Featured The real TR

These same people believed the world was flat still. This was because they didn't have all the information.

The Byzantine Text didn't become the "Majority" until the 8th century. When Jerome was looking for Greek manuscripts to guide his update of the Latin, he could only find a few that contained the long ending of Mark. Almost all that he could find were Alexandrian in type. According to Jerome, it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel—almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage.”*

The only reason the Byzantine became the Majority Greek, is because the west stopped making copies and switched to Latin. Therefore the East, who used the Greek, kept producing the Byzantine Greek and eventually over took it in number. Plus the Muslims burning tons of Christian materials didn't help the Alexandrian text numbers.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

That's hardly a parallel.

Would you care to source this quote? And Eusebius was a historian, not a Bible scholar.

Whether or not Jerome could find copies with the LE of Mark is moot. Jerome considered it to be Scripture, as is evidenced by the fact that he included it in the Vulgate and quoted Mark 16:14 as Scripture in "Against the Pelagians, Book II."

This is inaccurate. There were Latin translations from the very earliest times, and Greek was used in the Western empire all along.

The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.

 

Sorry, but this is historically inaccurate. First of all, there were few Alexandrian mss available in 1611. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not available. Secondly, there was no realization among scholars in 1611 that there were multiple text types. So there could be no realization that "the Alexandrian familly of mss were 'corrupt,'" as you say. There might have been the opinion of some that a particular ms was corrupt, though I don't know of any sources from that time period that prove this, do you?

I have a problem with saying that the critical Greek text is not the Word of God. Consider. I'll not take time to look up the figures right now, but if there is a 5% difference in the texts, then a critical Greek text is 95% the Word of God, is it not? Thus, it really bothers me when folk say that any Greek text or mss is not the Word of God. If the critical text is not the Word of God, then I did not have the Word of God for the 33 years I served God in Japan, since all we had in Japanese was a Bible from the critical texts.

I have read through the NIV, and compared much of it to the Greek. I think it has many errors of translation, and I do not use it, teach or preach from it, or recommend it. But I will not say it was from Satan or any such thing. It is the Word of God to the exact extent it correctly translates the originals, whatever that extent may be. So when the NIV says "God is love" in 1 John 4:8, exactly like the KJV, how is the NIV not the Word of God?

See you next time.

 

Michael W. Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,”*Themelios8:2 (1983): 17.

....No it is very much the point. It Greek witness was weak at the time. It was just being introduced through tradtion and had not taken hold yet.

Innocent III banned the use of all none Latin Bibles. Greek could be used, why produce it? Latin was the dominate translation of the West.

The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.[/QUOTE]



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

****sorry I messed up your quote....sorry if any misrepresentation took place*****


The Byzantine became the majority because that was what most copiests had for their exemplar.[/QUOTE]
Not Until the 8th century they didn't.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

1 Cor. 6:20. 'For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body [and in your spirit which are God's]'

John 7:39b. '.......For the [Holy] Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

The words in brackets have been excised by inattentive scribes in a tiny number of texts. That is the obvious explanation. They are present in around 95% of the extant mss. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that these words have been added. It's just what you have read somewhere from someone who is relying on secular methods of textual analysis, which are themselves without any real foundation.

 

Thank you.

Then why did Jerome, who was very familiar with the Greek mss of his time, consider the LE to be Scripture?

And to say it "had not taken hold yet" is untrue. It did not have to "take hold." It was already there from the 1st century originals. It was the Latin Bible which had to "take hold," and it did not do so until well after Jerome did his Vulgate, which was not until the 5th century.

Um, Innocent III lived 1161-1216, and was pope from 1198. So he is a 13th century dude, and by that time the Byzantine was already the Majority.

 

I disagree. There were Byzantine exemplars all along, and it is impossible to prove anything different.

 

Because it was in the Latin he was updating, was it not? Prehaps not from a comment you make lower. He wasn't looking for changes, just an update to make it more beautiful. I can remember Jerome's quote, but he wanted to improve the Latin usage. Not write a version with new Scripture.

Do you have there 1st century originals? If so you could help us by disturbing
If not, how do you know that when the ancient manuscripts do not have it?

Your right between the 4th and 5th century the RCC used the emperors Greek(Byzantine) didn't they. 604AD they switched to Latin(Roman Cannon). A century later the Byzantine becomes the Greek Majority text. That makes sense. The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing. Only the East maintained there Byzantine usage.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Nevertheless, Jerome clearly used the Greek and Hebrew. That is unarguable. And he did not believe in the authority of any translation over the originals. That is clear from his writings and from the fact that Jerome took the time and trouble to learn Hebrew. Again, Augustine attacked Jerome for diverging from the Septuagint, since Jerome held the Hebrew OT to be authoritative.

You missed my point, which was that the Greek NT did not have to become authoritative, since it was authoritative from the start. As a translator, I can assure you that any translator knows that his original text is to take priority--or you get fired!

Other than that, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this statement.

Do you have a source for these statements? I'm the church history teacher here and I don't remember reading about this 604 AD stuff.

And what does this mean: "The demand for Greek is the west still would have been dealing."????

 

I think Scripture is authoritative, whether it be C.T. or Majority.

It was an article from Catholicism.org. When I read it again.....the paragraph earlier it states it was the Latin Mass Cannon. The Catholic encyclopedia indicates the Latin Bible was widely used throughout the Roman church in the 800's. 700's It was atleast heavy in Spain.
"least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church" http://www.catholic.org/search/?q=Latin+bible

.....wow....huge typo. " dealing " should be "declining". As the Latin sxripture grew in the West, the demand for Greek dropped.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, for several hundred years, Jerome's was viewed as garbage.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Why we are talking about Jerome, Philip Comfort makes this statement about Jerome on the Byzantine (Lucian text)....going to use Dropbox.....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2to5kzeumn83n0x/Screenshot_2015-09-04-17-26-39.png?dl=0

The new Holman Bible dictionary make a similar claim about Lucian being the Father of the Byzantine Text.

Of course, I know many dispute the claims.


Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

I don't disagree with anything you said.

I do however find it interesting that so many sources today still cite it. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia hints at it(citing Dr. Hort, then gives a counter argument. Holman, Britannica and others will state it without counter argument. Hort had a theory, which was interesting....but it is just a theory.

I apologize to the OP....I should have started a new thread on this topic. I still may. JofJ probably knows more of Hort's claim and can shed more light on it.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

On the contrary Steve, the words in brackets were added by zealous scribes who wanted to embellish what they thought were weaknesses in the exemplar. That is the obvious explanation. That wanted to massage the message. They were not evil to do so --just unethical.

 

Taken from Stanley E. Porter's How We Got The New Testament:Text, Transmission,Translation

"The Syrian text, which reflects fourth-century revision by Lucian, is a mixed text that is the furthest from the originals. Westcott and Hort were able to show that the Syrian text often combined readings from earlier texts, and no church father from before AD 320 has a distinctly Syrian reading. This text was the one used in the Byzantine empire; it is found in the Gospels portion of Codex Alexandrinus (02 A), later majuscules, and most minuscules, and it is the textual basis of the Textus Receptus." (p.46)