There is No “Priority” Greek Text

[SavedByGrace]

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

dodgy editors!

 

[Yeshua1]

dodgy editors!

Found the UBS much easier for me, as just use it for the Greek, as the NA is way too much in to the apparatus stuff!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Found the UBS much easier for me, as just use it for the Greek, as the NA is way too much in to the apparatus stuff!

both are not all too honest in their textual evidences, like for 1 Timothy 3:16. where, for example the wrongly give the Greek Codex Alexandrinus, for the reading "who". I know for a fact that the original reading is "God", as I examined this Mss at the British Museum, for myself with a microscope some 25 years ago! Even their Patristic evidence is lacking for "God", to give the wrong impression that the better reading is "who"!

 

[Yeshua1]

both are not all to honest in their textual evidences, like for 1 Timothy 3:16. where, for example the wrongly give the Greek Codex Alexandrinus, for the reading "who". I know for a fact that the original reading is "God", as I examined this Mss at the British Museum, for myself with a microscope some 25 years ago! Even their Patristic evidence is lacking for "God", to give the wrong impression that the better reading is "who"!

was explained to me while in school that the UBS was for missionaries and pastors, while the NA edition for textual critics,,,,

 

[John of Japan]

What did you think of his main Gist?

As simply informative, it's not bad.

 

[Yeshua1]

As simply informative, it's not bad.

I appreciated his trying to be objective and honest, as he did see that each text has both good and bad points to consider!

 

[SavedByGrace]

was explained to me while in school that the UBS was for missionaries and pastors, while the NA edition for textual critics,,,,

I would always reccomend that anyone if at all possible, get as many Greek texts as possible, like, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lachmann, Griesbach, Souter, Westcott & Hort, Chr. Wordsworth, etc, etc, many are available on archive.org, if you don't mind pdf.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Well of course. What I disagree with are the Hort/Westcott rules, which developed into the modern eclectic rules.

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.

Robinson/Pierpont's goal was to produce a Byzantine Greek NT with the principles of textual criticism they believed in. Their principles would not let them include the Johannine Comma because their principles of textual criticism did not point to it as being genuine. If your principles are different, that does not give you the right to accuse them of attacking God's Word.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would always reccomend that anyone if at all possible, get as many Greek texts as possible, like, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lachmann, Griesbach, Souter, Westcott & Hort, Chr. Wordsworth, etc, etc, many are available on archive.org, if you don't mind pdf.

Isn't the Scrievner Greek text supposed to be THE definite TR?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well of course. What I disagree with are the Hort/Westcott rules, which developed into the modern eclectic rules.


Robinson/Pierpont's goal was to produce a Byzantine Greek NT with the principles of textual criticism they believed in. Their principles would not let them include the Johannine Comma because their principles of textual criticism did not point to it as being genuine. If your principles are different, that does not give you the right to accuse them of attacking God's Word.

Are not all 3 main Greek texts though a witness to the word of the Lord then? We can have the one favorite that to us is the best edition, but can we not agree all 3 can be used to study and understand the scriptures?

 

[John of Japan]

which is this?

???
Which what is what?

Catch you Thursday. I probably won't be on here tomorrow.

 

[John of Japan]

I appreciated his trying to be objective and honest, as he did see that each text has both good and bad points to consider!

Yeah, that was okay.

 

[John of Japan]

Are not all 3 main Greek texts though a witness to the word of the Lord then? We can have the one favorite that to us is the best edition, but can we not agree all 3 can be used to study and understand the scriptures?

Well, yeah. But I believe the Byzantine Textform is the closest to the original.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, yeah. But I believe the Byzantine Textform is the closest to the original.

No problem with preferred, problem is with 'Only"

 

[Garrett20]

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

I accept this as your opinion. Many people, including myself, would disagree.

Blessings

 

[SavedByGrace]

Isn't the Scrievner Greek text supposed to be THE definite TR?

yes, but I am not a TR only person

 

[SavedByGrace]

I accept this as your opinion. Many people, including myself, would disagree.

Blessings

I take it you have studied textual criticism for yourself?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Robinson/Pierpont's goal was to produce a Byzantine Greek NT with the principles of textual criticism they believed in

sure, but it is only one text, not the one and only

 

[SavedByGrace]

???
Which what is what?

Catch you Thursday. I probably won't be on here tomorrow.

your own thread?

 

[Deacon]

both are not all too honest in their textual evidences, like for 1 Timothy 3:16. where, for example the wrongly give the Greek Codex Alexandrinus, for the reading "who". I know for a fact that the original reading is "God", as I examined this Mss at the British Museum, for myself with a microscope some 25 years ago! Even their Patristic evidence is lacking for "God", to give the wrong impression that the better reading is "who"!

Alexandrinus has had a number of correctors (c) in its time

1 Timothy 3:16
{A} ὅς א* A* C* F G 33 (256 l 597 ὃς θεός) 365 1175 2127 l 60 eth Origenlat Didymus Epiphanius Theodorelat Cyril; Jerome // ὅ D* (061) itar, b, d, f, g, mon, o vg Severian Theodotus-Ancyra; Victorinus-Rome Hilary Ambrosiaster Pelagius Augustine Quodvultdeus Varimadum // θεός א2 Ac C2 D2 Ψ 075 0150 6 81 104 263 424 436 459 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1881 1912 1962 2200 Byz [K L P] Lect vgms geo2 slav Ps-Dionysius Apollinaris Diodore Gregory-Nyssa Didymusdub Chrysostom Theodoret
Not Traditional Material: AD TR
Ὃς … σαρκί Jn 1:14
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ Mk 16:19; Ac 1:9
Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus, Fifth Revised Edition. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies, 2014), 695–696.


16 ⸀ ὁμολογοῦμεν ως D* 1175
⸁ ὅ D* lat
¦ θεος א3 Ac C2 D2 K L P Ψ 81. 104. 630. 1241. 1505. 1739. 1881 vgms
¦ txt א* A* C* F G 33. 365. 1175; Did Epiph
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 638.

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus [LINK]
Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3 from Codex A, as presented in the photographic facsimile volume published by the British Museum in 1879. Of particular interest here is the reading in 3:16, where it may be seen that the manuscript reads ΘC "God was manifested in the flesh," employing the usual abbreviation ΘC for ΘEOC, with a stroke over the letters to indicate an abbreviation. However, textual critics believe that the ink in the center of the Θ and the stroke above were added by a corrector in modern times. Reasons for this belief are the color of the ink, and the fact that a "dot" has been placed in the Θ instead of a line. Tregelles writes, "The ink in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application" (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 1854). Without these marks, the manuscript originally read ΟC "He who was manifested in the flesh." In the photograph below the ΘC in 3:16 is circled. Further down, in verse 4:3, there is another ΘC circled for comparison.