Does the Greek Text Matter?

While I wait for Rippon to reveal his source, here are mss that do include the PA:

D (F) G H K M U Gamma 28 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1344 1365 1216 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174.

My source here is the apparatus of The Greek New Testament (UBS3 corrected), p. 355.

This does not include hundreds more Byzantine mss, as well as various versions. I can post these if Rippon wants to continue to play this game.

 

I have some questions that are probably off topic a bit.

Is there a text put out using the Byz-Pri method?

If so how does it compare to the TR?

is it closer to the TR than say NA's latest CT?

 

In a search "Syriac Sinaiticus" comes up much more often than "Sinaitic Syriac." But it's no big deal.

Don't believe your own eyes then. I said it clearly in post 77 and you had even quoted my very words in your post #82. You are being beyond petty.

 

My source is Wikipedia. You love to lambast the site. You have to prove that the above information is wrong. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction --substantiate that what I have posted is false.

If, on the other hand, the data is correct --admit it.

 

From what I have gathered 892, 1079,1216 and 2174 are valuable minuscles. But 2174 added the PA by a later hand --it wasn't original.

Are you sure about 700? Is there really an inclusion of the PA?

Aside from D, the bulk of your items were written rather late --the 9th to 13th centuries. I thought you were interested in earlier examples. I put more stock on much earlier documentation.

No, that won't be necessary, for reasons that I have explained above.

You can play games to your heart's content.

 

Of course it's not a big deal, it's petty, but you brought it up. It's actually the difference between the Latin "Syriac Sinaiticus" and the English "Sinaitic Syriac."

So, then, are you admitting you were wrong?

Behold a personal attack--my supposed pettiness. People resort to personal attacks when they run out of debate material. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Of course I'm sure. I'm not quoting Wikipedia here, but a recognized source for textual criticism.

Why do you put stock on the documentation being earlier? This is a canon of eclectic textual criticism--but why do you personally hold to it?

The Byz.-maj. method does not hold to the "oldest is best" canon. The lineage of a ms is more important than its age. If a ms was written in the 3rd century by an incompetent scribe, or even a competent scribe without a good exemplar, then it is less useful than a 5th cent. ms copied from a good exemplar.

 

Hi, Jordan. I'm happy to answer your questions. First of all, see this post about the Byzantine NT: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2244361&posted=1#post2244361

I've compared the Byz. textform Greek NT 1st edition to the TR in all of the NT but Revelation, and it is very close. In some books there is virtually no difference, but in others there are occasionally important differences. For example, the Byz. leaves out Acts 8:37 as not being common in the Byzantine text type.

It is much, much closer to the TR than any CT, NA, UBS, etc.

 

You misunderstood my point entirely, which is that the original writers of Scripture (Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc.) are likely to have written in good Greek (the Byz.) than bad Greek (the Alex.)

 

Here is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is untrustworthy. Rippon got this from Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_2174

However, the Wiki contributor got it wrong in saying, "The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) was added by a later hand." The link within this Wiki article to Kurt Treu at the bottom of the page shows that the Wiki author was depending on Treu's work, but interpreted Treu's German wrongly. What Treu actually said was that the chapter summary of the PA (not the PA itself) occurs on the other edge of the ms.

Whoever wrote the Wiki article did not know enough German to interpret Treu's statement correctly.

 

I think I'll be petty a little more. Let's check Rippon's data.

In my own search on Google, "Syriac Sinaiticus" comes up 3270 times, and "Sinaitic Syriac" comes up 4920 times.

Uhoh. It looks like Rippon's own data (never mind Wikipedia) is not reliable.

 

Hmm. If Wikipedia is so great, please tell me why it actually contradicts itself about 2174 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

First it says 2174 includes the PA (it actually does), then it says it was added by a later hand. Still think it is reliable?

My information on 2174 came from the UBS3 apparatus. Yours came from Wikipedia--which even contradicts itself. Contest over. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Supposed? Hardly. You have morphed into Van. :wavey:

 

Because it makes eminent sense. It's not an absolute with me --but generally, the earlier the MSS. the better because they would be closer to the autographs.

Yep.

In so far as the lineage can be determined.

Under those parameters I agree. However, I have said that MSS. that you cited dating from the 9th to 13th centuries hold less weight with me generally than that of MSS. from the first few centuries.

Of course you would insist that no Byzantine scribe could possibly be considered incompetent. And you would also claim that all Byz. mss. were copied from good exemplars. In other words you display classic tunnel vision.

 

You should have noticed that nothing in the article footnoted Treu. Treu is cited as an additional source.

And you claim to be fluent in German?

There was no statement from Treu in the article.

 

If you object to the above, then produce your evidence.

 

The latest:

Syriac Sinaiticus : 43,500 times
Sinaitic Syriac : 43,200 times

Now, Johnny be good.

 

These figures, while technically correct, are a little misleading without further information. The majority of the differences are spelling changes (mostly in names, but also in some other words such as euthus) or grammatical differences that do not change the translation (men...de, and so forth).

For example, in Acts one there are three differences. The Byzantine: agrees with Stephanus (a different TR version) in v. 4 by omitting met autwn; spells "David" differently in v. 16 (no difference in meaning); omits an article in v. 18 (practically no difference in meaning); changes the word order in v. 24 (no difference in meaning).