Majority, Minority, Byzantine, Alexandrian

[humbledbyhim]

Hello All,

For the first time, I've been introduced to an issue that many of you probably know a lot about. I was wondering if you could share you thoughts about the accuracy, legitimacy, and use of the four scripture text types mentioned above. I realized that I have only scratched the surface. Any Input is welcome.

 

[Ave Maria]

I am also interested in this. I am particularly interested in the accuracy of the Alexandrian texts on which our modern Bible translations are based.

 

[BigNorsk]

Well it's really not much of an issue. I get kind of concerned when I see people try to make it a big issue because whichever manuscript family you use, the message is really the same.

Simply put, Greek manuscripts are classified by family due to similarities. This is done to basically reconstruct the transmission of the text over the centuries. The basic purpose of that is to go in reverse to reconstruct the original text as we best can.

The Majority text is simply another name for the Byzantine text. The names are somewhat self explanatory. This Greek text was used by the Orthodox churches that used Greek, the Byzantines. The reason they outnumber other manuscript families is that they continued to be made up until such a time as the printing press took over from the labor intensive hand reproduction.

The Minority or Alexandrian is simply saying there are fewer of the Alexandrian type. Often the areas where they were the dominant family did not use Greek but rather Latin so they were not subject to the use and wearing out and number of times of reproduction that the Byzantine manuscripts were.

There is also the Western family of manuscripts.

No single manuscript can really be said to be "the" text. What is done is to attempt to reproduce the text by studying the various manuscripts.

While emphasis is most heavy on the Greek manuscripts, when there is a difficult passage to know there are additional witnesses, like the early Latin translations, Patristic quotes and so on, to also use to best determine the original text. It's a process that continues today but is relatively stable compared to when textual criticism was in it's infancy.

If it's really something that interests you, I would recommend reading something like Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

I've read it, own it, and would highly recommend it.

Marv

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

There is also the schools of thought of translation behind the two (Alex. and Byzn.) . . . the Byzn were favorable to the melding of texts that they had . . . so if two MSS had different renderings . . . they would have a tendency to meld the two.

The Alex. however, preferred faithfulness to the text . . . so they kept in problematic passages without seeking to clarify thought with the insertions of words (like to clarify antecedants) . . .

This has led most scholars to see the Alex. as the most faithful in transmission (I believe Metzger takes this position [?] Marv?).

Our earliest COMPLETE Codices are also of the Alex. vein . . . and some even see our earliest papyri fragments of John (late 1st Cent) as of the Alex. vein . . . but this is hard to determine because these are only fragments and not complete tomes/works.

 

[themuzicman]

The Byzantine is called the majority text because it has been copied and preserved more times than any other.

Muz

 

[TimRout]

Over the centuries, scholars have periodically attempted to amalgamate various extant mss into a unified Greek Text of the New Testament. One such scholar was a man named Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536AD), a Catholic priest and theologian who used roughly a dozen late Byzantine manuscripts to develop a compilation the became known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. The original edition of this work was somewhat rushed and required several revisions before its final and best known version was formulated.

First published in 1611, the New Testament portion of the King James Version was translated entirely from the Textus Receptus. The small minority of conservative Christians who believe the King James Version to be uniquely inspired and inerrant, also (usually) believe the Textus Receptus to be perfect. This assertion is entirely without merit, in that the mss utilized by Erasmus in his extraordinary work were quite late -- dating from 1200-1520AD.

Today, with the unparalleled number of very ancient New Testament mss available to us, few serious scholars lend much weight to the accuracy of the Textus Receptus. This is no fault of Erasmus, or men like Stephanos or Beza who worked on later editions of the TR. Rather, problems and additions in the TR are primarily rooted in the less-than-optimal mss used to produce it. Older is closer to the autographs. Thus, in the minds of most NT scholars (including me), older is better. Thus, the Minority/Alexandrian/Old School family of manuscripts is often a helpful basis for translation.

 

[Ave Maria]

Is there any credibility to the KJV Onlyist idea that the Alexandrian texts were/are corrupted?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Is there any credibility to the KJV Onlyist idea that the Alexandrian texts were/are corrupted?

Nope.

 

[Ave Maria]

Nope.

Interesting. I have heard that idea from the KJV Onlyists for a long time.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Interesting. I have heard that idea from the KJV Onlyists for a long time.

The Alexandrian types date back earlier than the Byz.

Also, generally speaking, with holy writ things are not edited OUT . . . but added in. So when you have a text that has MORE than another . . . and it dates to later . . . chances are that the scribes or whoever added. Scripture was highly regarded . . . so subtraction becomes less likely than addition. Like the Ethiopian pericope in Acts 8. There is a commentary verse that was most likely NOT Lukan . . . yet the verse simply clarifies the text.

 

[BigNorsk]

If I could make a suggestion. A book that really does a good job of explaining things is: "The Text of the New Testament It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" by Bruce M. Metzger adn Bart D Ehrman.

It really goes through all the diffent things that are important to your question and gives the history and explanations in a quite understandable way that doesn't require a seminary degree.

I can't recommend it highly enough to answer your questions. And it's popular enough if you don't want to buy you should be able to find it at a library or through interlibrary loan.

Marv

 

[Ave Maria]

If I could make a suggestion. A book that really does a good job of explaining things is: "The Text of the New Testament It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" by Bruce M. Metzger adn Bart D Ehrman.

It really goes through all the diffent things that are important to your question and gives the history and explanations in a quite understandable way that doesn't require a seminary degree.

I can't recommend it highly enough to answer your questions. And it's popular enough if you don't want to buy you should be able to find it at a library or through interlibrary loan.

Marv

Hmmm, thanks for this information Marv. I will see if I can't get this book on interlibrary loan because I know that my library does not carry this book.

 

[wmssid]

Until you have exhaustedly translated a few books of the New Testament, you are not qualified to judge this matter.

I have completely translated Romans and First John.

I have translated 19 chapters of Revelation.

I have translated about 60 per cent of Matthew.

But, the Interlinear Bibles were either N or U, except the Trinitarian Bible Society which was Received Text.

The differences, after you remove First John 5.7, which was only in a handful of MSS, is minimal.

The lies are in the "translations." So Jesus declared, "My word will not pass away" (Mt 24.35). And that is true today.

wmssid

 

[larryjf]

Things to consider regarding the Byzantine family of text:

• if the traditional text was late & inferior, how could it have so completely displaced earlier & better texts in Church usage?
• when a text is exposed to gradual deterioration through faults in transmission it leads to divergency. History shows us that the byzantine text grew in convergence & uniformity.
• -after the first centuries of persecution a number of traditions appeared which went back to the good text and came close to each other because they all oriented themselves on the most faithful copy of the original. This explains the trend towards an identical text.
• the first few centuries of persecution put the NT text into confusion. Not until after the 3rd century did the Church get an opportunity to put the text back in order.
• the age of a manuscript is not important, the age of the text that it contains is.
• in the 9th century the majuscule text was transcribed into miniscule text, at which time the majuscule was taken out of circulation. Copyists destroyed their original after it had been renewed.
• -this implies that the oldest and best are in the new miniscule scripts. Several archetypes can be detected in this process.
• that our surviving majuscule text is not representative of the ancient NT text is shown more clearly in the papyri discoveries.
• -papyri shows that non-majuscule, byzantine readings do predate those majuscules (2-3rd centuries)
• -so the further we go back (papyri) the more distinctly byzantine readings are found.
• there is a historical blank spot over Antioch before the 4th century, without which we can’t properly make conclusions about the pre-4th century text.
• because mss from the first centuries are limited in region to Egypt and incidental, we can’t make generalizations about this early text.
• there is an assumption that we can compare early mss w/ later mss. We don’t have a representative # of mss from the first centuries, so it’s not a legitimate comparison.
• Also consider that the Muslims took over Alexandria, stopping the production of the Greek NT. The Western Church had Latin as its official language, producing no Greek NT. Constantinople was taken by the Muslims much later. The Byzantine Empire kept producing the Greek NT. When Constantinople was taken, the Greek texts came to the west around the time of the printing press, and that text started the Reformation.

There is no such thing as original text preservation, only ecclesiastical preservation. Otherwise we would have an original text.

• When did the church become unsatisfied w/ the text it received and began looking to reconstruct the non-existent originals?
• The canon is closed regarding books, why not regarding texts? Like the formal versus dynamic translation debate – words make up thoughts, so formal is better. So to with the Bible, the texts make up the books.
• Valid textual criticism wouldn't look at text history with the goal of reconstruction, but with the goal of understanding the text better.
• God preserves His word in all ages through His people, Isa. 59:21. MSS are merely a form of "evidence" of that preservation. The evidence still requires interpretation and evaluation. The true church is the "witness" of the Word of God and hence of preservation.

 

[artybloke]

if the traditional text was late & inferior, how could it have so completely displaced earlier & better texts in Church usage?

Texts are by their nature vulnerable. And, let's not forget church politics. They texts tended to be changed to make them sound more "orthodox."

History shows us that the byzantine text grew in convergence & uniformity.

Church politics again - it has to be remembered that the texts were not translated by professional scribes but by Christians with theological axes to grind (anti0docetic, anti-gnostic etc insertions and "corrections" abound.

 

[larryjf]

Texts are by their nature vulnerable. And, let's not forget church politics. They texts tended to be changed to make them sound more "orthodox."

We shouldn't consider the text of Scripture to be the same as texts in general as the texts of Scripture are providentially preserved by God.l
There's no actual proof of that. Once can just as easily say that they were changed by heretics to be less orthodox.

Church politics again - it has to be remembered that the texts were not translated by professional scribes but by Christians with theological axes to grind (anti0docetic, anti-gnostic etc insertions and "corrections" abound.

The Byzantine Text is not a "translation"...rather they are copies of the original language Greek.
Again, you presume that the orthodox changed the text, but it's just as likely that the heretics, which abounded in Alexandria, changed the text to fit their purpose.

The Scriptures have always been kept by the people of God. In the OT they were kept by the OT Church (Rom 3:2) and it carries forth with the NT Church as well. After all, it's the Church that is the pillar and buttress of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The modern Church entrusting the Word of God to committees instead of taking responsibility for it themselves is not a good testimony of the modern Church.

 

[artybloke]

We shouldn't consider the text of Scripture to be the same as texts in general as the texts of Scripture are providentially preserved by God

Then why don't we have the original texts? Surely God wasn't so careless as to lose them? God doesn't "miraculously preserve" texts. There are a lot of texts and fragments because a lot were made and copied - and they are all full of errors, mostly in terms of ommissions and spelling errors - but there are at least 100,000 textual variations among the texts. Not a very big miracle if they can't even be copied accurately...

In fact, I find this conservative hankering after a miracle ridiculous.

The Byzantine Text is not a "translation"...rather they are copies of the original language Greek.

I know that. What's that got to do with it?

Again, you presume that the orthodox changed the text, but it's just as likely that the heretics, which abounded in Alexandria, changed the text to fit their purpose.

This is how I think it might have gone:

They came across a passage that wasn't quite as clearly orthodox as they thought it ought to be.

"This passage is a bit ambiguous. It must have been changed by heretics. Therefore, let us change it back."

They were doing what they thought was the right thing.

But the Bible was written before the main heresies of the church were the battleground, and before there was an agreed orthodox position; so the original writers were at the very beginning of the process; they were neither orthodox nor heretic because that was never an issue for them.

Most "heretical" scriptures would not have been preserved by the orthodox. Considering that the Nag Hammadi scriptures were found hidden, and there are far less copies of them (some we still only know through proto-orthodox writers like Origen and Clement) then there are of the New Testament scriptures, it's far more likely that the orthodox would have altered the texts to suit themselves. Not with any malicious intent, or with any notion that they were lying, but simply through the usual human ability to see what they want to see, rather than what's there.

The modern Church entrusting the Word of God to committees instead of taking responsibility for it themselves is not a good testimony of the modern Church.

And what was the KJV produced by? Unless you're suggesting that everyone in the church go away and learn Greek and Hebrew, and maybe Akkadian and Latin and Aramaic, so we can all become expert textual critics, what else can we do?

The early church had to depend on a few people in the church who could read and write. They didn't even have professional scribes and copyists until the monastries starting adding scriptoria to their buildings, and most people in the ancient world couldn't read or write. What else were they supposed to do except rely on their equivalent of committees?

 

[larryjf]

Then why don't we have the original texts? Surely God wasn't so careless as to lose them? God doesn't "miraculously preserve" texts. There are a lot of texts and fragments because a lot were made and copied - and they are all full of errors, mostly in terms of ommissions and spelling errors - but there are at least 100,000 textual variations among the texts. Not a very big miracle if they can't even be copied accurately...

In fact, I find this conservative hankering after a miracle ridiculous.

That's why i said "providentially preserved" and not "miraculously preserved."

But you over-exaggerate the issue when you speak of variants. As you probably know the 100,000 variants are in things that don't truly effect the text.

Having the original text has nothing to do with anything.


I said: The Byzantine Text is not a "translation"...rather they are copies of the original language Greek.
You replied: I know that. What's that got to do with it?

It has to do with your post calling the Byzantine Text a "translation." I was simply correcting the terminology that you chose to use.

This is how I think it might have gone:

That's my point...it's all conjecture. We can't know whether it was the orthodox making the text more orthodox, or if what the unorthodox making the text more unorthodox. It's all presumption.

But the Bible was written before the main heresies of the church were the battleground, and before there was an agreed orthodox position; so the original writers were at the very beginning of the process; they were neither orthodox nor heretic because that was never an issue for them.

That's not true. The Scripture themselves point out and argue against certain heresies. For instance, 1 Jn 4 argues against the Gnostics who taught that Jesus couldn't have come in the flesh because the physical is evil.

Most "heretical" scriptures would not have been preserved by the orthodox. Considering that the Nag Hammadi scriptures were found hidden, and there are far less copies of them (some we still only know through proto-orthodox writers like Origen and Clement) then there are of the New Testament scriptures, it's far more likely that the orthodox would have altered the texts to suit themselves. Not with any malicious intent, or with any notion that they were lying, but simply through the usual human ability to see what they want to see, rather than what's there.

That would have to be shown, and there is no evidence to support the idea that the orthodox have changed the text.

And what was the KJV produced by? Unless you're suggesting that everyone in the church go away and learn Greek and Hebrew, and maybe Akkadian and Latin and Aramaic, so we can all become expert textual critics, what else can we do?

The KVJ NT text was produced using the Greek text that was used by the Church throughout its history. The presumption of those translators was that God has providentially preserved His text, while the presumption of modern text critics is that God's text must be recovered. It's a totally different paradigm. Modern critics don't look at the Church's text and seek to improve it, rather they look at it as something that the Church lost in the early years and must be recovered again.

The early church had to depend on a few people in the church who could read and write. They didn't even have professional scribes and copyists until the monastries starting adding scriptoria to their buildings, and most people in the ancient world couldn't read or write. What else were they supposed to do except rely on their equivalent of committees?

That depends on the time frame you are speaking of. If i remember correctly even common fishermen took part in writing the NT. Do you have evidence to support your claim that the early church was largly illiterate?

 

[artybloke]

The KVJ NT text was produced using the Greek text that was used by the Church throughout its history.

No it wasn't. It was translated from the only text that Erasmus could find in Western hands (plus a few supporting texts, and back translations of the Vulgate) which happened to be a late (12th Century) uncial that is now recognised to be full of errors. We have since found (mainly, actually, in old monasteries) many more reliable and less error prone copies.

If i remember correctly even common fishermen took part in writing the NT.

a) depends if you think that the traditional authorship is the correct one. I don't always.
b) they probably dictated their letters.#

It's a well-known fact that only about 5% of the ancient world, at most, were able to read and write. Maybe another 5% had some form of functional literacy (they could just about read a contract.) Especially when the church became largely Gentile, most of the people attracted to Christianity (often slaves and poorer people) would have been illiterate. That doesn't mean that they were stupid - the ancient world functioned pretty well without high literacy rates.

There would be a few educated people in most congregations (people with money, that is, to afford an education): these would be largely called upon to read the scriptures they had aloud to the congregation, and when their copies wore out, they would be responsible for copying them out in a new document. This was time-consuming, often tedious (there's marginal notes in my manuscripts that attest to this) and prone to mistakes. These were not professional scribes.

Yes, most of the mistakes are things that don't matter. But it is significant that the "mistakes" are largely mistakes of ommission: words or phrases missed out, words abbreviated with no consensus about what the abbreviation stands for, for instance. Sometimes you get someone repeating a word twice when it should only be once; and there's no agreement as to spelling. Mistakes in transcription, that is.

When you get a whole passage inserted into a text that isn't in earlier texts, that's when you start wondering if something has been deliberately altered. Especially, for instance, the 12 verses at the end of Mark, the story of the woman taken in adultery and the Johanine Comma. They are simply not to be found in earlier manuscripts.

I've a great fondness for the story of the woman taken in adultery; I like to think it did come from a genuine tradition; but it's highly unlikely to have been John who wrote it. The ending of Mark? Well, there are at least two alternatives to the one in the late manuscript. I suspect the ending was just lost. Rather careless of providence, methinks, if the preservation of scripture was what providence was about.

 

[larryjf]

No it wasn't. It was translated from the only text that Erasmus could find in Western hands (plus a few supporting texts, and back translations of the Vulgate) which happened to be a late (12th Century) uncial that is now recognised to be full of errors. We have since found (mainly, actually, in old monasteries) many more reliable and less error prone copies.

The KJV was not produced from the text of Erasmus, but mostly from the text of Beza.

It's a well-known fact that only about 5% of the ancient world, at most, were able to read and write. Maybe another 5% had some form of functional literacy (they could just about read a contract.)

If it's a well known fact that please quote a source. Simply stating something as a fact is not quite the same as referencing the source of a fact.

When you get a whole passage inserted into a text that isn't in earlier texts, that's when you start wondering if something has been deliberately altered. Especially, for instance, the 12 verses at the end of Mark, the story of the woman taken in adultery and the Johanine Comma. They are simply not to be found in earlier manuscripts.

What is more interesting is that the 12 verses at the end of Mark may not be in the Vaticanus, but there is a blank spot in the manuscript left for the verses.