There is No “Priority” Greek Text

[SavedByGrace]

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

yeah, I have read the long history many years ago about the actual reading, which is why I examined this manuscript in person when living in London, over 25 years ago. Like many who saw that it read "θεος", I too could see this using a microscope. John William Burgon, in his masterful essay on the text, which is available on archive.org, The revision revised : three articles reprinted from the 'Quarterly review' : I. The new Geek text. II. The new English version. III. Westcott and Hort's new textual theory ; to which is added a reply to Bishop Ellicott's pamphlet in defence of the revisers and their Greek text of the New Testament, has shown beyond any doubt, that the original reading for 1 Timothy 3:16, is indeed, "θεος". Over 100 years later, no one can disprove his conclusiuons!

 

[Garrett20]

I take it you have studied textual criticism for yourself?

Yes sir. I, like John of Japan, lean towards what is called the Byzantine-textform model of textual criticism.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yes sir. I, like John of Japan, lean towards what is called the Byzantine-textform model of textual criticism.

sounds great! best wishes

 

[McCree79]

yeah, I have read the long history many years ago about the actual reading, which is why I examined this manuscript in person when living in London, over 25 years ago. Like many who saw that it read "θεος", I too could see this using a microscope. John William Burgon, in his masterful essay on the text, which is available on archive.org, The revision revised : three articles reprinted from the 'Quarterly review' : I. The new Geek text. II. The new English version. III. Westcott and Hort's new textual theory ; to which is added a reply to Bishop Ellicott's pamphlet in defence of the revisers and their Greek text of the New Testament, has shown beyond any doubt, that the original reading for 1 Timothy 3:16, is indeed, "θεος". Over 100 years later, no one can disprove his conclusiuons!

Then you know the Theta looks different than the other Thetas in the letter. The original made his thetas with a line. The correct made a dot.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Conan]

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”

Then why were the words missing in this Bibles text of 1st John? This Bible proves the words were not original to the Vulgate because they are not in this Bibles Text. It’s also why no one regards the prologue to be from Jerome, but a phony.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Then you know the Theta looks different than the other Thetas in the letter. The original made his thetas with a line. The correct made a dot. View attachment 4255

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I have seen this first-hand, and it was very clear, GOD

 

[SavedByGrace]

It’s also why no one regards the prologue to be from Jerome, but a phony

"no one"? Really, well I do for starters!

 

[Yeshua1]

yes, but I am not a TR only person

I am a combo myself, as while support the CT for the Majority, do think at times MT had it more right!

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why were the words missing in this Bibles text of 1st John? This Bible proves the words were not original to the Vulgate because they are not in this Bibles Text. It’s also why no one regards the prologue to be from Jerome, but a phony.

Why did Eramus not see any evidence for this until his third edition?

 

[Conan]

Why did Eramus not see any evidence for this until his third edition?

Because he did not see it in Greek manuscripts of 1st John. He put it in under pressure from other authorities.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because he did not see it in Greek manuscripts of 1st John. He put it in under pressure from other authorities.

Think this was right after Eramus said that if he saw no evidence, could not include it!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Because he did not see it in Greek manuscripts of 1st John. He put it in under pressure from other authorities.

He put it back into its rightful place, as directed by the Lord to do so!. I see that people spend so much time on the Greek manuscripts, as though God had copied each and every one! I have shown elsewhere, that the Greek grammar for this passage, shows beyond any doubt, that verse 7 as in the KJV and others, has to be genuine. Yet this internal evidence is not enough for the doubters.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Think this was right after Eramus said that if he saw no evidence, could not include it!

stop speculating on these endless "theories". I challenge anyone to prove that the Greek grammar agrees with the reading without the complete words of verse 7. No one will take this up, because they probably know that they will be proven wrong, and then these rather foolish theories will cease!

 

[Yeshua1]

stop speculating on these endless "theories". I challenge anyone to prove that the Greek grammar agrees with the reading without the complete words of verse 7. No one will take this up, because they probably know that they will be proven wrong, and then these rather foolish theories will cease!

Not required to be in there to prove the trinity

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not required to be in there to prove the trinity

I think that you completely miss the point. It is nothing to do with the verse being used to "prove" the Trinity, but the fact that it is the original part of the Epistle, and no one has the right to remove it, because they don't like or believe in what it teaches, as has been done in 1 Timothy 3:16! If it is, as it is, the word of the Apostle John, who wrote under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then it is our God-given duty to preserve it. And that is exactly what the Lord did when He made sure that Eramus put it back in its rightful place. Don't get too hung-up on manuscripts and versions.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Going through this thread I got sidetracked, so I'll get once more to the opening statement.

ALL textual criticism scholars to my knowledge have a priority Greek text. Westcott and Hort ware Alexandrian Priority, as have been most textual critics since then. Even the so-called eclectics (radical eclecticism & reasoned eclecticism, in Black's terminology) are actually Alexandrian Priority. Essentially, you cannot be a genuine textual critic without choosing a priority text. Maybe I'll do a thread on that.

It's late, I don't have time tonight, but maybe tomorrow I can find time to prove this by quoting W & H, Metzger, and others.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Essentially, you cannot be a genuine textual critic without choosing a priority text. Maybe I'll do a thread on that.

This is not true, as student (always learning, and never knowing it all), of textual studies for over 35 years, I count all of the different Textforms as equally important, as I do the manuscripts, versions and quotations from the Church fathers. This, I believe helps in having a balanced, fair and unbiased way in dealing with the facts, and not becoming bogged-down with an unjustfied "priority" of any of the evidence.

 

[John of Japan]

This is not true, as student (always learning, and never knowing it all), of textual studies for over 35 years, I count all of the different Textforms as equally important, as I do the manuscripts, versions and quotations from the Church fathers. This, I believe helps in having a balanced, fair and unbiased way in dealing with the facts, and not becoming bogged-down with an unjustfied "priority" of any of the evidence.

The position you are describing is called "reasoned conservatism" by David Alan Black, and is held by H. A. Sturz. (Have you read his book? His position is quite rare, and by the way, does not put the church fathers on an equal level with the mss.) However, what you've written so far doesn't suggest to me that you hold the Byzantine as an equal witness to the other text types. Do you?

I have to ask if you hold the eclectic canons of "shorter reading is best" and "oldest ms is best." If you hold to either of these (as almost everyone not Byz. Priority does), you are Alexandrian Priority.

And no offense, but enough with the "35 years," okay? It doesn't prove anything. You can study something for 35 years and still be wrong. For that matter I've studied textual criticism also for 35 years since before we took our first furlough in 1985. (I think I wrote 1986 in a previous post, but that was incorrect.)

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have to ask if you hold the eclectic canons of "shorter reading is best" and "oldest ms is best."

no, as I hold to 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV, as being part of the original work of John, though it is neither the "shorter reading", nor has the "oldest mss" evidence. As you also are well versed in Greek, can I ask you if you have examined the grammitical evidence of the passage in the Greek, and that the Apostle John, under Inspiration, could possibly have written, "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"? Surely this alone is more than enough to conclude what the genuine reading here is, as the Holy Spirit cannot err in what He says, which would be the case with the above reading.

 

[John of Japan]

Westcott and Hort, who SBG has lauded on this thread, were Alexandrian Priority, yet he has said nothing negative about them that I recall, though he has attacked Dr. Maurice Robinson for being Byzantine Priority. However, the very fact that W&H called their text, based on Alexandrian mss (Aleph & B, mostly) the "neutral text," meaning it was the one most true to the originals. Does SBG say about them that "such a claim is unworkable, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone engaged in textual criticism" (from his OP)? Nope, that insult is reserved for those taking the BP position, not the Alexandrian Priority position.

Bruce Metzger is Alexandrian Priority. He wrote, "The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, 2nd ed.). However, to SBG, "such a claim is unworkable, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone engaged in textual criticism." So even Metzger cannot be taken seriously by textual critics, according to SBG!!

"Reasoned eclecticism" as seen in UBS4 (I have the 4th rev. ed.) is also essentially Alexandrian in basis due to the canons of "shortest is best" and "oldest is best," though they tried not to be. So, SBG would say about their position that "such a claim is unworkable, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone engaged in textual criticism." So sorry, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Kasravidopoulos, Carlo M. Martine, and again Metzger (editors of this Greek NT), none of you professional textual critics are worthy of being taken seriously!