Families of Manuscripts

Good questions, Askjo!

Askjo: "1. Do you believe in four families of manuscripts?"

The issue is not a matter of *faith* or *belief* but only of factual data and the interpretation of such.

Manuscripts are grouped into "families" (or, as more commonly called, "texttypes") because any two manuscripts can be compared and a measurable percentage established regarding the amount of variant readings those two manuscripts hold in common (not talking about the 90% of the NT text where there is no significant variation, but only in the 10% remainder). Multiply this beyond two manuscripts, and one quickly can see the individual manuscripts gravitating to their respective most common denominators -- groups of manuscripts with large percentages of readings held in common that differ from other groups of manuscripts that have their own large percentages of readings held in common.

Basically, all sources tend to agree regarding the existence of the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western texttypes. Opinion is divided on the supposed Caesarean texttype, because the manuscripts that pertain to it tend not to have uniquely shared readings, but are only an amalgam of readings found in other texttypes. However, the *pattern* of readings found among the Caesarean manuscripts is itself unique, and thus should qualify that group for texttype status in some manner.

Askjo: "2. Who invented four families of manuscripts?"

No one "invented" the families. Various researchers over the past four centuries simply began to notice that certain "birds of a feather" tended to flock together. What was invented, however, were all the differing names for the various textual families as well as theories regarding their respective times and places of origin, and that is where all the debate regarding textual criticism, "best" text, "closest to the original" text, etc. is centered upon.

 

Askjo great topic I was wondering if you would mind listing some of the MSS in the differant "families". I only know a little about 2 and those would be the alexandrian and byzantine texts. Thanks

1cross+3nails=4given

 

Outstanding work so far, Askjo! Could it be that you're seeing through the KJVO facade, realizing there's nothing behind it?

 

Askjo: “quote: Originally posted by Ziggy: No one "invented" the families. Various researchers over the past four centuries simply began to notice that certain "birds of a feather" tended to flock together.

Askjo: “Various researchers? Please name them for me if you can.”

Why should I? You can find their names in any handbook regarding textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. Get Metzger’s _Text of the New Testament_ and you will find all the names you want, dating from the time of the invention of printing to the present day.

But the names are not necessary, and irrelevant to the facts: anyone can simply look at the collation data and statistical tabulation of manuscripts as published in the multi-volume _Text und Textwert_ series to see which manuscripts to group together in close relationship and which other manuscripts group together in other close relationships that are clearly different and distinct from the previous groups.

If you don’t want to do the homework, don’t expect everyone else to do it for you. For myself, I don’t choose to spin my wheels in endless debate that goes nowhere.

 

Askjo: “Sure, I give you some lists for an example only.”

>Papyrus Fragments
>P6 - Traditional (Byzantine)

>Uncial Manuscripts
>E - Traditional

>Minuscule Manuscripts
>1 - Traditional

Although manuscript E of the Gospels is indeed of the Byzantine or “Traditional” type of text, I have no idea from what source you obtained the erroneous information that either P6 or minuscule 1 were “Traditional”.

The highly fragmentary P6 (as can be verified from the variants noted for Jn 10:1-10; 11:1-8, 45-52 in the Nestle-Aland apparatus) does *not* agree with the Byzantine text (Gothic “M” in NA27), and minuscule 1 is the leading member of the so-called “family 1,” which is specifically known because of its _deviation_ from the Byzantine type of text.

You lean on erroneous sources, Askjo. Why not use the many more reliable sources that won’t give out such inaccuracies?

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Accuracy is in the mind of the contemplator.
Reliable is as reliable does.

And other assorted drivel...

HankD

 

Thankyou Askjo.

 

How does the majority text method rate?

 

No one? </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, Didn't you understand Ziggy's post? The manuscripts fall into different "text-types". You yourself name different manuscript families. Nobody "invented" those. You talk about the "Alexandrian" family, who invented it?

Now, if you are saying, who wrote the Alexandrian manuscripts, then that would be a legitimate answer to research. If the data is available.

Nobody invented the fact that you were "born" to your mother and father and that they were each born to their parents. Your family is a group.

The same with the documents. In early centuries A.D. the books were spread around to different countries and scribes made copies in each of those countries. Each group had a specific way of writing. For instance, the Greek written by a Helenistic Jew was very different from the Greek written by a Jew that Greek was a second language. Many of the documents were written by diaspora Jews who left Israel under pressure of the Roman empire and other reasons. A lot of the documents that you claim are bad (such as the Alexandrian) were often written by these Jews who had just as much MORE reason to save the documents intact. These were Christians living in evil places, but this does not make the manuscript bad, simply because Alexandria was a generally wicked place.

Finally, look at some common sense.

Most all of the scribes who would spend their lives copying these manuscripts were totally committed to what they copied. It was hard, arduous work.

It was much more likely for a well-meaning scribe to add a word or sentence here and there to help harmonize the scripture than it would be for a scribe to (horrors) take away God's word. For this reason, we find more additions in manuscripts than we find subtractions. Most subtractions are copyist MISTAKES that are caught by comparing documents.

Additions; however, keep getting added when the new manuscripts are copied. These people didn't commit their lives to handwriting manuscripts for the "fun" of it. They were sincere about the work they were doing and some had no problem with either harmonizing scripture with their own words, or just adding a little more explanation to make sure the manuscript fit their belief system.

The amazing thing about all of this is that the "Word of God" shines right through and HAS been maintained accurately. No other book (or group of books) in the world has been copied so many times, in so many places and maintained its doctrine 2000 years later.

 

Askjo, I think the problem is with your word "invent". Perhaps if you used another more applicable word, the discussion would go better.

 

"identified" or "categorized" would be better.

 

I would even settle for discovered.