Steven Avery
Well-known member
My comparison was 3-way.
Peshitta - Byz - Critical Text
Where the CT and Byz disagree, where does the Peshitta align?
You get numbers that add up to 100%.
The Byzantine text-type in Egypt
- Thread starter christ_undivided
- Start date
My comparison was 3-way.
Peshitta - Byz - Critical Text
Where the CT and Byz disagree, where does the Peshitta align?
You get numbers that add up to 100%.
They go both ways . Sometimes the Peshitta agrees with the CT, sometimes with the MT.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Geesh....... No. You're still using A and B. Tell me what a three way comparison is? A three way comparison doesn't use three sources.
That is ridiculous. You're making arbitrary and self serving choices. There are other sources to consider. Why limit your choices?[/QUOTE]
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Two items are not simply compared to one another. (No real agreed standard.)
A third item is weighed in comparison to two alternatives.
1 + 2 = 3
Steven Avery
Well-known member
True. It Is 75% to Byz, 25% CT.
Gospels? Or the whole New Testament?
christ_undivided
Well-known member
He doesn't know. He has never done the work himself. All three sources he claims varying among themselves. He simply can't point to collection of each source he prefers and declare a winner. It is a ridiculous methodology. He isn't establishing anything.
Last edited:
christ_undivided
Well-known member
So you've completed a comparison? I'd like to see it. What manuscripts did you settle up on with each?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
christ_undivided
Well-known member
Ah, so you didn't compare 3 sources. What canonical council do you recognize as setting your canon of choice?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
3 sources are involved in the comparison. This is very different than simple 2-way comparisons, where there is no accepted methodology and the results can vary wildly based on just changing the methodology.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
You're repeating yourself rather than dealing with your issue. You said the early Peshitta lacked five books. You supposedly did a comparison with a source that you admit didn't have the books required in your canon.
Your position is self serving and self defeating.
This is what happens when you work BACKWARDS to supposedly establish a "fact". You stop throughout the process BEFORE you actually lay a foundation for those facts to be true.
I asked you for the manuscripts and the facts that establish your canon of choice. I know you don't know the answer because you've never taken a foundation..... OUT approach. You're always "patching your roof" while ignoring all the damage caused inside your "house of straw".....
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The comparison did not include the five books that are not in the original Peshitta.
Nothing complicated.
The five books were in the later Peshitta editions, the Philoxenian and Harklean. It would be expected that they would be a bit closer to the Byzantine text than the original Peshitta edition.
THEOS is, in fact, the correct reading.
There is an huge amount of manuscripts that say otherwise.
And?
Universal suffrage has no place in textual criticism - meaning we don't count noses and say "ah."
Is number important? Yes, in theory.
The driving point upon which all CT and MT advocates agree is that the most likely original is the one that explains the rise of all the other variants. Hence, "here's a bunch of 9th or later century manuscripts" that say X doesn't really enter into it (for the most part).
I am pretty sure you know of older manuscripts that read different. And how far do the 9th century manuscripts go back to? Don't all manuscripts go back to the first century AD? That's a lot of manuscripts almost all with independent histories going back in time. The other reading died out. Doesn't seem like if it was original it would have died out?
No, they don't "all" go back to the first century. If they did then we could count them all the same and this would be easy.
Actually, the real question is why in the world "Son" came into existence in John 1:18 at all.
And we know why - because "begotten Son" is in John 3:16.
The question (as with 1 Tim 3:16) isn't "why did God die out if it was original" because that part is obvious - it seemed in contradiction to 3:16. But if "Son" is original, how in the world did "God" ever even come into existence so early?
It's an issue upon which there can be charitable disagreement in alignment with one's particular TC methodology; it isn't a hill worth dying on either way - unless, of course, you are a KJVOist who thinks EVERY hill is worth dying on (note: I understand you do not hold that viewpoint just to be clear).
christ_undivided
Well-known member
No need to repeat yourself. You're ignoring the issue. Your comparison requires a fixed Biblical canon. As witnessed by your own words, you are admitting that the Peshitta is flawed in construct. Why even make a comparison at all with the Peshitta?