Nestle/Aland, Byzantine Majority Text or Textus Receptus. Which one?

[ebia]

That's a point worth bringing up; when the term 'humanism' is employed to refer to the scholars of the 1400's and 1500's it refers to their shift away from God's involvement with man and the earth ...

No it doesn't.

 

[FerventDisciple]

This idea that all of the contemporary Bible versions "slavishly adopted the Greek text" is certainly one of those old wives tales. Undoubtedly the people who promote this piece of fantasy probably have little knowledge with the process of Bible translation.

A comparison of the textual and stylistic choices of twenty translations against 15,000 variant readings shows the following rank of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 27th edition:

Abbreviation Name Relative agreement
NASB New American Standard 1
ASV American Standard Version 2
NAU New American Standard (1995 update) 3
NAB New American Bible 4
ESV English Standard Version 5
HCS Holman Christian Standard 6
NRSV New Revised Standard Version 7
NET New English Translation 8
RSV Revised Standard Version 9
NIV New International Version 10
NJB New Jerusalem Bible 11
REB Revised English Bible 12
JNT Jewish New Testament 13
GNB Good News Bible 14
NLT New Living Translation 15
DRA Douay-Rheims (American edition) 16
TLB The Living Bible 17
MRD Murdock Peshitta translation 18
NKJV New King James Bible 19
KJV King James Version 20

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[James Is Back]

James White summarizes my opinion on the TR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGa_dRTNMo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWoMNlLviU4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNWe4oTyql8

 

[pshun2404]

IMO definitely the Majority Text. The Nestle and Westcott/Hort are eclectic hodge podges picked and chosen from heavily edited copies from the 4th century that cannot in most places even agree with one another. All the new versions based on these carry some corruption but praise be to God in most places the Spirit has not let them utterly bastardize the text and has kept most of the essential doctrines in place...too many of the passages they entirely delete are being quoted by the early fathers as scripture from centuries before these throw away's were originally being contrived.

Paul

 

[ByTheSpirit]

James White summarizes my opinion on the TR:

What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1 - YouTube
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 2 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNWe4oTyql8

Thanks for these vids! Good stuff...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everyone from these opposing viewpoints seems to have in their mind convincing arguments and all of these positions have pros and cons. I've switched between all 3 positions and now I can say I just don't know. Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best? Those Greek texts can't all be right in the places they differ and there has to be a best translation doesn't there? Unless we accept relativism and it's all true which is devoid of logic.

Use all of them and realize that together they represent the wrestling of the Church with Scripture and its transmission through 2,000 years of time. Respect the ancient works and don't overly sweat the secondary problems.

Peace

 

[Job8]

Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best?

The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].

If you want to know why you should reject the Nestle-Aland Text (which is basically that of Westcott & Hort) get a copy of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and you will know the truth about the texts. Scrivener (another outstanding textual scholar) fully supported Burgon's position, as did a handful of discerning conservative Christian scholars.

Burgon (a scholar and textual critic himself) personally examined and collated the ancient manuscripts and wrote several books to expose the fallacies of Westcott and Hort and their corrupt text.

However the whole Christian world has swallowed the lie, so all you will get is ridicule and oppostion for standing for the truth. Don't waste your time trying to convince people about the truth either. It just gets in their way.

There is a lot of propaganda against the TR and the KJV. Ask yourself why and who is behind it? Does Satan attack the true Bible through "Christian" scholars? All modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland texts. There are over 6,000 corruptions, with about 1,500 which are doctrinally significant.

 

[James Is Back]

Thanks for these vids! Good stuff...

You're welcome. Glory to God for that and I hoped you enjoyed them because I sure learned some stuff from those vids

 

[ebia]

The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].

If you want to know why you should reject the Nestle-Aland Text (which is basically that of Westcott & Hort) get a copy of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and you will know the truth about the texts. Scrivener (another outstanding textual scholar) fully supported Burgon's position, as did a handful of discerning conservative Christian scholars.

Burgon (a scholar and textual critic himself) personally examined and collated the ancient manuscripts and wrote several books to expose the fallacies of Westcott and Hort and their corrupt text.

However the whole Christian world has swallowed the lie, so all you will get is ridicule and oppostion for standing for the truth. Don't waste your time trying to convince people about the truth either. It just gets in their way.

There is a lot of propaganda against the TR and the KJV. Ask yourself why and who is behind it? Does Satan attack the true Bible through "Christian" scholars? All modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland texts. There are over 6,000 corruptions, with about 1,500 which are doctrinally significant.

Circular arguments and empty rhetoric.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].

If you want to know why you should reject the Nestle-Aland Text (which is basically that of Westcott & Hort) get a copy of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and you will know the truth about the texts. Scrivener (another outstanding textual scholar) fully supported Burgon's position, as did a handful of discerning conservative Christian scholars.

Burgon (a scholar and textual critic himself) personally examined and collated the ancient manuscripts and wrote several books to expose the fallacies of Westcott and Hort and their corrupt text.

However the whole Christian world has swallowed the lie, so all you will get is ridicule and oppostion for standing for the truth. Don't waste your time trying to convince people about the truth either. It just gets in their way.

There is a lot of propaganda against the TR and the KJV. Ask yourself why and who is behind it? Does Satan attack the true Bible through "Christian" scholars? All modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland texts. There are over 6,000 corruptions, with about 1,500 which are doctrinally significant.

With such precise numbers I wonder if you studied those significant errors yourself or just believed someone else when they told you that there were that many.

 

[Biblicist]

The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].

Wait a minute, so your saying that new 'Majority' text is the true text but how can this be the case when it differs so much from the old TR? Then you say that the KJV (1611) is based on the TR that is merely primarily the Stephens version of 1550.

Now either the TR is the TR or are you saying that the 'Majority' text is the real TR because it fixes many of the mistakes in the TR - which is it. From what I understand, apparently the TR differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of the 'Majority' text of Hodges and Farstad; this obviously means that the 'Majority' text compilers consider the old TR to be a very poorly written text.

As for the KJV being 'primarily' based on Stephens 1550 text, do you mean to say that the KJV rejected the Gold Plated TR? Does this make the KJV one of those horrid new age versions!

 

[pshun2404]

Westcott and Hort…both men were members of spiritist societies the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild was partly founded by Fenton Hort. He did not accept fallen spirits as real (which Jesus said were) but himself sought to talk to the spirits of the dead. Here are some quotes from his works…

Hort….

There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

"Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I held the doctrine…We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Genealogy, pg 92

"The fact is, I do not see how Gods justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christs bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

So with this man being teamed up with Westcott, the two men taking Sinaiticus and Vaticanus pick some passages from one and then some from the other, and embellish the wording here or there actually choosing in some cases the more obscure never applied meaning to words. The two manuscripts themselves not resembling most examples in any way differ vastly from one another as well. There are variances and alternate deletions between the two on almost every leaf (all critical scholars admit this). So then IF these are allegedly “the best” (for certainly they are NOT the oldest though that is the boast of scholars of the German critical school) then WHICH ONE IS CORRECT since they both so vehemently disagree? Which section of which is actually the correct rendering? And we are being persuaded to rely on this crowd?

The appeal of the Majority Text is not the sheer numbers but that after reflection of the scholars and Bishops of the 4th and 5th centuries it is the one they universally approved (especially important is the gospels). Even Alexandrinus (only slightly younger) presents the gospels as agreeing with what we now call the Byzantine textual renderings and plus most of the quotes from the earliest church (centuries before these disputable variances) also support those we find in what we now call the Majority Text. Even some of the passages the Westcott/Hort crowd claim were not in the originals are quoted by them and these earliest fathers got their copies through the men the Apostles taught and appointed. Ignatius (a student of John who sat at the feet of Peter for two years), Polycarp (a student of John) both reflect the conclusions of the divinity of Christ one gets from the Antiochene renderings where the Alexandrian renderings support an Arian view (shared by Holt).

Justin (trained and taught by late 1st century Palestinian Bishops), Irenaeus (student of Polycarp), and Clement of Rome (student of Paul and Peter) all share what became the Byzantine rendering of the gospels. All of these apostolic teachers were only a generation or two from the Apostles themselves. If one just were to read Against Heresies and take down the quotes from Ireneaus (which I have done and there are over 12 pages just from the New Testament writings) one can see the fallacy of either heavily edited 4th century throw-aways (Sin or Vat) as being “the best”! Why should modern students of mainstream churches be fooled any longer simply because someone with an anti-Christ as the only way, anti-Inspiration of Scripture bias, has letters after their name (modern day sheepskins)?

For example…. SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."(omitted in Sinaiticus original and P75, but found in Vaticanus and P66); 16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing)."

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 - "Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in Vaticanus, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaiticus and the majority of all Greek texts and is quoted by earlier fathers as part of the text. Also Vaticanus omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaiticus, and yet this time it is kept in the NASB, ESV and NIV. Go figure! Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and in the majority of all other manuscripts…it says "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."

So WHICH ONE is correct? Pick and choose what suits your beliefs? Picking a scripture here, and another there, from one variant and then the other, is not sound scholarship at all (especially for Ma’s and Ph.D’s). It is prejudicing the text to support one’s own opinion. It is NOT a striving to derive the truth. The many orthodox and also most all conservative scholars (also with MA’s and Ph.D’s) disagree, and so do I.

Pick and choose what suits your beliefs? The idea is to get you to not believe God or that His word is reliable so that you will question the motives of such a God and become lord of your own life (Genesis 3:5) doing what is right in your own eyes (deciding good and evil for one's self).

As a person who for years worked in biological science (trained in lab technique), such a hodge podge eclectic approach (selective coverage and selective exclusion) regarding the treatment of any kind of evidence is absolutely appalling to my sense of intellectual integrity.

Believe what you will and may the Spirit lead us and guide us into all truth.

In His love
Paul

 

[FerventDisciple]

Use all of them and realize that together they represent the wrestling of the Church with Scripture and its transmission through 2,000 years of time. Respect the ancient works and don't overly sweat the secondary problems.

Peace

This seems the most sensible approach to this issue.

 

[ebia]

Westcott and Hort…both men were members of spiritist societies the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild was partly founded by Fenton Hort. He did not accept fallen spirits as real (which Jesus said were) but himself sought to talk to the spirits of the dead. Here are some quotes from his works…

Hort….

The fact that one of the quotes isn't even a full sentence should ring alarm bells.
Ad-hominem attacks are pretty dubious, but when your position is supported by such attacks based on falsehood, innuendo, and manipulated quote mining designed to make someone's views appear very different from their actual views it's doesn't speak well of your position.

You really should consider whether spreading malicious gossip and falsehood about some, even someone who has been dead a long time, is really something you want to be involved in.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The thing with the scriptures is they were always meant to point people to Christ. They testify of Him and witness to Him. Would it make a huge difference if we had an iron clad, no doubt copy of the original manuscripts over what we do now? It may a little, but at the end of the day they would still only be stepping stones to Christ. So whichever you decide to use, TR or N/A or MT, either and all can lead you to Christ and a relationship with God the Father through the Spirit.

 

[pshun2404]

The fact that one of the quotes isn't even a full sentence should ring alarm bells.
Ad-hominem attacks are pretty dubious, but when your position is supported by such attacks based on falsehood, innuendo, and manipulated quote mining designed to make someone's views appear very different from their actual views it's doesn't speak well of your position.

You really should consider whether spreading malicious gossip and falsehood about some, even someone who has been dead a long time, is really something you want to be involved in.

Fine...take away the quotes and just consider the reasoning...even later Nestle and Alland merely took the Tischendorf, the Westcott/Hort, and the Weymouth and derived about 40 or more percent from where these three agreed, they assumed the deletions therein were justified and legitimate and so included those...but as I pointed out the W/H was a matter of personal pick and choose and many of these alleged "not in the earliest" deletions were actually quoted by earlier writers...I gave you at least a dozen examples as well of where the Sin and Vat differ from one another...which one is correct? This we should rely on? Why wasn't one of them chosen as universally accepted?

 

[pshun2404]

The thing with the scriptures is they were always meant to point people to Christ. They testify of Him and witness to Him. Would it make a huge difference if we had an iron clad, no doubt copy of the original manuscripts over what we do now? It may a little, but at the end of the day they would still only be stepping stones to Christ. So whichever you decide to use, TR or N/A or MT, either and all can lead you to Christ and a relationship with God the Father through the Spirit.

I will give an Amen to that...this subject has been hacked to death for over 100 years...only now it can truly be said (like the claim of Islam) "the Bible? Which one?"

 

[ebia]

Fine...take away the quotes and just consider the reasoning...even later Nestle and Alland merely took the Tischendorf, the Westcott/Hort, and the Weymouth and derived about 40 or more percent from where these three agreed, they assumed the deletions therein were justified and legitimate and so included those...but as I pointed out the W/H was a matter of personal pick and choose and many of these alleged "not in the earliest" deletions were actually quoted by earlier writers...I gave you at least a dozen examples as well of where the Sin and Vat differ from one another...which one is correct? This we should rely on? Why wasn't one of them chosen as universally accepted?

Given that the quotes are, essentially, bogus why would you trust the assertions in that argument?

 

[ebia]

I will give an Amen to that...this subject has been hacked to death for over 100 years...only now it can truly be said (like the claim of Islam) "the Bible? Which one?"

If your faith depends on one translation then it's a pretty rocky faith.

It's interesting that you mention islam, because KJonlyism and similar are, essentially, an attempt to turn the bible into something more like the Quran.

 

[pshun2404]

If your faith depends on one translation then it's a pretty rocky faith.

It's interesting that you mention islam, because KJonlyism and similar are, essentially, an attempt to turn the bible into something more like the Quran.

Thank God my faith does not rest on a translation of anything! Also I am not a KJV onlyist. And third the quotes are not bogus but are irrelevant and the reasoning I provided is my own and stands as it is....anyone who claims that the passages quoted as scripture by the earliest church fathers did not exist in the originals just because two heavily edited disagreeing texts from 100s of years later deletes them is not being rational nor is their argument logical.

So your false accusations and assumptions about me are unwarranted, but I forgive you because I know you cannot really argue with that logic. For example, if one quotes Mark 16:9 and later another infers it, and most earlier versions include it, and then two or three centuries later (centuries mind you) it is not found in these two, that does not mean IT WAS ADDED in (as the German school of critics claim), it means IT WAS deleted, avoided, or not completed (like in Vaticanus)...

When Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to minister there, history tells us that his copy of Peter's memoirs (his gospel version) was not completed. This gives us the possibility for two traditions (which were then copied)...one shorter not completed version, and one longer completed version (like we find later in Alexandrinus).

In His love

Paul