08-26-2004, 03:34 PM
It looks like I'm proably going to start debating Greek primacists again. On big one in particualr.
Anyway I thought it would help to focus on the way, Greek primacists relate to their ancient texts.
My basic thought/assumption is if Greek primacy was really true, lets say if an apostle really did write a book in Greek there should be very little variation between texts of that book. Because his thought should be pretty clean, and the only quirky differences should come from scribal copying errors. And from what I can tell we don't see this actually played out, as far as looking at textual differences between Greek texts.
So anyway my basic thought was, if Greek supremacy was really true. You should have one of the ancient texts be very clean. In the same manner that we between the peshitta/peshitto where there isn't many differences. etc.
Anyway I was just thinking about how Greek primacists handle their text. For instance how many have a "baptized" textus recepticus that they believe is infallible or as close to the orginal as you can get. Versus others who look at all the ancient Kione texts and basically do their translation looking at common denominators, or according to what "makes sense" looking at the variances etc.
It just seems to me, that the more Greek texts you have to rely on, and pick and choose among them, the weaker the case for Greek primacy is. Although I'm sure many do see one text as being supreme and ignore the other ones and that itself causes many problems, faulty assumptions, and errors of logic etc.
Anyway I thought it would help to focus on the way, Greek primacists relate to their ancient texts.
My basic thought/assumption is if Greek primacy was really true, lets say if an apostle really did write a book in Greek there should be very little variation between texts of that book. Because his thought should be pretty clean, and the only quirky differences should come from scribal copying errors. And from what I can tell we don't see this actually played out, as far as looking at textual differences between Greek texts.
So anyway my basic thought was, if Greek supremacy was really true. You should have one of the ancient texts be very clean. In the same manner that we between the peshitta/peshitto where there isn't many differences. etc.
Anyway I was just thinking about how Greek primacists handle their text. For instance how many have a "baptized" textus recepticus that they believe is infallible or as close to the orginal as you can get. Versus others who look at all the ancient Kione texts and basically do their translation looking at common denominators, or according to what "makes sense" looking at the variances etc.
It just seems to me, that the more Greek texts you have to rely on, and pick and choose among them, the weaker the case for Greek primacy is. Although I'm sure many do see one text as being supreme and ignore the other ones and that itself causes many problems, faulty assumptions, and errors of logic etc.