Antiquity of the Byzantine Text

Actually, with the passing of the WH method and the fracturing of the eclectic method into thoroughgoing eclectic, reasoned eclectic and variations in between, this may not be true anymore.

 

This is an excellent book and I have it in Japan.

Concerning the age of the text types, in current thinking, "The status of the text-type issue at the outset of the twenty-first century, then, is that virtually all textual critics accept the existence, at least by 300 C.E. (sic) of three text-types (B, D, and A)." (Eldon Jay Epp in Rethinking Newe Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, p. 39). (Note that Epp has different terms for the text types than the usual.)

The problem is that UBS/Nestles is not keeping up with the rest of the world of textual criticism, but is becoming obsolete. But the average joe in the pulpit or pew or on the BB thinks that is all there is. "The Alands' fourfold categorization seems patently to be based on a circular argument, for the witnesses claimed to preserve most faithfully the construct the NA and UBS editions are at the same time the manuscripts employed to construct the NA and UBS, which in turn, are claimed to be the virtual original text" (Epp, p. 41).

 

Byzantine priority is definitely minority amongst a discipline where there is no longer an outright winner. But I would still say that the most outspoken voice with the most widely recognized leaders would definitely be the reasoned eclectic camp. But I think that their view has many holes that Robinson has exposed (whether they look at those holes and take them seriously is another question). The radical eclectic method is silly to me, but I have not read much of their writing or defense, so I can't discount it outright except to say that I find internal evidence of little value in determining a variant.

 

By the way, we saw Dr. Black last week. He's a good man. I love how he says he's a missionary first and a Greek teacher second. This week he is in a "closed" country teaching Greek to pastors.

Our son, who he mentors, was his guest lecturer last week, and Dr. Black asked me to give a brief update about our work in Japan, which I was honored to do. Here is the blog post and pictures, about 1/3 of the way down the page: http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm

 

That's your son?!?! I had a class w/ him when he audited the textual criticism w/ Dr. Robinson! I think that was him. He is writing (wrote?) his dissertation on 1 Peter right? Sharp kid! Wish I could have been there to hear him.

Dr. Black (also my mentor) has been a wonderful influence on me. His attitude towards ministry and the "Jesus paradigm" (great book of his) is genuine and refreshing. I appreciate his focus towards the kingdom first above all else.

 

Yep, that's our son. Proud parents here.

 

Whon would you see being the "best" author defending the position that the Greek critcal text best reflects the original documents?

 

I wrote up a couple notes on this, including complete collation data from all known manuscripts:

Matt 5:44 ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους υμας καλως ποιειτε τοις μισουσιν υμας: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Matt 5:44 επηρεαζοντων υμας και διωκοντων υμας: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Unfortunately I can't access them here in the Mainland.

 

Greetings, Rippon! Unfortunately, I think you have to be on a VPN to view blogger. Sorry!

 

Here's the actual data from the primary evidence for the passage, namely, the Greek manuscripts, which have all been collated in this place!

For the omission:
4th century (2 mss): 01 03
10th (1 ms): 1582*
11th (1 ms): 1192
12th (4 mss): 1 22 279 660
13th (1 ms): 2533
14th (2 mss): 209 2786*
15th (1 ms): 205

For the addition:
5th century (2 mss): 05 032
6th (3 mss): 042 0237
8th (3 mss): 07 019 047

9th (18 mss): 017 021 030 031 037 038 041 045 0211 33 399 461 565 892 1080 1424 1500 2224

10th (72 mss): 028 14 24 27 29 34 36 63 67 100 106 123 151 161 175 262 274 278 299 344 364 366 371 405 411 420 478 481 564 568 584 652 773 875 942 994 1073 1076 1077 1078 1079 1110 1120 1166 1172 1203 1223 1225 1266 1281 1346 1357 1392 1421 1422 1452 1458 1582c 1701 1816 2142 2172 2193 2290 2324 2369 2373 2414 2509 2545 2722 2812

11th-15th (more than 1100 mss): . . .

Those who have time to read my notes might broaden their perspective a bit as to why and how the omissions might have occurred, rather than the other way around.

Jonathan C. Borland