1769 KJV editor's translation

Are you now playing word games with the differences between "texts" and "manuscripts"?

The general consensus is overwhelmingly of the opinion that the MANUSCRIPT evidence for the Alexandrian TEXT is earlier than the MANUSCRIPT evidence for the Byzantine textform.

Rob

 

I don't like many of the arguments that revolve around Wescott+Hort; I think they are weak.
It's like arguing that the American Constitution is in error because of the actions of our founding fathers regarding slavery.
We need to move beyond the early theories about NT textual criticism and examine the theories currently proposed.

TCassidy states:
...over 150 distinctively Byzantine readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating "AD 350...

Obviously we can eliminate describing the early documents (pre-350's) as Byzantine, they were made before the Byzantine era. If some of the manuscripts display Byzantine qualities (such as expansion and harmonization), these manuscripts simply display scribal tendencies developed more fully later in the Byzantine era.

Many, if not most of the early papyri are classified as proto-Alexandrian, since they are remarkably similar to distinctly Alexandrian manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (my sympathies to the poster calling himself "Anti-Alexandrian")

Rob

 

This may be my last post on this thread (unless Logos provides a comment) because we have gone way off the opening threads’ topic.

Pleezze…don’t argue just for the sake of argument.
Follow your logic. We wouldn't describe the originally penned documents as Byzantine?

Manuscripts are classified as "Byzantine" because of the cultural distinctives of the Eastern Roman [Catholic] empire. It was where the Church first grew strong (and was protected under Constantine I). They were written in the era of Byzantine dynastic rule.
Some textual characteristics, such as lack of word division or punctuation, a variety of letters forms, use of abbreviations, symbols or contractions, word order, (and yes, expansion or harmonization noted within the Biblical documents) aid in characterizing a document and provide valuable clues leading us to classify a manuscript within a particular text form. These characteristics can also be followed in extra-biblical literature of the Byzantine era.

The early papyri ‘generally’ are shorter.
I counter charge…” Your presupposition assumes your conclusion!” Since the vast majority of the Biblical Greek text is sound, the agreement among them is expected. That does not make them particularly “distinctively Byzantine readings”, but distinctly original readings.

Philip Comfort notes:
“Among early New Testament manuscripts, [before c.300] the preeminent proto-Alexandrian manuscripts are as follows:
Gospels: P1, P4/P64/P67, P5, P28, P35, P39, P66c, P71, P75, P77, P90, P95, P101, P103, P104, P106, P107, P108
Acts: P45, P53, P91, 0189
Paul’s Epistles and Hebrews: P13, P15/16, P30, P40, P46, P65, P92, 0220
General Epistles: P20, P23, P72 (for 1 Peter), P100
Revelation: P18, P24, P47, P98, P115
( The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Tyndale House, 2001))

Rob

 

Didn't we just discuss "orthographic" discrepancies between manuscripts in 1 Timothy 3:16?
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2733/5.html

Save your insults, I'm a 21th century father; I'm used to being belittled.
Let's see some meat.
The list of general characteristics I provided may not be complete but it is accurate.


What are YOUR criteria for determining what texts fits in a certain category?
What are these Byzantine distictives you mention?
Please list a few examples found in the early documents for discussion (I know there are a few).

Rob

 

Great examples and truly indicative of the importance of textual criticism!
Let me display my naivety and amateur status by noting that each of the examples makes no difference to a Christian’s theology or practice.
This is the meat of textual criticism!
The discrepancies between the various texts are negligible in almost all the cases.
What an awesome God we have that has preserved His Word through the ages despite the frailty, infirmity and weakness of mans hand.

I apologize for my earlier accusation pastor. I really appreciate the interaction I have with those I disagree with here on the BaptistBoard. Without ill feeling, let me say that some of my favorite posters here are those that I disagree with most heartily (…. and I must say I appreciate you a lot ).
You have stimulated in me a deeper interest in the topic.

Your examples show where a ‘reasoned’ approach to the text is, well, reasonable.
IMO, none of your examples are slam-dunk for one reading or the other. ”The variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for the origin of all competing variants in terms of both external and internal evidence.” (Holmes, “Reasoned Eclecticism” p. 344)

I asked, “What are YOUR criteria for determining what texts fits in a certain category?”
I understand, as you have said, that the major differences are not in the look (or the orthography) of the text but the “reading” of the texts.
But as you have noted, it’s a rare text that is exactly the same.
What is the character of the Byzantine textform that distinguishes it from the others?
And as the text is the only (or main) characteristic used to distinguish the textform, what is the earliest Byzantine exemplar with which we compare all the other textual variants?

Rob

[ January 08, 2006, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

off topic comments snipped

[ January 11, 2006, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Your response was to declare that they are called Byzantine because… “the Eastern Orthodox church that continued to speak Greek and thus, continued to use an untranslated Greek bible.”
So we agree! Language is a cultural distinctive of the Byzantine Empire.

A cultural familiarity with the Greek language could have a positive or negative influence in preserving the original text.

Languages change as the culture changes. This can easily be seen by looking at the KJV text we all love. The word meanings, spellings and sentence structure have slowly changed over the years and the text has become increasingly difficult for some to understand. While studying the various manuscripts of the Byzantine textform, we need to be aware of this and recognise the possibility that scribes could introduce changes to update the language to common usage.

Familiarity with the Greek language may increase the likelihood of abbreviating or coding a word. You have noted this in 1 Timothy 3:16; concerning manuscripts of the Byzantine textform you wrote; [The] “Theta sigma was an acceptable abbreviation for the word "Theos" often used by the scribes.”

Familiarity with the Greek language could increase likelihood that a scribe would recognize places in the text where the original author may have used a phase that is inconsistent with “proper” or common usage. There may be a tendency to “correct” a text to comply with proper usage of the time. One characteristic noted in the Byzantine textform is it’s smoothness. The rough spots are smoothed out.

I’m not against the Byzantine textform. It provides many distinctive readings that must be evaluated alongside the other variants. You have not provided any sound reasons to prefer it more highly above the others.

Rob

 

I'm a simple person, I'll take you up on the offer.

Rob

 

1. Numbers - can't argue with you there. The Byzantine text certainly outnumbers the others, particularly in later centuries.

2. Age - disputable, most would put the ball in the Alexandrian court.

3. Geography - Maybe you could elaborate.
Does this concern it's origin?

The last three while disputed, were covered well.

Rob

 

I agree that it is not a given, but it does give some degree of support to a particularly disputed reading if it is found in earlier manuscripts…hence the term “reasonable eclecticism”. The theory doesn’t eliminate Byzantine readings from consideration; it weighs the evidence for a particular reading based upon a variety of factors.

YOU covered them well enough for me. As I have noted in another post, my knowledge of Greek is rudimentary; I don’t want to demonstrate any further ignorance by arguing Greek grammar.
Goodness, you must be one tough grader professor! I’d have loved to take a class of yours when I was younger and more able-brained.

Rob