SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Textual Criticism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )
PosterThread
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Brothers..

Thanks Krispy,

Quote:
Patience is a must when dealing with a topic here. I'm glad we have the freedom to talk about topics like this because they rarely (if ever) are discussed in our churches.



After so many months now of seeing where things go 'wrong' in our discussions here on any number of topics, more and more what I am noticing is very much that brother, that is needed. Beyond that what I keep seeing is that when we read others words here and they [i]seem[/i] to be conveying one thing, often that is or may not have been the intent. As you mentioned elsewhere it is very difficult to pick up the inflection often times, others times it can be overt, but what seems to be needed is to [i]ask questions[/i] rather than to presume or jump to conclusions, a lot of times there seems to be a projecting of motives and intent that is not even there. Clarifying and correcting and doing just this, that you guy's did privately and then bringing it forth to all of us... it's a tremendous help to keeping the right focus and manner, 'direction' if you will, here.

Very much appreciated brother.
Quote:
Now, if everyone would just see things my way we would have perfect unity!

:-P

But then Zekeo would become bored...
:-? 8-)


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/7/7 9:44Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
It seems reasonable to me to then accept the fullest amount of material that we have to which there are more than say 'x amount' of sources. If codex 'a' has material that codex 'b' does not- then go with the fullest text.



There are two lines of reasoning that ought to be considered.

The first line of reasoning is that we select one particular form and promote it above the other - and it has been my experience that the majority would fall into this category. They feel that either the Alexandrian or Byzantine ought to be selected as the "most divine" text and that these texts in relative isolation should be used to generate a full greek new testament - in fact, many of the KJVO enthusiasts imagine that this is what has been done - that a binary selection was made for the alexandrian texts - and that the modern translations are "alexandrian" by choice.

The other line of reasoning (and this is the camp into which I fall) doesn't favor one text above another, as though one body of manuscripts had to be selected over the other, and some Greek compendium compiled exclusively from some root body of texts -- This line of reasoning examines every known Greek manuscript pertaining to a particular passage (be that Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western or whatever) and organizes them according to ancestry - that is, by tracing the deviations and similarities according to the age of the manuscripts etc, it is possible to build isolate and identify what portions from each manuscript are likely "sound" - and what portions are less sound. If every known manuscript has the same reading for a particular verse or part of a verse - that is considered solid. If there are variant readings, the original can be determined with some degree of confidence even from a collection of horribly deviated manuscripts.

It is a similar phenomenon in court - a hundred witnesses testify - and even though their stories vary widely - if they are true witnesses - the truth will shine through their collective testimony, because it will remain true throughout.

I believe that God's word is truth, and that even if a thousand manuscripts deviate from one another, yet the overall truth will be known by through the cumulative agreement of the texts. We are not interested in where the texts deviate as some are, instead we are interested in what they agree upon - just as the truth is determined in a court of law by the multitude of witnesses (even if they disagree on some points) - so too I believe the truth of God can be known through many witnesses - however deviant they happen to be; there deviation does not concern me - what concerns me is where these texts -do- agree! :-)

I hope that clears it up. One can see then why I don't care how corrupt a body of texts happens to be - I may have my preferences, but I haven't taken the first option - that is, I am not suggesting we adopt one body of manuscripts and discard the other - but rather that we take all the witnesses (just as we take all the gospels), and determine from the whole what is true (rather than elect one particular stream and exult it as the only source of light - as though God only preserved that stream, and the devil preserved the rest.)

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/7 11:19Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

dann writes

Quote:
The superiority of one text form over the other however, does little to impact the overall textual criticisms leveled against the whole - which was my point - that even though I prefer the byzantine text to the alexandrian text - even if with my whole heart I zealously consider the byzantine text superior; such a preference in no makes the the critical text less accurate.


The text produced by Erasmus was the result of 'textual criticism'. And the 'textual critic' must have an opinion as to which mss are closest to an exact copy of the original autographs. Erasmus produced his 'edited text' which was not to be found in any single Greek mss. However, once his text was created it is a simple process to compare any single mss against that edited text and to pass a judgment on the relative accuracy of each mss copy.

I appreciate your emotional link to the Byzantine textform but that cannot be a consideration in this kind of discussion. The problem with the philosophy of each person engaged in textual criticism is that it has a circular effect. Westcott and Hort developed a philosophy of textual criticism which resulted in them concluding that the Sinai and Vatican mss were the most accurate copies of the original Greek autographs. They then used this conclusion to grade the accuracy of all other mss and textforms. It results in the kind of footnotes which appear in some Bible saying 'better mss have...' What is the definition of 'better'? mss which are closer to the Sinai and Vatican mss.

Their philosophy depended on a deductive history of the text of the New Testament; their own deductive history. In the main they have decided that a longer text is likely to be one which the copyists have 'added to'. Robinson has shown that this presumed history of the NT text is deeply flawed; but their whole philosophy is dependent upon their supposed history.

Subsequent editors have modified some of the extremes of Westcott and Hort but they still base their 'eclectic' texts on the same assumed history of the NT text. Other than those who argue for the Byzantine textform, all subsequently Greek texts are 'children' of Westcott and Hort.

If you have not read Robinson's [url=http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html]The Case for Byzantine Primacy[/url] I would heartily recommend that you do. From what you have posted you have sufficient understanding of textual criticism to appreciate what Robinson is saying and why. I think his case for Byzantine primacy is far more convincing that that of Westcott/Hort and their disciples.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/8 6:05Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Thanks Ron - I will definitely give it a sober and thoughtful read.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/8 14:18Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi dann
there are some text critical points in the [url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5991&forum=36]"concerning baptism" [/url] which might interest you.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/9 15:30Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Thanks again Ron.

I am still reading the first link you sent! :-)

You may want to examine [url=http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Introduction-3-Texttypes.pdf]Some basic obersvations on Text-types. (Dr. Wielland Willker)[/url]. It is just his own musings coupled with some statistical information etc, but it may shed some light into my own reasoning in the matter.

Dan


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/12 14:46Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy