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 How close is the The Byzantine text-to the TR One?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 23, 2013.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think the larger debate between those texts would NOT be in strict doctrinal passages, but in why one includes longer ending to mark, while others don't, why 3 witnesses in 1 John different etc!

    Think that one can use either the TR/MT/CT texts, and have translated off them into English the very word of God to us for today!
     
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So what we are really dealing with is a veiled argument in favor of the TR. Go figure.

    Funny no one else was aware the WEB agrees doctrinally with the NET, HCSB, and NASB. So just what is being said when folks say they prefer the Byzantine over the CT? I think all these arguments are much ado about nothing.
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    well, one can study from the Kjv/Njkv/Nasb/Niv/Esv/Hcsb/Nlt, and ALL would describe to you the same doctrines and practices!
     
  4. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have a question and will put in a new thread if need be.

    Why is the order of words changed in the last five words of John 1:1?

    Should it read, and God was the Word, instead of, and the Word was God?

    Why and who changed the order of the words, if they were so changed?
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Greek grammar construction, as John intende to show us that while jesus was God, he was NOT the only person named God, called a difference between father and the Son, so no Oneness doctrine!
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    After I wrote this I was surfing and found that Jack Moorman wrote an entire book against the Hodges-Farstad majority text Greek NT: When the KJV Departs From the "Majority" Text.

    And a scholar friend who is plugged in tells me that often in Dean Burgon Society mtgs. they rail against the H-F or the Robinson-Pierpont Byz. Textform Gr. NT, and D. A. Waite has written against them.

    Now if Hodges or Farstad or Robinson or Pierpont had lived back when old Burgon did, they would be quoting them for their side! :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #26 John of Japan, Sep 26, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2013
  7. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    Real quick. "God" is preposed in Greek for emphasis, while the subject is made clear from the definite article before Logos. In English we like to put the subject first, unless you're Yoda, that is.
     
  8. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    John, I'm not a professional textual critic either. We both have it only as our hobbies. BTW, thanks for all the information posted in this thread. Very helpful to all. Deacon's citations were also very good.
     
  9. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I will preface by saying as I have many times, I know, no Greek. --Question.

    The previous seven words conjoined by the, "and," in above;

    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν "and,"

    Is God proposed there also? In those seven words are ὁ and τὸν and also two cases.

    What meaning is in those seven words as to λόγος relative to θεόν?

    I guess I am asking is one of those words the subject/object of the other implied in the Greek construction?

    And if there is does not καὶ following θεόν carry the same construction to the last four words, which would cause them to be written in the Greek as they are interlinear so written?

    Understood as, and the God was the Word?
     
  10. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Greek grammar unlike English is so inflected that word order is usually irrelevant. To tie a noun (or other substanitve) and its modifier to gether, a person needs to look for case, number, and gender.
     
  11. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    In John 1:1, "the Word" is the only grammatically possible subject of all three clauses. In the third clause, if "God" had appeared with the article, then either "the Word" or "God" could be construed as the subject of that clause. There are basic rules for determining the subject of verbs of being, such as, e.g., if it is a proper name, a pronoun, has a definite article, etc. This being the case, only "the Word" qualifies as the subject of the predicate for the third clause. It is also poetic, with equally three syllables before the verb and three after it.
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, but you're the one with the Th.M. in it. :thumbs:

    By the way, when the next book on Byzantine priority comes out, I was wondering if you and I might review it together here on the BB, considering the content. :smilewinkgrin: No need to answer here, just a thought.
     
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I thought this thread had clearly established the differences between the Byz/Maj and the TR.
    There are some key differences. The Byzantine Textform Greek NT includes the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae, but the MVs based on the eclectic UBS/Nestle's Greek NT usually have them in brackets, and the literature of the eclectic position says they were not in the original mss. I'd say that the textual criticism of these two passages at a minimum is a very important endeavor.

    And besides, nothing about the Word of God is "much ado about nothing."
     
  14. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Time has expired, game over. The Byzantine Priority seems to be a fiction as there are zero doctrinally significant differences with the CT according to every contributor to this thread.
     
  15. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, not sure I understand all you said but thanks for the reply.

    I read something in another forum that helped me understand you better also. Also I did not notice the difference in θεόν and θεὸς which would also make a difference, I guess.
     
    #35 percho, Sep 27, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2013
  16. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    Many passages appear to have been modified for doctrinal reasons. Here's a list of just a few that I've looked into in the first few chapters of Matthew:

    Matt 1:18 γεννησις
    Matt 1:25 τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον (see paper below for more in depth info)
    Matt 2:9 εστη
    Matt 4:10 οπισω μου (see paper below for more info)
    Matt 5:22 εικη (see paper below for more info)
    Matt 6:13 οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην

    In the paper linked to below, I also write about the elimination of certain fasting passages and the "dilemma" in Matt 24:36. I think it can still be downloaded here, if anyone's interested:

    "Identifying Real Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture"

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know what you've been reading, but I pointed out significiant differences in two passages. The critical text editors and the translators of many MVs don't believe these two passages (with significant doctrinal content) should be in the NT. The NIV I have has the following notes, and other MVs have similar ones:

    Mark 16:9:"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

    At John 7:53:"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."

    Bruce Metzger says about the longer ending of Mark: "The longer ending...must also be juedged by internal evidence to be secondary" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 104). He says about John 8, "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming" (ibid,187).

    Byz. priority includes these passages as original. I believe such statements as the above are flat out wrong. Furthermore, they undermine the confidence of untutored believers in their Bibles. There are better ways to give their viewpoint without casting doubt on the Word of God.
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think tht there are basically 2 main problems in this discussion, one being that few , if any, of us here are qualified to judge which would be the preferred endinds/passages to use based upon if in the originals, and few would be able to read and understand just why various decisions were made by commitee!

    I woul prefer to have the bibles versions keep everything in all versions, but have at either beg/end each book a good explanation on "problem" passages, and what are the differences held based upon?
     
  19. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for Van but here is a passage in which there is a significant difference (IMO) between them.​

    KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

    ASV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.​

    Yes, I understand that the ASV (and other bibles based on the CT) capitalizes "He". However in the W&H Greek text it is not.​

    It is a difference which Burgon explains in his book The Revision Revised.

    Presumably the difference is due to a choice of an assumed scribal error variation. ​

    Burgon has another theory but it would take a lot of time to explain.
    He devotes several pages of this book to this textual difference.​

    He was an avid Traditional Text advocate.​

    HankD​
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    when john chose to write it"And the Word was God", he was emphasising to us that while Jesus is God, he is Not ONLY person to be called God, for if he had written it as "God was the Word", that would imply that the father and Jesus are the same person, so Oneness theology!
     
Loading...