The Byzantine text-type in Egypt

christ_undivided

Well-known member
If what KJVOist says is true concerning the "evil" source of Egypt in textual criticism, then why is the Byzantine text-type found in "Egypt" in Codex Alexandrinus?

Doesn't this "fact" establish the Byzantine text-type in Egypt?
 
While I do not use the Egypt is evil approach, Alexandrinus is definitely not a Byzantine text-type outside the Gospels.
 
Really? No quote?

You know you have. Why are you trying to deny it?

Will you openly claim that you've never used that argument?

Deception often lives behind "quote me".

I remember a rather popular KJVOist that change their position. When I pressed then on their previous position, they would often imply that I was lying..... That is.... till I finally found a copy of their original publications.

I know what you've said. I was there.
 

So you're denying you've previously used the "Egypt is evil" argument?

I've already told you. I've seen you around KJVOist circles for decades. I debated you many times before on various forums and "groups" all over the internet. Many of those words are now lost to history. God has the record. I haven't forgotten and God will never forget them.

So. Do you really care to make God unhappy by denying it or hiding behind "Quote me" responses.
 
So find some that are not lost to history.

I'm a firsthand witness Avery. Do you know what that means.

You're deflecting because you know you've used extensively in the past. There might be someone here that remembers. I'm not going to go try to "dig it up".....

I know what you said.

Just deny you ever used it. Go for it. You can settle this. Say plainly if you've ever used the argument.
 
Just deny you ever used it. Go for it. You can settle this. Say plainly if you've ever used the argument.

I have no memory of ever using the Egypt is bad line. And for many years I have criticized the two lines (Antioch and Alexandria) KJB theory as unsound.

However, I do not remember every post I wrote two decades back.
 
I have no memory of ever using the Egypt is bad line. And for many years I have criticized the two lines (Antioch and Alexandria) KJB theory.

However, I do not remember every post I wrote two decades back.

I don't remember you criticizing the Antioch tradition among KJVOists. You often agreed with the "gang" you frequented. I hope you realize that most of those words are gone now. I do remember you criticizing some of the "gang" back then on doctrinal issues. They had an issue with some of your doctrinal positions. I can't say that I ever witnessed you criticize them on any single "theory" that helped support your claims that the KJV was perfect.
 
As to the origin of Codex Alexandrinus:

T. C. SKEAT, THE PROVENANCE OF THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS,
The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume VI, Issue 2, 1 October 1955, Pages 233–235

Respecting a note in the manuscript thought to be by Athanasius II, Patriarch of Alexandria from 1276 to 1316,

"In the past it has generally, though illogically, been assumed that the note in
the Alexandrinus indicated that the manuscript had been in Alexandria
from time immemorial; but comparison with the Greek manuscripts
now shows precisely the opposite, viz. that the notes were inserted
because the manuscripts had not previously been in the Patriarchal
Library. Secondly, Athanasius's long absence in Constantinople makes
it highly probable that the Codex Alexandrinus, like the two Greek
manuscripts, was acquired by him in the capital.
Whether all, or any,
of the three manuscripts were originally written in Constantinople is, of
course, another question; but if any future scholar wishes to claim a
Constantinopolitan origin for the Codex Alexandrinus, it is at least open
to him to do so.
In short, Burkitt's conclusion may be right, though his
reasons were wrong. What is now virtually certain is that the manuscript
was carried from Constantinople to Alexandria between 1308 and 1316,
and that it remained in Alexandria until 1621, when Cyril Lucar removed
it once more to Constantinople, to present it, six years later, to
the King of England.
"
 
As to the origin of Codex Alexandrinus:

Thomas Hartwell Horne gives a good scholarship review of various ideas from the 4th to 10th century.

An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Volume 2 1825)
Thomas Hartwell Horne
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tuc8AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA70

Later, Tischendorf got involved with the dating, and Westcott and Hort and Tischendorf added negative scholarship to the dating of the great uncials.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Hartwell Horne gives a good scholarship review of various ideas from the 4th to 10th century.

An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Volume 2 1825)
Thomas Hartwell Horne
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tuc8AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA70

Later, Tischendorf got involved with the dating, and Westcott and Hort and Tischendorf added negative scholarship to the dating of the great uncials.
Tischendorf was a real expert in ancient handwriting. He handled probably more ancient manuscripts than anyone else.
 
Back
Top