The Robinson-Pierpont Greek New Testament, Byzantine Textform
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- (If you find Greek New Testaments dull and uninteresting, but want to know where the Byzantine text differs from the Received Text (the Textus Receptus), scroll forward to the 19:00 point.)
A review of Anchor-Cross Publishing's blue hardback edition of Robinson & Pierpont's "The New Testament in the Original Greek -- Byzantine Textform." The apparatus in this volume shows how the Byzantine Text differs from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition. This review shows readings where the Byzantine Text, the text preserved in the Greek-speaking world, differs from the Received Text, the text of the Reformation. (ISBN: 978-0-9742727-4-0, 9780974272740, 0974272744.)
Contents
00:00 Size Compared with Other Greek New Testaments
01:14 Details (1 of 2)
02:42 Details (2 of 2)
09:45 Marginal Apparatus
10:10 Lower Apparatus
11:05 Font Comparisons
14:07 A Confessional Position
16:59 Observations Regarding that Confessional Position
19:00 Luke 17.36, Two in the Field
20:22 Acts 8.36-37, The Eunuch's Confession of Faith
21:28 Acts 9.5-6, Kicking Against the Goads
22:37 1 John 2.23, He that Acknowledgeth the Son
23:39 1 John 5.7-8, The Comma Johanneum
24:37 Romans 16.25-27, Should it be in Chapter 14?
25:13 Colossians 1.13-14, Through His Blood
26:14 Revelation 16.5, And Shalt Be, or O Holy One?
27:11 Revelation 22.19, Book or Tree?
28:41 Summary
One other noteworthy difference between the Byzantine Text and the Received Test was brought to my attention by a KJV Only meme I saw on Facebook: In Luke 2.22, the Received Text has "when the days of *her* purification according to the law of Moses were completed ..." But both the modern critical text and the Byzantine Text have "when the days of *their* purification according to the law of Moses were completed..."
I met Robinson when he came to Montréal (the meeting taking place in St-Léonard, a close suburb) to enlist help and so forth. He was an impressive and obviously devoted, Christ avowing scholar, whose company was something to treasure, even if on only one occasion.
Thanks! Loved it. This info always helps me because several years ago when I started to look in to the bible which pulled me in to a multi-bible-acquisition (collecting), the KJVO issue continually presented and still presents itself to me and seeing you explain and display differences in the Byzantine text vs. the Received Text shows that many many persons on UA-cam are maybe less informed than they should be for them to be uploading videos on that subject.
Thanks! I'm glad this video is helpful. The Confessional Text people seem much more reasonable than the KJVO advocates, but I don't follow their logic.
KJV Onlyists rarely want to admit that there are several versions ( Stephanus, Beza, & others) and editions/revision of the "Received Text" Greek New Testament.
I met Dr. Robinson when he came to Montréal, somewhat early in his text's development, to discuss some matters, textual and practical, with Michele Arcieri, still a grad student I think, at that time. He was very happy to meet with knowledgeable laymen as well as with scholars. I followed his work pretty closely thenceforth.
Have you come to any conclusions about the merits of his approach?
Thanks for your good analysis of these two texts of the Holy Scriptures so loved by the Church, I believe that the Byzantine Text with its study of the great majority of manuscript testimonies deserves the first place among the Greek editions of the NT given its degree of erudition. and its precision, followed by the Textus Receptus, which differ in very few cases, unlike the critical text and its numerous emissions.
God bless your
I guess this is the right place to point out that the editors of the Byzantine version (Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont) generously have put their work in public domain, so it's possible to download a wonderful PDF version of the book you review here. There's even a newer Reader's Edition of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine version being offered in the same website, which is extremely useful... Here's the website address: www.byzantinetext.com/study/editions/robinson-pierpont/
Thank you for posting that information! Very helpful!
Great review. Thanks
This is exactly what I'm looking for.
Thank you for this review. By chance do you know where this hardback edition can be found these days ? Help locating one would be greatly appreciated. -In Christ
One more question Mr. Jones. Have you done a video comparing the Robinson & Pierpont’s (R&P) Byzantine text to Nestle-Alan’s 28th text? It’s been really helpful to see R&P compared to the TR, but I was curious how it compared to the critical text. I’m sure there are differences, as R&P take the different Byzantine Priority approach. Thanks!
No, I don't believe I've done such a video. Yes, R&P is *much* closer to the TR than it is to NA28.
Thank you so much for reviewing this Byzantine text form of the NT R. Grant Jones! Question, how does Robinson and Pierpont’s text compare to the EOB source text, the 1904 text by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? I presume they are practically the same, but I was curious if they would still be slightly different.
They are very close. If you go to this channel's 'community' page, you'll see a chart I built comparing the Patriarchal Text to the TR and Hodges-Farstad in several verses. I believe Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont are the same (or close, as in the Pericope Adulterae) in those verses. You'll see that the Patriarchal Text moves toward the TR in a few cases.
I also compared the Patriarchal Text to Hodges-Farstad in 23 locations in Matthew where the TR and the Majority Text differ. The Patriarchal Text agreed with the Majority in 17 of those instances. I believe that, again, the Majority and the Byzantine agree in those 23 locations.
@@RGrantJones Excelllent, I’ll check out the community page for the chart. Thanks so much for your careful/thoughtful analyses and your generosity. :)
I’ve had the experience to watch a good amount of your reviews and sir, you might be too educated. 😂
So I said that to say this, another great review neighbor.
Thanks, Jayman!
Great review as aways.My question is which is your favourite Greek New Testament text type?
Thanks for the question. I'm told the notion of text types has fallen out of favor in the academic community, except in reference to the Byzantine text, because the others (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean) are so diverse. Until textual criticism becomes a hard science and we can have high confidence in its findings, I'm happy to use any reading that the early Christians may have heard in church.
R. Grant Jones Thank you. I'm looking to buy one of the two, Robinson's Byzantine text or the Received text which one would you recommend?and for an English Bible do you prefer the Nkjv , Websters Bible or the EMTV(majority text byEsposito)? Thank you much appreciated.
@@GoldenWarriorMTL - the print and paper are better in the Trinitarian Bible Societies' TR, in my opinion. But Robinson-Pierpont has the advantage of a textual apparatus, which is useful if you're interested in variant readings. But if you just want a Greek New Testament to read, I'd go with the TR. I like the NKJV, but I haven't spent much time with the EMTV, so I can't say which is better. (Webster's Bible seems very much like the KJV.)
R. Grant Jones Thank you, Any recommendations for a nice quality leather Nkjv bible : complete reference, maybe verse by verse or not, do you have a favorite?
@@GoldenWarriorMTL - if you like red letter editions and a verse-by-verse format, I recommend Nelson's Comfort Print center column reference Bible. If you like a single column formatted in paragraphs with the words of Christ in black, Nelson's Comfort Print single column reference Bible is excellent. Both have various options for cover material. I reviewed an imitation leather edition of the former and a hardback edition of the latter, but I think both can be purchased in goatskin.
A brief, pointed article by Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran pastor, on the issue of Majority vs Received Text: www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-ecclesiastical-text-versus-the-critical-text/ . A podcast also: hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/b/2/5b21e7e83c9f1413/TextualCriticism.mp3?c_id=9452894&cs_id=9452894&expiration=1538769995&hwt=80d6453e3a1a2d56681c04bb16328c13 .
You can read ancient greek?
I have a copy of the Farstad majority text found in the NKJV greek english interlinear new testament by arthur L farstad and zane C Hodges.
I may have the same edition. Mine is a Nelson hardback copyright 1994. One of these days I may do a video to show some of the differences between Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont. Robert Truelove explains the differences in philosophy between the two. He says that Hodges-Farstad relied on Western and Alexandrian texts to decide what reading to follow when the Byzantine manuscripts were evenly divided, while Robinson-Pierpont simply applied the methods of textual criticism to the Byzantine manuscripts themselves.
My copy of the 1994 hardback (nkjv greek english interlinear by arthur L farstad and zane C hodges) has paper that looks real old already. I probably bought it around 1995.
A very interesting book, now back in print, on the Ecclesiastical Text position: www.amazon.com/Ecclesiastical-Text-Criticism-Biblical-Authority/dp/0996748296/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539297330&sr=1-1&keywords=theodore+letis .
17:20 I completely agree. If Jesus and his apostles quoted from the Greek LXX, why should we reject it?
Are you a Catholic, Protestant or neither? Not trying to cause divison here, I believe everyone who puts his trust on Christ is a Christian.
Dan. Sss. - I guess I'm a Protestant, since I'm a Western Christian not in communion with Rome. But I identify more with the Christians of the early Church than with the 16th century Reformers. I'm definitely more Augustinian than Palamite.
@@RGrantJones Interesting.
@Dan. Sss. But I reject the LXX because Jesus nor the apostles used it.
@@diegovalleperez3360 But they obviously did--the majority of references and quotations align more closely to the LXX. This isn't even debatable.
I think it's mostly KJVOs in hiding who say they prefer the Scrivener edition of the TR, because it's a reconstruction based on the KJV.
Maybe the people you describe are closet KJV Onlyists. But -- and perhaps this is because I haven't paid close enough attention -- I haven't heard the TR advocates I've been listening to identify the edition of the TR they recommend. In fact, I've found it somewhat frustrating to hear them treat the various editions as if they were all the same. (Clearly, no one publishes a new edition of a Greek New Testament that's identical to his own or to another scholar's previous edition.)
I do believe that's why TBS uses Scrivener, anyway - because it's closest to the KJV.
So we don't even know for sure what exact texts were used for the KJ? And to there are multiple TRs?
what's up buddy? Where do I find the Greek New Testament of the Orthodox Churches entirely in Greek?
Is this the Patriarchal Text?
Thanks for the question, andreas! No, but it's close.
@@RGrantJones
Thanks! Would you mind summarising the differences between this Byzantine Text and the Patriarchal Text if you can?
@@andreasm5770 - I attempted to do that in this video, starting around the 24 minute mark -- ua-cam.com/video/Vx6WTuAvBWw/v-deo.html. At around 30 minutes in, I compare the Patriarchal Text to the Byzantine Textform and to the Textus Receptus in thirteen passages. If you have a copy of the Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament, the translator notes many of the differences in his footnotes.
@@RGrantJones
Ok thanks!
Most who consider the Textus Receptus to be the preserved word of God in the New Testament would say the first printed edition was in 1516. Most would note that the Christian Church used the majority text exclusively until Westcott and Hort made the critical text popular. Just a comment on the video at 14:53 to understand that position better.
Thanks for commenting, Jeremy! Viewing the video at the 14:53 point, I'm not sure why you made the point that most who consider the Textus Receptus to be the preserved word of God would say that the first printed edition was in 1516. I think that's commonly accepted, though some, like Robert Truelove, consider the first two editions preliminary (I believe he does so because the Comma was absent from them). And if the Christian Church is limited to Protestantism, then, yes, most Christians from the sixteenth through the latter half of the twentieth century used Bibles based on the Textus Receptus.
@@RGrantJones I think that most TR advocates would think of the printed Textus Receptus and the earlier handwritten Greek texts (Byzantine family) as in the same category.
Too many of the greek texts are hardcover. I don't like hard cover bibles. I like the leather feel. Whether it be real or fake. Floppy bibles all the way.
ποιος έχει πιστέψει την έκθεσή μας
Since it doesn't support Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus , it will be ignored.