

I think that the Majority (more accurately the Byzantine Manuscripts) are of a superior text, closer to the autographs then the current critical editions.
τι νομιζετε;
uberdwayne wrote:...I wanted to bring up a discussion of textual criticism of the New Testament, I'm not sure if this is the place for it, but if it is, lets discuss
Markos wrote:Do you think it is possible to fully address this question without bringing theology into it ...
uberdwayne wrote:So, I received the 2005 edition of Robertson/peirpont GNT in the mail last Monday, and I must say that I am extremely happy with it...
I think that the Majority (more accurately the Byzantine Manuscripts) are of a superior text, closer to the autographs then the current critical editions.
τι νομιζετε;
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Markos wrote:Do you think it is possible to fully address this question without bringing theology into it ...
Markos,
This isn't b-greek. The tendency among b-greek people to assume that what can or cannot be discussed on b-greek spills over into other forums is unfortunate. Some of us are here because we cannot live with the restrictions against exegesis, textual criticism, cultural issues, literary criticism, theology, ... the list goes on, things you cannot discuss. I spent more time figuring out if I could ask a question than I did formulating the question itself. This gets old fast.
Markos wrote:Do you think it is possible to fully address this question without bringing theology into it, or at least addressing the question of whether one chooses to address this question with or without an a priori assumption that rules out the supernatural in the production and preservation of these texts?
1Jn 2:27 καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος, καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, μενεῖτε ἐν αὐτῷ.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:My current policy is to read all the texts of the NT and not fuss over which is the original reading.
R.P. Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:
N.A. 27 Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:
Markos wrote:R.P. Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:N.A. 27 Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:
Can you think of any reason why anyone would want to change the δέ to γάρ, or vice-versa?
Markos wrote:Again, lower criticism is a big, can-of-worms-opening topic, but let me ask you (ὑμεῖς) a very limited question.R.P. Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:N.A. 27 Gal 1:11 wrote:
Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον:
Can you think of any reason why anyone would want to change the δέ to γάρ, or vice-versa?
10 Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. 11 Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον·
Are the two γὰρ sentences parallel, both brought in to support something that precedes verse 10?
δε is much less clear
Markos wrote:...take note of the differences. Does there seem to be any discernible pattern?
Markos wrote: documentary hypothesis and the Q. source
Markos wrote:Does that fact the Robinson-Pierpont text has been submitted to the public domain for free use while NA remains copyrighted factor into one's decision of which text to prefer?
Markos wrote:Have you (ὑμεῖς) read Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions?
uberdwayne wrote: ...based on these variants, it would be hard pressed to say that variants were purposely created on a consistent basis!
Markos wrote:Have you (ὑμεῖς) read Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions?
Do you think its worth buy and reading (all 700 pages)?
I've never heard the theory that this was done to save parchment.
mwh wrote:Your general thesis that the byzantine recension is closer to the original, however, is very hard to sustain, very hard to account for in transmissional terms.
Markos wrote:λέγε πλέας λόγους, παρακαλῶ.
MWH wrote:I'd like to see a course of transmission outlined that enabled the byzantine mss to be the most authoritative.
mwh wrote:There's a most interesting Acts papyrus in a recent Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume
uberdwayne wrote:RP - ῾Ως γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
uberdwayne wrote:Hi Michael,
Here's a recent quote in an email I received from Wilbur Pickering...
"Not there is the following: Wherever P75 and Codex B disagree, one of them is always with the Byzantine text, about even on both sides. This means that the Byzantine text already existed and was being consulted in the year 200."
Now, I haven't had a chance to verify this, and will at some point, but assuming its true, there are some major implications here. What are your thoughts?
N.A. 27 Acts 19:10b:
...οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπῄεσαν.
R.P. Acts 19:10b:
...οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἀπῄεσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων .
uberdwayne wrote:...an email I received from Wilbur Pickering...
mwh wrote:Sorry I can't give you a precise reference to the Oxy. pap. offhand, but if you have access to the recent volumes you'll find it.uberdwayne wrote:Do you know more about this? I've not seen or heard anything about it, and I'd be interested to.mwh wrote:There's a most interesting Acts papyrus in a recent Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume
Shenoute wrote:It is in P. Ox. 74, 2009. If you're still interested and do not have access to it, I can copy the most relevant paragraphs here.
P. Ox. LXXIV, 2009, p. 6-14 wrote:(...)
The papyrus offers a strong challenge to this view, leading rather to the recognition that if a text could exist in one free version, it could exist in many. The fact is that P offers a new free version. Although it differs greatly from Codex Vaticanus, it also presents a strikingly different version from that found in Codex Bezae. Like Codex Bezae, it is longer than Codex Vaticanus, and like Codex Bezae its wording often varies from Codex Vaticanus. But its variation from it are by no means identical with those of Codex Bezae.
(...)
[Follows a comparaison of Acts 16, 27-30 in CB, CV and P. I have only typed the text found in P.]
27 εξυπνος δε γενομενος ο δεσμοφυλαξ και ιδων ανεωγμενας τας θυρας πασας [σ]πασαμενος μαχαιραν ηθελησε[ν] εαυτον κατακ[.]σαι νομιζων εκπεφευγεναι τους δεσμιους
28 εφωνησεν δε αυτον Παυλος λεγων μη ταρασσου απαντες γαρ εσμεν ενθαδε
29 φωτα δε αιτησας εισεπηδησεν και εντρομος υπαρχων επιπεσων τω Παυλω και Σιλεα
30 προαγων αυτους εξω τους λοιπους ασφαλισας προελθων εφη κυριοι τι με δει ποιειν [ι]να σωθω
(...)
On the evidence presented here and in the commentary, it is hard to see how the bipolar concept of a two-text form of Acts can continue to be maintained.
(...)
It is worth setting out some of the main questions that will need asking in further research.
1. Most striking is the question of the relationship between P and Codex Bezae. Do they represent two versions independently derived from a form of text more similar to the initial text ? Are they both derived from a more free form of text but, inevitably for a free text, showing many differences from each other ? (...)
2. It is a question that is closely related to the first. How are the two texts of 05 and P related to the text of 03 ? Is one closer to it than the other ? (...)
3. What are the distinctive characteristics of P ? One is evident, namely, the habit of abbreviating or even omitting material : (...) A second feature is changes in word order : (...)
4. What is the character of the distinctive readings that are new to us from P ? Why are they new to us
? Are they similar in character to the readings it shares with 05 ? Again, this is too large a task to be attempted here, except to make the general observation that it is not infrequent for these readings to contain strong echoes of material found elsewhere in the Acts.
(...)
5. A new historical question to be asked concerns the context in which the form of the text in P arose. The fact that it is dated to such a similar period as Codex Bezae (...) is perhaps surprising, given the general assumption that texts tended to be treated more freely in the early stages of their existence. Perhaps we should be looking for a different explanation.
(...)
Majority Text 1 Cor 8:3:
εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ' αὐτοῦ.
P46 and Clement 1 Cor 8:3:
εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ, οὗτος ἔγνωσται.
1 Cor 8:2: εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τι, οὔπω ἔγνω καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι:
mwh wrote:...and that texts made their way from Egypt to Byzantium en route to us.
mwh wrote:it's a petitio principii (though you might resist so calling it)
mwh wrote:though you shouldn't rely on scribes' ability to recognize "the best" when they find it
mwh wrote:But you persist in referring to "the text from Egypt" when you yourself acknowledge the considerable amount of "divergence" within it.
Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
Users browsing this forum: Isaac Newton and 26 guests