There is No “Priority” Greek Text

[John of Japan]

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!

Nicely said. I teach Greek, and still have some way to go.

Got my students started on thinking about verbal aspect today (something I still need to work on), and got a lot of blank looks when I ran around the classroom and asked what kind of action they were seeing (imperfective).

 

[SavedByGrace]

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!

thanks for the update, quite useful. I don't think that the "Lucian Recension" for the NT has ever been proven (I could be wrong), though he did work on the OT, which Jerome makes mention of as, "exemplaria Lucianea". Lucian himself was a heretic with his buddy Arius!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Nicely said. I teach Greek, and still have some way to go.

Got my students started on thinking about verbal aspect today (something I still need to work on), and got a lot of blank looks when I ran around the classroom and asked what kind of action they were seeing (imperfective).

I have disagreement with ὑπάρχων as used in Philippians 2:6, where the Analytical Greek lexicons say the Participle is in "present" tense. I would say correctly it should be "imperfect", as I have NT examples to show just this.

 

[John of Japan]

I have disagreement with ὑπάρχων as used in Philippians 2:6, where the Analytical Greek lexicons say the Participle is in "present" tense. I would say correctly it should be "imperfect", as I have NT examples to show just this.

Unfortunately for your theory, koine Greek did not have imperfect participles. (I'd be happy to repent if you can name a grammar that says they do.) It only had present, aorist, and future participles.

But fortunately for your exegesis, the aspect of any present tense form can be either aoristic or imperfective, so you can interpret the present participle in Phil. 2:6 as imperfective--a continuing state of being.

 

[John of Japan]

thanks for the update, quite useful. I don't think that the "Lucian Recension" for the NT has ever been proven (I could be wrong), though he did work on the OT, which Jerome makes mention of as, "exemplaria Lucianea". Lucian himself was a heretic with his buddy Arius!

You are correct. The Lucian Recension remains an unproven theory of W & H, with virtually no extant historical documents to prove it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Unfortunately for your theory, koine Greek did not have imperfect participles

indeed you are quite right on this

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Do you follow and accept then all that Dean Burgon wrote on textual criticism?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do you follow and accept then all that Dean Burgon wrote on textual criticism?

I have not read all that he has written, so can't say for sure.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nicely said. I teach Greek, and still have some way to go.

Got my students started on thinking about verbal aspect today (something I still need to work on), and got a lot of blank looks when I ran around the classroom and asked what kind of action they were seeing (imperfective).

How do you regard Dr Wallace as a Greek expert?

 

[Dave G]

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.

Respectfully,
I don't engage in "textual criticism", at least with regard to the Textus Receptus Greek and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.
I do criticize the others when it comes to both origen and usage.

I know in my spirit that the TR and Ben Chayyim are the words of God preserved for His children, and any faithful and meticulous translation that comes from them, in any language, will be the word of God if it's done with honest accuracy and integrity.
To me, the "priority" Greek Text is the TR which is mainly "Byzantine" in origin and preservation.
I have no reason to doubt it, and no reason to prove its validity.

I also know, in my heart, that anything outside of these two is not to be trusted, and to me, it doesn't "feel right", spiritually speaking.
In other words, I know my Saviour's voice, and I follow Him ( John 10:27 ).

While I do believe that many of God's words can be found in the others, I do not trust them as I do the ones that I have referenced above.
As for the "Critical Text" that I've come to understand is basically a 1-2% representation of the MT,
I wouldn't recommend its usage to anyone for any reason, except as a good example of what to leave alone and to totally ignore.

I've read extensively on the subject, done a fair bit of research, and without going any deeper than where I'm currently at, I long ago satisfied myself with sticking to what I started with 42+ years ago when the Lord called me by His Gospel...
The AV in the English and the TR and Ben Chayyim as the sources.

So far, no one has been able to convince me that the whole "textual criticism" movement is anything other than a very concerted effort on the part of certain powers-that-be to water down God's word and to cause people to doubt it...
And I don't see that ending anytime soon.

In fact, I hold that these are the last of the last days, and the merry-go-round money-making machine that is "textual criticism" is only going to spin ever faster and get more confusing as the time of His coming draws nearer.



May God bless you with ever-increasing wisdom and knowledge in your studies of His precious word.

 

[John of Japan]

How do you regard Dr Wallace as a Greek expert?

He's a brilliant scholar, but I disagree with him on some things.

 

[John of Japan]

Respectfully,
I don't engage in "textual criticism", at least with regard to the Textus Receptus Greek and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.

So, which TR is the right one? They differ many times. (See my thread on Matt.)

So far, no one has been able to convince me that the whole "textual criticism" movement is anything other than a very concerted effort on the part of certain powers-that-be to water down God's word and to cause people to doubt it...
And I don't see that ending anytime soon.

In fact, I hold that these are the last of the last days, and the merry-go-round money-making machine that is "textual criticism" is only going to spin ever faster and get more confusing as the time of His coming draws nearer.

Does this mean you disapprove of the textual criticism the translators of the KJV did? What about the textual criticism of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and Scrivener that produced the TR?

 

[John of Japan]

I have not read all that he has written, so can't say for sure.

You cannot logically agree with much that Burgon wrote, since you oppose the Byz. Textform as being an attack on God's Word. Burgon would have loved it.

 

[John of Japan]

thanks for the update, quite useful. I don't think that the "Lucian Recension" for the NT has ever been proven (I could be wrong), though he did work on the OT, which Jerome makes mention of as, "exemplaria Lucianea". Lucian himself was a heretic with his buddy Arius!

Oops, I meant to say, "His K does not include Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi (א, B, C). They are included by Von Soden in his H (Hesychian) text.

 

[SavedByGrace]

since you oppose the Byz. Textform as being an attack on God's Word

sorry, buddy, you got this wrong! I was attacking the omitting of certain crucial Bible texts by texts/versions, one of which is the Byz.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Oops, I meant to say, "His K does not include Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi (א, B, C). They are included by Von Soden in his H (Hesychian) text.

thanks I already knew that. I am reading Fred Kenyon's great little gem, The Text of the Greek Bible. Do you have this?

 

[SavedByGrace]

So, which TR is the right one? They differ many times. (See my thread on Matt.)


Does this mean you disapprove of the textual criticism the translators of the KJV did? What about the textual criticism of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and Scrivener that produced the TR?

what about Johann Jakob Griesbach?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:25 PM Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:25 PM Pacific.

This thread is closed