Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 19/10/2006 23:33, Mark Spitsbergen wrote:
>  Peter, why do you present your ideas as absolute fact? In all honesty your
> theories are really little more than a school of thought on the subject.
> Dr. A.T. Robertson who has enriched us all with his work " A Grammar of the
> Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research" only identifies a
> "thousandth part of the entire text" of the New Testament as presenting any
> real concern.  A little humility would greatly assist in your ability to
> think objectively.
>
>   
Since you have snipped my original post and changed the subject line, I 
don't know which ideas you are referring to. But I don't make any claim 
to "absolute fact" in these matters, except for what is in a book in 
front of my eyes, the number of manuscripts quoted in the introduction 
to the Nestle-Aland text. However, if you prefer I will withdraw
> a textual tradition which had already become seriously corrupt during the 
> Byzantine period

and replace it with
> a textual tradition concerning which I would expect that anyone who actually 
> compared the Greek texts would quickly conclude that it had already become 
> seriously corrupt during the Byzantine period

If you disagree, I suggest that you actually make a comparative study of 
all of the significant differences between the scholarly and Byzantine 
texts in the New Testament in Greek, as I have done in the last year.

I do entirely agree with A.T. Robertson that these changes are really 
rather insignificant, although a few of them do have minor theological 
significance. But note that it was not myself but Schmuel who made 
unqualified claims like "Texts full of scribal blunders" which could be 
taken as suggesting significant unreliability in the New Testament.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/