Given that most of them [TR mss] are late, does not mean much. The oldest texts are Alexanderan and that means a great deal even the oldest known fragments follow the Alexanderan readings.
Jeff the Finn
Given that the Alexandrian text is a purely local text, it doesn't mean very much, and given that it has no place in Christian history prior to the 1840s, with the exception of being used in Alexandria in the 4th century, it means even less. The Received Text can be proved to have been in continual usage all over the world from the 4th century to the present, but the Alexandrian text came into being in the 4th century, died out in the 4th century, and didn't come back into usage until the 1840s. In fact, the corruption of the Alexandrian text is the very reason why we have old copies of it - they weren't used, so they didn't get worn out.
Now, Westcott and Hort, who began the theory of the Alexandrian text being older than the Received Text, dated the earliest Alexandrian text mss. to the 1st half of the 4th century and the oldest Received Text mss. to the 2nd half of the 4th century. That was mere conjecture on their part, and it could very well be the earliest Received Text manuscript is from the 1st half and the earliest Alexandrian text manuscript is from the 2nd half. BUT, the point is that both texts (the oldest manuscript of each text) can be traced back (at the oldest) to the 4th century - the same time period! The argument that the Alexandrian text is older is merely a smokescreen to keep you from realizing that it is a local text which has contributed nothing to Christian History except maybe the propagation of the Arian heresy. The existence of a local text in 4th century Alexandria that differs from the Received Text is an obvious given, seeing as how all the orthodox were exiled for a time during that century and the Arians took over. Since the Arians could not stand before Scripture, they altered it, and no one accepted their alterations until the 1840s because everyone continued to use the Received Text until then, and even today to the dismay of the popes of Greekdom (Nestle and Aland) many continue to use the Received Text rather than the Arian Alexandrian text.
Last edited by JohnJones; 10th September 2004 at 06:50 PM.
How so, when the Byzantine text is a merger of older families, means that it is late.
In case you do not know, and it is clear that you do not, St Catherine's Monastery is ORTHODOX and is the oldest monastery in Christendom! The Great Codex Sinaititicus is ORTHODOX and so the Ruckman idea of Arianism is out to lunch.
Jeff the Finn
In fact, the corruption of the Alexandrian text is the very reason why we have old copies of it - they weren't used, so they didn't get worn out.
That's why they were found in trash cans...
__________________ "Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book.
— Ronald Reagan
The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46”
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or else... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:11 KJV) In other words; don't believe anything you are told, without searching the scriptures daily... yourself.
How so, when the Byzantine text is a merger of older families, means that it is late. Jeff the Finn
The idea that the Received Text is "a merger of older families" or conflation is founded on the mere assumption that the Alexandrian text is older, but they both date back to the 4th century, so it all falls apart. Rather, we see that the Alexandrian text is really not one text, but many, each altered in whatever part the Arian that edited it chose to edit, thus we find omission in the Alexandrian manuscripts which disagree with other Alexandrian manuscripts. These phrase were not added to the Received Text, but they were taken out of some of the Alexandrian mss.
Originally Posted by jeffthefinn
In case you do not know, and it is clear that you do not, St Catherine's Monastery is ORTHODOX and is the oldest monastery in Christendom! The Great Codex Sinaititicus is ORTHODOX and so the Ruckman idea of Arianism is out to lunch.
You'll find John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in the libraries of many preachers who DO NOT believe in Calvinism. The age of codex Sinaiticus and its shape when found by Tischendorf prove it was not used, for had it been, it would not have lasted so long. Besides that, he did find it in the waste basket, and if you want to argue that point, I have a tract on Canonicity by a proponent of the Alexandrian text who admits that Tischendorf did find it in the waste basket - it's simply a fact attested to by Tischendorf himself.
If you want to believe the KJV only myths go ahead, but the fact is the codex was not found in the trash but stolen from the Monastery by Tischendorf, I guess that is what he got it from a monk that handed it to him wrapped in a red cloth cause it was in the garbage?
The brute fact is that the Alexanderan Text is closer to the autographs than the KJV only text, that is why modern versions are based on it.
Jeff the Finn
John Jones- In fact, the corruption of the Alexandrian text is the very reason why we have old copies of it - they weren't used, so they didn't get worn out.
Good Day, John Jones
Source please from an historical prespective as to this fact.
Who did it?
When was it done?
Why was it done?
Who attested to it?
How was it proven?
Peace to u,
Bill
__________________ What will you do with Jesus, is the wrong question.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
The question should be what will God do with you???
...the fact is the codex was not found in the trash but stolen from the Monastery by Tischendorf...
I'v read about Tischendorf in many sources, and I've got to say, you are the ONLY person I've ever seen say that he stold it. The account that Tiscendorf himself gave was that he found it in a waste basket with a bunch of other manuscripts being used to fuel the fire to keep him warm, and he took it out and asked the monks for it, but they only let him have 50 pages of the OT. He promised 'em he'd come back with money to buy the rest, and came back a few years later backed financially by the Czar of Russia and bought it. Russia later sold it to the British.
Last edited by JohnJones; 10th September 2004 at 10:20 PM.
Source please from an historical prespective as to this fact.
Who did it?
When was it done?
Why was it done?
Who attested to it?
How was it proven?
Peace to u,
Bill
The burden of proof is on the rejectors of the Textus Receptus. Westcott and Hort rejected it because they claimed it was an official revision of the GNT made by the Eastern Church in 350 AD. They had no proof, yet, without their unfounded assertion there would be no NA nor UBS texts because people would still believe their Textus Receptus is the preserved words of God. You prove that the Textus Receptus is an official revision by the EO in 350, and I'll prove that Alexandrian text is a cluster of unofficial Arian edit jobs in the 4th century during the exile of the orthodox from Alexandria. But, if you say "I don't believe the TR is an official edit of the text made by the Eastern church in 350" then you have no reason to not believe that it is the inspired words of God, so throw your NA and UBS texts in the trash where they came from and start using the TR.
The burden of proof is on the rejectors of the Textus Receptus. Westcott and Hort rejected it because they claimed it was an official revision of the GNT made by the Eastern Church in 350 AD. They had no proof, yet, without their unfounded assertion there would be no NA nor UBS texts because people would still believe their Textus Receptus is the preserved words of God. You prove that the Textus Receptus is an official revision by the EO in 350, and I'll prove that Alexandrian text is a cluster of unofficial Arian edit jobs in the 4th century during the exile of the orthodox from Alexandria. But, if you say "I don't believe the TR is an official edit of the text made by the Eastern church in 350" then you have no reason to not believe that it is the inspired words of God, so throw your NA and UBS texts in the trash where they came from and start using the TR.
Good Day, JohnJones
I never said any thing about the TR, you said that the Alexanrian Text were corupted, Prove it to a level of standard that would warrant it as historical fact. Sources please.
Peace to u,
Bill
__________________ What will you do with Jesus, is the wrong question.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
The question should be what will God do with you???
That's why they were found in trash cans... 
Linear Mode
