Byzantine Textform

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:00 pm

In the present context we have two sentences introduce by γὰρ:
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?
C. Stirling Bartholomew

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by uberdwayne » Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:12 am

Are the two γὰρ sentences parallel, both brought in to support something that precedes verse 10?
It could be, but I think that the second γάρ brings a really odd support to verse 10. Perhaps its supporting an earlier point from verse six. Paul recognized "ὃτι οὓτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος" and he supports that by showing the true gospel, hence "γνωρίζω." Even this is a bit awkward, as hes not really supporting it, he's attempting to correct it. Infact, verse 6-10 appear to be the reason he's writing to the Galatians in the first place.

The other solution is it could be possible that the alternative "δε" is indeed original. This makes sense as, clearly, Paul is introducing the next thought in this epistle, that is, the gospel he preaches originates from "ὁ άφορίσας με." He then spends the rest of the chapter proving it. Paul is essentially displaying the superiority of his Gospel, then in chapter 3, he lays into them!

This is where one of the TC canons were likely invoked. "The harder reading is to be preferred." Its clearly a majority reading with support from some of the uncials, so why do we invoke the "harder reading"? γὰρ appears twice in close succession before this verse, so its at least possible that the copiers may have gotten "γάρ" on the brain. I understand its not concrete, but when external criteria is close like this, there isn't much else that is concrete.

Internally, it makes sense as δὲ, and externally it has a lot of support (f35, P46, sinaiticus, A,RP,HF,OC,TR,CP)(apparatus from Wilbur pickerings GNT). γαρ may have external support as well, but it lacks the internal support necessary to make it original.

so, as it stands, I think it should be "δέ"

Bartholomew, is that you in the "Galatians" discussion group on bgreek?
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by C. S. Bartholomew » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:30 pm

Perhaps the Byzantine reading γνωριζω δε is preferable. In the Alexandrian text we see four verses all starting with γὰρ.

Gal. 1:10 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· 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 13 Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν,

You can end up getting a headache from attempting to make sense out of Paul's discourse structure. Not sure if there is much gained by all the quibbling over how to represent the flow of Paul's argument. The general point he is making seems clear enough.

EDIT: I went back again and studied Levinsohn's (Discourse Features NT Greek 2nd ed. 2000, pages 112-113) discussion of δε and γὰρ in non-narrative text. γὰρ introduces supporting material that strengthens some aspect of the argument which immediately precedes. δε is much less clear. It introduces something new that develops from what came before. This is vague. It needs to embrace scenarios where the material introduced is contrastive, adversative, backgrounded, or none of these.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by uberdwayne » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:26 pm

δε is much less clear
I don't think that it is necessarily "less clear", I'm beginning to see δε as the workhorse of conjunctions. It seems to be used where other conjunctions could be used which would make it, in a sense, generic. Any meaning that comes to δε would be implicit from the context, whereas γαρ, for example, has its inherent meaning explicit in the word itself, and because it is more specialized, it gets used in fewer places but where explicitness is required.
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by Markos » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:42 pm

Dwayne, you have your copy of Robinson-Pierpont 2005, which lists all the departures from NA 27 in the lower apparatus. As you do your reading, take note of the differences. Does there seem to be any discernible pattern? Are these the types of changes--in either direction--that one would INTENTIONALY make if one wanted to alter the meaning of the text, or do most of the changes seem more likely to have been unintentionally made at an early level when perhaps the transmission was being done partly from memory?

Is the preference for the Alexandrian text-type based on the same type of controversial evolutionary methodology that has produced controversial reconstructions like the documentary hypothesis and the Q. source?

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?

Have you (ὑμεῖς) read Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions?

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by uberdwayne » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:01 am

Χαιρε Φιλε μου Μαρκε!

Forgive me for disappearing last week, I was tremendously busy with some extraneous life-with-kids-and-a-wife stuff. But now things are back to normal; so, Moving on...
Markos wrote:...take note of the differences. Does there seem to be any discernible pattern?
Its hard to say at this point, as I've not really been paying a whole lot of attention, but to comment on a few things I did notice. Consider 1 john 4:2-3. In the NA, it does not have the phrase "εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα" but RP and TR have it. Now some have argued (Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp and Peter Ruckman to name a few) saying that the NA's rejection of this phrase is advocating a view that Jesus did not exist in a "fleshly" form. The problem here is that in verse 2, the one immediately preceding this verse, this phrase has unanimous support. So, concerning the "shoddy" scribe who "removed" it from verse 3, did he forget to remove it from the previous verse? I would think that this is very unlikely, which shows that this was not an intentional lifting of the phrase to merit a change in doctrine. Either, this was an accidental omission, or perhaps they were looking to "economize" the space of very expensive parchment/Vellum.

or perhaps...

The phrase wasn't there to begin with and was added to clarify the point (maybe combating some form of heresy)! Either way, we'd be hard pressed to find this as an intentional change to the text for the purpose of promoting a false view of Christ.

We also find a "more orthodox reading" in NA and WH, compared to Byz, in John 1:18 where they call Jesus the only begotten God, and Byz calls him the only begotten Son. This should throw for a loop those who say the alexandrian text is purposely degrading the nature of Christ. It clearly is not, so, based on these variants, it would be hard pressed to say that variants were purposely created on a consistent basis!
Markos wrote: documentary hypothesis and the Q. source
Sorry Markos, although I have a bit of knowledge regarding this, I havn't studied it deeply enough to give a satisfactory response.
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?
I don't think it should, otherwise we'd have to throw out an aweful lot of decent resources! I understand the KJVo crowd sees the lack of copyright on the KJB as a sign of its prowess, but this argument is silly and should be abandoned all together. At the very least though, it does show that the scholars and publishers are willing to relinquish monetary benefit to disperse what they think most cloesly matches the Word of God!

On the other hand, if someone claims that something is very close to the autographs, as the NA committee believes, then wouldn't the text be public domain anyway seeing it was written some 2000 years ago? Surely copyright law doesn't extend that far back! But I digress.
Markos wrote:Have you (ὑμεῖς) read Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions?
I've considered buying it, but a number of genuine scholars have shown numerous citations which are heavily pulled from context. Also, some of her logic is questionable at best, such as her "acrostic algebra." And from what I understand, she has a very conspiratorial view of modern translations, which I don't believe corresponds with what I know about some of the people involved in these translations. Again, I havn't actually read the book, but reviewers outside the KJVo crowed tend to speak against it.

Do you think its worth buy and reading (all 700 pages)?
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by Markos » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:08 pm

uberdwayne wrote: ...based on these variants, it would be hard pressed to say that variants were purposely created on a consistent basis!
This tends to be my working hypothesis, that the Byzantine Text is the original and the Alexandrian variants were produced accidently when the text was produced partly by memory. I've never heard the theory that this was done to save parchment. That would not explain things like minor variances in word order and different tenses and prepositions. If you have ever tried to reproduce a text from a memory, these are exactly the types of inadvertent changes you are likely to make, and the resultant text will be shorter.
Markos wrote:Have you (ὑμεῖς) read Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions?
Do you think its worth buy and reading (all 700 pages)?
Yes, it is a good read. Needless to say, I don't agree with her on all the details, but she raises a number of compelling points. A similar book that you can read on line is:

http://www.basicchristian.org/mediawiki ... icated.pdf

ἴθι πολλὰ ἐν Ἰησοῦ χαίρων!
Last edited by Markos on Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by uberdwayne » Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:25 pm

I've never heard the theory that this was done to save parchment.
It may not even be the case, I realize that this isn't exactly solid, but there's no way to know for sure why we have the differences between these to streams of texts. One thing that is interesting though, is that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent a very localized text to the Egypt area.
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by uberdwayne » Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:06 pm

anyone have any thoughts on Mark 1:2?

RP - ῾Ως γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
WH - Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ

By saying Isaiah the prophet in the WH text, would it be considered an error, because its also partially from Malachi? The current thought process behind this is that a scribe changed it to "in the prophets" because he knew it had both references and thus considered "in Isaiah" to be an error, justifying the change to "in the prophets."

That is the current explanation of the choice of readings, however, I think there's another equally plausible scenario:

If the original reading was "῾Ως γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις" it could be possible that a scribe, wanting to make the reference clearer, changed it to "ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ" possibly missing the Malachi reference because of Isaiah's popularity. Seeing as prophets is plural, the scribe may have seen Isaiah as in the collection of major prophets. This variant would have been propagated because, as I believe, scribes would have been less likely to purposely add or change things, and would have simply copied the text which lay before them.

τι νομιζετε;
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Byzantine Textform

Post by mwh » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:31 pm

εγωγε νομιζω οτι you're right on this, it could plausibly be diagnosed either way.
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.

Post Reply