16 replies to this topic

[circuitrider]

Does Accordance have any resources discussing the differences of the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts?

I have been reading about the some of the controversy concerning these different manuscripts and I am looking for an objective evaluation. Most of what I have come across is quite biased, mostly against the Alexandrian copies, from which our modern versions are derived.

If Accordance does not have anything, does anyone have suggested reading on this topic?

Thanks in advance!

Edited by circuitrider, 26 August 2011 - 11:26 AM.

[Helen Brown]

Two of our commentaries have introductions which discuss the manuscripts: Comfort Text Commentary and Metzger Text Commentary. Either one or both would probably be helpfu, but I am sure our scholarly users will contribute more to this discussion.

[circuitrider]

Helen,

Thank you for the response. I do own both of the those modules, I'll check them out.

[mikes]

Helen's suggestions are fantastic. Page xxiv is a nice intro.

For accordance content also check out the accordance exchange for the following user tool:
10/24/09 Wallace-TextCriticism Articles on textual criticism from Daniel Wallace
Example article in the user tool:
"Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text"


More up to date: I would also check out Dan Wallace's new CSNTM section on itunes university and the CSNTM website. Of course there's the bible.org site where the user tool was taken from: look here to find Dan Wallace's articles on that site.

Please be careful saying that our modern bibles are derived using Alexandrian (which implies only). They are compiled using both, but they give greater weight to older MSS, which tend to be Alexandrian.

Edited by mikes, 26 August 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[circuitrider]

Helen's suggestions are fantastic. Page xxiv is a nice intro.

For accordance content also check out the accordance exchange for the following user tool:
10/24/09 Wallace-TextCriticism Articles on textual criticism from Daniel Wallace
Example article in the user tool:
"Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text"


More up to date: I would also check out Dan Wallace's new CSNTM section on itunes university and the CSNTM website. Of course there's the bible.org site where the user tool was taken from: look here to find Dan Wallace's articles on that site.

Please be careful saying that our modern bibles are derived using Alexandrian (which implies only). They are compiled using both, but they give greater weight to older MSS, which tend to be Alexandrian.

mikes,

Thank you very much for all the great information, it is just what I was looking for.

I am presently ministering in California, it is going to be 104° this weekend! I wish I was back home in Colorado enjoying the cool nights with you.

Thanks again!

[J. T.]

I am not nearly as up to date in New Testament Textual Criticism as I am in Hebrew Bible, but I do recall Harry A. Sturz monograph presents a rather strong argument to push Byzantine Readings, which are in agreement with Western Readings, into the second century. Of course, Sturz argument is more directed towards the status quo that Alexandrian Readings seemingly have by current Textual Critics. Sturz argument, and research of my own, has led me to a balanced view, in which no text-family has priority, but all are scrutinized via the canons of Textual Critical Reasoning.

There are several excellent journal articles in the TJL (Theological Journal Library). While there are certainly some great monograph's on New Testament TC, I wouldn't overlook the power that Journal Articles can afford you. Journal Articles are an excellent resource in getting to the crux of the issues, as they aren't verbose, and the argument (often times) is clearly laid out. Of course, such a module as this can serve in many other areas of study as well.

[Jonathan C. Borland]

Does Accordance have any resources discussing the differences of the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts?

I have been reading about the some of the controversy concerning these different manuscripts and I am looking for an objective evaluation. Most of what I have come across is quite biased, mostly against the Alexandrian copies, from which our modern versions are derived.

If Accordance does not have anything, does anyone have suggested reading on this topic?

Thanks in advance!

Hi Circuit Rider!

It sounds like you may have bumped into some King James Version Only propaganda, most of which is completely sensational but wildly entertaining, but certainly don't put much stock in it. If I were you, I'd definitely read Wallace, Comfort, Metzger, the Alands, etc., and then read Robinson's "Case article" and Black's book on rethinking NT textual criticism to balance it out a bit. Being a former student of Robinson, I tend to view the evidence in a different light than most. If you're a textual criticism übergeek, you can read some notes I've put together on the first 5 chapters of Matthew on my own little Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

[Tim Clontz]

The new module Comprehensive Crossreferences of the NT also has notes translating about 15,000 textual differences between Byzantine, Alexandrian, and other text forms. The detailed comparison shows no doctrinal differences between the various kinds of texts used in translations. When we put the notes together we were surprised to find there were no surprises. Most of the differences are simple clarification, such as "Peter said" instead of "he said.". But you could easily use the notes to reassure folks that God did indeed preserve his message even through scribal transmission. While most scholars prefer the oldest texts, even the later Byzantine ones are faithful to the message.

[circuitrider]

It sounds like you may have bumped into some King James Version Only propaganda.

Right you are! The argument I heard was not very strong but convinced many. So I am compiling information to offset this idea in our fellowship, when the opportunity presents itself.

Any other information or comments are welcomed!

[JonathanHuber]

Right you are! The argument I heard was not very strong but convinced many. So I am compiling information to offset this idea in our fellowship, when the opportunity presents itself.

Any other information or comments are welcomed!

I grew up in a KJV-only church and am familiar with their arguments. As mentioned already, Dan Wallace's articles may be helpful for you, especially this one. A good book on the subject is James White's "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?". That was the book that originally clarified the issue for me.

[circuitrider]

A good book on the subject is James White's "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?". That was the book that originally clarified the issue for me.

I bought the book on your recommendation. I am really enjoying it. It is very, very informative and balanced.

Thank you for letting me know about it.

[Adam Szymanski]

James White's book is good... so it D.A. Carsons. But, in my KJV-Only exposure, nothing was a useful as Doug Kutilek's articles, especially this one:

http://www.kjvonly.o...which_bible.htm

[Ryan G]

James White's book is good... so it D.A. Carsons. But, in my KJV-Only exposure, nothing was a useful as Doug Kutilek's articles, especially this one:

http://www.kjvonly.o...which_bible.htm

Seems to be an article on defrauding a book based on the man being in association with a seventh day adventist.

I liked James White's book. Gail Riplenger's book seemed too emotional with less actual research from a neutral perspective. I do believe that the KJV is the better translation for most of the bible.

[Adam Szymanski]

You are absolutely right that this link exposes the connection between David Fuller and a 7th-Day Adventist theologian.

The irony with this? Since 1970, every (that I can track down) KJV-Only resource heavily credits David Fuller... It is VERY HARD to find any pro-KJV material that does not find support from his foundation book, 'Which Bible'. Gail Riplenger also heavily cites David Fuller, but her work goes much further (i.e. includes footnotes that don't go to actual references)... her work requires much diligence to decipher what is accurate and what is not.

D.A. Carson and James White do a good job discussing the overall issue, but many of the most vocal KJV-Only "talking points" revolve around points promoted by David Fuller, that were originally made in an effort to support 7th-Day Adventist theology. Through 5 revisions, David Fuller (Fundamental Baptist) sought to separate himself from the 7th-Day Adventist connection by continually removing references and "cleaning" up missed elements.

Researching this topic is quite a journey...

Edited by Adam Szymanski, 21 December 2011 - 08:43 PM.

[Ryan G]

Hmm... Well that is quite interesting. I knew Ms. Riplenger's work seemed more based on emotion than actual scholarship, but I never really took the time to follow up on the citations. I like Dr White's book but again have not really checked the references on his work either. It doesn't really concern me that Fuller cites work from a seventh day adventist as the material being discussed does not deal with seventh day adventist theology, but rather discusses the merits or faults of using the "majority text" vs. "minority text". I similarly disregard the smear campaign going against Wescott and Hort that KJVists promote. I try to look at the facts, and for me the facts seem to point towards a more reliable version of the GNT being the Stephanus GNT over NA 27th or JPS.

[Matthew Burgess]

If most of the discussions that you've seen so far are biased against the Alexandrian text-type, and you're looking for another perspective, my recommendation would be to consult some standard scholarly works, since most textual scholars operate under the assumption that the Alexandrian text-type is generally the best surviving form of the text. Helen's recommendations are a good place to start; two of the appendices in Comfort's commentary, Appendix C ("Metzger's Judgment of Variant Readings According to Text-Types") and Appendix D ("The Importance of Documentary Considerations") discuss this issue. Appendix C includes brief lists of the principal members of each text-type, which can be handy. (I don't own this module in Accordance, but I assume that the module includes the appendices.) Keep in mind, however, that text-types are still somewhat objective. For example, an increasing number of scholars doubt that a "Caesarean" text-type exists; also, different scholars classify the papyri in different ways (some consider them all to be Alexandrian, others are more individualized).

If you own the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary module (and if you don't, you should consider purchasing it, as it's one of the best references available in Accordance), Eldon Epp's lengthy and thorough article on New Textament Textual Criticism includes a section on text-types.

As for references available outside Accordance, there are three standard introductions to New Testament textual criticism which treat the subject in more detail: Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux's An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, and Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (either the third edition written entirely by Metzger, or the fourth edition written with Bart Ehrman). I would recommend any or all of these as an indication of where the majority of textual scholars stand at the present time.

[Tony Pyles]

This book from a recent colloquium at McMaster Divinity College has presentations from 3 different perspectives on an eclectic text, the priority of Byzantine MSS, or the priority of the papyri. There are also articles showing a test case of how this would impact translation. Might be a good followup to the Alands and Metzger.