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 Does the Greek Text Matter?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Jul 11, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 11
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One can hold to either a CT/MT/Bzt text as being the prominate version to use, and that by itself does not make anyone suspect in their understanding of what the scriptures are teaching to us...

    Its when we creep over into their can ONLY be A greek text to use for studies that makes one come under being suspect...
     
    #101 Yeshua1, Jul 16, 2015
  2. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, that is exactly how the "guilt by association" argument works. I hope you'll abandon it, since it reflects poorly on you.
     
    #102 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Part of why old Bart apostasized was that as a textual critic he was not given a faith-based answer to the differences in the mss.
     
    #103 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, wow. (GASP!) I'm devastated. Someone under the handle "Anonymous" and someone else with the name "Reviewer" criticized the essay by Dr. Robinson on Amazon.

    You have to be kidding me, Rippon. This was a ridiculous post. I've seen you debate better than this on the BB.
     
    #104 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  5. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,504
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My perspective on the 'Perspectives' series of books and the snippets of video that can be found recording the exchanges between the men that hold to the different theories is that they managed to discuss a contentious issue without shouting, without humiliating each other and (more subjectively) without raising their blood pressures.

    I got the feeling that they respect each others views even while disagreeing.

    I work with 'Dragon' dictation software at work and find some interesting 'textual' errors among the letters I read. Its given me a whole 'new perspective' on NT textual criticism
    Some errors can be figured out with a bit of imagination.
    In some cases there are whole paragraphs are just unintelligible.
    It is not that uncommon for a sentence to make sense but I know that's not what the doctor meant to dictate.

    Think about working with an amanuensis writing on paprius: you can imagine the difficulties that arose.

    But we must remember that for each of the manuscripts that we 'count' and even the ones some might call corrupt, a community of early Christians used these for their worship, teaching, and doctrine... and God was there.

    A plain message throughout all scripture is that God uses flawed instruments for his purposes.

    Rob
     
    #105 Deacon, Jul 16, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2015
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry about that. None of the papyri are relevant in the discussion of the LE of Mark.
    Codex B (Vaticanus)--This is a substandard document. I see no need to view it as authoritative in textual criticism. "T. C. Skeat of the British Museum has suggested that Codex Vaticanus was a 'reject' among the 50 copies, for it is deficient in the Eusebian canon, has many corrections by different scribes, and, as mentioned above, lacks the books of Maccabees, apparently through an oversight" (Metzger and Ehrman, pp. 68-69).

    Aleph (Sinaiticus) is better, but still filled with errors, some of which were corrected before it even left the scriptorium, others at a later date (ibid, 66-67). Why should I consider it authoritative?

    According to Daniel Wallace, these two "are the only 'primary' witnesses to Mark 16 in Greek" (Perspectives..., p. 14).

    Concerning Alexandrinus, you are wrong. It does include the LE of Mark. Ephraimi Rescriptus also had the LE of Mark. If you are still using Wikipedia, see this discussion: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/02/wikipedia-is-still-bad-notes-on-codex.html
    Nope, sorry, I looked on every page and can find no post where you dealt with this.

    Once again, Irenaeus (130-202) specifically quoted from the LE of Mark, and this is acknowledged by all. Therefore, we have an extremely early proof that the passage is Scripture.
     
    #106 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2015
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You state the eclectic position with no proof, so I state the Byz.-pri. position with no proof. Seems fair to me. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #107 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are both of those texts though the very word of God unto us in the original language, as we have no extant originals now?
     
    #108 Yeshua1, Jul 16, 2015
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, but the Byz. is closer to the autographs.
     
    #109 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm looking forward to the next Perspectives book too.

    Yes, those men respect each other--I know Dr. Black and Dr. Robinson, and the others by reputation.

    Notice none of them are on the BB. Somewhat more antagonistic here--their stature would not be recognized here by most. :type:
     
    #110 John of Japan, Jul 16, 2015
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, you will have to elaborate.
     
    #111 Rippon, Jul 16, 2015
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Although most N.T. textual scholars believe it is valuable.
    Well, you might take note that most New Testament scholars regard it as very important.
    You are confused. I never said that those two didn't have the longer ending to Mark. I said that they do not have the PA.

    You just need to pay attention to what I really said in post 77.
     
    #112 Rippon, Jul 16, 2015
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See my post 96, which you have even quoted!
     
    #113 Rippon, Jul 16, 2015
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See your own post 96. You don't mention the second century witnesses of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Neither does Wallace in his essay. Inconvenient facts, I suppose.
     
    #114 John of Japan, Jul 17, 2015
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Naw, it's a rabbit trail, and besides it is general knowledge. Read Wikipedia or something similar on it. :tongue3:
     
    #115 John of Japan, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2015
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You really need to abandon this "most scholars say" type of argumentation. Back in the 1970s and probably '80s most SBC scholars were liberal--or at a minimum neo-orthodox. That certainly didn't make them right.
    See your own post 97, wherein you answer my statement about the LE of Mark. I believe you are the one confused, though I admit that I have sometimes gotten the two issues confused.
     
    #116 John of Japan, Jul 17, 2015
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is what you asked in post 90 :"When will he answer my point about the early Church Fathers that had the LE?"

    And in post 96 I had cited a statement by Dan Wallace from that Perspectives book:"The patristic testimony thus reveals a very interesting trend: from the earliest discussion on the authenticity of this passage, the Fathers indicate that most of the copies of Mark ended at 16:8."
     
    #117 Rippon, Jul 17, 2015
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From Post 77

    It's not called the Sinaitic Syriac as you said in post 90.

    This reposting was to clear up the confusion of JoJ regarding what pertained to the PA and the LE.

    I have since come upon information that Codex Washingtonianus (400) doesn't have PA, and neither does the Diatessaron --a harmony of the Gospels written somewhere between 150-175 by Tatian.
     
    #118 Rippon, Jul 17, 2015
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I just took another look at Wallace's essay, and found that he refers to Irenaeus (but doesn't quote him) in the body of the essay on p. 10 and then Justin Martyr in a footnote. But he doesn't really discuss why Irenaeus or Justin Martyr would say what they did if the LE of Mark didn't exist as part of the Gospel.

    If you actually had the book you would have been able to find that yourself. I hope if you want to continue discussing textual criticism you come better armed.:type:
     
    #119 John of Japan, Jul 17, 2015
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Apparently you know more than the textual critic who told me about it, then. Furthermore, that is what Metzger calls it in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (p. 102). Care to admit you were wrong?
    I believe you are confused about my confusion.
    Please name your source.
     
    #120 John of Japan, Jul 17, 2015
Page 6 of 11
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...