The STRONGEST Defense of the BYZANTINE Text!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2022
- A clip pulled form my interview with Dr Maurice Robinson about the Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine Textform. In this little clip, Dr. Robinson shares his best arguments against the Critical Text and for the Byzantine Text.
See the Rest of the Interview here: • The Byzantine Text wit...
#Shorts #ByzantineText #TextualCriticism
Be sure to catch the whole interview starting here: ua-cam.com/video/6KSqrmDxqGU/v-deo.html
Very good! That is probably the strongest argument!
He will be ignored but facts are facts.
Wow.
Interesting!
Great discussion.
Extremely good point
This doesn't seem like an argument so much as a simple definition of what the Byzantine/Majority Text is.
Thank you for this extract. Dr Robinson’s argument seems to me to be sound; and many textual critics of the Greek and Latin classics, to whom I have spoken over the years (and many of whom were not Christians and have no vested interest in the matter), have either accepted the argument or at least seen its strength. The academic rejectors of the argument reply that, following the ten years of Diocletian persecution from AD/CE 303, during which very many Greek New Testament manuscripts were destroyed - but widely in the East and nearer West, rather than in the the farther West such as Sinai, Egypt, etc. - ecclesiastical authorities began to (re)construct a text which was moulded to what became the Byzantine/Majority text by, say, AD/CE 325-350 - ie, within a period of, say, ten to forty-five years from the cessation of persecution following Constantine’s victory. But, if the true text was that in the farther West - the Alexandrian or like - why did Constantine simply and immediately not cause it to be copied and distributed everywhere? Or, indeed, why did the metropolitan - or even other - bishops not get the work done? That could easily have been done within a short space of time! Why would Christians, in adopting the Byzantine/Majority text, accept a text that they knew was not that which they had before the persecution? I can never get an answer to this problem of mine : indeed, I can scarcely get a discussion going on it (and the standard textbooks are woefully inadequate on it!) - but perhaps someone here might know, or know where to read or hear, an adequate response to my problem?!
I believe the claim is that the Byzantine manuscripts were the result of conflating readings from existing manuscripts. Supposedly, they had manuscripts with different readings and being unsure which was correct, they tried to preserve as much as possible. For example, in Luke 24:53 the Alexandrian manuscripts speak of the disciples "blessing God," the so-called Western reading is "praising God," and the Byzantine manuscripts read "blessing and praising God." The idea is that the Byzantine manuscripts conflated the two readings because they didn't want to risk leaving out the correct one. I'm not arguing for or against that idea. Just trying to relay the claims I've heard.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Thank you for your comments. I’ve always thought that it’s pretty obvious that both blessing and praising are true readings, and that some scribes omitted the one and other scribes omitted the other. If were to land on an island where A and B were spoken by the bulk of the population, but one end had only A and the other end had only B, I should draw the obvious conclusion that A and B were both original and true.
@@alex-qe8qn It seems to me roughly equally plausible that any of the three could be original. One would need many clear examples to make a case one way or the other. Supposedly, there are many clear examples of Byzantine conflations, but I have not yet found a list. There is much work I need to do before reaching any conclusions.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 And, despite the fact that WH included this as one of their (only!) eight examples, time has failed to produce many others! “Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind”!
@@alex-qe8qn I really want to do much more in-depth text critical work myself. I can see that Dr. Robinson makes a strong case for Byzantine priority, but there is much that I need to investigate for myself. Unfortunately my other responsibilities limit the amount of time I have for such endeavors.
Majority Text Only belief is an example of a Tradition Only belief and is a non critical text only belief. It is mainly tradition and is more obvious if you look at the beliefs of the orthodox church which prefers byzantine texts for NT and septuagints for OT.
Dear Dwayne, thank you for the work that you have been doing. I have one question that I find very important and I believe you can answer it. In one of your videos, I think you were talking about Dr. Robinson and you had mentioned one of the concerns with the modern critical text. It was that some readings in the modern critical text were sort of synthesized or constructed and hence nowhere to be found in any original manuscript. As I was thinking about it, I realized that I need more accurate information about what those readings are and how important they are. Can you please point me somewhere in this issue?
I don't think we said it had 'synthesied' readings per se, but when you use the Modern Textual Critical Principles, you end up with a Greek Text that often doesn't have support for shorter segments of selected readings... Most who are Byzantine priority/TR will point that out, it's a strong argument in my opinion. On the other hand, the CT does have single reading in 2 Peter 3:10 where the CT adds 'ouk' ('not' in English) where there is ZERO Greek support, this is the so called 'conjectural emendation'. I think putting 'ouk' in the text there is clearly an error.
I enjoy your videos Dwayne and I appreciate your time and efforts.
My thoughts on the whole subject about translations etc is that basically the Original Autographer is still alive. I believe God wrote the old testament and new. When you study the whole Bible you understand what God's Word means to him. It's above his own name. There is a whole theme throughout the Bible. Adding and taking away and Jesus saying that his words will judge us just to name a few as well as preserving them. But it seems that it's not exact words but exact information. God didn't leave it up to man to write the Bible and he isn't leaving it up to man to preserve it by digging up scraps and writings we're not really sure about and trying to figure it out especially those that aren't in the spirit. I believe the Bible explains how God's word is understood, through your spirit and his. Not just academic means. Sometimes parts of this subject reminds me of why Jesus spoke in parables to some of the people and why he did.
Thank you for your interview with Dr.Robinson. alexandrian text is based on papyrus found in Egypt and codex vaticanus,sinaiticus alexandrinus Epraemi.all this so called great 4 codex is not complete Bible and have full of scribal errors.omissions.back in 1990s,I always thought codex B and aleph is the Best text we have it right now (that is what text critics saying )but after I examined this 2codex myself,I changed my mind. if this B and Aleph is so precious ,than don’t you think whoever had this 2codex take care of them and keep them intact for 1500 hundred years? well in reality they didn’t.codex B is missing most of Genesis ,no revelation meaning doesn’t have front cover and back cover and Aleph ‘s Old Testament is mostly fragmented pieces.i don’t think this 2 codex is represented true text of New Testament because current condition of codex is bad.we don’t know where codex vaticanus was located before came to Vatican library.if this two codex was used by monks priests day to day,don’t you think they will take good care this codex? Obviously they didn’t do it.I think B and Aleph was written sometime in 350 and than they stop using it for many many years because of too much errors and omissions. KJV text is based on Erasmian text and that text is not trust worthy because Erasmus used only one manuscript (2814)for book of revelation and other places he often used Latin vulgate and commentaries that no manuscripts based on.
The question I have about the "this is the text of the church" argument is "the church at what time and in what location?" The Byzantine text is the text of the Greek-speaking church from the 9th century on, but the Vulgate had primacy in the west and prior the 9th century, the majority of extant manuscripts are not Byzantine. I don't know what percentage of Christians throughout history have used a Byzantine text form nor if there are accurate methods of estimating this, but I'd be interested to learn more.
Dr Pickering has a lot of material that might cover some questions. I’ve watched quite a bit on his UA-cam but plan on reflecting now on the topic for myself and will start reading his books at some point.
greetings brothers, there are current studies that have proved Burgon right, in the sense that of the pre-Nicene patristic citations (before 325) they are 2/3 Byzantine or compatible perfectly compatible with the Byzantine text, in his article, the case for the Byzantine priority, Robinson exposes how the text he calls Byzantine may be the most widely used text in its original receiving area. In the vulgate there was an ecclesiastical initiative that took centuries to impose the vulgate on the other Latin copies (vetus latina), in the Greek-speaking church there was never such a textual initiative, the Byzantine text was that it flowed freely but without having textual problems as if had the vulgate (Charlemagne and the English carried out several recessions to restore the vulgate). I hope I have helped. In Christ.
jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html
@@laescrituranopuedeserquebr5529 I have the utmost respect for Dr. Robinson and his work. I have read "The Case for Byzantine Priority" and found it intriguing. However, there is a lot I need to check out for myself. Patristic citations are one of those things.
Simple study would tell u that we have early church Fathers from like 100ad quoting the Byzantine text…. Its quite obvious that the majority/byzantine text which was used and accepted by the early church and is again in the thousands of copies is the legit documents. The minority by hundreds which also are in disagreement among themselves hidden away and found in trash bins lol known as the alexandrian text which is a place where crazy cults tried to infiltrate Christianity n make evil doctrines that jws n mormons would accept fyi.
It´s totally possible that alexandrian manuscripts would be manuscripts of non experts so that´s why they didn´t included some texts textus receptus had. According to that reasoning. That´s pretty interesting, and btw I´ve always loved textus receptus traductions, King James in English, Reina Valera in spanish, etc.
For the most part, what we consider to be the TR was not composed until around 1881.
@@WgB5 .... so how reformers translated almost to every european language from textus receptus before that date?
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 By using text that the CT crowd is determined to ignore. The reality is there are at least 4 "greek" translational groups available. Alexandrian is one of them. But most CT stuff starts with the Westcott/Hort stuff- which is probably, in my opinion, the least reliable "greek" NT scripts out there.
For the most part I use the terms TR, MT, AL, CT and BZ- but there is also Aramaic, and Syriac texts. Both TR and CT clubs will dismiss the last two as non=existent, while they will spite at you for even mentioning Byzantine tests at all. There are a lot of biases out there. And no, the BZ did not depend on the TR, which makes it all the more interesting that the BZ so closely matches the TR. Must have something to do with God inspiring people to be faithful about transmitting this "autographs" to the public.
If you look into foreign language groups you will find that hey did use fine with their own efforts..
@matias what version of the Reina Valera do you use? I used the 1960 all my life but have recently favored the Gomez 2010.
If this is the BEST support for the Byzantine text then you ought to give it up. It is clear that you have no TEXTUAL reason for supporting it, so you resort to THIS??
Right. God forbid that the Church have a superior authority to a bunch of modern Protestants with doctorates, whose 'churches' are dying, by the way.