There is No “Priority” Greek Text

[John of Japan]

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.

Look, you have a bee in your bonnet about that one particular reading. You keep coming back to it, as if that were the only issue in all of textual criticism. Let me ask you: is one of your canons of textual criticism doctrinal? That is, do you believe that doctrine should rule our determination of readings in the Greek NT?

 

[SavedByGrace]

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!

 

[John of Japan]

So, you have no answer. I get it. Just mock, and that's all.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Look, you have a bee in your bonnet about that one particular reading. You keep coming back to it, as if that were the only issue in all of textual criticism. Let me ask you: is one of your canons of textual criticism doctrinal? That is, do you believe that doctrine should rule our determination of readings in the Greek NT?

You are completely missing the point here! I only bring such examples up, is because it shows the fallacy of those who bang-on about how great the manuscript evidence is, as though we should bow down to this! All manuscripts are the works of mere men, who copied, and copied and copied, etc, Like the JW's who in their "versions!" have clearly tampered with the text to suit their theology, so copyists also did the very same thing. Both here in 1 John 5:7, and 1 Timothy 3:16. Also, are you aware of the fact that the original reading of John 3:6, was a clear reference to the Deity of the Holy Spirit: "
"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of God". Which has much textual support? And, also 1 Corinthains 8:6, for the Holy Trinity, also corrupted by enemies of the Truth, which used to read: "But unto us, one God the father, of Whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom all things, and we by Him; and one Holy Spirit, in Whom all things, and we in Him". Which also has very strong support!

 

[SavedByGrace]

So, you have no answer. I get it. Just mock, and that's all.

No mocking at all, just had a good laugh reading your accusations which are not true.

 

[SavedByGrace]

So, you have no answer. I get it. Just mock, and that's all.

and you choosing not to deal with the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7, which you know that I am 100% right, and it will go against the beloved Byzantine Priority! What would Robinson, or anyone who should be striving to get to the Truth of what Scripture really teaches, do with such evidence which the very context in God Holy Word provides. Looks like to me that this is disregarded because it would interfere with their "system" of doing things! Very sad position to hold to, as the Truth is not being honestly contended for.

 

[John of Japan]

and you choosing not to deal with the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7, which you know that I am 100% right, and it will go against the beloved Byzantine Priority! What would Robinson, or anyone who should be striving to get to the Truth of what Scripture really teaches, do with such evidence which the very context in God Holy Word provides. Looks like to me that this is disregarded because it would interfere with their "system" of doing things! Very sad position to hold to, as the Truth is not being honestly contended for.

Oh, give me a break. I have barely interacted with you at all on 1 John 5:7, so you don't even know my position on it. And I do think you made good points on the grammar of the passage.

 

[John of Japan]

No mocking at all, just had a good laugh reading your accusations which are not true.

How so? Do you then denigrate Robinson while exalting these textual critics who hold to Alexandrian priority?

 

[John of Japan]

You are completely missing the point here! I only bring such examples up, is because it shows the fallacy of those who bang-on about how great the manuscript evidence is, as though we should bow down to this! All manuscripts are the works of mere men, who copied, and copied and copied, etc, Like the JW's who in their "versions!" have clearly tampered with the text to suit their theology, so copyists also did the very same thing. Both here in 1 John 5:7, and 1 Timothy 3:16. Also, are you aware of the fact that the original reading of John 3:6, was a clear reference to the Deity of the Holy Spirit: "
"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of God". Which has much textual support? And, also 1 Corinthains 8:6, for the Holy Trinity, also corrupted by enemies of the Truth, which used to read: "But unto us, one God the father, of Whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom all things, and we by Him; and one Holy Spirit, in Whom all things, and we in Him". Which also has very strong support!

Okay, so you have answered my question: one of your canons is doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

No mocking at all, just had a good laugh reading your accusations which are not true.

I did not make accusations, I simply made a point which you have refused to deal with. Your logic about Byz. Priority applies equally to many who hold Alexandrian Priority--they just don't call it that. The fact that you did not refute me, but simply mocked, means my point stands uncontested. Thank you!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your logic about Byz. Priority applies equally to many who hold Alexandrian Priority--they just don't call it that

I really don't understand where you get this "priority" stuff from? I personally hold to NO "priority" of ANY textual evidence, because I believe that ALL, including what is known as the Byzantine text, and use them ALL in my textual studies, as I do the Latin (Old and Vulgate), the Syriac, Coptic, etc, etc. I am of the convition that the most important factor in any Biblical studies, is the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and not what a bunch of mss or versons or Patristic quotes say.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Okay, so you have answered my question: one of your canons is doctrine.

Should not this be the main driving force for all those who engage in any form in Biblical studies? Doctrinal Truth is what it is about, because the Holy Bible is a Textbook of God's Teachings to all humans!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The fact that you did not refute me, but simply mocked, means my point stands uncontested. Thank you!

like yourself I too am a very busy person, so all takes time. I have submitted quite a few doctrinal articles on the baptist board and other forums, which all take good deal of time.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Oh, give me a break. I have barely interacted with you at all on 1 John 5:7, so you don't even know my position on it. And I do think you made good points on the grammar of the passage.

ok, but will you come back on this?

 

[John of Japan]

I really don't understand where you get this "priority" stuff from? I personally hold to NO "priority" of ANY textual evidence, because I believe that ALL, including what is known as the Byzantine text, and use them ALL in my textual studies, as I do the Latin (Old and Vulgate), the Syriac, Coptic, etc, etc. I am of the convition that the most important factor in any Biblical studies, is the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and not what a bunch of mss or versons or Patristic quotes say.

You missed my point. I was rebutting your OP statement that no serious student will take a "priority" position seriously.

 

[John of Japan]

ok, but will you come back on this?

Why should I? You are rude. But I'll simply say I'm ambiguous on the reading.

 

[Ziggy]

Sbg: "are you aware of the fact that the original reading of John 3:6, was a clear reference to the Deity of the Holy Spirit: "
"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of God". Which has much textual support?"

Where exactly does this reading come from? And what Greek text or English translation anywhere reads this way?

The Greek says only το γεγεννημενον εκ της σαρκός σαρξ εστιν, και το γεγεννημενον εκ του πνεύματος πνεύμα εστιν. Nothing more,nothing less. And no variant is noted even in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. So where is the supposed "much textual support" for this supposedly "original" reading?

 

[John of Japan]

Should not this be the main driving force for all those who engage in any form in Biblical studies? Doctrinal Truth is what it is about, because the Holy Bible is a Textbook of God's Teachings to all humans!

Textual criticism is not considered to be part of "Biblical studies." It's a separate subject. My degrees in "Biblical Studies" did not include any study at all on textual criticism.

Making doctrinal purity your canon means that you miss any doctrinal interpolations.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I'm ambiguous on the reading

says much!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Textual criticism is not considered to be part of "Biblical studies." It's a separate subject

all the same to me

 

[SavedByGrace]

Where exactly does this reading come from? And what Greek text or English translation anywhere reads this way?

I will do a separate thread on this