Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:49:05 -0500 (EST)

At 12:51 PM 3/29/97 -0800, you wrote:

>Of course, what I said was *too much* weight, not no weight. Of course I
>give weight to the age of a manuscript. On the other hand, if it is true
>that the basic traditions that underly the Gospels crystallized late in
>the second century, I'm not sure the difference in age between a fourth
>century and a fifth century manuscript is really of overriding importance. 

This second century date is far too late.  The Gospel of John, composed last
of the four, is easily dated before 125 CE because we have a manuscript
fragment of it.

>Now, fourth century versus eight or ninth century may be another story,
>and it is my understanding that the witnesses we have of the Byzantine
>text type typically date from this time period and later. Now, I'm not a
>specialist, and my understanding here may be incorrect.
>
>The point of my question was that i was curious about what kind of evidence
>could be marshaled to support Byzantine priority. I am frankly skeptical,
>but I do want to give it a fair hearing.
>
>

There simply is no good evidence (rather than a doctrinal principle) to
support Byzantine priority.
 
>> >---
>> Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:16:01 -0500 (EST)

> support Byzantine priority.

Excuse me?  What "doctrinal principle" is there which supports Byzantine
priority?  If such exists, I certainly have not used it, nor am I sure
that I would like to use it, since it certainly would be a man-made
doctrine and not a biblical one....

This statement is patently unfair, and reflects another type of bias (this
time ad hominem) in which the theology of the espouser of a text-critical
theory somehow influences and biases his entire approach. I don't recall
_anyone_ blasting Vinton Dearing or even hinting that his basically
"non-orthodox" Christian Science beliefs somehow biased his text-crtiical
approach or judgements -- why is there a theological bias presumed for
those who espouse Byzantine-priority? 

So far as I know, I have not made any arguments on particular grounds of
my own theology; also, virtually all of those who hold my own particular
theological position also hold to the modern eclectic viewpoint.

So I suppose a field day could be had in that regard were I ever to
suggest theological bias within modern eclecticism..... 

But I'm not....and won't......

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:49:00 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim West wrote:
>... There simply is no good evidence (rather than a doctrinal principle) to

Jim, what is the good evidence you call a doctrinal principle?

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803