Question regarding textual criticism

[wfdfiremedic]

Ok, there are many on here who are much more educated in this than me. My question is this: Are the scriptures that comprise the Alexandian text from an earlier time period than the texts that support the TR/MT?

Another question: How can one argue that texts that have been declared later in date of writting are supperior to those that were found to be written earlier. For instance, the TR has many passages that are not found in the CT. From my little understanding, the texts that comprise the CT are declared to be earlier in writting. Therefore, how can one say that scribes did not add additions to the texts in the TR/MT?

Not trying to start a war. IMHO, there are no doctrinal significances, so I don't truly care. The bottom line is that I want to understand this argument.

|In Christ,
Chris

 

[wfdfiremedic]

For instance, I have asked this to my Pastor who is TR preferred. His reply was that the Church was essentially established in the regions of Antioch, where I understand the scripts for the TR/MT originate. Therefore, what would one trust more? However, I still find an argument waging in my mind as to; if there are earlier known scriptures, who is to say that scribes did not augment texts to reflect their own ideas?

Moreover, I have read that Alexandrian texts were influenced by gnostic beliefs. Is there truth to this?

-Chris

 

[Winman]

There are certainly those who know much more about this subject than I. I read many very good books on this subject, but it was nearly 30 years ago and quite frankly I have almost forgotten everything I read.

The TR texts are newer than the CT. However, those who argue the TR say this is because the TR texts were constantly being used and wore out. New copies were written and the old worn out texts destroyed, usually out of respect like we burn an old flag. Therefore the texts the KJB translators used were not as old as the CT texts.

However, there is much evidence supporting these newer texts from writings of church fathers well before the CT texts.

The CT texts have a problem in that they were generally found at one point of time. There is almost no evidence of supporting texts earlier, and they were not used afterward as well.

The TR on the other hand can be traced as far back as the 2nd century through the writings of church fathers.

“THE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ERASMUS USED DIFFER, FOR THE MOST PART, ONLY IN SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS, FROM THE GREAT BULK OF THE CURSIVE MSS. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. THE FIRST ANCESTOR OF THE RECEIVED TEXT WAS AT LEAST CONTEMPORARY WITH THE OLDEST OF OUR EXTANT MSS, IF NOT OLDER THAN ANY ONE OF THEM” (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

So, in actuality, there is much evidence for the Received Text well before the Critical Text.

Be that as it will, it is not difficult to dispel the myth that the Received Greek Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles is merely “based on seven late manuscripts.” It is true that Erasmus had in his actual possession only a few Greek manuscripts when he composed the first edition of his Greek New Testament, but he had examined a large number of other manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, and he had compared these with many ancient Bible translations and with a large number of quotations from ancient church leaders. He also was aware of the alternative readings contained in manuscripts such as the Vaticanus and Codex D. Thus he was in a position to know that those few manuscripts he had at hand represented the witness of vast numbers of other manuscripts. The fact is that the Received Text underlying the esteemed and mightily used Reformation Bibles is represented in the majority of existing Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible translations. This is why the Received Text has commonly been called the “majority text” (though that term has been usurped in recent years by the Hodges-Farstad-Thomas Nelson Greek New Testament of 1982). Textual authorities admit that of the more than 5,200 existing Greek manuscripts, 99% contain the common traditional ecclesiastical or Received Text. Thus, on the very face of the evidence, it is nonsense to say that the Received Text is “is only based on seven late manuscripts.”

 

[Winman]

Here is another article that shows there are many ancient texts and writings by church fathers well before the CT that support the RT.

Textual critics like D. A. Carson assert that, "there is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century." However, the just is not true. Edward Miller was an accomplished textual historian living at the end of the nineteenth century. His exhaustive research showed that portions of Scripture distinctive to the Received Text were quoted extensively by notable church leaders as early as the second century and onward. (The Cause of The Corruption of The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels; John Burgon and Edward Miller; P.64). Here are just a few specific examples of the leaders of the early church who support the readings or the Traditional or Received Text. I am indebted to Thomas M. Strouse, Ph.D. for the primary source material below.

The KJV -- Mark 1:1-2 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

In Sinaiticus and Vaticanus it ways "In the Prophet Isaiah." The RV, ASV, RSV, NIV and 95% of all of the New Bibles read this way. But there is a problem. While Mark 1:3 is a quotation of Isaiah 40:3, verse 2 is a reference to Malachi 3:1. Therefore the KJV is right.

But what about the early church; is there any evidence that indicates whether the (erroneous) reading of the modern versions or the reading of the King James (which is based on the received text) is correct? The answer is yes. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) said this - "Mark does thus commence his Gospel narrative The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus, Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets. . . . Plainly does, the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him.., whom they confessed as God and Lord. " (Against Heresies III: 10:5, :11:4, :16:3)

Lets move on to another example. In my booklet called "The Great (?) Uncials" I told you that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit Mark 16:9-20. Is there any support in the Early Church for this so called "longer ending" of Mark 16? Again we look to a sermon of Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.). The longer reading must have been in the New Testament he was using because he references Mark 16:19, So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. KJV. This is what Irenaeus writes - "Also towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them., He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies 111:10:6)

Consider Luke 22:44, "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." There is the claim by those who hold the Critical Text Position that verses 43-44 did not exist before the Byzantine Era (the 4th or 5th centuries). It that true? The answer has to be NO! Why? Because Justin (100-165 A.D.), says, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His Apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass" (Trypho 103:24)

Next, I turn your attention to John 1:18 in the KJV. The verse says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." However, the NASB (New American Standard Bible) says "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

The "older manuscripts" give us the reading of the NASB. This is a Gnostic perversion. They taught there were various levels of spiritual beings or lesser Gods between God and man. J. P. Green clearly identifies the problem. He says, Vaticanus "in John 1:18 refers to Christ as the only begotten God. How can anyone claim that one that is begotten is at the same time essential God, equal in every aspect to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit? This makes Christ to be a created Being. And it is a Gnostic twist given to the Bible by the heretic Valentinus and his followers, who did not regard the Word and Christ as one and the same; who thought of the Son of God and the Father as being one and the same Person. Therefore, they determined to do away with the only begotten Son in order to accommodate their religion. (Unholy Hands on the Bible edited by Jay. P. Green, Sr.; Sovereign Grace Publishers; p.12).

Since several of the oldest manuscripts like Vaticanus read "only begotten God" and since these are before the Byzantine era, that must be the correct reading, right? My answer again is no! Twice Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), in referring to the passage says "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father." (Against Heresies 111:11:6, (IV:20:6).

John 3:13 is the next passage to be considered. The KJV reads "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." I checked the NASB, NIV and the CEV leave this underlined phrase off. Others may as well. I did not check the other translations. But is there an early witness for the phrase the Son of man which is in heaven? Yes! Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) in his sermon Against the Heresy of One Noetus says, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I: 1:4)

John 5:3-4 in the KJV reads "In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." These verses are omitted in the NIV, again on the basis that they are only in the "less important manuscripts." By that they mean again the "older" ones. However, Tertullian (160-221 A.D.) in one sermon On Baptism makes it clear that the passage was in the early manuscript that he was using for he says, "If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in
waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain." (On Baptism I: 1:5)

There is much more to this article that can be found here.

http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/received.htm

 

[jbh28]

Thus, on the very face of the evidence, it is nonsense to say that the Received Text is “is only based on seven late manuscripts.”

Based on and agreement are two different terms. This writer is confusing them. There are today over 5200(actually closer to over 5600, but using his number) but not during the time of the KJV. He is right that the TR usually is the majority reading, but not always. There are differences between the TR and the Majority Text.

So on the very face of the evidence, it makes perfect sense to say that the Received Text is only based on seven late manuscripts. It would be nonsense to say that it is in agreement with only seven late manuscripts.

 

[Winman]

Thus, on the very face of the evidence, it is nonsense to say that the Received Text is “is only based on seven late manuscripts.”

Based on and agreement are two different terms. This writer is confusing them. There are today over 5200(actually closer to over 5600, but using his number) but not during the time of the KJV. He is right that the TR usually is the majority reading, but not always. There are differences between the TR and the Majority Text.

So on the very face of the evidence, it makes perfect sense to say that the Received Text is only based on seven late manuscripts. It would be nonsense to say that it is in agreement with only seven late manuscripts.

The original question asked if the CT should be preferred over the TR because of age, but there is much evidence that supports the TR text that dates well before any CT texts.

"A prevailing chorus of the critical text position is that there is no historical record of the Byzantine Text (i.e., Received Text) to be found prior to the last half of the fourth centuly." (Touch Not The Unclean Thing by David H. Sorenson; p.76) However, nothing could be further from the truth. There is enormous support for the Traditional Text found in Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Old Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Syriac translations, many of them predating the earliest Greek manuscripts we possess. But despite this fact, textual critics in the nineteenth century, following the texts of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, have altered many passages of the New Testament. Further, I find it very encouraging that more recently discovered papyrus fragments have confirmed the Majority Text. "Nineteenth-century biblical scholars claimed that much of the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John was corrupted by scribes in the later Byzantine Era. This claim was shown to be utterly false by the discovery of Papyrus Bodmer II (also called P66). Dated about A.D. 200, (now by many at 125 A.D.) prior to the commencement of the Byzantine Era, this Papyrus verified many of the disputed passages attributed to late Byzantine copyists and demonstrated that these passages were present in very early manuscripts." (Modern Bible Translations Unmasked by Russell & Colin Standish; p.37-38).

 

[jonathan.borland]

Winman, you do know that Ellicott spearheaded the revision of the KJV, don't you? And I didn't know he wrote in ALL CAPS and bold as your quote suggests. Also, I don't know any "textual authorities" who say that 99 percent of all Greek manuscripts contain the "Received Text."

As to the OP: since the earliest survivable Greek manuscripts are all from Egypt, it is therefore not surprising that they all tend to lean Alexandrian. Consequently, if one wishes to reconstruct the third-century Bible of the Alexandrians from these manuscripts and the Alexandrian fathers and versions, he can do so fairly confidently. But most are not satisfied with this and wish to go back as far as possible, even attempting to reconstruct the original itself. Hence the need to consider the earliest manuscripts and other textual witnesses from all regions. When one does this, he finds that the Alexandrian manuscripts show marks of revision: for example, they confuse King Asa with the popular psalmist Asaph (Matt 1:7-8), and King Amon with the popular prophet Amos (Matt 1:10), they introduce passages from one gospel into another (such as John 19:34 after Matt 27:49), they remove passages that were seen to support certain positions of the many cults that surrounded them (such as the ascetic passages in Matt 17:21; Mark 9:29; 1 Cor 7:5 -- such changes are called "orthodox corruptions," corruptions by the orthodox in their fight against the "heretics"), they smooth over the text to make it less offensive (such as Matt 17:20 where they lessen the charge against the disciples' lack of faith), etc. The main point to remember is that the "earliest manuscripts" generally derive from only one region (Egypt) and still were made 150-200 years after the originals, which factors, by themselves, are insufficient to demand our wholehearted and uncritical trust.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Winman]

As far as that all caps, I just copied and pasted, I did not alter that quote in any way whatsoever.

As you said though, there are many documents that are not Greek that predate all known Greek texts, and these support the Eastern or Antioch line of texts.

From the first chapter of Modern Versions Unmasked

The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written in the second half of the first century after Christ. Not one of the original writings is preserved. However, early Christians carefully preserved copies of these sacred writings, taking the greatest care to eliminate copyist errors. Syria became the center of such copying endeavors.

Nevertheless, within a century of the writing of the New Testament canon, serious alterations were made, especially by scribes in the city of Alexandria in Egypt. These men were motivated by a desire to support their Gnostic errors, which included the view that Christ was not a member of the Godhead. Once scribes tampered with Scripture they became increasingly careless in their copying techniques, introducing numerous mistakes. However, the scribes of Syria did not deviate from their meticulous copying methods.

From these two copyist perspectives, two quite different streams of Greek manuscripts emerged. The Eastern stream, which became centered on Syria and Constantinople, remained true to the original writings of the apostles, while the Western stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome, was markedly flawed by both deliberate and careless alterations.

Early in the fourth century, Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to prepare fifty copies of the New Testament. Eusebius chose to copy the flawed Western manuscripts. His decision was influenced by his admiration of Origen, who himself was a corrupter of Holy Writ.

It is thought that two of Eusebius’ copies survive in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. These copies contain many errors, and during the sixth and the seventh centuries at least ten different scribes attempted to make corrections to bring them somewhat closer to the valid Eastern manuscripts. Despite this effort, deliberate and careless errors remained in great numbers.

Knowledge of the errors did not prevent Jerome from using these faulty manuscripts as a basis for his Latin version of the Bible. His translation became the official Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church and is known as the Latin Vulgate. Disregarding all evidence to the contrary, the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century proclaimed the Latin Vulgate to be free from error.

But despite the great influence of the Papacy, true Christians were not deceived. Believers such as the Waldenses and the Gallic church of France and the Celtic church of Britain refused such perversion of God’s Word and used only those translations arising from the Eastern stream. This practice was also true of God’s churches in Ethiopia, Persia, India, and China.

Here is the entire article

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtutoc.htm

 

[jbh28]

The original question asked if the CT should be preferred over the TR because of age, but there is much evidence that supports the TR text that dates well before any CT texts.

I see...
If you are saying that there are some Byzantine readings that are older than the Alexandrian reading, then sure. But as a whole, the Alexandrian texts are older than the Byzantine texts.

 

[jonathan.borland]

“THE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ERASMUS USED DIFFER, FOR THE MOST PART, ONLY IN SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS, FROM THE GREAT BULK OF THE CURSIVE MSS. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. THE FIRST ANCESTOR OF THE RECEIVED TEXT WAS AT LEAST CONTEMPORARY WITH THE OLDEST OF OUR EXTANT MSS, IF NOT OLDER THAN ANY ONE OF THEM” (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

Allow me to quote the first part of your quotation from the original source:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts,--that is to say the manuscripts which are written in running hand and not in capital or (as they are technically called) uncial letters. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus to a great body of manuscripts of which the earliest are assigned to the ninth century." Check out especially the last clause of this quotation!

Also, where the quote picks up again, the author you quote from quotes Ellicott very improperly. I will quote him from the original here:

"This remarkable statement [of Dr. Hort that was just quoted] completes the pedigree of the Received Text. That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was, as Dr. Hort is careful to remind us, at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them."

So your author fails to state that this was actually Dr. Hort's own claim. He/she doesn't even add ellipses where he/she omits text from the supposed quotation! No bolding, no all-caps, as your quotation indicated! Terribly disingenuous! Did you even know that the argument you were using was actually conceded and supplied by the "evil and malicious" Dr. Hort himself? One has to laugh.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Winman]

Fine, so Hort agreed that there were texts supporting the RT back to remote antiquity. Doesn't that answer the original question?

Look, I don't write all these articles. Years ago I had many good books on this subject but no more. Today I use the internet to find articles to support arguments. It is true, these articles are not always completely accurate, but that can be said for both sides of this argument.

All I am trying to do is show the original poster that there is a great many writings going back as far as the 2nd century that support the TR.

You don't deny that do you?

 

[Askjo]

One of some WH men admitted that the TR is the key over the CT gone back to early 2nd Century. Another scholar admitted that many readings of the TR agreed with the KJV gone back to early 2nd Century. I realize there is a great vagueness between the CT and the TR because most liberal scholars and most textual critics favors the CT over the TR [hateful speech snipped - warning to Ask that if you want to stick around, watch your mouth]

 

[jonathan.borland]

One of some WH men admitted that the TR is the key over the CT gone back to early 2nd Century. Another scholar admitted that many readings of the TR agreed with the KJV gone back to early 2nd Century. I realize there is a great vagueness between the CT and the TR because most liberal scholars and most textual critics favors the CT over the TR dues to their dishonesty.

And Bob Jones University, which uses the CT, is a bastion of liberal education, to be sure! Actually, almost every conservative educational institution that teaches Greek uses the UBS' Greek New Testament.

 

[jonathan.borland]

It is true, these articles are not always completely accurate, but that can be said for both sides of this argument.

You quote academically dishonest sources that inaccurately portray the facts. Your sources cannot be trusted, and if your opinion is based them, it is highly likely that your opinion is flawed as well.

 

[Winman]

You quote academically dishonest sources that inaccurately portray the facts. Your sources cannot be trusted, and if your opinion is based them, it is highly likely that your opinion is flawed as well.

Both sides do that. Don't they?

For instance one of those articles said the supporters of the CT leave the impression that there are not supporting texts for the RT that date well before the CT when they know there are. Isn't that true?

And that is all I was trying to show, there is much evidence for the RT that dates well before the CT.

 

[robycop3]

I believe that GOD preserves/presents His own word as HE jolly well chooses. We may sit & theorize that "THIS text is better than THAT text" or "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller", but it's GOD'S word, and HE superintends it. And part of that superintending is presenting it in the languages HE has given mankind to use, languages HE causes/allows to change as time passes.

WE are blessed in English by having some 700 years of Bible versions made by some great men of God such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and others. We have their work, plus that of contemporary translators as well.

OTOH, Satan, the greatest deceiver & trickster of all, plays both sides of the fence. He invents such false doctrines as KJVO, the current edition of which comes from a cult official's book, while at the same time, warring against the KJV and other older English versions. He has so far been successful in almost-completely suppressing the Genevs Bible and other older versions, while causing rebellion against both the KJV and modern versions.

I hope to see more people accepting both the older and newer English versions, as GOD intended when He caused each to be made, and to see that KJVO, as well as rejection of the KJV, is a tool of Satan's.

 

[Trotter]

I believe that GOD preserves/presents His own word as HE jolly well chooses. We may sit & theorize that "THIS text is better than THAT text" or "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller", but it's GOD'S word, and HE superintends it. And part of that superintending is presenting it in the languages HE has given mankind to use, languages HE causes/allows to change as time passes.

WE are blessed in English by having some 700 years of Bible versions made by some great men of God such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and others. We have their work, plus that of contemporary translators as well.

OTOH, Satan, the greatest deceiver & trickster of all, plays both sides of the fence. He invents such false doctrines as KJVO, the current edition of which comes from a cult official's book, while at the same time, warring against the KJV and other older English versions. He has so far been successful in almost-completely suppressing the Genevs Bible and other older versions, while causing rebellion against both the KJV and modern versions.

I hope to see more people accepting both the older and newer English versions, as GOD intended when He caused each to be made, and to see that KJVO, as well as rejection of the KJV, is a tool of Satan's.

Amen, brother.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Calling someone a "liar" is not tolerated on the BB. Just saying.

 

[Winman]

I see...
If you are saying that there are some Byzantine readings that are older than the Alexandrian reading, then sure. But as a whole, the Alexandrian texts are older than the Byzantine texts.

Age is only one factor. It counts for something, but not nearly so much as some try to promote.

If you find a biblical text that is old, that is all you really know. It is old. That does not mean it is accurate, there were people perverting the scriptures or writing false scriptures from the beginning.

The problem is the Critical Text is missing many verses and passages that appeared in early writings of the church fathers and also appear in the Received Text later.

Problems in the Critical Text

There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican.

Though the Critical Text is older than the Received Text, the Received Text is supported by many early writings such as the early church fathers and the scriptures written in other languages.

So, being older does not necessarily mean accurate. If you find an old corrupt text, that is just what it is, an old, but corrupt text.

 

[TCassidy]

So on the very face of the evidence, it makes perfect sense to say that the Received Text is only based on seven late manuscripts. It would be nonsense to say that it is in agreement with only seven late manuscripts.

That would only be true if by TR you meant ONLY the 1516 edition of Erasmus. The actual manuscripts in his possession dated from the 11th through the 15th century. But, when compared to the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts the variants are minor.

However, his later editions, and those of Beza, the Elzivirs, Stephens, etc., had more manuscripts as their basis.

The fact is, that of the 5500 odd Greek manuscripts currently extant over 95% of them concur with the textform represented by the Traditional Text.