Byzantine or Alexandrian

[YeshuaFan]

If you're going to TR (subset of Byzantine), then my advice would be to go all of the way and become Eastern Orthodox.

In all seriousness, I went down this road. There are merits to both, but I do quibble with the use of Alexandrian because the text used for modern Bibles is the Critical Text (CT) which is an eclectic grouping of various texts. It's not as if they found a couple old manuscripts in the Gnostic capital of the world and reprinted them willy-nilly.

At the end of the day, both texts are the Word of God. Neither one of them is an exact copy of the original manuscripts. I lean CT these days because of expert consensus and logical arguments for why certain verses were not included. I would not look down on someone who uses the KJV or NKJV, as they have their own merits.

There are merits to both the Bzt/Majority text and the Critical Greek text to being the closest to the originals to us, but the real truth is that any of those Greek texts are the word of the lord to usfor today, as well are any reliable translations done off any of those Greek text sources!

 

[TCassidy]

There are merits to both the Bzt/Majority text and the Critical Greek text to being the closest to the originals to us, but the real truth is that any of those Greek texts are the word of the lord to usfor today, as well are any reliable translations done off any of those Greek text sources!

And what do you base that opinion on?

 

[YeshuaFan]

And what do you base that opinion on?

The textual experts that I have read concernoing the Bzt/Majority and the Critical Greek texts in use today, as most of them do state that they see one to be preferred over the others, but that all of them are valid for use and studies.

 

[TCassidy]

There are merits to both the Bzt/Majority text and the Critical Greek text to being the closest to the originals to us,

How do you know that?

but the real truth is that any of those Greek texts are the word of the lord to usfor today,

How do you know that? And when they contain a variant how do you know which word is the one God inspired?

 

[OzSpen]

There are merits to both the Bzt/Majority text and the Critical Greek text to being the closest to the originals to us, but the real truth is that any of those Greek texts are the word of the lord to usfor today, as well are any reliable translations done off any of those Greek text sources!

YF,

Are you saying that later copies of the Byzantine (Majority) text and the Alexandrian (Critical Text) are 'the word of the lord'?

Oz

 

[YeshuaFan]

YF,

Are you saying that later copies of the Byzantine (Majority) text and the Alexandrian (Critical Text) are 'the word of the lord'?

Oz

I am saying that the Bzt/Majority/Critical greek texts are all sufficiently accurate enough to the originals to be considered as being such, as we do not hve ANY that would an exact copy!

 

[TCassidy]

as we do not hve ANY that would an exact copy!

How do you know that? Are you claiming Pickering and his work regarding Family 35, as outlined in his book "The Identity of the New Testament Text" are untrue? Are you saying he was lying? Or are you saying he is wrong? And if you think he, an expert on Koine Greek and on Greek grammar and syntax, is wrong, what are your credentials for making such a claim?

 

[OzSpen]

I am saying that the Bzt/Majority/Critical greek texts are all sufficiently accurate enough to the originals to be considered as being such, as we do not hve ANY that would an exact copy!

YF,

I agree in a sense, but we can't be sure of how accurate the copies are because we don't have the originals. What helps this perspective is the fact that ...

as far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued. The New Testament was translated early on into several other languages as well, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. The total number of these versional witnesses has not been counted yet, but it certainly numbers in the tens of thousands....

Up through the end of 2011, the following would be the answer: A papyrus fragment that had been sitting in unprocessed ancient documents at the John Rylands Library of Manchester University, England, is most likely the earliest NT document known today. Known as P52 or Papyrus 52, this scrap of papyrus has John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other....

Three leading papyrologists in Europe and got their assessment of the date—each said that it was no later than AD 150 and as early as AD 100. A fourth papyrologist thought it could be from the 90s. Since the discovery of this manuscript, as many as eleven NT papyri from the second century have been discovered (Interview with Professor Daniel Wallace).​

Oz

 

[YeshuaFan]

How do you know that? Are you claiming Pickering and his work regarding Family 35, as outlined in his book "The Identity of the New Testament Text" are untrue? Are you saying he was lying? Or are you saying he is wrong? And if you think he, an expert on Koine Greek and on Greek grammar and syntax, is wrong, what are your credentials for making such a claim?

I am not making the CT to be CTO here, as was addressing the fact that many Greek Scholars would and do see the CT as being the closer to reflecting just what the originals were. and am not calling anyone a liar, just that someone might have the wrong presumptions in this field, and thus read the evidence wrong in some ways!

 

[YeshuaFan]

YF,

I agree in a sense, but we can't be sure of how accurate the copies are because we don't have the originals. What helps this perspective is the fact that ...

as far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued. The New Testament was translated early on into several other languages as well, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. The total number of these versional witnesses has not been counted yet, but it certainly numbers in the tens of thousands....

Up through the end of 2011, the following would be the answer: A papyrus fragment that had been sitting in unprocessed ancient documents at the John Rylands Library of Manchester University, England, is most likely the earliest NT document known today. Known as P52 or Papyrus 52, this scrap of papyrus has John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other....

Three leading papyrologists in Europe and got their assessment of the date—each said that it was no later than AD 150 and as early as AD 100. A fourth papyrologist thought it could be from the 90s. Since the discovery of this manuscript, as many as eleven NT papyri from the second century have been discovered (Interview with Professor Daniel Wallace).​

Oz

A lot of this issue depends on how one views the qualifications in this field of someone like Dr Wallace and a DR Metzger!

 

[TCassidy]

just that someone might have the wrong presumptions in this field,

And how do you know their presumptions are wrong?

thus read the evidence wrong in some ways!

And how do you know they read the evidence wrong? And what evidence are they reading wrongly?

A lot of this issue depends on how one views the qualifications in this field of someone like Dr Wallace and a DR Metzger!

And Dr. Pickering, M.Th. Koine Greek,
Dallas Theological Seminary, Ph.D. Linguistics, University of Toronto.

And Dr. Robinson, Th.M. New Testament Greek textual criticism, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,

Ph.D. New Testament Greek textual criticism, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages, St. Petersburg Baptist College, St. Petersburg, Florida (1982-1984)

Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida (l985-1991);

Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (1991-1996);

Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (1996-2002);

Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (2002-2014).

Research Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (August 2014-July 2016).

 

[YeshuaFan]

And how do you know their presumptions are wrong?

And how do you know they read the evidence wrong? And what evidence are they reading wrongly?

And Dr. Pickering, M.Th. Koine Greek, Ph.D. Linguistics.

And Dr. Robinson, Th.M. New Testament Greek textual criticism, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,

Ph.D. New Testament Greek textual criticism, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages, St. Petersburg Baptist College, St. Petersburg, Florida (1982-1984)

Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida (l985-1991);

Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (1991-1996);

Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (1996-2002);

Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (2002-2014).

Research Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina (August 2014-July 2016).

Which tells me that they were learned and recognized persons involved in the field of textual criticism, but not that they were superior in their field to someone like a Dr Wallace. Do you think that the UBS and CT are then inferior to the degree to not even be considered to be a legit Greek to use for translation and studies?

 

[TCassidy]

Which tells me that they were learned and recognized persons involved in the field of textual criticism, but not that they were superior in their field to someone like a Dr Wallace.

So how did you come to the conclusion that Dr. Wallace and his peers are right and Pickering, Sturz, Hodges/Farstad, Robinson, Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, Van Bruggen, Hills and Letis are wrong?

Do you think that the UBS and CT are then inferior to the degree to not even be considered to be a legit Greek to use for translation and studies?

Please post where I have ever said the CT is not to be considered a legitimate Greek text.

You can't just make this stuff up as you go along.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So how did you come to the conclusion that Dr. Wallace and his peers are right and Pickering, Sturz, Hodges/Farstad, Robinson, Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, Van Bruggen, Hills and Letis are wrong?

Please post where I have ever said the CT is not to be considered a legitimate Greek text.

You can't just make this stuff up as you go along.

I was asking if you saw the CT that way, as I knew that you were pro Bzt, but did not know if anti CT!
And I just do nort see where we can ever resolve it one way or another which text is to be seen as being the preferred one, so why should we get into these spats?

 

[TCassidy]

I was asking if you saw the CT that way, as I knew that you were pro Bzt, but did not know if anti CT!
And I just do nort see where we can ever resolve it one way or another which text is to be seen as being the preferred one, so why should we get into these spats?

Still no answer to my question. I will try one more time. "Which reading, 'θεος' or 'Ος' is more likely to be correct and how do you come to that conclusion?"

And the reason we can't resolve it is that you know absolutely nothing about the text-critical theories that have led to the two very different conclusions. You just continue to pontificate your uninformed opinions based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Still no answer to my question. I will try one more time. "Which reading, 'θεος' or 'Ος' is more likely to be correct and how do you come to that conclusion?"

And the reason we can't resolve it is that you know absolutely nothing about the text-critical theories that have led to the two very different conclusions. You just continue to pontificate your uninformed opinions based on no factual evidence whatsoever.

You make it sound as if the Critical and majority texts have given to us widely divergent Greek texts, but the reading that I have done on this subject indicate that both of them would be say 95 equivalent to each other, and that none of the differences would mean any change in christian theology or doctrines!

 

[TCassidy]

You make it sound as if the Critical and majority texts have given to us widely divergent Greek texts, but the reading that I have done on this subject indicate that both of them would be say 95 equivalent to each other, and that none of the differences would mean any change in christian theology or doctrines!

Still no answer. One more time. "Which reading, 'θεος' or 'Ος' is more likely to be correct and how do you come to that conclusion?"

 

[OzSpen]

A lot of this issue depends on how one views the qualifications in this field of someone like Dr Wallace and a DR Metzger!

YF,

Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bruce Metzger are outstanding Greek textual scholars. Also add Dr Gordon Fee.

However, in your appeal to Wallace & Metzger, you have committed an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Oz

 

[YeshuaFan]

YF,

Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bruce Metzger are outstanding Greek textual scholars. Also add Dr Gordon Fee.

However, in your appeal to Wallace & Metzger, you have committed an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Oz

How so? I was just suggesting that if we get into quoting textual experts as a basis to decide which Greek text to be preferred, both sides have reputable scholars to support their case!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Still no answer. One more time. "Which reading, 'θεος' or 'Ος' is more likely to be correct and how do you come to that conclusion?"

He, based upon the belief held by those who used that term for the Greek Nt they did!