Byzantine or Alexandrian

SeventhValley · Nov 20, 2013

What is God's word the majority text or the minority text?

I am leaning to the majority text since the Alexandrian ones are different and should not be trusted.

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2013

SeventhValley said:
What is God's word the majority text or the minority text?

I am leaning to the majority text since the Alexandrian ones are different and should not be trusted.

I support the Majority or Byzantine text for some of the reasons given in these articles, 'What is the Majority Text?', 'What about the Majority Text?'

Many MSS from the minority text (that became the Textus Receptus) are from a later date.

I found this to be a helpful text by Bruce M Metzger 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 3rd edn. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oz

SeventhValley · Nov 21, 2013

I thought the TR is based off of byzantine texts where as the Alexandrian ones are used for modern translations.

OzSpen · Nov 21, 2013

SeventhValley said:
I thought the TR is based off of byzantine texts where as the Alexandrian ones are used for modern translations.

Thank you for picking up my error. You are correct that the modern translations are based on the earlier Alexandrian texts of the Greek NT as they relate to the earliest manuscripts (MSS) to which we have access. I support the Alexandrian text as being the text of the earliest NT MSS.

However, John Chrysostom used the Byzantine script as far back as AD 407.

Oz

Striver · Nov 22, 2013

If you're going to TR (subset of Byzantine), then my advice would be to go all of the way and become Eastern Orthodox.

In all seriousness, I went down this road. There are merits to both, but I do quibble with the use of Alexandrian because the text used for modern Bibles is the Critical Text (CT) which is an eclectic grouping of various texts. It's not as if they found a couple old manuscripts in the Gnostic capital of the world and reprinted them willy-nilly.

At the end of the day, both texts are the Word of God. Neither one of them is an exact copy of the original manuscripts. I lean CT these days because of expert consensus and logical arguments for why certain verses were not included. I would not look down on someone who uses the KJV or NKJV, as they have their own merits.

raschau · Dec 7, 2013

The NKJV strikes the right chord with me as far as balancing reverence, tradition, readability, and accuracy against the archaic language of the KJV, misleading paraphrases, popular 'dynamic' translations, and gender-neutering academic translations - no matter how 'essentially literal' they may be.

But that's not to say I necessarily believe the Received Text is 'the best' -- rather that I remain undecided about the Critical Text chiefly because I don't particularly like any of the modern translations which happen to be based on Nestle-Aland.

I suppose, if pressed (at least until the academic world releases a NA28 translation more suitable for Evangelicals than the current fare), I'd say I prefer the Textus Receptus just because there are certain things I expect to find when I open my Bible.

For example: Matthew 1:7. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.

The name Asa is derived from Asaph, but Asa of Judah never went by Asaph: his name was most certainly Asa, as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Textus Receptus, and the Aramaic Peshitta. Nonetheless, the Critical and Alexandrian texts (Nestle-Aland, the Sahidic Coptic c. 2nd century, &c) give his name as Asaph.

In my mind, just because Asaph is read in the older manuscripts more frequently than Asa does not make this reading more 'true.' 5000 years of Jewish tradition and 2000 years of Christian tradition - not to mention secular history - are not going to be needlessly revised in light of this 'discovery.'

One more example: Matthew 1:25. And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

The word translated 'firstborn' (prototokon) is "missing" from the Critical and Alexandrian texts.

Christ is called the 'firstborn among many brethren' in Romans 8:29; the 'firstborn into the world' in Hebrews 1:6; the 'image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation' in Colossians 1:15; and the 'firstborn from the dead' in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5. As such, I expect to see 'firstborn' in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as I always have.

SeventhValley · Dec 7, 2013

I agree

classicalhero · Dec 8, 2013

OzSpen said:
Thank you for picking up my error. You are correct that the modern translations are based on the earlier Alexandrian texts of the Greek NT as they relate to the earliest manuscripts (MSS) to which we have access. I support the Alexandrian text as being the text of the earliest NT MSS.

However, John Chrysostom used the Byzantine script as far back as AD 407.

Oz

Oldest doesn't always equal the best. The oldest manuscripts are absolute rubbish and that is why they are so old, because they weren't in use and thus needed not to be replaced.

RGT · Jun 18, 2018

raschau said:
The NKJV strikes the right chord with me as far as balancing reverence, tradition, readability, and accuracy against the archaic language of the KJV, misleading paraphrases, popular 'dynamic' translations, and gender-neutering academic translations - no matter how 'essentially literal' they may be.

But that's not to say I necessarily believe the Received Text is 'the best' -- rather that I remain undecided about the Critical Text chiefly because I don't particularly like any of the modern translations which happen to be based on Nestle-Aland.

I suppose, if pressed (at least until the academic world releases a NA28 translation more suitable for Evangelicals than the current fare), I'd say I prefer the Textus Receptus just because there are certain things I expect to find when I open my Bible.

For example: Matthew 1:7. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa.

The name Asa is derived from Asaph, but Asa of Judah never went by Asaph: his name was most certainly Asa, as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Textus Receptus, and the Aramaic Peshitta. Nonetheless, the Critical and Alexandrian texts (Nestle-Aland, the Sahidic Coptic c. 2nd century, &c) give his name as Asaph.

In my mind, just because Asaph is read in the older manuscripts more frequently than Asa does not make this reading more 'true.' 5000 years of Jewish tradition and 2000 years of Christian tradition - not to mention secular history - are not going to be needlessly revised in light of this 'discovery.'

One more example: Matthew 1:25. And did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

The word translated 'firstborn' (prototokon) is "missing" from the Critical and Alexandrian texts.

Christ is called the 'firstborn among many brethren' in Romans 8:29; the 'firstborn into the world' in Hebrews 1:6; the 'image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation' in Colossians 1:15; and the 'firstborn from the dead' in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5. As such, I expect to see 'firstborn' in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as I always have.

RGT · Jun 18, 2018

What about those who object to Alexandrian-type based on Irenaeus' (pre-Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) quoting of Mark 16:19? Also, the argument of "sequestering" of the original CT manuscripts over the centuries in Roman Catholic archives as opposed to open grass roots tending and maintaining of MT by the churches themselves, which would preclude tampering much better than the former. Not to mention the argument of Providential Preservation (MT-yes, CT-no)?

DeaconDean · Jun 18, 2018

Arise o long dead thread!

God Bless

Till all are one.

RGT · Jun 18, 2018

DeaconDean said:
View attachment 231291

Arise o long dead thread!

God Bless

Till all are one.

LOL! Thread! Come out!

RGT · Jun 18, 2018

I appreciate this humble and thoughtful examination of the subject by fellow lay minister, Reese Currie. Thoughts?

Textual Choices and Bible Versions

OzSpen · Jun 18, 2018

DeaconDean said:
View attachment 231291

Arise o long dead thread!

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm the culprit!

now faith · Jun 21, 2018

OzSpen said:
Thank you for picking up my error. You are correct that the modern translations are based on the earlier Alexandrian texts of the Greek NT as they relate to the earliest manuscripts (MSS) to which we have access. I support the Alexandrian text as being the text of the earliest NT MSS.

However, John Chrysostom used the Byzantine script as far back as AD 407.

Oz

Hello, OzSpen I have a question but will not debate.

It seems that new information has been brought about as to the sources of the King James.
I have thought the text beginning at Antioch, had been copied through the years and matched each other even though copies were more abundant.
In other words there was a great effort to make copies as true as possible to the proceeding ones.

This is a point Walter Veith makes in his study of the 2 different text.
If so can you point out the error in his teaching.
Once again I am simply trying to learn the reasoning for this discussion.

Call me Nic · Jun 21, 2018

SeventhValley said:
What is God's word the majority text or the minority text?

I am leaning to the majority text since the Alexandrian ones are different and should not be trusted.

The Word of God came from Antioch, not Alexandria.

The Byzantine texts were scattered and spread throughout all the known world by the 4th century.

The Alexandrian texts were only ever found in Egypt, no where else until the 19th century - and even the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus are neither dated, or agreeable with one another. Those two corruptions differ from each other alone in 3,000 different places.

The Byzantine texts must be the correct inspired texts, because they have the majority that agree aggressively with each other, AND they were already spread throughout the entire known world at the relatively same time as the Alexandrian manuscripts are dated. That copying and recopying and distribution process has been calculated to take between one and two centuries, therefore providing substantial evidence that not only the Byzantine texts are older and descended from the proper school (Antioch), but are far more used, distributed, quoted (over 1 million quotations by church fathers), and taught from the earlier times than the Alexandrian corruptions ever were.

Also, Origen himself (around 200 AD) said that there were a plethora of corruptions from the manuscripts where he lived in Alexandria, proving the unreliability of the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Stick with the Textus Receptus, and you can't go wrong.

PS, Byzantine manuscripts such as the 64 Magdalen Papyri are older than the earliest dated Alexandrian manuscripts anyway. And because of the Western Recension in 382 done by Jerome, which produced a revision of the NT manuscripts that neither were agreeable with the Byzantine texts AND were about 10% longer than the canonical books, it is more than likely that the Alexandrian manuscripts are a recension of those revisions, because the texts of the Western Recension along with normal Byzantine manuscripts are both found in Egypt along with Alexandrian texts. Put simply, the Alexandrian is more than likely a corrupted revision of a corrupted revision. And if not, at best, it's a recension of the widely spread and distributed Byzantine texts anyway, which still makes it corrupted, even according to Origen himself.

So, King James, and Textus Receptus all the way.

now faith · Jun 21, 2018

One thing I would like to ask, With all the division among Christians, from doctrine to what Bible to read, does anyone believe any Bible is a Holy Text inspired By God for believers edification?

Does anyone believe we are drawn to the knowledge of Christ by the. Spiritual nature of God's Word?

Does the Holy Ghost guide us in all truth from the Words written down so many years ago?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, what Bible is qualified for this purpose?

OzSpen · Jun 22, 2018

now faith said:
Hello, OzSpen I have a question but will not debate.

It seems that new information has been brought about as to the sources of the King James.
I have thought the text beginning at Antioch, had been copied through the years and matched each other even though copies were more abundant.
In other words there was a great effort to make copies as true as possible to the proceeding ones.

This is a point Walter Veith makes in his study of the 2 different text.
If so can you point out the error in his teaching.
Once again I am simply trying to learn the reasoning for this discussion.

now faith,

Walter Veith's presupposition is KJV-only and he concludes in support of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text-type. That's circular reasoning.

Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus used only 7 manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817. They were all that were available to him and they dated from the 11th-15th centuries. They were late copies.

Not one of those 7 manuscripts had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek. Since that time not one Greek MSS has been found that matches Erasmus's translation exactly.

I don't understand all the huffing and puffing over the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types because NO Christian doctrine is affected - to my knowledge.

The supporters of the KJV say the NIV and ESV deleted verses of Scripture. Supporters of the NIV and ESV say the KJV added to Scripture.

All the doctrines, including salvation, are not affected by the slight differences in MSS because of variants (changes by copyists).

Oz

now faith · Jun 23, 2018

OzSpen said:
now faith,

Walter Veith's presupposition is KJV-only and he concludes in support of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text-type. That's circular reasoning.

Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus used only 7 manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817. They were all that were available to him and they dated from the 11th-15th centuries. They were late copies.

Not one of those 7 manuscripts had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate to the Greek. Since that time not one Greek MSS has been found that matches Erasmus's translation exactly.

I don't understand all the huffing and puffing over the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types because NO Christian doctrine is affected - to my knowledge.

The supporters of the KJV say the NIV and ESV deleted verses of Scripture. Supporters of the NIV and ESV say the KJV added to Scripture.

All the doctrines, including salvation, are not affected by the slight differences in MSS because of variants (changes by copyists).

Oz

Thank You for a sincere Answer.
God Bless.

DeaconDean · Jun 24, 2018

Nicolaus Mourer said:
PS, Byzantine manuscripts such as the 64 Magdalen Papyri are older than the earliest dated Alexandrian manuscripts anyway.

I believe you have that wrong.

The p64, known as the Magdalen papyrus, is a Unical, dated to the late 2nd to early 3rd century. Writen on the front and back, shows that this came from an existing codex rather than a scroll.

Shown to be a Alexandrian text type.

Other "notable" Alexandrian text-type "papyrus":

"P1, 4-6, 8-35, 37, 39, 40, 43-45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55-57, 61-62, 64-65, 70-72, 74, 77-82, 85-87, 90-92, 95, 100, 104, 106-108, 110, 111, 115, 122.

I also suggest, antiquity does not necessarily mean better.

"Is Oldest Best?

First, there is the somewhat uncritical reliance by modern textual critics upon a text's antiquity above everything else. Weight (a term describing the relative esteem accorded to a manuscript or other evidence in determining the original text) is accorded to a text's age, with other evidence receiving a far inferior status. The arguments made by scholars for this approach sound plausible when they are not examined in any great detail. An older text, one would naturally assume, should be more closely approximate to the reading of the original autographs. Sounds logical, right? Unfortunately, this assumption is just that: an assumption. When this argument is tested against the facts, we see that it does not really hold up.

The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.1 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."2 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large..."

1) Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 264
2) E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts," Early Christian Origins, Ed. A. Wikgren, p. 138

Source

Marvin Vincent agrees that corruptions in the manuscripts probably occurred within a century of their writing.

"Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with tolerable certainty that the farther back we go in the history of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its composition, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, "I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual communities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations."

A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, 1899, New York, The MacMillian Company, Chapter V, Textual Criticism of the Early Church.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Byzantine or Alexandrian

SeventhValley

Guest

Regular Member

SeventhValley

Guest

Regular Member

"There is still hope."

raschau

Guest

SeventhValley

Guest

Junior Member

New Member

New Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

New Member

New Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency