Majority, Minority, Byzantine, Alexandrian

artybloke · Sep 3, 2008

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

Which is the text that Erasmus used! And it wasn't the only one available, just the only one in the West at the time. If they'd hunted out a few monasteries in the Orthodox church, they'd have found plenty more.

larryjf · Sep 3, 2008

artybloke said:
Which is the text that Erasmus used!

Now that would be a neat trick seeing that the text of Erasmus was before the text of Beza.

artybloke said:
And it wasn't the only one available, just the only one in the West at the time. If they'd hunted out a few monasteries in the Orthodox church, they'd have found plenty more.

They did have manuscripts from the Orthodox church, that's why it's so different from the Western churches manuscripts. The Muslims were coming against Constantinople at the time and they took some of their best manuscripts to the West. It was these texts that the Received texts were, in part, based on.

Obviously more manuscripts have been discovered since then. But just because more are discovered that doesn't mean that the ones the Church had possession of are flawed in some way.

It really boils down to where one's presupposition lies:
The text is preserved
The text must be found

HuntingMan · Sep 6, 2008

humbledbyhim said:
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.

Briefly, my own view is, based on the months spent on the issue, that I do not believe that God hid His word in caves, etc out of site from the church.
I use bibles based on Minority and Majority texts, but where any doubt comes into play, I always fall back on versions based on the Majority texts.

archierieus · Sep 13, 2008

Mathetes the kerux said:
Nope.

I don't know that I would agree with that. Consider the 'editors' of the Alexandrian text, men such as Origen. Certainly in modern NT versions and translations, there are variations, often reflecting doctrinal views. I believe it could well have happened back in those days as well. Did Origen's reportedly Arian views creep into his work product? We certainly can say that Westcott and Hort, who extensively relied on the Alexandrian text, are endorsed by the JWs, in fact the JW Interlinear uses the W-H text.

Dave

SummaScriptura · Oct 10, 2008

Mathetes the kerux said:
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.

Could you please elaborate on this?

What parts of the pericope of Isaiah in Acts 8 are elaboration or commentary and not a quote from the LXX?

Standing Up · Oct 10, 2008

larryjf said:
--snip--

It really boils down to where one's presupposition lies:
The text is preserved
The text must be found

Interesting distinction because many groups of course make the same argument--we are the restored, true church that found the originals, since truth wasn't preserved. OTOH, many groups claim they have preserved the truth and there's no need to depart from tradition. So, the bible gets the same "treatment" as the church.

larryjf · Oct 10, 2008

Standing Up said:
Interesting distinction because many groups of course make the same argument--we are the restored, true church that found the originals, since truth wasn't preserved. OTOH, many groups claim they have preserved the truth and there's no need to depart from tradition. So, the bible gets the same "treatment" as the church.

Let me elaborate just a bit...
Modern textual criticism tends to go with the "text must be found" position. This position neglects to look at the all-important history of the text as part of their main focus. Rather, they believe that the long history of the text is a history of corruption rather than preservation.

I don't have any problems with editing the text of the Bible, the problem comes when ...

We do it outside of the historical context of the preserved Scripture
We do it by prying the text out of the hands of the Church, which is the pillar and buttress of truth

Since modern textual critics do their work outside of any ecclesiastical authority, and rather work in the name of academia, the Scriptures have been changed from a Sacred Text to a Religious Text.

artybloke · Oct 11, 2008

Since modern textual critics do their work outside of any ecclesiastical authority, and rather work in the name of academia, the Scriptures have been changed from a Sacred Text to a Religious Text.

And thank God for that! At last it's out of the mucky hands of priests, and can be examined properly.

larryjf · Oct 11, 2008

artybloke said:
And thank God for that! At last it's out of the mucky hands of priests, and can be examined properly.

First, "priests" are normally used to describe the Catholics. If that's what your reference is to then you missed my point. I said the "Church." The Catholic religion is not part of the Church. To be part of the Church there must be a proper administration of sacraments, among other things, which the Catholics profane.

Second, scripturally speaking, it is the Church to whom the Scriptures are entrusted.

Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (Rom 3:2)

Just as the people of God in the OT were entrusted with OT Scriptures, so too the people of God today are still entrusted with the Scriptures as a whole.

wmssid · Oct 25, 2008

1) The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text; Zane C. Hodges/Arthur L. Farstad, 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville TN.

2) The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, 1994, Nelson.

3) The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, 1993, William D. Mounce, Zondervan Pub., Grand Rapids MI.

These men, and their supporting staffs, have labored hard to answer your question.

Zane Hodges has individual words classified by notes M, M, C, MC, etc.
Bold M is found in the most MSS.

NKJV has Majority Text with notes of differences in NU.

I am a lexicographer, and though the MSS read one way, all Bible translations ignore the MSS at their will.

So then, in search of truth, you must write your own Bible translation; or, buy my mini-Bible.

In Extreme Love (agape),

wmssid

Garyapostle · Dec 25, 2008

This is a pretty good discussion. As suggested, Metzger is a good resource person this discussion. FF Bruce is good as well, one of his great books books is THE BOOKS AND THE PARCHMENTS.

One of the rules of translation, is that the shortest text is the most original. Additions to a text indicate a later text. Also when early translations are investigated, many of the very early translations agree with the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine text.

I believe the KJV is based on the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus, and that the KJV NOW in use is not the originall 1611, but one edited around 1769 +/-.

There are more scholars now than in the 16th century, the Biblical languages have been thoroughly studied, and there have been numerous great manuscript finds since the 1600's.

In my opinion, the KJVO controversy, distracts from the message of the Bible, and the KJVO's have a tendency to deify one translation over another. In the original preface to the KJV, those scholars (who did the best they could with what they had), wanted future scholars to continue studying the Biblical languages and to make further revisions of the KJV.

The KJV has two things against it: a defective Biblical text with numerous additions, and archaic language. I recommend, for non Hebrew/Greek readers the ESV, NASB,NLT, and the NIV (which is not a bad translation!).

Peace in the Word,
Gary

larryjf · Dec 26, 2008

Garyapostle said:
One of the rules of translation, is that the shortest text is the most original.

Actually, that's a rule of textual criticism, not of translation.

Garyapostle said:
I believe the KJV is based on the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus

Actually, the KJV was translated mostly from Beza's Textus Receptus.

Garyapostle · Dec 28, 2008

Yes, the shortest text rule is one of textual criticism-I guess one has to have the best text prior to translation.
I'll check up on Beza vs Erasmus, however the Johannine Comma in 1 John did not make it to the TR till Erasmus, as I understand it, and was not till the 3rd edition. A fraudulent Greek manuscript was produced and Erasmus included it. Prior to that time there was no Greek manuscript with the Johannine Comma.

Thanks,
Gary

larryjf · Dec 28, 2008

Garyapostle said:
Yes, the shortest text rule is one of textual criticism-I guess one has to have the best text prior to translation.
I'll check up on Beza vs Erasmus, however the Johannine Comma in 1 John did not make it to the TR till Erasmus, as I understand it, and was not till the 3rd edition. A fraudulent Greek manuscript was produced and Erasmus included it. Prior to that time there was no Greek manuscript with the Johannine Comma.

Thanks,
Gary

Beza was after Erasmus, so the work that Erasmus did would have certainly been reflected in Beza's TR.

I don't believe the Comma belongs in the text, but to clear up a common misconception, it is found in about 8 Greek manuscripts (4 of which have it in the margin and not in the main texts).

Majority, Minority, Byzantine, Alexandrian

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Craftsman

Forever Newbie

On and on

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

wmssid

Guest

Comyndoc

Member

Comyndoc

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency