The Byzantine Text is Early?

jonathan.borland · Jul 2, 2010

For a long time there have been those who espouse that many authentic readings, which a minority of manuscripts have altered, have nevertheless been preserved in the Byzantine text.

I will cite my translation of a paragraph from the prolegomena of Johann Martin Augustin Scholz, Novum Testamentum graece (2 vols.; Lipsiae: Friderici Fleischer, 1830, 1836), 1:clxv:

Furthermore, it will be deemed easy if we wish to prove somewhat with internal reasons that the Byzantine text appears to approach the genuine text much more than does the Alexandrian. Though a great number of pertinent things here might be produced for display, nevertheless a few examples should be sufficient in clarity to illustrate the point, lest I should be excessive or appear willing to abuse the reader’s leisure. Whoever closely considers the nature and custom of St. Luke’s style that is known from many passages will discover that the many sayings and phrases that he was most willingly accustomed to use are found in the Byzantine text but sometimes altered in the Alexandrian text. One can understand this from a collection of readings. See ἔλεγε δὲ καί (5:36; 12:54; 14:12; 16:1, 18:1), εἶπε δὲ καί (18:9; 19:19), ἦλθον δὲ καί (3:12), ἀπέθανε δὲ καί (16:22), εἶδε δὲ καί (21:2), παραδοθήσεσθε δὲ καί (21:16), etc. Either most or all of the Alexandrian manuscripts have ἐξήλθατε or ἐξήλθεται at Luke 7:24, 25, 26, but the simple past tense of Luke is rather customary: therefore it is more probable that he wrote ἐξεληλύθατε, as he was accustomed to write also at 5:32, 22:52, and elsewhere, and as the Byzantine manuscripts have. The Alexandrian manuscripts have ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι at Luke 9:49, but the Byzantine reading ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι upholds the use of speech observed by Luke in 9:48; 21:8; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 4:18; 5:28, 40, and elsewhere. The Alexandrian manuscripts at Luke 10:22 omit the words καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε, but the Byzantines rightly retain them: for the phrase is plainly from the custom of Luke in 7:44; 9:55; 14:25; 23:28, and elsewhere. The Alexandrian manuscripts have γένεσις at Matt 1:18 and Luke 1:14, but the Byzantines rightly have γέννησις: for the discourse concerns the manner of the birth. The Alexandrian manuscripts have οὐδέ eight times at 1 Cor 6:9, 10, but the Byzantines have οὔτε which must be preferred, because the sense demands that the former, namely the particle οὐδέ, will scarcely ever begin a sentence in the NT when signifying “and not.” Those who open-mindedly give judgment regarding the characteristic innate quality of the speech of the individual authors of the NT scarcely discover anything in the Byzantine text which does not in everything correspond to the things they have thought should be.
Click to expand...

Check your GNTs. What do you think of these features?

Jonathan C. Borland

Deacon · Jul 2, 2010

One observation, the authors collection of Greek texts is limited compared to those available today.

Just looking at one phrase:

"The Alexandrian manuscripts at Luke 10:22 omit the words
καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε, but the Byzantines rightly retain them: for the phrase is plainly from the custom of Luke in 7:44; 9:55; 14:25; 23:28, and elsewhere."

I find it hard to follow his argument using the texts he supplies.

Rob

jonathan.borland · Jul 2, 2010

One should remember that in Scholz' system there are either as many families as there are manuscripts, or there are two great families, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. Codex Bezae he classified as Alexandrian with huge cross-corruption from the Latin. In this light, i.e., from his perspective, one can see that basically all the Greek manuscripts that support the omission in Luke 10:22 are indeed Alexandrian or mixed Alexandrian. The omission by these manuscripts may be seen as harmonization to Matt 11:27, while the addition might be claimed to be assimilation to the following verse. The latter explanation is unlikely due to the tendency of editors to remove tautologies, not add them, and the dissimilarity of the clause in the following verse (i.e., addition of κατ᾽ ἰδίαν). Yet the clause, as rightly demonstrated by Scholz, is overwhelmingly Lukan.

Jonathan C. Borland

The Byzantine Text is Early?

jonathan.borland Active Member

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

jonathan.borland Active Member

Useful Searches

The Byzantine Text is Early?

jonathan.borland Active Member

Deacon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

jonathan.borland Active Member

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter