They were used to explain the creation of the Syrian/Byzantine texts. Now, that they are debunked, CT folk still hold to their conclusion which is not science.
A helpful and informative interview, but I wonder whether the thought of text types has really been helpful to the task of determining, from amidst the 'variants', the true and original reading. After all, we have had the Neutral Text which has now collapsed into the Alexandrian Text, and we have had the emergence and then the collapse of the Caesarean Text. Hefin mentioned that Aleph and B form a text type '...when they are behaving themselves". That suggests that they are not a coherent text type. From the extant evidence, are there really text types out there, or are we just imposing on the extant manuscripts our own mental constructs? Way back in the late 1970s Wilbur Pickering said that from the extant manuscripts, we cannot really see any text-types there are all: what we have is a mainstream form of the New Testament (the Byzantine) and only manuscripts which vary from it in different ways and at different points - hence explaining why they disagree among themselves as well as from the standard or main pool of manuscripts. As the main text has moved through time it has obviously left the earlier centuries to reach our own; all that is left from the early centuries is the debris - though the main text is still witnessed there in the early centuries, in versions and patristic quotes.
@@hefinjones9051 O, I look forward to parts 2 and 3: I did not know there would be other parts. I should have read the introduction rather than just listened to the video.
8:00 - The names of the text-types MUST be understood to refer to where the individual text-types tended to dominate, not necessarily where they originated.
But the main codexes was used was vaticanus and Siniaticus using metzger commentary great weight was given to these I couldn't find a verse excluded which excluded both these codexes in fact there is very little differences between WHU and NA
The combo of Aleph and B (or 01 and 03) was decisive for WH. But in fact it goes further. Essentially they almost always went with B unless it was "obviously" wrong, even sometimes when it was virtually alone. The only significant exception was their weird "western non-interpolations"
Erasmus was provided a list of 50 readings from Vaticanus from his friend at the Vatican library. The list was lost but was found in a Paris museum or library. I don't know if Erasmus actually used it though.@Dwayne_Green
@@rodneyjackson6181 I believe it's documented that Erasmus had someone review 1 John 5:7 to see if the 3 heavenly witnesses were in it. I'm not sure where James White is getting that info.
Thank you so much for giving us something substantial, not just some Google scholar.
4:25 - The Caesarean text-type isn't disappearing The stupid statistical way to define it is disappearing.
Yes sorta maybe... I think there's more work in the works on Family 1 and also from Carlson and Co.
They were used to explain the creation of the Syrian/Byzantine texts. Now, that they are debunked, CT folk still hold to their conclusion which is not science.
Actually the big three types precede WH and have been used in quite different ways by folk who don't agree with WH.
A helpful and informative interview, but I wonder whether the thought of text types has really been helpful to the task of determining, from amidst the 'variants', the true and original reading. After all, we have had the Neutral Text which has now collapsed into the Alexandrian Text, and we have had the emergence and then the collapse of the Caesarean Text. Hefin mentioned that Aleph and B form a text type '...when they are behaving themselves". That suggests that they are not a coherent text type. From the extant evidence, are there really text types out there, or are we just imposing on the extant manuscripts our own mental constructs? Way back in the late 1970s Wilbur Pickering said that from the extant manuscripts, we cannot really see any text-types there are all: what we have is a mainstream form of the New Testament (the Byzantine) and only manuscripts which vary from it in different ways and at different points - hence explaining why they disagree among themselves as well as from the standard or main pool of manuscripts. As the main text has moved through time it has obviously left the earlier centuries to reach our own; all that is left from the early centuries is the debris - though the main text is still witnessed there in the early centuries, in versions and patristic quotes.
Maybe wait for parts 2 and 3?
@@hefinjones9051 O, I look forward to parts 2 and 3: I did not know there would be other parts. I should have read the introduction rather than just listened to the video.
@@RevRMBWest tomorrow and the day after.
@@hefinjones9051 Many thanks.
Dwayne, SOMEBODY needs to buy you a new (or used) shirt.
🤣🤣🤣
Watching from the UK
17:00 - Burgon also explicitly stated that he was willing to wait well past his lifetime before the attempt to revise the Greek base-text.
That's wise.... Rolling updates the the New Testament text doesn't seem like the best way to go for the church.
Yep I should have mentioned him. I read him saying just that only in the last week or two.
Does the pro-vulgate theory specify the Vulgate to the exclusion of the old Italic or is it rather pro-latin corruption?
8:00 - The names of the text-types MUST be understood to refer to where the individual text-types tended to dominate, not necessarily where they originated.
Intresting interview so far
Thanks Jon!
But the main codexes was used was vaticanus and Siniaticus using metzger commentary great weight was given to these I couldn't find a verse excluded which excluded both these codexes in fact there is very little differences between WHU and NA
In my own survey of some of the 'missing verses', it seems vaticanus/siniaticus tipped the scales in the 4 that I looked at.
The combo of Aleph and B (or 01 and 03) was decisive for WH. But in fact it goes further. Essentially they almost always went with B unless it was "obviously" wrong, even sometimes when it was virtually alone. The only significant exception was their weird "western non-interpolations"
Watching from OZ
Erasmus did use vaticanus readings in the TR
Which readings did be use? Do you have a couple of examples?
Erasmus was provided a list of 50 readings from Vaticanus from his friend at the Vatican library. The list was lost but was found in a Paris museum or library. I don't know if Erasmus actually used it though.@Dwayne_Green
@@Dwayne_GreenI have seen per James White that Erasmus did want to use Vaticanus but was not available to him.
@@rodneyjackson6181 I believe it's documented that Erasmus had someone review 1 John 5:7 to see if the 3 heavenly witnesses were in it.
I'm not sure where James White is getting that info.
@@Dwayne_GreenMatthew 3v11 Matthew 5v47 Matthew 21v1 Matthew 23v25 Matthew 27 v41 I do have more used F35 to confirm but there are more readings