Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-06-2009, 05:55 PM

For those who are confused by the intensity of this discussion, James Tabor has a blog post on Wescott-Horst

Quote:

Generally speaking Wescott and Hort favored the Alexandrian text, which they called the “Neutral Text,” namely based on the two chief 4th century witnesses Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Today, with the addition of the Bodmer Papyri and other even earlier witnesses, that take the Alexandrian type of text to the early 2nd century, the essential judgment of Wescott and Hort seems to be upheld.

In contrast, the more traditional Byzantine text (that Wescott & Hort called the Syrian text), upon which the King James version and most all translations until the 20th century were based, was considered inferior, characterized by numerous additions, interpolations, and theologically motivated changes in what was considered to be the original.

Wescott & Hort, to this day, draw the ire and condemnation of more conservative Christian believers as “infidels,” who attempted to change the text of God’s word. I just did a Google search “Wescott and Hort” and most of the top Web sites that popped up are devoted to proving that these amazing scholars were basically involved in a “plot from hell” to destroy God’s truth.

aChristian · 09-06-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For those who are confused by the intensity of this discussion, James Tabor has a blog post on Wescott-Horst

Quote:

Generally speaking Wescott and Hort favored the Alexandrian text, which they called the “Neutral Text,” namely based on the two chief 4th century witnesses Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Today, with the addition of the Bodmer Papyri and other even earlier witnesses, that take the Alexandrian type of text to the early 2nd century, the essential judgment of Wescott and Hort seems to be upheld.

In contrast, the more traditional Byzantine text (that Wescott & Hort called the Syrian text), upon which the King James version and most all translations until the 20th century were based, was considered inferior, characterized by numerous additions, interpolations, and theologically motivated changes in what was considered to be the original.

Wescott & Hort, to this day, draw the ire and condemnation of more conservative Christian believers as “infidels,” who attempted to change the text of God’s word. I just did a Google search “Wescott and Hort” and most of the top Web sites that popped up are devoted to proving that these amazing scholars were basically involved in a “plot from hell” to destroy God’s truth.

Regardless of the spiritual aspect involved, Hort just doesn't have the evidence to back up his theory. The manuscript evidence show it to be false.

avi · 09-06-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

For those who are confused by the intensity of this discussion...

Thank you Toto, your link to James Tabor's blog was much appreciated. I don't know whether I am confused by the intensity of this discussion, or simply confused...

Responding to my rejoinder that spin had translated Tertullian's Latin quotes, confirming conformance of that preNicean father's writing, with the text of Sinaiticus, aChristian wrote:

Quote:

If you read Pickering you will see that the early Greek fathers witness to the majority text.

Umm, here's the rejoinder to this comment of aChristian, from :

Michael D. Marlowe:

Quote:

The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type). I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial.
....
And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts.
....
In my opinion, Fee shows that Pickering's arguments are badly flawed. This view of Pickering's work is also shared by the one scholar who might have been willing and able to defend it successfully, Maurice Robinson
...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Sinaiticus is a palimpsest.

Umm, well, yes and no.
You are correct, of course, however, there is a misunderstanding, I believe, because of my sloppiness in nomenclature. The Palimpsest is of the Syriac Sinaiticus, not the Codex Sinaiticus, about which I have been writing these past couple of weeks. I have never seen the Syriac version, and have no idea what it contains.... When I write "Sinaiticus", I probably should be using the Phoenician first letter of the alphabet, aleph, because I think that is the proper way to differentiate these two ancient fourth century texts. Aleph is the Codex Sinaiticus that is online on the internet. The Syriac version, may also be online, that I don't know....Point is, Aleph, Codex Sinaiticus, the version online, is NOT a palimpsest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

It is much more logical to assume that the 5000+ manuscripts that agree with each other (and with most of the early church fathers' quotes) agree with each other because they all copied from different copies of the original that were much more accurate than Sinaiticus.

Perhaps we may agree to disagree....

avi

aChristian · 09-06-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Perhaps we may agree to disagree....

avi

okay. I hope you have a nice rest of the evening.

aChristian · 09-07-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Umm, well, yes and no.
You are correct, of course, however, there is a misunderstanding, I believe, because of my sloppiness in nomenclature. The Palimpsest is of the Syriac Sinaiticus, not the Codex Sinaiticus, about which I have been writing these past couple of weeks. I have never seen the Syriac version, and have no idea what it contains.... When I write "Sinaiticus", I probably should be using the Phoenician first letter of the alphabet, aleph, because I think that is the proper way to differentiate these two ancient fourth century texts. Aleph is the Codex Sinaiticus that is online on the internet. The Syriac version, may also be online, that I don't know....Point is, Aleph, Codex Sinaiticus, the version online, is NOT a palimpsest.
.

You are right and you were clear enough in your writing. I just didn't even realize that there was a Syriac Sinaticus when I read about it being a palimpsest. I thought it was referring to Codex Sinaiticus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Perhaps we may agree to disagree....

avi

I read Gordon Fee's rebuttal that Marlowe(whom you referenced) referred to and he made some points that I need to research further. If he is right, I will need to reconsider my position.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.