Steven Avery wrote:Ulan wrote:When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the now powerful church hierarchy unified the Greek and Latin text traditions, respectively. This took a few centuries.
Let's stop here.
How could the one Latin "state religion of the Roman empire" unify two different language text traditions? One of which had nothing to do with Rome.
Apparently you want to call the Greek Byzantine church a part of the "Roman Empire", with a second and different state religion. You should make that clear.
I already corrected your erroneous view in my last post. When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, this state religion was not "Latin". From the very beginning, it used two languages, and mainly Greek. The official schism was only in 1054, and before that, it was at least officially one church. There wasn't too much communication between the Greek and the Latin church parts though, apart from the ecumenical councils. I have already explained the reason why the different language text traditions were separate entities.
The capital of the Roman Empire was transferred from Rome to Byzantium in the year 330 AD, when it was renamed Constantinople. It stayed there till the year 1204 AD and again 1261-1453. This part of the Roman Empire never had any other name than "Roman Empire".
When Christianity became the state religion in the year 380 (Imperial Edict of Thessalonica, Greece, for the whole Roman Empire), Constantinople was the Roman capital and the center of the Christian World. Christianity had just been legalized in the year 313 before Constantine moved the capital there in 330. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils that decided the direction of Christianity, three were in Constantinople proper, three just outside of the city (2x Nicea, once Chalcedon) and one in Ephesos, which is slightly further away, but still in Asia Minor.
Rome had to fight for its role. The city was a backwater from the third century on, when education in the western Empire had mostly collapsed.
Now we go with game forums? How does this even matter? All major decisions regarding Christianity were done in and around the Roman capital, Constantinople.
I have already addressed your other questions.
Steven Avery wrote:
When you write poorly, you should be willing to accept correction, rather than play a bluster game.
I can't even see now that you are able to grasp the subject matter, like this insistence on the "one Latin state religion of the Roman Empire". Where is your history education?
Steven Avery wrote:
Ulan wrote: It helped that the Greek world of the Empire had become rather small at that point and there was not much space anymore for different text traditions, which means that you don't even need a conscious decision for this to happen. It's the text that survived the shrinking of the Greek world.
Actually, you will find Greek Byzantine texts from the Balkans, Austria, Russia, Turkey and other lands. You will find Greek in Egypt as well. To call this "not much space" is silly writing. In fact there are different text traditions in the Greek, a point about which you seem to be ignorant. We even have a decent number of Alexandrian minuscules (except that they do not have the Mark ending, which basically negates your position that thousands of manuscripts do not matter.)
Try to read my last post in context. >9th century. The size of the Byzantine Empire varied greatly during its existence. Sometimes it included pretty much all of the Roman Empire proper, sometimes it shrunk to just Greece, the adjacent Balkans and western Asia Minor. In the last centuries, which are important for the predominance of the Byzantine text type, it was small. It's funny that you list the Balkans and Turkey separately. Do you know where Constantinople is? (Rhetorical question; the answer is No). And who cares for Byzantine texts in Austria or Russia? Do you think that has any relevance to the thread question?
Steven Avery wrote:
A lot of words, basically saying nothing.
One thing I have learned is that you are deaf to things you don't want to hear.
Steven Avery wrote:
And they all had the Mark ending. And much of this was before your 9th century "sort-of" demarcation.
Don't mix arguments. This was the answer regarding when the text traditions turned. If you look at the Catholic Epistles for example, you have only 6 manuscripts for the Byzantine text type before the 9th century, compared to 9 manuscripts with the Alexandrian text type. The situation reverses afterwards.
Steven Avery wrote:Thus you have totally undermined your own argument that the numbers of manuscripts with the Mark ending are irrelevant. All you have basically said is that 4/5 of the 1700 Greek and thousands of Latin and Syriac manuscripts are less important than the first 1/5. That still leaves dozens, or hundreds, of manuscripts that even you consider very relevant.
You are disingenuous again. I did say no such thing, don't put words into my mouth I haven't said. Regarding gMark, the situation is anyway clear: the earliest manuscript tradition shows the ending at 16:8 only. We have only indirect evidence that other versions existed. We also have evidence that, even when a manuscript shows the LE, it was added later, which further proves what is the older text.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thanks! You have successfully decimated your own argument.
Dream on.
However, I didn't expect you to come to any other "conclusion". I'm not sure how you can even hold a position like yours for what seems to be decades in the light of such an overwhelming evidence that your position is wrong. But there you are, marching on. And really, this total lack of basic knowledge on your side about the history of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, or the state of Christianity during that time, is even embarrassing to look at, as is your jumbling of ideas about history in general, when you jump through the centuries as if time didn't matter. At least I have a better idea now where your ideas come from.