Text Question

Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
This post has 2 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 221
James Thompson | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Sep 24 2010 8:15 PM

Why is it that the Alexandrinus manuscript is considered Byzantine within the Gospels and Alexandrian in the rest of the NT?   Confused

Posts 26201
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 25 2010 10:48 PM

A quick search of the Internet included this reference http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-a.html  & http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsUncials.html (I searched on Alexandrinus manuscript or codex Alexandrinus).

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 221
James Thompson | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Sep 26 2010 5:59 PM

Dave Hooton:

A quick search of the Internet included this reference http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-a.html  & http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsUncials.html (I searched on Alexandrinus manuscript or codex Alexandrinus).

Thanks Dave!

Actually I had read the reference at http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/ManuscriptsUncials.html which attempts an answer to my question (see explaination below):

A is Byzantine in the gospels; there can be no question of this. It is, in fact, the oldest Byzantine manuscript in Greek. (The Peshitta Syriac is older, and is Byzantine, but it obviously is not Greek.) But it is not a "normal" Byzantine witness -- that is, it is not directly related to the Kx type which eventually became dominant. The text of A in the Gospels is, in fact, related to Family P (Von Soden's Ik). Yet even those who documented this connection (Silva Lake and others) note that A is not a particularly pure member of Family P. Nor, in their opinions, was it an ancestor of Family P; rather, it was a slightly mixed descendent. The mixture seems to have been Alexandrian -- the obvious example being the omission of John 7:53-8:11, but A also omits, e.g., Luke 22:43-44 and (in the first hand) John 5:3. Westcott and Hort felt the combination of B and A to be strong and significant. We are nonetheless left with the question of the relationship between A and the rest of the Byzantine text. The best explanation appears to me to be that A is derived from a Byzantine text very poorly and sporadically corrected against an Alexandrian document (most likely not systematically corrected, but with occasional Byzantine readings eliminated as they were noticed in an environment where the Alexandrian text dominated). But other explanations are certainly possible.

While the above is an explanation I was hoping for a little more specific and detailed information. Guess I'll keep searching....

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS