Alexandrian, Byzantine and other text types

[Perd Hapley]

I am once again exploring the fascinating world of Bible-making. A brainy gentleman of my acquaintance has recommended the following work as a good defense of the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text.

http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html

Since reading up on the topic, I have tended to skew Alexandrian in my views, but I feel I must give a hearing to the other side.


Anybody here into lower textual criticism? 

[Ron]

The Alexandrian Text is the most accurate text.

It is settled science, just like man made global warming.

[Jocassee]

I am once again exploring the fascinating world of Bible-making. A brainy gentleman of my acquaintance has recommended the following work as a good defense of the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text.

http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html

Since reading up on the topic, I have tended to skew Alexandrian in my views, but I feel I must give a hearing to the other side.


Anybody here into lower textual criticism? 

My understanding is that other manuscripts have surfaced since the TR was first used. They don't invalidate the TR but simply provide a broader base upon which to translate. To my understanding that makes the TR "good enough" but not up to date. I mean the TR is what, 400 years old?

[Perd Hapley]

I mean the TR is what, 400 years old?

At least. KJV gets its 400th birthday next year.

[Harold Tuttle]

well, I interviewed a bunch of biblical scholars when the 1700 year old Judas gospel surfaced

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/video.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/magnifier.html

[lee n. field]

Anybody here into lower textual criticism?  smiley

Not as much as I should be.

Byzantine vs. Alexandrian -- the texts don't differ that much.  Byzantine priority arguements tend to get into KJVO goofyness.

My understanding is that other manuscripts have surfaced since the TR was first used.

Oh, many many.

I mean the TR is what, 400 years old?

"Textus Receptus" is the advertising blurb put on, oh, which text was it?  Publshed in the early 17th century.   My copy of Metzger is at home.  Before that you had Erasmus, the Complutensian Polyglot, The Stephanus edition and Beza.  That's off the top of my head, without my references.

Dang.  I need to get back into my Greek.

[Jocassee]

Not as much as I should be.

Byzantine vs. Alexandrian -- the texts don't differ that much.  Byzantine priority arguements tend to get into KJVO goofyness.

Oh, many many.

"Textus Receptus" is the advertising blurb put on, oh, which text was it?  Publshed in the early 17th century.   My copy of Metzger is at home.  Before that you had Erasmus, the Complutensian Polyglot, The Stephanus edition and Beza.  That's off the top of my head, without my references.

Dang.  I need to get back into my Greek.

How many other Bible scholars do we have here?

I  was raised--literally--on systematic theology and I know a little ABOUT Greek even if I don't actually read it. But having grown up in a fundy environment I find myself increasingly turned off by Christian adiaphora up to and including translation squabbles.

[Ron]

I find myself increasingly turned off by Christian adiaphora up to and including translation squabbles.

hear, hear

Funniest and truest line in Fistfuls link:

. . . the Westcott-Hort text has become today our textus receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other. . . . The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly. . .

I'm decidedly not a scholar, nor do I pretend to be one. I have to look to the scholars, who tell me what God really said   

[MechAg94]

I don't know, I guess if you are studied enough to the point that the technical translations matter a great deal, you are probably better off than most. 

[Perd Hapley]

I have to look to the scholars, who tell me what God really said   

I'm not sure I follow you. You believe that a complete, inerrant text has been divinely preserved, down to the last jot and tittle?

[Ron]

I'm not sure I follow you. You believe that a complete, inerrant text has been divinely preserved, down to the last jot and tittle?

Actually, I'm just kind of poking fun at preachers who choose a passage to preach from, then go on to explain it doesn't really say what it says.

Of course God didn't preserve his word for us silly 

 

[Hawkmoon]

I'm not sure I follow you. You believe that a complete, inerrant text has been divinely preserved, down to the last jot and tittle?

Actually, that's what my fundy friends tell me the King James Version is. When I remind them that new translations exist, made from older, more original texts, they insist that the KJV is THE Word of G-d because the translators were divinely inspired.

How they have determined that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired and incapable of error while the translators of the RSV, NRSV, and other, more modern Bibles were not equally (or more) divinely inspired has never been answered.

[Perd Hapley]

See, that's not how I defend the KJV. I just point out that it's the translation God uses for His own devotional reading, so it must be the best.

[AZRedhawk44]

See, that's not how I defend the KJV. I just point out that it's the translation God uses for His own devotional reading, so it must be the best.

God worships Himself?

[Perd Hapley]

God worships Himself?

I have it on good authority that He worships King James.

[MechAg94]

Actually, I'm just kind of poking fun at preachers who choose a passage to preach from, then go on to explain it doesn't really say what it says.

Of course God didn't preserve his word for us silly 

 

The pastor I grew up with would give the passage in the original Greek and then show us what the translation is lacking.  At the least he would use the translation and historical context to draw a better picture of what is being communicated. 

[Perd Hapley]

ah, but WHICH original Greek? 

[sanglant]

just something to think about, the original texts agree with themselves(other then some spelling issues) most of the time. while the supposedly better, crumbling, newly(relatively) found don't agree with them selves(the two of them).

from what i've read, the old dudes(no disrespect just don't know how to refer to this group in a PC manner ) read the texts, until they were showing ware. then they copied them, and since they weren't objects of worship(ie, not God) the worn texts were burnt. sounds like our flags to me.

my theory is a few copies(two?) made it into the hands of pagons are were edited to suit them.

here's a few hours worth of reading.

[roo_ster]

See, that's not how I defend the KJV. I just point out that it's the translation God uses for His own devotional reading, so it must be the best.

Heh.


I am beyond bored with the Dan Brownian (re)"discovery" of the "Lost Gospel of <some crackpot in the 3rd to 5th century>" every decade or so.  Like Jared Diamond's contention that geography was determinant in the development of certain folks is (re)discovered after being dismissed decades ago.  "Oh, he's a geeenius!  So perceptive to plagiarize dead scholars and re-package their work for a PC audience."

Unfortunately, there are enough non-canonical (relatively) early church writings for otherwise-worthless scholars to feed their hobby-horses and get a few laps out of every few years.

[sanglant]

you know, i've been meaning to post this but didn't want to start a war by doing a whole thread on it. maybe it'll float unnoticed under this one.

seeing how the facsimile edition of the 1560 Geneva bible, i was getting ready to order went awol. anybody know of a good source for such things?

[Perd Hapley]

Geneva? Never heard of that. Must be one o' them new PERversions.

[sanglant]

lol

[lee n. field]

seeing how the facsimile edition of the 1560 Geneva bible, i was getting ready to order went awol. anybody know of a good source for such things?

So how does it, like, vanish?

I've got a story about that.  A few years back a buddy of mine picked up a facsimile of the 1560, published by U of Wi press back in the 1960s.  Good condition, but no covers.  A couple years ago he gave it to me.  It lay around my house for a while, and I gave it to someone else, who went and had this done to it.  (That one's not his, but he had his done exactly the same way.)

Very nice.

[Perd Hapley]

That is sweet. I would cut off the stupid ribbons, but still very sweet.

[Ron]

I don't know, I guess if you are studied enough to the point that the technical translations matter a great deal, you are probably better off than most. 

Sometimes folks dig down deep but come up dry.

This isn't rocket science.

Trust in the sacrifice of Jesus for your salvation, not your good works.

Love God by loving your neighbor, to show your gratitude for the gift of salvation.

I'm not sure so sure textual critics are better off at all.