Is this your approach? Why do you prefer it?
Why the attraction to the Byzantine Textual Critical Method by Maurice Robinson?
- Thread starter FSSL
- Start date
I believe it may be truly considered that the Byzantine textform is more "full" (and more "smooth") than any example of either the Alexandrian-type of text or any Critical text edition, due to various well-recognized assimilations, harmonizations and conflations, yet is nonetheless otherwise a quite accurate text as compared to, say, the Western text.
The implication of gradual editing of the Byzantine text over the centuries is clear, yet with little if any harm done.
Of course, the Byzantine text has a few omissions (e.g., 1 John 3:1, "and we are"), but in general it is more expansive than other textforms.
IMHO this is essentially harmless, that is, none of the "extras" included in the Byzantine text are in any way contrary to sound doctrine, at least not insofar as I'm aware.
Accordingly, one could make a sort of case for espousing the Byzantine text simply in order to minimize (but not eliminate) the chance of "losing" any portion of Scripture.
Of course, what we want most of all is simply the true text, without additions, omissions or errors of any kind, and the Byzantine probably isn't quite it.
The business of NTTC is to help us reconstruct the genuine text, whether referred to as the Ausgangstext, original text, or autographic text, and while the Byzantine text may be close, and (as Dr. Maurice Robinson has repeatedly stressed) has historical continuity, it probably isn't altogether representative of that true text.
Of course, the current Critical text (especially NA28!) has some glaring theoretical and variant-choice faults too, IMHO. (I don't intend to get into any discussion about that, but I find the NA27 less offensive.)
Whether Byzantine text or Critical text (I own and read GNT and translated examples of both), God's Truth comes though quite clearly.
The implication of gradual editing of the Byzantine text over the centuries is clear, yet with little if any harm done.
Of course, the Byzantine text has a few omissions (e.g., 1 John 3:1, "and we are"), but in general it is more expansive than other textforms.
IMHO this is essentially harmless, that is, none of the "extras" included in the Byzantine text are in any way contrary to sound doctrine, at least not insofar as I'm aware.
Accordingly, one could make a sort of case for espousing the Byzantine text simply in order to minimize (but not eliminate) the chance of "losing" any portion of Scripture.
Of course, what we want most of all is simply the true text, without additions, omissions or errors of any kind, and the Byzantine probably isn't quite it.
The business of NTTC is to help us reconstruct the genuine text, whether referred to as the Ausgangstext, original text, or autographic text, and while the Byzantine text may be close, and (as Dr. Maurice Robinson has repeatedly stressed) has historical continuity, it probably isn't altogether representative of that true text.
Of course, the current Critical text (especially NA28!) has some glaring theoretical and variant-choice faults too, IMHO. (I don't intend to get into any discussion about that, but I find the NA27 less offensive.)
Whether Byzantine text or Critical text (I own and read GNT and translated examples of both), God's Truth comes though quite clearly.
T
Timotheos
Guest
Well, I don't espouse to Byzantine priority as my prof Dr. Robinson does. I will admit, I have been influenced far more by David Alan Black who in turn was influenced by Harry Sturz. All things being equal, the reading with the best geographical support seems to be the most likely candidate. Things get dicey after that, if you factor in the Caesarean family in the gospels. Sometimes you have a 2 against 2.admin said:
I will say this for Dr. Robinson, he (along w/ Sturz's book, http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-text-type-Testament-textual-criticism/dp/0840749589/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370127412&sr=8-1&keywords=sturz+byzantine) boosted my confidence in the Byzantine family much more than it was previous. He has some very good points (transmissional theory) as well as good critiques of the eclectic view point (test tube scenarios). I love that he has pretty much done the same thing as W&H from a completely different viewpoint based on his understanding of transmissional history.
Dr. Robinson makes a strong point about the demonstrable continuity of the Byzantine text.
Trouble is, that continuity didn't seem to have firm beginnings till the fifth century, and as everyone knows, didn't achieve majority status till the ninth. Yes, there were Byzantine readings before the fifth century, but as others have noted, all those readings together in collocation haven't been shown to exist as a continuous text before that in any MS.
As Dr. Robinson has hoped, perhaps such an ancient Byzantine manuscript will turn up some day, but till it does, we lack the type of evidence for the ancient status of the Byzantine text which exists for the Alexandrian and Western types of text in the papyri.
I own Sturz' book. It unfortunately lists many readings as being "Byzantine-alignments" that were actually just shared readings among Alexandrian and Western texts, and even some of those which he labels "distinctively Byzantine" are shared by all, or the majority, or the earliest Old Latin texts, and are not therefore "distinctive" by any means.
There's also the silence of the earliest Church Fathers to consider, since none of them quoted a distinctively Byzantine text.
Now of course, none of this is proof against the early existence of the Byzantine textform, but neither is there evidence FOR the early existence of the Byzantine textform as there is for the Western and Alexandrian types, so we still simply don't know its origins.
Of course, we always hear the TRO/KJVO-style argument that "all the earliest Byzantine text manuscripts, which held sway throughout the Church from the first to the fourth centuries, were worn out from continual use, and when they were copied, the exemplars were destroyed, so that all we have now are late Byzantine copies".
All the Byzantine exemplars wore out or were destroyed?
Really?
ALL of them?
Those of us who remain unconvinced by this sort of argument may perhaps be forgiven for our scepticism. Again, as an argument, it's possible that it's true, but we don't by any means KNOW it to be true, and we have difficulty accepting the apparent absence of the Byzantine textform in history before the late fourth century while simultaneously crediting its supposed continuous preeminence and stability as the "text of the Church".
The fact that our eclectic modern Critical text is something of a "piecemeal" assemblage is a problem too, of course. Is the modern Critical text actually closer to the true text than the Byzantine? I don't know, though I tend to think so.
I'm certain that neither is "perfect", but frankly I'm well satisfied with either, and am not by any means dismayed by the minor differences between the two, which amount to a few percent of the whole, and affect no doctrine or element of faith. Till further evidence turns up, this seems reasonable to me.
Trouble is, that continuity didn't seem to have firm beginnings till the fifth century, and as everyone knows, didn't achieve majority status till the ninth. Yes, there were Byzantine readings before the fifth century, but as others have noted, all those readings together in collocation haven't been shown to exist as a continuous text before that in any MS.
As Dr. Robinson has hoped, perhaps such an ancient Byzantine manuscript will turn up some day, but till it does, we lack the type of evidence for the ancient status of the Byzantine text which exists for the Alexandrian and Western types of text in the papyri.
I own Sturz' book. It unfortunately lists many readings as being "Byzantine-alignments" that were actually just shared readings among Alexandrian and Western texts, and even some of those which he labels "distinctively Byzantine" are shared by all, or the majority, or the earliest Old Latin texts, and are not therefore "distinctive" by any means.
There's also the silence of the earliest Church Fathers to consider, since none of them quoted a distinctively Byzantine text.
Now of course, none of this is proof against the early existence of the Byzantine textform, but neither is there evidence FOR the early existence of the Byzantine textform as there is for the Western and Alexandrian types, so we still simply don't know its origins.
Of course, we always hear the TRO/KJVO-style argument that "all the earliest Byzantine text manuscripts, which held sway throughout the Church from the first to the fourth centuries, were worn out from continual use, and when they were copied, the exemplars were destroyed, so that all we have now are late Byzantine copies".
All the Byzantine exemplars wore out or were destroyed?
Really?
ALL of them?
Those of us who remain unconvinced by this sort of argument may perhaps be forgiven for our scepticism. Again, as an argument, it's possible that it's true, but we don't by any means KNOW it to be true, and we have difficulty accepting the apparent absence of the Byzantine textform in history before the late fourth century while simultaneously crediting its supposed continuous preeminence and stability as the "text of the Church".
The fact that our eclectic modern Critical text is something of a "piecemeal" assemblage is a problem too, of course. Is the modern Critical text actually closer to the true text than the Byzantine? I don't know, though I tend to think so.
I'm certain that neither is "perfect", but frankly I'm well satisfied with either, and am not by any means dismayed by the minor differences between the two, which amount to a few percent of the whole, and affect no doctrine or element of faith. Till further evidence turns up, this seems reasonable to me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Hi,
Maurice Robinson covers the issues of ancient exemplars quite well, in discussing disruptions in transmissional history, or "copying revolutions". TR-AV defenders would do well to understand that part of his exposition, if they only say something like "were worn out from continual use".
Keep in mind that, to the extent that you respect Maurice Robinson's views (and within the realm of Greek manuscripts he is superb, weaknesses arise in the bigger picture) you will find even that much more evidence for pure Bible readings like Gergesenes over the Gerasenes minority corruption. And the purity and autographic integrity of the Mark account of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus. And the Pericope Adultera, And most major variants like John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Once you bypass Vaticanus primacy, the basis of the modern versions, textual understanding increases.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Maurice Robinson covers the issues of ancient exemplars quite well, in discussing disruptions in transmissional history, or "copying revolutions". TR-AV defenders would do well to understand that part of his exposition, if they only say something like "were worn out from continual use".
Keep in mind that, to the extent that you respect Maurice Robinson's views (and within the realm of Greek manuscripts he is superb, weaknesses arise in the bigger picture) you will find even that much more evidence for pure Bible readings like Gergesenes over the Gerasenes minority corruption. And the purity and autographic integrity of the Mark account of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus. And the Pericope Adultera, And most major variants like John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Once you bypass Vaticanus primacy, the basis of the modern versions, textual understanding increases.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
Don't forget 'Codex Alexandrius'.
(I accidentally made that one up, when I was thinking of Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus).
I'm sure I'll get more flack over it, since I'm the only poster who ever brain-farts.
Either way, I stepped in it, so I stink.
Anishinabe
(I accidentally made that one up, when I was thinking of Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus).
I'm sure I'll get more flack over it, since I'm the only poster who ever brain-farts.
Either way, I stepped in it, so I stink.
Anishinabe
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 100
- Points
- 48
I believe this to be a fair and accurate expression of the position of a majority of sincere people. I don't find it outrageous, only pragmatic. I believe the AV by faith, not by mss evidence alone, because I believe an honest student will find the trail to be broken, for whatever reason. But the effect that the AV has had on the lost, is evidence to the proof that remains aloof.SAWBONES said:Dr. Robinson makes a strong point about the demonstrable continuity of the Byzantine text.
Trouble is, that continuity didn't seem to have firm beginnings till the fifth century, and as everyone knows, didn't achieve majority status till the ninth. Yes, there were Byzantine readings before the fifth century, but as others have noted, all those readings together in collocation haven't been shown to exist as a continuous text before that in any MS.
As Dr. Robinson has hoped, perhaps such an ancient Byzantine manuscript will turn up some day, but till it does, we lack the type of evidence for the ancient status of the Byzantine text which exists for the Alexandrian and Western types of text in the papyri.
I own Sturz' book. It unfortunately lists many readings as being "Byzantine-alignments" that were actually just shared readings among Alexandrian and Western texts, and even some of those which he labels "distinctively Byzantine" are shared by all, or the majority, or the earliest Old Latin texts, and are not therefore "distinctive" by any means.
There's also the silence of the earliest Church Fathers to consider, since none of them quoted a distinctively Byzantine text.
Now of course, none of this is proof against the early existence of the Byzantine textform, but neither is there evidence FOR the early existence of the Byzantine textform as there is for the Western and Alexandrian types, so we still simply don't know its origins.
Of course, we always hear the TRO/KJVO-style argument that "all the earliest Byzantine text manuscripts, which held sway throughout the Church from the first to the fourth centuries, were worn out from continual use, and when they were copied, the exemplars were destroyed, so that all we have now are late Byzantine copies".
All the Byzantine exemplars wore out or were destroyed?
Really?
ALL of them?
Those of us who remain unconvinced by this sort of argument may perhaps be forgiven for our scepticism. Again, as an argument, it's possible that it's true, but we don't by any means KNOW it to be true, and we have difficulty accepting the apparent absence of the Byzantine textform in history before the late fourth century while simultaneously crediting its supposed continuous preeminence and stability as the "text of the Church".
The fact that our eclectic modern Critical text is something of a "piecemeal" assemblage is a problem too, of course. Is the modern Critical text actually closer to the true text than the Byzantine? I don't know, though I tend to think so.
I'm certain that neither is "perfect", but frankly I'm well satisfied with either, and am not by any means dismayed by the minor differences between the two, which amount to a few percent of the whole, and affect no doctrine or element of faith. Till further evidence turns up, this seems reasonable to me.
Anishinabe
prophet said:
LOL!!! No worries. We won't continue to hold it against you! It is a bit unfair to go after each other on posting slips.