Posted by: proregno | January 22, 2013

Teen die Alexandrynse tekste, die Meerderheidsteks !

mt robinson foto

[Nota: die OAV is gebaseer op die MT (Meerderheidsteks) familie, en die NAV op die Alexandrynse teksfamilie]

Hier is ‘n uitreksel van ‘n onderhoud wat met dr. Maurice A. Robinson gevoer is. Dr. Robinson is saam met dr. William G. Pierpont verantwoordelik vir die nuutse MT teksuitgawe (2005) van die Griekse NT volgens die Meerderheidsteks tradisie (ook genoem die ‘Bisantynse Teksvorm’).  Hier kan u verder daaroor lees:

Interview with Maurice Robinson

Ek haal hier twee van die belangrike vrae en antwoorde aan van die onderhoud:

3. What reasons led you to self-publish your New Testament and accompanying article as opposed to choosing a more well-known publisher?

Some time ago I presented a faculty lecture/ETS paper on “Copyright and the Bible,” in which I criticized those marketers who deliberately enrich themselves by making merchandise (2 Cor. 2:17) of the divinely revealed Scriptures. If the Bible really is the word of God written, it was divinely intended for wide dissemination and proclamation to all people with no restrictions at the lowest possible cost. In an unsolicited email, a Christian publisher who shared the same views inquired regarding the feasibility of reprinting a public domain tr edition. The conversation soon turned to the possibility of a new public domain edition of the Byzantine Textform. That publisher (Chilton Book Publishing — not a “self-publishing” or “vanity press” outfit by any means!) agreed to typeset and publish the new edition with no copyright restriction, and also to sell the published copies at cost (printing, binding, and shipping), with no profit to either of us. That we have done for the glory of God, and thereby hope to send a message of some import to the various publishers and marketers, including the Bible Societies. Had the same volume been published through standard commercial channels, such certainly would not have occurred (nor would most commercial publishers have much interest in a Greek text that differs from what is popularly accepted in modern critical editions).

9. What is the leading argument in your mind for the inferiority of the Alexandrian text type?

“Reasoned transmissionalism”! Had any texttype other than the Byzantine more closely represented the autograph form of the text in any nt book, that texttype should have thoroughly permeated the primary Greek-speaking region of the Empire beyond the first few centuries. Any later-developing “new” texttype would fail to dominate against a presumed liturgically entrenched and widely disseminated “original” Textform. One need only consider in this regard the failure of the “Western” text to gain a substantial hold within the Greek ms tradition; similarly, one can consider the limited and apparently “localized” nature of the Alexandrian texttype.

Westcott and Hort acknowledged that the Byzantine Textform dominated the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire from the mid-4th century onward. They also noted that such dominance could have occurred only in two ways: either (1) the Byzantine Textform was the product of a formal, ecclesiastically sanctioned revision, promulgated with full ecclesiastical authority behind it (the Alands’ “Byzantine Imperial Text”); or (2) the Byzantine Textform reflects the autograph form of the text, which — under a normal process of transmission — would be expected to produce an overwhelming number of descendants “at each stage of transmission” (W-H, Introduction, 45). W‑H argued the first alternative, without which their preferred B-Í type of text could not be maintained.

The W-H “revision” hypothesis generally has been discarded, due to lack of historical corroborating evidence. A “process” view is now instituted in its place, suggesting that, over a lengthy period of time, the Byzantine Textform slowly evolved into what finally becomes a relatively fixed form during the post-ninth century minuscule era. But, as Zane Hodges long ago pointed out:

“No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text. Even an official edition of the New Testament — promoted with ecclesiastical sanction throughout the known world — would have had great difficulty achieving this result as the history of Jerome’s Vulgate amply demonstrates. But an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination” (Hodges, Appendix C, in Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 166).

Other claims, such as the influence of Chrysostom, the Constantinopolitan Church, or the supposed destruction of Alexandrian mss due to the Islamic conquest, are discussed in my full-length essay, “The Case for Byzantine Priority”, available on the internet and as an appendix to the R-P Byzantine Greek nt. I might observe that, if the Alexandrian text could have been wiped out by the Islamic conquest, that predominantly Egyptian text was not widespread, but reflected only a more localized tradition; also, for either Chrysostom or Constantinople to effect such a significant change in the Church’s base text, full ecclesiastical authority and proclamation would have been necessary in order to accomplish its general acceptance throughout the Eastern Empire. No such proclamation or imposition of ecclesiastical authority seems ever to have occurred. The implication returns to Byzantine originality as the more probable cause of that Textform’s dominance within the transmissional history of the nt.

To return to the original question, I do not reject the Alexandrian texttype primarily on the basis of subjective judgments regarding a presumed inferior quality of its readings; nor do I approve the Byzantine Textform because of a supposed superior quality regarding its readings. Textual establishment is primarily a matter of evaluating the external evidence in order to determine on the basis of transmissional considerations whatever sequentially connected set of readings appears most likely to have been original. Hort correctly stated the leading principles in this regard: “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (W-H, Introduction 30), and “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history” (Ibid., 40; small caps original in both cases).

Eie opmerking:  indien ons dus wil ‘verbeter’ op ons huidige vertalings en die Griekse teksuitgawes waarop dit gebaseer is, laat ons dan eerder na die familie van tekste terugkeer wat die kerk nog altyd gehad het deur die eeue, die Meerderheidsteks (waarvan die TR ‘n onderdeel is met heelwat verskille, maar nie wesentlike verskille nie, aangesien Erasmus slegs 6 manuskripte tot sy beskikking gehad het), en nie die Alexandrynse teksfamilie waarop die NAV en die komende nuwer 2016 vertaling gebaseer is nie (wat in vergelyking met die MT baie meer verskille en groter weglatings het, soos bv. Mark.16:9-20 en Joh.7:53-8:11, en wat onder mekaar ook nog baie meer verskille het).

Mag ons hemelse Vader weer Godsvresende teoloë, vertalers en taalkundiges gee wat in beide vertaalmetode (letterlik-konkordant) en grondtekste (Meerderheidsteks), dit wat ons glo en bely aangaande die Heilige Skrif in NGB art.2-7, getrou navolg, sodat die ewige onfeilbare betroubare Woord van God – wat deur die eeue deur sy voorsienigheid bewaar is en word, en oorgelewer is en word (sien NGB art.3 en Westminster Konfessie hfst.1) – opnuut versprei en verkondig en gelees kan word, ook onder ons volk. Laat ons nie handel dryf met God se Woord asof dit maar net nog ‘n boek op die winskopie rak is nie.

Want ons is nie soos baie wat handel dryf met die woord van God nie; maar as opregtheid, maar as uit God, in die teenwoordigheid van God, spreek ons in Christus. – 2 Kor.2:17

Sien ook:

Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text

By hierdie blog kry mens al die verskillende Griekse teksuitgawes binne hierdie familie:

Printed editions

http://byztxt.com/

http://www.majoritytext.com/

Majority Text of the NT

Sien ook die volgende instellings:

Gereformeerde Bijbel Stigting (GBS)

Trinitarian Bible Society

Vraag: waar is ons SA weergawe, moet hy nog gestig word ?


Responses

  1. Ek is nog altyd oortuig dat die direkte metode beter is vir Bybelvertalings, maar die beter bronteks wonder ek nog.

    So n paar jaar terug was daar in die APK n beswaarskrif oor hierdie saak. Hier is my Hebreeuse prof se advies aan die sinode:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/1jppeVpVYb422Df9wjdfW-ft71ZJn13ZFyuSzV-a5izVxzYKRs0wFQb6MWirs/edit

    • Andries, ek sien niks as ek op daardie ‘link’ ingaan nie ?

      • Hier is hy weer. Het dit ook vir jou ge-epos.

        https://docs.google.com/file/d/1jppeVpVYb422Df9wjdfW-ft71ZJn13ZFyuSzV-a5izVxzYKRs0wFQb6MWirs/edit?usp=sharing

      • Andries, dankie vir die verwysing.

        Die opmerkings oor die beswaarskrif bevestig my kerklik-konfessionele standpunt: bly by die teksfamilie wat die kerk deur die eeue gehad het (die Meerderheidsteks, waarvan die TR ‘n onder afdeling was), en plaas in voetnotas die verskillende lesings van tekste wat later ontdek is (NU/UBS ens) en dalk nog ontdek gaan word in die toekoms. Dit is die model wat die NKJV en die MT uitgawe van Farstad en Hodge volg.

        Sodoende behou ons ook die integriteit van NGB art.2-7 en dat ons glo die Here het in sy voorsienigheid sy Woord vir ons bewaar en nie eers in 1800’s sy Woord vir ons laat herontdek nie.

        WH en Metzger se benadering is Skrifkrities, Metzger sê bv. dat die MT is korrup, en meen hy kan ‘wetenskaplik’ bewys dat die Alexandrynse teksfamilie nader aan die Woord is of meer betroubaar is, wat ‘n akademiese mite is.

        Sien gerus die artikel wat nou net op my blog verskyn het van dr. Kruger en oudl. Malan, gebaseer op Dennis Kenaga se artikel oor die saak. Sal dit waardeer as jy dit ook aanstuur aan die persone wat die opmerkings op die beswaarskrif geskryf het. Sal goed wees as hul ook kennis neem van Kenaga se artikel.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: