There is No “Priority” Greek Text

Nicely said. I teach Greek, and still have some way to go.

Got my students started on thinking about verbal aspect today (something I still need to work on), and got a lot of blank looks when I ran around the classroom and asked what kind of action they were seeing (imperfective).

 

Unfortunately for your theory, koine Greek did not have imperfect participles. (I'd be happy to repent if you can name a grammar that says they do.) It only had present, aorist, and future participles.

But fortunately for your exegesis, the aspect of any present tense form can be either aoristic or imperfective, so you can interpret the present participle in Phil. 2:6 as imperfective--a continuing state of being.

 

You are correct. The Lucian Recension remains an unproven theory of W & H, with virtually no extant historical documents to prove it.

 

Do you follow and accept then all that Dean Burgon wrote on textual criticism?

 

How do you regard Dr Wallace as a Greek expert?

 

Respectfully,
I don't engage in "textual criticism", at least with regard to the Textus Receptus Greek and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.
I do criticize the others when it comes to both origen and usage.

I know in my spirit that the TR and Ben Chayyim are the words of God preserved for His children, and any faithful and meticulous translation that comes from them, in any language, will be the word of God if it's done with honest accuracy and integrity.
To me, the "priority" Greek Text is the TR which is mainly "Byzantine" in origin and preservation.
I have no reason to doubt it, and no reason to prove its validity.

I also know, in my heart, that anything outside of these two is not to be trusted, and to me, it doesn't "feel right", spiritually speaking.
In other words, I know my Saviour's voice, and I follow Him ( John 10:27 ).

While I do believe that many of God's words can be found in the others, I do not trust them as I do the ones that I have referenced above.
As for the "Critical Text" that I've come to understand is basically a 1-2% representation of the MT,
I wouldn't recommend its usage to anyone for any reason, except as a good example of what to leave alone and to totally ignore.

I've read extensively on the subject, done a fair bit of research, and without going any deeper than where I'm currently at, I long ago satisfied myself with sticking to what I started with 42+ years ago when the Lord called me by His Gospel...
The AV in the English and the TR and Ben Chayyim as the sources.

So far, no one has been able to convince me that the whole "textual criticism" movement is anything other than a very concerted effort on the part of certain powers-that-be to water down God's word and to cause people to doubt it...
And I don't see that ending anytime soon.

In fact, I hold that these are the last of the last days, and the merry-go-round money-making machine that is "textual criticism" is only going to spin ever faster and get more confusing as the time of His coming draws nearer.



May God bless you with ever-increasing wisdom and knowledge in your studies of His precious word.

 

He's a brilliant scholar, but I disagree with him on some things.

 

So, which TR is the right one? They differ many times. (See my thread on Matt.)

Does this mean you disapprove of the textual criticism the translators of the KJV did? What about the textual criticism of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and Scrivener that produced the TR?

 

You cannot logically agree with much that Burgon wrote, since you oppose the Byz. Textform as being an attack on God's Word. Burgon would have loved it.

 

Oops, I meant to say, "His K does not include Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi (א, B, C). They are included by Von Soden in his H (Hesychian) text.