spin

Although I don't agree with you on Hort -- he was the one who did all the philological work on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and I think he did a wonderful job, though he is not the be all and end all, as over 100 years have passed and we now have NA27, which isn't a bad companion to Hort --, I have really only attempted to suggest that one should use more than one source for their biblical reading and that literal translations are preferable to easy readers.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Amaleq, I think Markan priority is challenged on so many different levels that it's not even funny. The main question to ask about Markan priority is, Which Markan priority?

Which version of Mark are we talking about? The Nestle/Aland Mark is a 19th century text of Mk, based on the Egyptian MSS of 4th and 5th centuries. So is this the version of Mark that is claimed to be identical to the "original Mk"? And is there any evidence for this? None that I know of...

Quote:

I also accept the dating of Mark c.70CE. Is that challenged?

See above.

Quote:

Lastly, I accept that the original manuscripts were anonymous and only later obtained their attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Is that challenged by Aramaic originals?

Not that I know of...

As I say, I'm not a blanket Aramaic prioritist. I deal with the text on a word-by-word level, and I accept that much of the NT was written originally in Greek. But I also reject the blanket Greek priority.

Quote:

Clearly, I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate these things with you (its all Greek to me , sorry I couldn't help that) but I would be interested if these held the potential to challenge previously held conclusions. Thanks in advance

AFAIAC, the only NT scholarship that matters at this time is the textual scholarship. I'd say that 90% of modern NT scholarship is complete baloney, because the textual problem still remains unsolved. Before interpreting the text, you actually need to have a reliable text to interpret. And Westcott & Hort isn't it.

All the best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

How much difference is there between the versions?

Regarding dating, I should have been more clear. I consider 70CE to be the minimum age of authorship. Since I am typically in discussions with fairly conservative Christians, that tends to at least provide a common ground.

You consider the differences to be so significant that no conclusions based on the Greek text can be trusted?

spin

NA is a composite text partly based on a 19th century reconstruction of ancient sources. It is also based on all the available earliest texts. The hyperbole can be forgotten there. You'll be more up with the recent papyri than me because I'm not interested, but you are exaggerating the problem.

If I remember correctly P45 (?) has bits of Mark, so it attests to a 3rd century copy and again if remembering correctly that's earlier than any Syriac text. It is therefore support to bring the text back then and support in general the codexes.

I've seen no reason, which you have posted here, for you to have problems with the core text of Mark, as pruned by the earliest extant copies of fragments.

You don't like the Alexandrian text. Well, hell, that's ok. What are the major differences that you'd like to point out with the now popularly called Byzantine text? Why do you prefer other texts over them? What have you got against Hort's approach? Wasn't it coherent? If not, why not?

I'm all for interpreting only the most reliable texts, but then I don't see when one gets down to the most ancient exemplars, how one can give priority to one variant over another, unless it's on Hort's strict methodology.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, actually, spin, NA is 99.5% based on a 19th century reconstruction by W & H (as calculated by Robinson).

Quote:

It is also based on all the available earliest texts.

How so?

Quote:

The hyperbole can be forgotten there.

No hyperbole at all! What I gave you was FACTS.

Quote:

You'll be more up with the recent papyri than me because I'm not interested, but you are exaggerating the problem.

Let me introduce you to some of those dirty little secrets of TC world... The Papyri are actually _totally ignored_ in the NA text! (They are just mentioned in the footnotes, that's all.)

Quote:

If I remember correctly P45 (?) has bits of Mark, so it attests to a 3rd century copy and again if remembering correctly that's earlier than any Syriac text. It is therefore support to bring the text back then and support in general the codexes.

So what. Irenaeus attests 200 CE text. It's very different from NA.

Quote:

I've seen no reason, which you have posted here, for you to have problems with the core text of Mark, as pruned by the earliest extant copies of fragments.

There's quite a bit of stuff on my webpage about these matters. Also, perhaps you missed this?

the Great Omission in Luke http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=67918

Quote:

You don't like the Alexandrian text. Well, hell, that's ok. What are the major differences that you'd like to point out with the now popularly called Byzantine text? Why do you prefer other texts over them?

I really prefer the Semitic textual tradition. And there's lots of stuff about it on my webpage.

Quote:

What have you got against Hort's approach? Wasn't it coherent? If not, why not?

I'll post a new article about this soon.

Quote:

I'm all for interpreting only the most reliable texts, but then I don't see when one gets down to the most ancient exemplars, how one can give priority to one variant over another, unless it's on Hort's strict methodology. spin

There were many problems with Hort's methodology.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

The differences between NA and the OS are huge, Amaleq. In most verses, I'd say...

Quote:

You consider the differences to be so significant that no conclusions based on the Greek text can be trusted?

Well, some of the conclusions based on the Greek text can be trusted, I guess. But very few.

It depends on the subject matter, of course. But let's say re the question of how Jewish Jesus was, no conclusions based on the Greek text can be trusted. Although Bezae Greek is much better.

Regards,

Yuri.