![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Examples are needed of textual variations between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types.
Couldn't someone add a picture?>Ψ
I have reverted an edit which added a value judgment as to the quality of the Textus Receptus. Two reasons for this; a. they do not conform to Wikipedia conventions on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View; b. they are to do with the Textus Receptus, rather than with the Byzantine Text/Majority Text. 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This beautiful picture presents the end of the Book of Acts and the beginning of Letter of James. These two books represents alexandrian text-type, but article treats about byzantine text-type, it means this picture is located in wrong place. It will better to move it to article Alexandrian text-type, where is his place. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph, makes little sense and is not grammatical. I did not correct it because I, an outsider, have no idea what was intended. Stifynsemons ( talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not true, especially "directly from the apostles". In External links Textus Receptus was ascribed as Majority text. Majority text it is Byzantine text, not Textus Receptus. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The article now states that the Byzantine text in Mark 6:33 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and Western texts. But this is not the case, you can't get to the Byzantine wording by combining that of the other two text-types. Moreover, the Byzantine text makes sense as it stands - whereas a true 'conflation' would always be expected to display characteristics of the same thing being said twice. I is much more likely, in my view, that the Byzantine wording is the archetype.
For Hort, the assertion that the Byzanatine text tended to conflate was a killer - since a conflation was neccessarily later than its component sources, and also indicated a time when reverence to the text was such that copyists were reluctant to admit the possibility of contradiction. Hence apparent contradictions are resolved by putting both versions in, and creating two events out of one. But that is not the case here. The Alexandrian text says "and they outstripped them", the Western has "and they came to them"; the Byzantine has "and they outripped them, and came together unto them". Hort saw an inconsistency, how can you be going away from someone and towards them at the same time? But Jesus is crossing a lake in a boat, the crowd is on the lake shore. If the crowd are to get meet Jesus at the point he is going to, they have to travel away from him first. Much more likely that the Alexxandrian tradition dropped a phrase due to the double "and". Assuming that the Byzantine text is later, then it very rarely conflates, but generally selects one or another text to follow. TomHennell ( talk) 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, all of you who contributed to this article! I'm only an armchair theologian, but I'm very grateful for the scholarship here that goes above and beyond the scope of your average Wikipedia article. Keep it up! 64.221.15.66 ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a clarification of what "translatable" really means. Aldo L ( talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The recent additions of material favoring the Byzantine Text-Type to the lead suffers from a number of problems. It's not all sourced, the one source cited is a self-published internet source, it introduces material to the lead not found in the article itself, and it promotes a fringe point of view. On top of all that, there's the behavioral issue -- the anonymous IP-hopper is inserting the material repeatedly over the wishes of multiple editors. I've dropped an edit war warning on the user's talk page, so we'll see where things go from here. Alephb ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
User @ user:Veverve has kindly, and rightly, removed quite a lot of unsourced material from this article. Not all of it was incorrect per se, just unsourced. I'll be attempting to retrieve some sources for the statements, but if anyone else who is watching this page has the sources to hand, the removed material can be restored once the sources are cited. Stephen Walch ( talk) 11:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Examples are needed of textual variations between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types.
Couldn't someone add a picture?>Ψ
I have reverted an edit which added a value judgment as to the quality of the Textus Receptus. Two reasons for this; a. they do not conform to Wikipedia conventions on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View; b. they are to do with the Textus Receptus, rather than with the Byzantine Text/Majority Text. 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This beautiful picture presents the end of the Book of Acts and the beginning of Letter of James. These two books represents alexandrian text-type, but article treats about byzantine text-type, it means this picture is located in wrong place. It will better to move it to article Alexandrian text-type, where is his place. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph, makes little sense and is not grammatical. I did not correct it because I, an outsider, have no idea what was intended. Stifynsemons ( talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not true, especially "directly from the apostles". In External links Textus Receptus was ascribed as Majority text. Majority text it is Byzantine text, not Textus Receptus. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The article now states that the Byzantine text in Mark 6:33 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and Western texts. But this is not the case, you can't get to the Byzantine wording by combining that of the other two text-types. Moreover, the Byzantine text makes sense as it stands - whereas a true 'conflation' would always be expected to display characteristics of the same thing being said twice. I is much more likely, in my view, that the Byzantine wording is the archetype.
For Hort, the assertion that the Byzanatine text tended to conflate was a killer - since a conflation was neccessarily later than its component sources, and also indicated a time when reverence to the text was such that copyists were reluctant to admit the possibility of contradiction. Hence apparent contradictions are resolved by putting both versions in, and creating two events out of one. But that is not the case here. The Alexandrian text says "and they outstripped them", the Western has "and they came to them"; the Byzantine has "and they outripped them, and came together unto them". Hort saw an inconsistency, how can you be going away from someone and towards them at the same time? But Jesus is crossing a lake in a boat, the crowd is on the lake shore. If the crowd are to get meet Jesus at the point he is going to, they have to travel away from him first. Much more likely that the Alexxandrian tradition dropped a phrase due to the double "and". Assuming that the Byzantine text is later, then it very rarely conflates, but generally selects one or another text to follow. TomHennell ( talk) 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, all of you who contributed to this article! I'm only an armchair theologian, but I'm very grateful for the scholarship here that goes above and beyond the scope of your average Wikipedia article. Keep it up! 64.221.15.66 ( talk) 21:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a clarification of what "translatable" really means. Aldo L ( talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The recent additions of material favoring the Byzantine Text-Type to the lead suffers from a number of problems. It's not all sourced, the one source cited is a self-published internet source, it introduces material to the lead not found in the article itself, and it promotes a fringe point of view. On top of all that, there's the behavioral issue -- the anonymous IP-hopper is inserting the material repeatedly over the wishes of multiple editors. I've dropped an edit war warning on the user's talk page, so we'll see where things go from here. Alephb ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
User @ user:Veverve has kindly, and rightly, removed quite a lot of unsourced material from this article. Not all of it was incorrect per se, just unsourced. I'll be attempting to retrieve some sources for the statements, but if anyone else who is watching this page has the sources to hand, the removed material can be restored once the sources are cited. Stephen Walch ( talk) 11:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)