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!

God's word

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by RaptureReady, Jun 10, 2004.

  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respect your opinion. I'd even agree with it with
    a minor change:

    My opinion on the various English
    versions is this, they will never
    be the bible the King James Bible was.

    BTW. i will still campaign against those
    who hide that the original King James Bible
    disclosed textual variants in side notes.
    The side notes, being from God to help us
    understand what His message is about --
    the side notes are inspired and inerrant
    and the perfect words of God.
    Books like most KJV1769 editions and most
    KJV1762 editions (well, at least the US
    rip-offs) are missing some of the perfection
    of those which have the translator sidenotes.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK but this could be viewed as an "inkling", if somehow we were able to followed p66 to its source(s), one of them might be predominantly "Byzantine".

    HankD
     
  3. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK but this could be viewed as an "inkling", if somehow we were able to followed p66 to its source(s), one of them might be predominantly "Byzantine".</font>[/QUOTE]Not really, since it would be like finding a handful of NIV readings in the KJV and arguing that if we followed these readings to their source, we'd find that the KJV was based on the NIV.
     
  4. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Non sequitur. Your allegation is that the Byzantine text did not exist prior to the 4th century. The fact is that distinctively Byzantine readings have been found which date to as early as the 2nd century.

    The Byzantine text is almost identical to the Alexandrian text except for about 9,000 variants, the vast majority of which are minor spelling differences. The thing which delineates a Byzantine manuscript from an Alexandrian manuscript are those distinctive readings. To deny those readings exist, and are Byzantine, is to deny demonstrable fact.
     
  5. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody denies that a handful of distinctively Byzantine *readings* are found in pre-4th C. sources, some of them very early. That's an established fact. What's *not* an established fact is that the Byzantine *text* as a whole existed before the 4th C. The evidence we have suggests that those early Byzantine readings were among the many sources that fed into what would eventually become the Byzantine text in the post-Constantinian period.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is not a good example because we already know that the basis of your analogy is NOT true. These are discrete translations and not copies. We have not yet established (as you have said) which if any of the texts type families preceding p66 contributed to it and to what extent. If p66 is as early as 120AD as some have dated it then it may be only 2 or 3 generations from the original.

    HankD
     
  7. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a good example because we already know that the basis of your analogy is NOT true. These are discrete translations and not copies. </font>[/QUOTE]The purpose of the analogy is to highlight the serious methodological flaw involved in arguing from the early existence of a small number of *readings* to the early existence of an entire *text type*.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I understand, my premise simply allows for the *possibililty* of a text type which admittedly could be 'Alexandrian' or 'Byzantine' (though that would be a misnomer but rather what Burgon called the 'Traditional Text') or something else.

    HankD
     
  9. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following is excerpted from The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, 1991, Original Word Publishers, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article is far too long to comment on every point, but there are a couple to which I'd like to respond.

    If, as the Byzantine priority hypothesis posits, the Byzantine text was the earliest and most widely used text throughout the entire ancient world (presumably including Egypt) from the most ancient times, doesn't it seem *extremely* improbable that absolutely *no* Byzantine copies has survived? Or that *no* ancient version before the 4th C. is based on a Byzantine text? Or that *no* church father before Asterius the Sophist (c. 341 A.D.) used a Byzantine text? Especially when you consider that the Alexandrian and Western texts are both well represented in early manuscripts, versions, and patristic writings? Or that while the early mixed texts display significant Western + Alexandrian mixture, there's almost no Western + Byzantine or Alexandrian + Byzantine mixture?

    But there *is* historical evidence of a "Byzantine revision." Jerome tells us that Lucian of Antioch produced a revised text of the NT. Eusebius tells us that Constantine ordered him to make fifty copies of the Bible for use in the church. If Lucian's early Byzantine text were used as the exemplar for Constantine's officially produced Bibles, that would explain how the Byzantine text became dominant.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "revised" or "corrected" archangel?

    Do you know the exact word used?

    HankD
     
  12. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    "revised" or "corrected" archangel?

    Do you know the exact word used?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Here's an English translation of Jerome's remarks in full --&gt; LINK

    The word used in this translation is "correct[ed];" I don't know what it is in the Latin, as I don't have access to the Latin text.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, I have the Latin but my Church Father's software engine is toast since I installed XP.

    HankD
     
  14. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, I have the Latin but my Church Father's software engine is toast since I installed XP.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, MicroSoft XP... the world's biggest computer virus. [​IMG]
     
Loading...