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!

Byzantine Priority

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by larryjf, May 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points, but here I wasnt actually discussing whether or not it is spurious, only that since the KJV assumes it is authentic, they must also admit that the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupted here.
    Would you not agree?

    Whats interesting Doc, is even though you give a clear reason for why you believe as you do about the various scribal errors, I have seen each of those explained in a defense of ADDING phrases. I find some cases where I agree with the former, and some with the latter.
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. It can't be both ways. If the Byzantine textform is right than the KJV is wrong, and if the KJV is right than the Byzantine textform is wrong.
    I have never seen a valid defense of either haplography or homoioteleuton, the two most prevalent causes of textual corruption, as resulting in the addition of letters, words, or phrases. Dittography is, of course, exactly that, the accidental addition of a word or phrase, but in all such cases the accidental addition is so very obvious that there is no way to deny it. I have never seen a defense of dittography as being the cause of any of the Byzantine readings. In fact the opposite seems to be true. Westcott and Hort insisted on a deliberate recension of the Alexandrian/Western textforms in the 4th century to account for the longer readings found in the Byzantine textform even though there is not one scrap of historical evidence to support their assertion. They realized that none of the accepted rules of textual criticism regarding textual corruption and transmission could account for the Byzantine textform so they had to invent an imaginary, deliberate recension. Rather like the KJVOs who accuse the early copyists of deliberately removing those same readings from the manuscripts because of some imagined Catholic or pagan conspiracy. Conspiracy theories, even when offered by otherwise competent textual critics such as Westcott and Hort, leave me unsatisfied.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh-Oh!

    I read DC's #2 almost as readily as I did the correct spellings elsewhere! But a spelling I think is incorrect in anything I'm reading jumps out at me like a scared frog.

    That, and the fact that I have hair growing on the backa my fingers, indicates I'm nuts, according to some old psychiatrists' manual.
     
  4. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    We agree! MY WORD, might wanna stop the presses, and mark the time! [​IMG]

    OK, but seriously, from your point of view, how do you explain this reading nearly disappearing from the Byzantine line, and being preserved only in the Latin? I have heard arguments that 1 John was written in Latin, which didnt seem to make sense. What is your position on this matter?

    that makes sense. Forgive my mistake, but perhaps I can explain what I meant: each of those types of errors have been claimed to arrise by other means, meaning that they were ADDED in by later errors of a different kind. Of course an ADDITION error would be for a different reason than a SUBTRACTION error, that is a given. I shall think my response through more clearly next time.

    There isnt really much historical evidence to support either textform's claims, is there? Its pretty much just a logical choice, and in this case, logic is split. On one hand, there are alot of Byzantine mms, but on the other hand, Vaticanus and Sinaticus outdate all other complete manuscripts. There is logic for both theories, but no way to trace which one is accurate. It just comes down to an educated decision. I am sure I am oversimplifying, but I think you get my point.

    Good luck getting that one addressed.

    Actually, I find some of their theories interesting at worst. I dont think they were right in every case of course, but several of these "harmonizations" seem to me to be the most likely scenario for the variation. I am certain that you have studied this more thoroughly, so perhaps you can explain that part better.
     
  5. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Careless copying by way of h.t. error (or error by homoioteleuton = similarity in the ending of words) is how phrases and even verses dropped out of the sacred text (e.g., Mt. 23:14, Mk. 11:26 as obvious examples). Harmonization also explains certain peculiarities (e.g., 'Isaiah the prophet' in the Alexandrians).
     
  6. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    M. Robinson says:

    "The Byzantine Textform has been criticized because its specific pattern of readings is not found among surviving pre-fourth century textual witnesses. Yet the text produced by the various forms of modern eclecticism creates a sequence of claimed 'original' readings whose pattern cannot be demonstrated ever to have existed within transmissional history. The Byzantine Textform, on the other hand, does in its aggregate reflect a legitimate and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus of support among its related witnesses."

    Let's see...a text whose pattern of readings has never existed at any time in history (i.e. the Critical Text), or that which is well-supported and legitimate throughout history (i.e. the Byzantine Text). I know which one I choose.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    “The Byzantine Textform, on the other hand, does in its aggregate reflect a legitimate and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus of support among its related witnesses."

    Lets breakdown that sentence a bit and try to figure out what he’s saying.

    “The Byzantine Textform [SNIP] in its aggregate (combined, collective consensus) reflect (imitate, show, mirror) a legitimate (justifiable, reasonable, valid) and historically valid form of text that at any point retains a basic consensus (agreement) of support among its related witnesses."

    Or in other words….
    The consensus of Byzantine texts are historically reasonable during the time we can support it through its witnesses. :rolleyes:

    Rob
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    It's awesome that the majority of MSS from all over the world (i.e., not just from Egypt) from the earliest evidence made available by the providence of God supports the Byzantine Consensus! It's unfortunate that the new Critical Text has a pattern of readings that never existed!
     
  9. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    One thing in Robinson's "Case for Byzantine Priority" that I found interesting is that Homeric scholarship is united in rejecting the Alexandrian streams of Homer because they are shorter and reflect an editorial recension deemed harmful to the original text. Homer's rythmic prose apparently made it easier for modern scholarship to determine the comparatively untrustworthy nature of the Alexandrian tradition in the classics of Homer. The question is left open as to whether or not the same Alexandrian "scholarship" so affected the NT texts to whom they had been entrusted.
     
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How would you compromise p66 with Majority on John 7:39 while it coincides with Minority in Pericope Adulturae? Have you ever thought about it?

    Read this
    http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html


    What I pursue is to keep the balance, bringing all the facts on the table.


    If we try to expose one sided facts we cheat ourselves.
     
  11. jw

    jw New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part of the reason there are more copies of the Byzantine texts is simply because Greek continued to be spoken in that region (and still is in some areas) far longer than it was in the areas the more eclectic texts were.

    This is often ignored. More does not always equal better.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who would be better qualified to judge the worth of a manuscript, a person whose native language was also the language of the manuscript or a person with only a second-hand knowledge of the language of the manuscript?

    The whole point is that the manuscripts are in Greek and the Byzantine Empire was a Greek speaking Empire!

    Secondly, there is no such thing as an "eclectic" text prior to the practice of textual criticism which probably began with Johann Bengel in 1725.

    Even Westcott and Hort say that Erasmus and the other published of early texts did not practice “modern scientific textual criticism” but merely “passed along” the commonly received text of that day.

    The textform that most consider to be the main contender with the Byzantine is the Alexandrian textform.
     
  13. jw

    jw New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is that different from what I said?

    ... How is that different from what I said? The Alexandrian textform, which are generally older mss's, came from an area that quit using Greek as the common language.

    That was my whole point. They would not continue reproducing mss's in a language they did not continue to use. Saying more Byzantine mss's prove that the Byzantine texts should be trusted over the Alexandrian texts is faulty. That would be like shipping 100 English Bibles and 100 Spanish Bibles to Mexico and then claiming the Spanish Bibles must be the authority because they used and copied them more.
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you can't see the difference between what you said and what I said then no amount of explanation will help, but I will try anyway. Nobody ignored the fact that Greek was the language of the Byzantine Empire, and nobody claimed more equals better. Number is but one of the criteria used when determining the fidelity of a manuscript.
    It is different in that you claimed the eclectic text was in use in Africa and represented the earliest manuscripts. That is totally and utterly false. The eclectic text did not exist until after 1725 as I clearly stated in my rebuttal. And, just for your information, nobody is saying "more Byzantine mss's prove that the Byzantine texts should be trusted over the Alexandrian texts." You seem to have very little understanding of the issues involved. My best advice is, if you don't know what you are talking about, stop talking! Listen and learn!
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Larryjf made the most profound observation in this thread at the top of page 2.
    I really like the CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY [LINK]!

    Would anyone claim the Byzantine Majority text was pure?
    Could you make the same claim for the Eclectic text?

    I would suggest that the doctrine of preservation was modified rather than really changed,
    although that may just be semantics.

    He asked: "How would you define your belief of preservation?"

    Rob

    [ May 24, 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  16. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your link may be giving a slanted view of things.

    The early Christian scribes used special contractions or abbreviations for divine names These abbreviations for God's name can be identified by capital letters with a horizontal line above the letters.
    We call them nomina sacra (latin for "names of God").

    π̅ν̅α̅, π̅ν̅ς̅/(used in vs. 39, P66) π̅ν̅ο̅ς̅, π̅ν̅ι̅ were abbreviations for πνευμα, πνευματος, πνευματι

    Rob
     
  17. jw

    jw New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Dave suggested something along these lines in the first page of this thread. Sorry I didn't quote that in my OP. But hey, thanks for acting like a jerk! [​IMG] ;)

    Now that I've been put in my place and told to shut up, I'll sit back and wait for the infinite, unquestionable wisdom which can only proceed from Dr. Cassidy. Sorry I attempted to add anything to the conversation.
     
  18. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your link may be giving a slanted view of things.

    The early Christian scribes used special contractions or abbreviations for divine names These abbreviations for God's name can be identified by capital letters with a horizontal line above the letters.
    We call them nomina sacra (latin for "names of God").

    π̅ν̅α̅, π̅ν̅ς̅/(used in vs. 39, P66) π̅ν̅ο̅ς̅, π̅ν̅ι̅ were abbreviations for πνευμα, πνευματος, πνευματι

    Rob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I think you don't understand which problem I was pointing out.

    The point is not the Pneuma, but the omission of Hagion ( Αγιον), not the matter of abbreviation.

    This is not the probem with the slanted site but the question about the Old Text of John, p66 which agrees with the Majority Texts, disagreeing with P75 and Aleph.
    We can notice that even the minority text agrees with Majority Text sometimes, and the minority texts disagree each other as Vaticanus disagree with Aleph again ( Hagion Dedomenon).

    Finally, what the true scholars have to pursue is the Neutral Approach, bringing all the evidences on the table.

    When you mention P66 as omitting Pericope Adultrae(John 7:53-8:11), disagreeing with Majority Text, you didn't mention It agrees with Majority Texts in John 7:39.

    You say the site is slanted, but I am not sure whether your comment is slanted as well.

    Therefore, for everyone's benefit, we'd better pursue the unbiased approach, which can be possible when we are guided by Holy Spirit.
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually Dave suggested no such thing. God back and read what he actually posted.
    Typical of the "know nothing" poster. You have no idea what you are talking about so, when corrected, you resort to name calling.
    The next time you want to add something to the conversion you might consider actually adding something to the conversation. Posting gross ignorance is not all that helpful.
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The phenomenon of cross textual affinity is one aspect of textual criticism that is often overlooked. If we compare the two primary textforms, the Alexandrian and Byzantine, we will see that the Alexandrian agrees with the Byzantine more often than the Byzantine agrees with the Alexandrian in readings that contain a textual variant.

    I have never been able to secure a good photographic copy of P66. Does anyone know if the pericope is preceded or followed by a lacuna?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...