Byzantines always adding text?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Nov 8, 2004.

  1. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    The assertion that individual Byzantine scribes all over the empire added text because they were afraid of taking it away is not convincing. First, if individual scribes all over added whatever they willed whenever they willed, the Byzantine manuscripts we have today at almost every place would be in utter disagreement -- additions in different places in a manuscript here, additions in many different places in another manuscript there, etc. This is demonstrably not the case for the bulk of the Byzantines.

    Second, I see over 100 places in Matthew alone where the bulk of the Byzantines failed to keep text that was in the supposedly "earlier" Alexandrian manuscripts. The following are places and the Greek words in Matthew that the Byzantines FAILED to add to Scripture:

    (p. = after; c. = with; V = final sigma)

    2:13 eiV thn cwran autou (p. autwn c. B)
    3:6 potamw (p. iordanh)
    3:12 autou (p. apoqhkhn c. B W etc.)
    4:19 genesqai (p. umaV c. Aleph1 D etc.)
    5:4 nun (p. penqounteV c. Aleph 33 etc.)
    5:40 sou (p. imation c. Aleph 33 etc.)
    6:1 de (p. prosecete)
    6:2 amhn (p. amhn c. Aleph* 13 etc.)
    6:8 o qeoV (p. gar c. Aleph1 B etc.)
    7:22 polla (p. daimonia c. Aleph*)
    7:29 autwn (p. grammateiV)
    8:9 tassomenoV (p. exousian c. Aleph B etc.)
    8:10 par (p. umin)
    8:13 kai upostreyaV o ekatontarcoV eiV ton oikon autou en auth th wra euren ton paida ugiainonta (p. ekeinh c. Aleph* C etc.)
    9:28 duo (p. oi c. Aleph* D etc.)
    10:2 kai (a. iakwboV)
    10:8 nekrouV egeirete (p. qerapeuete)
    10:12 legonteV eirhnh tw oikw toutw (p. authn c. Aleph* D L etc.)
    10:14 h kwmhV (p. polewV c. Aleph 892 etc.)
    10:14 ek (p. koniorton c. Aleph C etc.)
    10:15 gh (p. kai c. Aleph C etc.)
    10:24 autou (p. didaskalon c. Aleph W etc.)
    10:32 toiV (a. ouranoiV)
    11:21 kaqhmenoi (p. spodw c. Aleph C etc.)
    12:30 me (p. skorpizei c. Aleph 33 etc.)
    12:31 umin (p. blasfhmia afeqhsetai c. B f1 etc.)
    12:32 ouk (p. anqrwpou c. B*)
    12:35 ta (a. agaqa c. Aleph C L etc.)
    12:38 autw (p. apekriqhsan)
    12:44 kai (p. scolazonta c. Aleph C* etc.)
    13:15 autwn (p. wsin c. Aleph C etc.)
    13:27 ta (p. ecei c. Aleph* L etc.)
    13:30 tw (p. en c. Aleph* C L etc.)
    13:33 legwn (p. autoiV c. Aleph L etc.)
    13:35 hsaiou (p. dia c. Aleph* Theta etc.)
    14:3 tote (p. hrwdhV c. B Theta etc.)
    14:12 autou (p. ptwma/swma c. Aleph* D L etc.)
    14:15 oun (p. apoluson c. Aleph C etc.)
    14:19 kai (a. labwn c. Aleph C* etc.)
    14:29 kai (p. udata)
    14:34 eiV (p. ghn)
    15:5 ouden estin (p. wfelhqhV c. Aleph*)
    15:36 kai (p. icquaV)
    15:38 wV (p. hsan c. B Theta etc.)
    16:11 de (a. apo)
    16:21 cristoV (p. ihsouV c. Aleph* B* etc.)
    16:28 oti (p. umin)
    17:1 ton (a. iakwbon c. Aleph D etc.)
    17:26 o de efh apo twn allotriwn (p. allotriwn [17:25] c. Aleph etc.)
    18:1 de (p. ekeinh c. B 0281 etc.)
    18:10 tw (p. autwn en c. B 892 etc.)
    18:12 kai (a. poreuqeiV)
    18:12 probata (p. ennea c. B Theta etc.)
    19:8 o ihsouV (p. autoiV c. Aleph Phi etc.)
    19:14 autoiV (p. eipen c. Aleph C D L etc.)
    19:21 toiV (p. doV)
    19:22 touton (p. logon c. B 892c etc.)
    19:24 oti (p. umin c. Aleph C L etc.)
    20:4 mou (p. ampelwna c. Aleph C etc.)
    20:5 de (p. palin)
    20:10 to (p. elabon)
    20:17 mellwn (at beginning of v. c. B f1 etc.)
    20:18 eiV (p. auton c. Aleph)
    20:21 h de (p. qeleiV c. B 209 etc.)
    20:23 touto (p. emon)
    21:5 epi (a. pwlon)
    21:15 touV (p. paidaV)
    21:25 to (p. baptisma)
    21:36 kai (a. palin c. Aleph* etc.)
    22:30 tw (a. ouranw)
    23:4 autoi (p. anqrwpwn)
    23:31 twn (p. ewV)
    25:42 kai (p. fagein c. p45 B* L)
    25:43 kai (a. gumnoV c. p45 Theta)
    25:43 hmhn (p. gumnoV c. p45 etc.)
    26:22 eiV (p. autw)
    26:25 o ihsouV (p. autw c. p45 Aleph etc.)
    26:34 kai (p. autw c. p37)
    26:36 autou (p. maqhtaiV c. Aleph A C D etc.)
    26:38 de (p. meinate c. p37)
    26:44 palin (p. eipwn)
    26:45 gar (p. idou c. B etc.)
    26:49 autw (p. eipen c. p37 C etc.)
    26:53 wde (p. moi c. Aleph* Theta etc.)
    26:56 autou (p. maqhtai c. B 0281 etc.)
    27:5 triakonta (p. ta c. Aleph etc.)
    27:16 ihsoun (p. legomenon)
    27:17 ihsoun ton (p. umin)
    27:21 ton (a. barabban)
    27:26 autoiV (p. paredwken c. Aleph1 D L etc.)
    27:33 ton (twice; a. et p. topon c. B 0281)
    27:40 kai (p. qeou)
    27:44 oun (a. autw)
    27:49 alloV de labwn logchn enuxen autou thn pleuran kai exhlqen udwr kai aima (p. auton c. Aleph B C L etc.)
    27:54 tou (a. qeoV c. Aleph*)
    27:59 en (p. auto)
    28:2 kai (p. ouranou)
    28:15 hmeraV (p. shmeron)
    28:18 thV (p. epi)
    28:19 oun (p. poreuqenteV)

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where is your documented evidence that such an
    assertion is commonly made? Is it claimed that Byzantines are "always adding text?"

    As you may know, the Peshitta Syriac is
    placed on the KJV-only view's line, stream, or tree of good Bibles. The Peshitta Syriac is cited
    as evidence by them for various readings. It is suggested that the Peshitta Syriac is a good example of the Byzantine-type text.

    At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added
    the following words as translated in the Lamsa
    Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you."

    At Acts 14:10, the Peshitta Syriac has the phrase "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" that
    is not in the KJV.

    The Peshitta Syriac has the full title or name "Lord Jesus Christ" at many verses where the KJV does not. Check Acts 1:1, 3:6, 5:42, 8:12, 14:10, 19:5, 21:13, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Ephesians 1:15, Philippians 2:19, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, and
    1 Peter 1:13. Are these differences due to omissions in the Textus Receptus or additions in the Peshitta? If the Peshitta that is considered a good example of the Byzantine text has some additions, is it impossible that the Textus Receptus has a few additions?
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Conflation (adding letters, names, titles, etc) is the biggest problem with the later Eastern Orthodox documents. Additions to "clarify" or taking explanatory notes and including them in the text is plain.

    Read the old texts, then read the texts 400-800 years later and the additions stand out. They do the same in American history.

    Remember the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree? Never happened. Not in any old bio info. But Parson heard it and it sounded good so he added it. NOW it is in our history books!

    No slam on anyone. Just a fact of conflation in all writing.
     
  4. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I myself have examined Byzantine uncials with Byzantine minuscules. From what you say, the minuscules should overwhelmingly have a fuller text than the uncials. Such, however, has never been the observation of anyone who has examined a majority of Byzantine uncials against a majority of Byzantine minuscules.

    BTW, Logos, what does the Syriac Peshitta have to do with the propagation of Greek manuscripts? It doesn't even contain the Catholic epistles, Revelation, Jn. 7:53-8:11, Lk. 22:17-18. The examples you listed above show that the additions in the Peshitta were largely confined to the Peshitta scribes. They rarely bled over at all into Byzantine Greek witnesses, and never did they alter the consensus of the Byzantine Greek text.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I simply asked you for evidence that it is commonly claimed that the Byzantines were "always adding text." I did not or have not made that claim. By the way, my view of Bible translation has nothing to do with the Alexandrian text or with Westcott and Hort. Thus, I am not objecting to the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts when I ask for evidence for your claim. You seem to be offering overstatements or unsupported claims with no consistent documented evidence to support them.

    I have read over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors, and I know that they suggest that the Peshitta Syriac is a good example of the Byzantine-text type. Over and over, it is classified in the same line or stream of manuscripts and translations as the KJV. I did not claim or imply that it was in Greek.

    Can you prove that there were no additions at all in the Byzantine text-type?

    Dean Burgon observed: "When our LORD first sent forth His twelve apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead' (Matthew 10:8). This is easily demonstrable" (REVISION REVISED, p. 108).
    Would you consider this clause to be an example of an addition in the Textus Receptus? Would you disagree with the KJV where it follows a reading that is not supported by the majority of manuscripts in the Byzantine text-type?
     
  6. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I absolutly disagree with the TR/KJV when it departs from the consensus of all Greek manuscripts. Erasmus would too, were he alive today. So in Mt. 10:8, Jesus did NOT tell his disciples to raise the dead.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  7. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    You poor soul! Are you a glutton for punishment or something?

    Additions in scattered manuscripts here and there, sure, as there are in almost any manuscript. But that additions occurring at different times and in different locations throughout history were able to somehow overcome and dominate the entire Greek manuscript tradition, that I cannot imagine possible, and it has never been PROVED so, and so, no, I do not believe there were additions that were able to overcome and stamp out the entire consensus of Greek manuscripts that continually propagated itself throughout history from the beginning until, well, the sixteenth century or whenever Greek manuscripts ceased being copied by hand.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     

Share This Page

Loading...