-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There is No “Priority” Greek Text
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
- Status
No need to bother, since I already know where the reading came from, and it isn't from the Greek manuscript base, but some Old Latin and patristic citations (which amounts to even less evidence that that claimed for the Johannine Comma).
Does your "doctrinal priority" method also consider John 1:13 to read "who was born," instead of "who were born" — thus supporting the virgin birth? A lot of fathers said so....but no Greek manuscripts.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
ah, yet another person who is hung-up on the old Greek mss!
A couple of things, firstly, yes I hold to the singular reading in John 1:13. What people like yourself don't undersatnd, that the Patristic evidence, like Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, etc, though Latin, cannot be ignored or dismissed, because these theologians had these readings in THEIR Greek and Latin mss. Did you know that the oldest Greek ms for the Woman in Adutery in John's Gospel, is 5th/6th century? Yet, over 1oo years before this, the scholar Jerome said that the passage was in "MANY Greek and Latin Manuscripts"! So, where are they? Another point, what reading do you accept for Colossians 2:2, and why? seeing that there are about FOURTEEN different readings!
That answers all my concerns, seeing that your preference for readings is purely doctrinally based, so long as at least *some* versional or patristic support exists, regardless of all other Greek manuscript, versional or patristic support to the contrary.
So no need to discuss further, since your position is more out of any mainstream than even the KJVO/TRO position. Have a nice day.
(And for the record, in Col 2:2 I have no problem following the clear Greek manuscript majority (78%) reading) .
So no need to discuss further, since your position is more out of any mainstream than even the KJVO/TRO position. Have a nice day.
(And for the record, in Col 2:2 I have no problem following the clear Greek manuscript majority (78%) reading) .
Last edited:
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
So guess that all of those textual critics would be worthless eh?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!
According to SavedByGrace, yep.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
and where exactly did I say this? As I have already said more than once, I do not hold to ANY text being better than the other, as all have their worth, some more, some less. Period.
The problem to me is NOT saying that mark longer ending is right, or the woman caught in the act, or even 1 John 5:7., but to have some say that unless one agrees in full they all deserve to be inserted, are not even having a real Bible? I just do not see the evidence as being 100 % sure on either side!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
hope this is not meaning me, because this is not my beliefs. I asked someone else this question, which this the correct reading for Colossians 2:2, as there are about 14 variants?
I was thinking more about KJVO!
He does raise though an interesting point, as can someone who denies the infallbility of the Bible and inspiration as some textual critics seem to, produce a trustworthy translation?According to SavedByGrace, yep.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
the same can be said about the manuscripts. It is quite possible that the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were the two of the 50 requested by Emperor Constantine in A.A. 311, which was undertaken by Acacius and Euzoius, both who were followers of Arius. Dr Metzger informs us that, "Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27). Dr Souter, in his book has classified manuscripts into groups for textual study, which he follows on from Professor Von Soden. Under the "K" Text, we find the four principal Greek Manuscripts, the codices, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Epharemi (5th century). We are also told that, "'K' was produced at Antioch by Lucian" (see, Souter, Text and Canon, p.120). Lucian was also of the same theology as Aruis. These people were directly involved in the copying of many manuscripts. So what of the trustworthiness of manuscript copying?
Since you do your textual criticism according to doctrine, you are out of step with all professional textual critics. So my statement stands. I previously said your position is that of Sturz, but on reflection it is not. It is very individualistic.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
My main area of study is the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which started x years ago, when I also started textual criticism. This was due to me being challenged as a new believer, by a JW, that their reading of John 1:1 was correct. This led me in to the Greek study and then textual, when another person said that Matthew 28:19 was not part of the original. The texts that I mainly study are doctrinal, as this is related to my studies, but not only so. These "changes", like that of 1 Corinthians 10:9 (where Christ as been replaced by Lord or God); and 15:47, where "Lord" (Second Man, the Lord, has been removed); and Luke 1:35, where "out of you" has also been removed, etc, increased my interest in textual studies.
Interesting. So did you study Greek somewhere, or on your own?
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
self, through books, before the internet
That's a tough thing to do.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
very! it tooks many years, with a full-time job, and I almost quit a few times due to the immense pressure, but thanks to the Good Lord and friends, I carried on. Still have some way to go!
Just a couple of corrections.
1. First of all, Von Soden's "K text" is actually the Byzantine.
2. His K does include Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi (א, B, C). They are included by Von Soden in his H (Hesychian) text.
3. So, the first to postulate a "Lucian Recension" were Westcott & Hort. Their term for the Byz. was "Syrian," and their "Lucian Recension" idea was how they accounted for the Byz./Maj. text, since they rejected it as being possible before Lucius. "The Syrian text must in fact be the result of a 'recension' in the proper sense of the word, a work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors and not merely by scribes" (W & H American ed., Vol. 2, p. 133).
IMO, the way W & H describe the Syrian/Byz. is a great indication that it is the closest to the autographs: "The qualities which the authors of the Syrian text seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness" (ibid, 134). In other words, the original Greek NT, as breathed out by God, would have been lucid and complete--the Byzantine!
- Status