The major two lines of Manuscripts?

[JohnB445]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

 

[Shane R]

Do a little research on a scholar named von Soden. He proposed that there were three major families of manuscripts. I had tons of notes on this stuff somewhere but von Soden was the most interesting voice of differing insight to me.

 

[HTacianas]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

There never was a standard text in Hebrew for the old testament. There was a body of texts here and there that generally agreed with each other, but varied in some specifics. You often hear that the apostles used the Septuagint because their quotes more closely follow the wording of the Septuagint, however, their quotes don't match it either.

I personally believe that the Masoretic Text was compiled and edited by those who opposed Christianity, and that their prejudices may show in its writing. That's not an accusation of wrongdoing, it's simply an understandable reason for some of the editing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

What many major differences?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

Not if , as written, "God gives them over to believe <the lie, or , their own delusions > ",
..... and/or if their conscience is not just seered, but dead.

 

[redleghunter]

There never was a standard text in Hebrew for the old testament. There was a body of texts here and there that generally agreed with each other, but varied in some specifics. You often hear that the apostles used the Septuagint because their quotes more closely follow the wording of the Septuagint, however, their quotes don't match it either.

I personally believe that the Masoretic Text was compiled and edited by those who opposed Christianity, and that their prejudices may show in its writing. That's not an accusation of wrongdoing, it's simply an understandable reason for some of the editing.

For the NT doesn’t your Church go by the Patriarchal Byzantine text of 1904?

 

[redleghunter]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

Wow as @Shane R said there is more to the story. Within textual traditions there are manuscript series.

What it boils down to at least in the West is the various Byzantine texts which are the Majority text. English translations which take in the Majority text is the World English Bible (WEB) and a few others. The Majority text like the term means we have a lot more manuscripts but they are later dated to the Middle Ages. Our Orthodox brethren assure us this is the manuscript tradition which the church preserved from error.

Then the other is the Critical Text which leans heavily on much earlier manuscripts which we have a lot less in number. Why? Because these manuscripts came from an earlier period some of them from the 5th century and mostly from the Alexandrian tradition. The critical textualists use both traditions in translations but lean on the earlier manuscripts (Alexandrian) as they believe the closer we are to the autograph less errors are compounded.

Some Eastern church posters I’ve discussed this with on other sites tell me the Byzantine tradition is more reliable as the Alexandrian school was a hotbed for heresies.

Again there’s loads more and I now give the huge disclaimer I’m only scratching the surface of the discussion.

I’ll look up some old notes and share as time permits.

God Bless!

 

[HTacianas]

For the NT doesn’t your Church go by the Patriarchal Byzantine text of 1904?

You will find nearly any text used by Orthodox Christians, however, I do not know which text of the gospels are read liturgically in any Church I have attended. Honestly, it's never come up.

 

[Radagast]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

You seem a bit confused. The Textus Receptus and Critical Text are Greek New Testaments. The Masoretic is a Hebrew Old Testament.

from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine?

No.

The most common difference is that the texts of the Byzantine family seem to have some accidental duplications in the gospels, where a scribe accidentally copied in something he remembered from the other gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

If you are looking for deeper study on the history of NT manuscripts here are some resources:

For those interested:

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/

Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Menu

New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download

The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity

New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testament/timeline.html

Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel

Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels

NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

When Was the New Testament Completed?

Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf

Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus

Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events

Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jewish Talmud and Death of Jesus: The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ

Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)

The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9fragments.

 

[redleghunter]

The Antioch vs Alexandrian

The Received Text, with the Greek for NT and Hebrew for OT come from Antioch. Known as the Hebrew Masoretic/Textus Receptus

Then the Alexandrian text which comes from Egypt, more known as the Critical Text compiled into whatever edition Nestles Text.

I don't know if this information is accurate, from these two lines of Manuscripts are there any major differences that will change doctrine, or even major doctrine? Why are there so many? Revelation and Deuteronomy have a dire warning about tampering with the sacred word, if someone is going to be a scribe wouldn't there be heart-pounding fear not to mess it up?

Here’s a more scholarly site you can navigate to look at the various Greek and Latin NT manuscripts:

ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts

I’ve just started looking at it but it seems there are good links within the link I gave above.