Originally posted by 37818
View Post
What is the basis for your assumption that the text of Nestle-Aland (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως) is late and that of Textus Receptus (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως) is early?
From The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979) by D. A.Carson:
There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type [which includes the reading in Textus Receptus] was known before the middle of the fourth century This point may be established by: (1) determining if there are any Greek manuscripts of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type; (2) examining pre-A.D. 350 versions with the same information; (3) reading the New Testament quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages they quote approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century. [page 44]
....
The Alexandrian text-type [which includes the reading in Nestle-Aland] has better credentials that any other text-type now available. .... The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type. [page 55]
....
The Alexandrian text-type [which includes the reading in Nestle-Aland] has better credentials that any other text-type now available. .... The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type. [page 55]
Comment