the MT be considered for textual purposes

Both the MT and the TR though seem to just want it for those renderings alone...

 

[Yeshua1]

you mean the text produced by the UBS?

Yes, 5th edition now I believe, i still have my third edition!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Think that even Eramus did not find any evidence to include it into his Greek NT until third edition...

The Latin Vulgate, it must be remembered, was created by Jerome from Greek manuscripts, and it had this verse. In his prologue to the Epistles, he writes:

"si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.”

(J Migne; P.L., Vol. XXIX, fol.821)

Translation for English readers:

“In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed”