Does Mark
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- Here is the 2nd part of the discussion surrounding the textual variant in Mark 7:16. This passages is included in the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text, but it's not included in most of our Modern English Bible translations. IN this video we'll take a look at coded Delta and the scribal correction as well as some of the rather poor internal arguments to attempt to explain it's additions.
#textualcriticism #byzantinetext
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Codex Delta
1:48 When did the Scribe make the correction?
2:40 How does one explain Mark 7:16s addition?!?
3:41 It cant be a harmonization
4:44 The ECM and the lectionary manuscripts
6:08 CARM tries to pin the addition to Tetullian
8:30 COULD someone had added it to make their argument stronger?
9:40 A debate over fasting and it's far flung connection to mark 7:16
11:48 A bunch of mental gymnastics to link the context to Mark 7:16
12:56 Imagining the evidence.
14:43 Its really just justifying the reading of Aleph and B
15:07 Recap
18:16 Conclusion
I would also note that further you go back to the time of Christ the less manuscripts you will have because of age. The later in time you get, the more manuscripts you will have.
Dwayne, would you be in favor of an ESV or maybe CSB edition that has a Byzantine priority text for the N.T.?
The CSB already had the Byzantine readings in the notes. All they would have to do is swap the notes and Critical readings.
That would be good, sort of. lol... I think having a Critical text version and than a Byzantine version might be a bit confusing for those not up on the Text Critical discussion, so. I think IF a Byzantine text new testament were to be done, it should at the very least have it's own name. I do debate back and forth if it's worth having yet ANOTHER english New Testament on the market.
All I am seeing in your videos no matter which side you come down on is speculation. Still the oldest manuscripts do not contain this verse. Even if you have witnesses within 100 years after Sinaiticus or Vaticanus that is still multiple years of copying. If manuscripts were found within 10 years of the time they were originally written, would we believe what they said or continue our tradition or biased to a certain text type? For me, I would go with the manuscript closest to the original. That makes more sense to me.
But the ancient Versions are older then Aleph and B, by a century I should add!
@@Dwayne_Greenwhat ancient versions? I have seen and read that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest Greek manuscripts we have from the second and fourth centuries.