Which NT manuscripts do most Christians prefer, which one is the originals?

I think most Christians still prefer something like the Byzantine/Majority. Even these modern bibles that rely on critical texts still add in some of the wordings and missing verses from the Byzantine texts (which, in effect, makes the translations more electic rather than rely strictly on critical texts). For one, you'd be missing verses and numbers oddly skip (which is just an eyesore, if anything), but some of these Byzantine variations have been with the church so long that no amount of reinventing the wheel will make people adjust. This is one thing scholars don't seem to get. They think they're getting the "pure" word of God if they find the oldest thing. But the word of God is what the Church knows what has been the word of God. There's no way that we're getting rid of the story of Jesus rescuing the adulterous woman about to get executed, for example. Best stop trying.

JohnB445 said:

Then there is the Alexandrian, which comes from Egypt. There was a school in Egypt which was condemned by the Early Church Fathers, they regarded it as cultic, and a lot of Gnosticism has arose from Egypt.

Click to expand...

It appears that certain people who prefer the TR/BT are inclined to use this argument against the Alexandrian text when talking about textual criticism. A lot of events happened in Alexandria, but we do not find these sorts of beliefs imported into the manuscripts at all in the variants, which makes the argument bogus to begin with. It distracts from the actual science.

straykat said:

I think most Christians still prefer something like the Byzantine/Majority. Even these modern bibles that rely on critical texts still add in some of the wordings and missing verses from the Byzantine texts (which, in effect, makes the translations more electic rather than rely strictly on critical texts). For one, you'd be missing verses and numbers oddly skip (which is just an eyesore, if anything), but some of these Byzantine variations have been with the church so long that no amount of reinventing the wheel will make people adjust. This is one thing scholars don't seem to get. They think they're getting the "pure" word of God if they find the oldest thing. But the word of God is what the Church knows what has been the word of God. There's no way that we're getting rid of the story of Jesus rescuing the adulterous woman about to get executed, for example. Best stop trying.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like I always liked to think wisdom lived with prudence and dreamed up witty inventions at least in one translation of the bible anyway.

JohnB445 said:

If higher textual criticism is necessary then where can one find the Completed Perfect word of God?

Click to expand...

I find it helpful to look at the different possible interpretations and apply them all, and then see which one produces the best fruit.

JohnB445 said:

If higher textual criticism is necessary then where can one find the Completed Perfect word of God?

Click to expand...

Frankly, we must accept the fact that scribal influence played a role with all of the manuscripts we have today, so the critical (or eclectic) science helps us figure out what may have not had those influences. How do we not know that the majority reading, for an example, is the result of someone mass copying those variants? It is one thing to think that one set has been held for so long, yet it is another to isolate that set of manuscripts from the overall view of the rest that are up to examination. Critical criticism looks at all of them and tries to figure out which may have been without that influence, instead of blindly accepting one set as if it is the only one that is right.

But, for some of those who may be concerned about this, none of these variants necessarily change really much of anything to the message and what the inspired authors were teaching.

Imagine if you found John 7:53-8:1-11 in one set in Luke, and in another set in the latter part of John? This is true, actually. How would you feel about that? That's not all, but what if you found out by reading it in the Greek that it does not match the style of the apostle John everywhere else? It is noted that this appears to be added by someone else, and it does make sense since the story does not correlate with the flow of the text. Remove it and you wouldn't know that there was any sort of gap. It is missing in the Alexandrian text, which is older...hmm I wonder why? We need to look at it carefully and consider why it appears this way.

Jonaitis said:

Imagine if you found John 7:53-8:1-11 in one set in Luke, and in another set in the latter part of John? This is true, actually. How would you feel about that? That's not all, but what if you found out by reading it in the Greek that it does not match the style of the apostle John everywhere else? It is noted that this appears to be added by someone else, and it does make sense since the story does not correlate with the flow of the text. Remove it and you wouldn't know that there was any sort of gap. It is missing in the Alexandrian text, which is older...hmm I wonder why? We need to look at it carefully and consider why it appears this way.

Click to expand...

straykat said:

... There's no way that we're getting rid of the story of Jesus rescuing the adulterous woman about to get executed, for example. Best stop trying.

Click to expand...

Yeah. John 8 had been pretty controversial.
This 1 member in particular was rather infatuated with it and he seemed to have done a good job of defending it:

Nazaroo
Dec 30, 2005

TEXTUAL Evidence for John 8:1-11

Nazaroo said:

We have now posted Herbert McLachlan's 1920 attempt to prove that the Pericope Adulterae (PA, Jn 7:53-8:11) was written by Luke.
Its here.
McLachlan: PA
We will be adding footnotes soon for a review and rebuttal.
One thing that can be observed immediately, is the flimsiness of the textual evidence for a Lukan origin (i.e., placing the PA after Luke 21:38). All that evidence is post 10th century!
Enjoy!

Click to expand...

Why John 8:1-11 must be defended!
===========================
I remember reading thru it one time and a few verses stood out me......the part where Jesus is writing in the dirt with the finger.
Then it dawned on me the this may be the only time Jesus ever wrote anything down in the NT? so I started wondering what He could have written down.

I looked at where finger was used in the OT and a lot of it was in Leviticus concerning the Priests dipping their finger in blood, then of course the 2 tablets of the 10 commandments [Exodus 31:18]
I had created a thread on it some time back.

John 8 and Jesus writing in dirt

John 8:6 This yet they said, trying Him, that they may be having to be accusing of Him.
The yet Jesus stooping, to the finger Wrote into the ground,
7 As yet they persisted asking Him. He up-bends and said toward them "The sinless-one of ye first the stone on her let be casting"!
8 And again stooping, He Wrote into the ground.

To be fair, you must look at presumed origins too. The codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are presumed by many to be of the 400 copies that Constantine had made. Constantine killed his wife for presumed adultery, so that gives motive for excluding the Pericope Adulterae as an obvious slap in his face. Perhaps zealous officials ommited them, if not the Emperor himself.

Fact is, that Christian usage overwhelmingly favours the Textus Receptus historically, and it is clear that a version of it was already extent when those codices were written - based on Church Fathers and such. The Alexandrine need not have primacy merely from the historic accident that our oldest copies reflect it. Humans copied the NT and sometimes made slips of the pen, or even added text in the West (not markedly important ones, mind you). I don't think it changes much of the sense.

And so we get a third KJV Only thread.

Btw, you forgot the Western and Cesarean text types. This idea that there's only two comes from Sam Gipp's propaganda.

JohnB445 said:

There are only 2 kinds for NT. Any other kind would be in the Eclectic Text category.[1]

The Majority (Textus Receptus, The Received text) Which comes from Antioch. Which is where I hear the first Christians were. Also, this type of text is used by the Orthodox Church which has its Apostolic history.[2]

Then there is the Alexandrian, which comes from Egypt. There was a school in Egypt which was condemned by the Early Church Fathers, they regarded it as cultic, and a lot of Gnosticism has arose from Egypt.[3]

I haven't looked too deep into the issue, but from researching it, I would believe the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) are the originals. From what I have seen the Dead Sea scrolls are in agreement with these kinds of text, and the texts match accurately.[4]

Click to expand...

(1)There are 3 pools of manuscripts for the Greek text: Alexandrian, Byzantian, and the Western text

(2)The Textus Receptus is NOT the majority text. The Textus Receptus is an artificial text based on other texts.

(3)There is no evidence the Alexandrian scribes changed their texts.

(4)?????

LittleLambofJesus said:

Yeah. John 8 had been pretty controversial.
This 1 member in particular was rather infatuated with it and he seemed to have done a good job of defending it:

Nazaroo
Dec 30, 2005

TEXTUAL Evidence for John 8:1-11


Why John 8:1-11 must be defended!
===========================
I remember reading thru it one time and a few verses stood out me......the part where Jesus is writing in the dirt with the finger.
Then it dawned on me the this may be the only time Jesus ever wrote anything down in the NT? so I started wondering what He could have written down.

I looked at where finger was used in the OT and a lot of it was in Leviticus concerning the Priests dipping their finger in blood, then of course the 2 tablets of the 10 commandments [Exodus 31:18]
I had created a thread on it some time back.

John 8 and Jesus writing in dirt

John 8:6 This yet they said, trying Him, that they may be having to be accusing of Him.
The yet Jesus stooping, to the finger Wrote into the ground,
7 As yet they persisted asking Him. He up-bends and said toward them "The sinless-one of ye first the stone on her let be casting"!
8 And again stooping, He Wrote into the ground.

Click to expand...

Even if the Pericope Adulterae is a latter insertion, its still consistent with what else we find in the Gospels.