1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured A Fact Sheet on the Greek NT

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    140
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wasserman and Gurry both acknowledge that CBGM is making the ECM more Byzantine

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Aha. That makes sense. I'll reword this point.
     
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, but looking at UBS, they are still a long way from Byz. pri.
     
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is my revised #7:

    7. In the meantime, during the 19th century other scholars began to edit Greek NTs that were based more on the Alexandrian family of mss. These men included Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), and a scholar named Samuel Tregelles (1813-1875), but the most influential one was edited by Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), published in 1886. They used what is called the documentarian method. The various UBS and Nestle Greek NTs have followed Westcott and Hort to a large degree, but nowadays use a method of textual criticism called “eclectic.” Our main disagreement with the eclectic method is their “canon” that “shortest is best.” Not only human experience, but careful examination of the mss proves this rule to be mistaken.
     
  5. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    140
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They are. But they also have only completed the Catholic letters and Acts. I don't think Acts was released soon enough to effect the NA28. It isn't going completely Byzantine, but so far most changes have favored the Byzantine reading

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Really! That's very interesting. Thanks for the info. Maybe I can study this out more this summer. I haven't read much lately in textual criticism. Right now I'm trying to get caught up on my reading in translation studies.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ziggy

    Ziggy Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The key is how many changes were made in ECM Acts in relation to the hundreds of differences between NA27 and the Byzantine text. Perhaps about 60 or so? Even if "most" of those 60 went in favor of Byzantine readings, that still leaves their final ECM = NA29 text of Acts just about the same as it already is in NA27.
     
  8. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,840
    Likes Received:
    140
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There was 52 changes made in Acts. Only 2 against the Byzantine. I would not say Acts is "final". I expect more changes as CBGM has more manuscripts available. Another 20 variants, the Byzantine was elevated to an equivalent of a tie with the other reading. CBGM made no decision on these. Both variants are given an [a]. One must make his own decision on what to go with here.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Westcott and Hort called their text a "Neutral Text" although that could be considered misleading, and they listed their Neutral Text as separate or distinct from the Alexandrian Text. It could also seem misleading to call it the "Alexandrian" family since Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are not known to have been made or copied in Alexandria, Egypt. Some KJV-only advocates seem to use "Alexandrian Text" as a smear term.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is this the only "canon" or rule of this method? Sometimes the eclectic method does not follow this canon. Perhaps your #7 may overgeneralize if this is not the only canon or rule of this method. Perhaps the objection could be that this canon may be considered to be emphasized or followed too much in the eclectic method.

    James D. Price gives an example at Acts 4:25. Price wrote: "In the example of Acts 4:25 above, the phrase 'through the Holy Spirit' is supported by the most ancient witnesses and by all four ancient independent text-types, satisfying all the requirements of external evidence. Contrariwise, the omission of the phrase is supported only by the late sub-group of the Antiochan text tradition" (King James Onlyism, p. 195).

    It would be the Textus Receptus that followed the shortest reading at Acts 4:25.
     
    #50 Logos1560, Apr 15, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is accurate, but please notice that I simply say "based more on the Alexandrian family of mss" in #7, which is an accurate statement. (Black calls their "neutral text "closely related to the Alexandrian." on p. 30 in New Testament Textual Criticism.) Remember that this fact sheet is for 1st year Greek students, so I didn't want to get too complicated.
    Thank you for your input. For the record, we are not KJVO here. Our position is Byz. priority.

    Notice that I did not say "Alexandrian text" but "Alexandrian family," which is a perfectly valid way (not a KJVO way) to refer to those mss, as various eclectic folk have said. David Alan Black discusses this at length, op cit, as do Metzger & Ehrman in The Text of the New Testament (4th ed.), and other authors. But even Westcott & Hort use the term "Alexandrian text" (cf. their Vol. 2, p. 211 & many other places).

    As for where Vaticanus & Sinaiticus were copied, that is not that relevant as to what family of mss they belong. What is relevant is the nature of the readings.
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'll consider this input, but again, these are first year students, so I didn't want to get too complicated. Metzger states the canon this way: "In general the shorter reading is to be preferred," though then he gives caveats (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., p.24). A canon is not a hard and fast rule, but a guide, apparently.
    Yes, but there is no "shorter is best" canon in the work of Erasmus and others, or in Byz. priority.
     
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The real "key" canon of reasoned eclecticism is not the shorter reading, but preferring the reading that best explains the rise of all others in a particular variant unit.

    For thoroughgoing eclecticism, the key principle again is not the shorter reading, but to prefer the reading that most closely reflects an author's particular vocabulary, style, syntax and themes.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you. That's thought provoking. It will be a challenge to get that into language a 1st year Greek student can wrap his head around.
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is my next point:

    8. The translators of the King James Version began with Beza’s Greek NT, printed in 1604, then did their own textual criticism. Therefore, for many years after 1611, there was no printed Greek NT that reflected the original Greek of the KJV.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Based on Ziggy's input, here is a revision of 7:

    7. In the meantime, during the 19th century other scholars began to edit Greek NTs that were based more on the Alexandrian family of mss. These men included Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), and a scholar named Samuel Tregelles (1813-1875), but the most influential one was edited by Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), published in 1886. They used what is called the documentarian method. The various UBS and Nestle Greek NTs have followed Westcott and Hort to a large degree, but nowadays use a method of textual criticism called “eclectic.” The primary rule (“canon”) of “reasoned eclecticism” is that the reading that best explains the rest is preferred. The problem with this approach is that quite often the final reading exists nowhere in the mss.
     
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Regarding point 8: The translators of the King James Version began with Beza’s Greek NT, printed in 1604....

    Actually Beza 1598. The 1604 date is that of the Hampton Court conference initiating the KJV project.
     
  18. Ziggy

    Ziggy Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Re: point 7 revision: "quite often" should be "at times" (which are few). Otherwise the "often" (not necessarily "quite") apparently refers to Robinson's demonstrated assertion that a string of connected sequential variant units within a single verse will have no exact parallel among existing NT manuscripts.
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Aha! Thank you. I will make that correction. I can't seem to find the source for my 1604 date--maybe just my own presumption.
     
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    15,189
    Likes Received:
    848
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, I'll make that correction. Yes, I was making that assumption from Robinson's work, which at times is over my head. :) I see I need to go back and read his essays in my Byz. Greek NT and in other volumes I have.
     
Loading...