Antiquity of the Byzantine Text

Which of Burgon's works are you perusing?

 

Upon which we must ask, what are the textual critical presuppositions of those doing the editing of the church fathers' works? If they are presupposed towards the Alexandrian texts, then it seems that they would automatically lean towards Alexandrian readings in their version of the church fathers.

 

No single author was cited only" Admin",but here are some snips from an article posted at Bible.org

Gordon Fee --There were no ante-Nicene fathers who quoted the Byzantine text.

...the more research that is done on the versions and fathers the less they look Byzantine.

1%-25 of all textual scholars make the claim that the Byzantine text existed early in the versions and fathers.

There are vast hordes of textual scholars of all theological stripes who see no real evidence that the Byzantine text was early.

 

The following snips are taken from Philip Comfort's book on textual variants.

Matthew 5:44 : WH NU : pray for those persecuting you
var/TR : bless those who curse you,do good to those who hate you,pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you


The textual evidence favors the shorter reading on three counts (1) the Greek manuscripts are one century earlier (fourth century) for the shorter reading than for those for the longer (fifth century and beyond); (2) the citations of the church fathers for the shorter reading come from earlier fathers; (3) the additional words in the longer reading must have been borrowed from Luke's account of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:27-28),for had they originally been in Matthew's gospel,there is no good explanation for how they were dropped.
...The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is not a verbatim copy of Luke's Sermon on the Plain. Various scribes,however, thought it their duty to make one gospel harmonize with the other in passages they perceived were covering the same event. TR incorporates most of these harmonizations,which were then translated into KJV and NKJV. Most modern versions do not include the harmonization here. (pages 12,13)

 

Wasn't the Didache a type of compilation of the gospels?
If that was the case using it as proof that the passage was in Matthew is problamatic.

Personally I'm not too concerned what others feel about these transposed passages. They are found in scripture afterall!

Generally the meaning of the passage remains the same.
I haven't personally encountered anybody who espouses any bizarre doctrine based upon them.

Rob

 

The Didache is ante-Nicene.

That's because the researchers swallow the WH canard that "shorter is better."

Huh? What does "1%-25" mean??

That's baloney. There are not even "vast hordes" of textual scholars of any stripe. A true textual scholar is a rare bird. And a number of those writing about textual criticism are Greek scholars, not textual scholars. Plus, on the other thread I gave you quite a few Byzantine priority scholars. And their tribe is increasing.

In the book I'm reading, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, David Alan Black writes humbly, "I must confess that I do not consider myself a textual scholar" (p. 103). And in a footnote, Daniel Wallace also writes humbly, "Ironically, here I am, debating a point about textual criticism when I am the least qualified person in this volume!" (p. 8). Yet Maurice Robinson has his Ph. D. in textual criticism. As wonderful as the other scholars in the book are, to me that means his views deserve extra weight.

 

No, the Didache was a very early discipleship manual. Some scholars place it as early as the end of the 1st century.

 

No disrespect to Comfort. I'm sure he's a good man. But what even qualifies him to be a textual critic? Why should I trust his book over say, Metzger's textual commentary or the writings and views of Robinson?

Here is Comfort's education: Philip Comfort studied Greek and English at the Ohio State University (where he received an MA), then went on to get a doctorate in literary interpretation from the University of South Africa. (http://www.hiddenbrookpress.com/Book-PhilipComfort-AquaPlanet.html)
No degrees in textual criticism or even apparently a NT Greek degree in there.

 

For the so-called Alexandrian Text:
One document dated in the 3rd century.
Two manuscripts dated from the 4th century.
One MSS dated between the 4th to 5th century.
Two MS dated from the 5th c.
Another document from the 9th century.

For the Byzantine:
Two from the 5th.
One from the 8th.
Two from the 9th.
One dated somewhere between the 11th to 15th century.

And to other of a more settled mind the antiquity and diversity of the few outweighs the majority rule.

This has been your constant drumbeat Steve. You never have allowed the possibility to enter your mind that it was not a case of forgetfulness of a single scribe. Multiple scribes left sections out that were not there in the exemplar.

They did what they could to make it work --but came up short. One can't improve the sacred text.

You're dipping down rather low there Steve. comfort deserves better than the stuff your dishing out. Whether you like it or not he is an expert. You aren't in the same category.

 

How can it be "so-called" if everyone on both sides calls it that??

What in the world does diversity have to do with it?

The most recent thinking in textual criticism is to reject the tradtional canon of "shorter is better," going back to the work of Earnest Colwell in 1965, and more recently James Royce. Thoroughgoing eclectic J. K. Elliot says, "In general, the longer text is more likely to be the original providing that the text is consistent with the language, style, and theology of the context" (quoted by Eldon Jay Epp in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black, p. 28; Epp himself is not ready to completely reject it).

 

Geographical diversity.The early scribes did their copying in a wide area -- not just in one locality.

Well in 1976 Epp thought that generally speaking --the shorter --the better.

 

It means 1% to 2%.

The word "hordes" does have a negative connotation.

Wouldn't you grant that scholars who favor the Byzantine Text are in the minority? (I love the irony of that statement.)

 

Regarding Matthew 5:44,the NET notes offer;

Most manuscripts read, "bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you," before;"those who persecute you." But it is surely a motivated reading importing the longer form of this aphorism from Luke 6:27-28. The shorter text is in B E pc sa as well as several fathers and versional witnesses.

 

If you guys want to see that antiquity of the Byzantine text... might I recommend Harry Sturz's book The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (you might need to go to a good theological library to find it). It does a good job of demonstrating from a non-biased viewpoint that the Byzantine has ancient readings that put the arrival of its text-type to the same time period as the others -- 2nd century!

David Alan Black (a student of Sturz) wrote a good review of the book and the man here.

 

This is a mistake if you are trying to claim that the Alexandrian had a wide distribution in the early centuries. Are you not aware that the text types are divided geographically? Hence the geographic names of Alexandrian--a city of Egypt--Western, Ceasarean (a city) and Byzantine (after a city and thus the Eastern area of the Roman Empire).

1976 is ancient history in the current climate of textual criticism. Epp is now having to rethink the "shortest is best" canon, according to my quote.