The Byzantine Text is Early?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jonathan.borland, Jul 2, 2010.

  1. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    For a long time there have been those who espouse that many authentic readings, which a minority of manuscripts have altered, have nevertheless been preserved in the Byzantine text.

    I will cite my translation of a paragraph from the prolegomena of Johann Martin Augustin Scholz, Novum Testamentum graece (2 vols.; Lipsiae: Friderici Fleischer, 1830, 1836), 1:clxv:

    Check your GNTs. What do you think of these features?

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
    #1 jonathan.borland, Jul 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2010
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    One observation, the authors collection of Greek texts is limited compared to those available today.

    Just looking at one phrase:

    "The Alexandrian manuscripts at Luke 10:22 omit the words
    καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε, but the Byzantines rightly retain them: for the phrase is plainly from the custom of Luke in 7:44; 9:55; 14:25; 23:28, and elsewhere."

    I find it hard to follow his argument using the texts he supplies.

    Rob
     
  3. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    One should remember that in Scholz' system there are either as many families as there are manuscripts, or there are two great families, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. Codex Bezae he classified as Alexandrian with huge cross-corruption from the Latin. In this light, i.e., from his perspective, one can see that basically all the Greek manuscripts that support the omission in Luke 10:22 are indeed Alexandrian or mixed Alexandrian. The omission by these manuscripts may be seen as harmonization to Matt 11:27, while the addition might be claimed to be assimilation to the following verse. The latter explanation is unlikely due to the tendency of editors to remove tautologies, not add them, and the dissimilarity of the clause in the following verse (i.e., addition of κατ᾽ ἰδίαν). Yet the clause, as rightly demonstrated by Scholz, is overwhelmingly Lukan.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     

Share This Page

Loading...