Featured A better English Bible.

Well we know the Holy Spirit inspire the original autographs but since we do not have them it still comes down to us fallible humans. Thus we see the the problem in who is to decide what is the correct text. Which line of transmission do we see as correct.

 

But why would you want to use a bible that holds to a faulty base text If the Byzantine copyists (5th century to the 12th century) were prone to add to the Greek NT text, to elaborate, and to paraphrase.

It seems to me that the variant readings come form the additions that were made to the text.

The Alexandrian text-type “is generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is characteristic of the Byzantine type of text.”

And this is a reasonable question for which I have not seen you or 37818 give a solid answer. All the answers that can be give are just opinions nothing more. I do not mind having several bible versions with which to compare scripture.

Take Exo 21:32 for example which do you think is the correct version of the text?
If the ox gores......
or
If the ox shall push...

If you have never been on a farm around cattle you would not know that cows love to push up against you but is that a reason to stone them to death?
The choice of word was determined by the translator, their best opinion.
We see the same thing in which line of transmission to give weight to, it is a matter of opinion.

If the Byzantine text-type (5th-12th cent.) was reflective of the original, would it not have been what we found in the papyri manuscripts that date to (125-350 C.E.) that were discovered throughout the 1930s to the 1950s?

 

Because Byzantine copyist were not prone to add, or paraphrase. That's a myth. Byzantine readings are also found in the Papyrus manuscripts. Byzantine readings are far earlier than 5th century.

That is another myth. Words fell out of the Alexandrian Manuscripts through accident. There have been studies showing how the early Papyrus manuscripts accidently delete words. They lose words as they copied. It's proven. Here is an inexpensive book for scholar and layperson alike.
Scribal Skips
1300 words that fell out of the Bible
Wayne A. Mitchell.

Learned conclusions after long study. I learned from Critical Text people, but they have flaws that are unaccounted for. Later on we see the problems with Critical Text methods, which are not as sound as first appearing to students.

Sorry I haven't practiced Old Testament Criticism in a long time. I am unqualified. However a good source maybe "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. It lists the Hebrew, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and others. If it's just a translation issue again I am unqualified to answer the Hebrew. John of Japan could help I'll bet.

There are Byzantine readings in the Papyrus manuscripts. The Papyrus manuscripts do not always match the Critical Text either. An exception seems to be p75, which 78% Agrees with Codex Vaticanus. Of course both of those manuscripts sometimes agree with the Byzantine Text. I'll give you an example. The earliest reading in John 13:2 in the the Papyrus is p66. It agrees with both the KJV and Byzantine Text at John 13:2 against Codex Vaticanus, original hand of Codex Sinaiticus and the Nestle/Aland 28 (The Critical Text)

At the bottom of the page first and second line is witnesses for the Byzantine reading. p66 is listed first. Of course many other witnesses that are not Byzantine agree with the Byzantine here. This is usually the case. Not always, but usually.

 

Faith

 

So everything that you disagree with is just a myth. What you call Byzantine reading could just be that the Byzantine copyist did not alter the text from the original manuscripts.

You make a bold statement that "Byzantine copyist were not prone to add, or paraphrase." based on what? Other's argue the differences are actually additions to the original texts.

It seems you do not have definitive proof as we do not have the original texts, the autographs. Man can try to reconstruct the original text and I believe they have done a good job as far as it goes but for any to claim they have the best is nothing more than their opinion.

What one will call a variant the other will call the actual text. You and 37818 have championed the Byzantine text others the Alexandrian text.

People have come to faith in God through both lines of transmission so the fight in more like a tempest in a teapot than anything else. God has preserved His text so that man came come to know Him. Need we ask for more than that?

 

It proves nothing. What it shows is that the Byzantine copyist's we good at their job. It does not prove that the first copyist was accurate.

If I write something on the blackboard {old school} and I misspell one of the words and then have the class do an exact copy of the text then all the copies will have the same error. Having 25 copies does not prove that the misspelled word is now correct does it.

An error copied 10 times or a 1000 times is still and error.

 

I disagree with it through experience. By looking at variants after variants. In the older days not much was known about scribes making mistakes through eye skip. Today writers have brought example after example which explains the missing words. Tendencies.

True! Exactly!

I once believed it myself. I was taught that way. But after looking at examples after examples I see other tendencies. I changed my mind by viewing the evidence.

I know of no one that would say we don't have the originals. We certainly do. It's just we may not know which of two readings is original. But we have the readings.
Example. John 1:1-17 there are no real variants. 2 manuscripts, Codexes Sinaiticus and Bezae have a variant at verse 5, but no one would go with just those 2 manuscripts against all others. Virtually all copies agree. So certainly we have the originals up until verse 18. There is a serious variant at verse 18. But even then we have the multiple readings at verse 18. One of those variants are going to be correct, even if we don't know which one. If they are recorded on the same page or next, we have the originals 100%.

True. But remember, most of the text is the same. Most of the New Testament is the same. When the Alexandrian and Byzantine agree (96%) there is no doubt whatsoever. It is just the variants that are the question.

It need not be a fight but a discussion by students.

 

You think the Byzantine copyist were not prone to add, or paraphrase but you have no way of knowing for sure do you. It is just a scholars opinion. Why you think that older manuscripts are better is that you trust those scholars. I do not see a problem with trusting the manuscripts that are closest to the actual event. What you call corrections by the later manuscripts could just as well be errors in the later manuscripts.

Question for you, do any of the "variants" call into question the character of God, that salvation is through faith in God, that salvation is only through the grace of God etc?

You say we have the originals and then say but actually we do not as were not sure which is the actual original text.

To me this nit picking is just what the bible warns us against, fighting over words. You may be trying to find the exact text but it is an answer that you will never be able to acquire as you do not have the autographs. The best that you can have is an educated guess and even then you will have others that point to a different educated guess.

Good luck with your hunt but to me it is just a fools errand to fight over words that will not change what God's over all purpose was in creation and sending Christ, the salvation of man.

If you can not trust the "less than accurate" text that is in your hands for showing you the truths of God then you have a more serious problem than just questioning what you perceive as variants.

 

It is the wild "western text" that adds to scripture. The Alexandrian text looses scripture. And the medium length text preserves it. I do know by comparing scripture.

I don't think that. The older manuscripts are worse. They do not agree with one another mostly. You cannot get a consensus among them. It is impossible for them to be better.

That is because you do not know they're actual content. If you knew what they said you would have to change your mind.

I do not call them corrections. Later manuscripts are in lines of transmission that had carefully copied manuscripts. They were copied more accurately because they have less errors than early manuscripts.

Not that I am aware of. But there are changes made by accident, and some not by accident that lessen the accuracy of God's word as issued by the Apostle's and their companions. I don't want changes but God's original message. Not dope man made errors.

No. I have been saying we have excellent copies of the originals and by using the excellent ones we have the originals. Buy using the ones that are not accurate we start drifting away from the originals into man made errors. It is true that I do not always know which variant is correct, but for the vast majority of text we do. It is only a few readings in comparison to the established originals. It is nothing to be afraid of.

That is because you don't know anything about the subject. People can discuss subjects without fighting over words. People can learn about textual criticism without fighting over words. You can try to silence all opposition but then you will not learn anything.

Again, discussing God's words are not fighting over words. You may not care what God actually said for some man made errors, but other's do care. You do nothing but oppose the discussions. It's like you are afraid of discussing God's original words. You would rather have the man made errors. That is fine for you. But you should not stop others from learning the truth.

 

@Conan what comes through in your post is you like a certain line of transmission because it was well copied from latter manuscripts. You do not like the oldest manuscripts because it does not contain all the added text of the later manuscripts. Am I missing something here? You are trusting something that you admit has added to the oldest manuscripts?

What you have is someones opinion of what the originals were and you even admitted that these contain added words not found in the oldest manuscripts. So it seems you are trusting good copies of later manuscripts over the oldest manuscripts.

Actually I would not want to have the autographs as then you would have people start worshiping them, as the bronze serpent, rather than the author GOD. As you said you are not aware of any variant that calls into question any major doctrine. So what you are doing is picking at nit's.

Here is an example of adding to the text
Revelation 4:8, in which the four beasts declare that the Lord God is “Holy.” In the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text (2005) the beasts repeat the word “Holy” three times (as in the Textus Receptus), but in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (1985), as well as in the Majority Text based on Family 35 and compiled by Wilbur N. Pickering (2015), the beasts declare a nine-fold “Holy” (i.e., the word “Holy” is repeated nine times!).

So which version of the Byzantine text is correct? As Pickering said "Surely it is more likely that ‘nine’ would be changed to ‘three’ than vice versa." that is clearly an expressed opinion which he has now put into the text of scripture. And as he said "The manuscript evidence is badly divided here but I take it that two of the tree main lines of independent transmission, including the best one, have “holy” nine times, instead of three." So he favors what he considers the best line but he does not say what the oldest manuscripts say perhaps because they do not have "Holy" 9 times but rather 3.

We all should care what God's word is but that is the problem right there. Who gets to say what is God's word? What some call additions some call lost words.

Since I am not a biblical scholar and while you have studied what others have said you have not said if you are one then the best we can do is repeat what various scholars have said. You do not like what scholars have said that disagree with your view as is your right but I am not required to agree with your view.

I do find it odd that you say we should be able to discuss the bible but then seem upset that I in your words do nothing but oppose the discussions. What do you think we have been doing?

You are looking for me to agree with the opinions of the various scholars you like even when you tell me they like the manuscripts that have added words to the text as we see in Pickerings F35 text of Rev 4:8.

To quote you "You would rather have the man made errors. That is fine for you. But you should not stop others from learning the truth"

 

First I like all handwritten copies of the Word of God. They contain the Word. However in our Bibles we should have the more accurate copies, and not poorer, less accurate copies. I do not want words added that were not originally there. So I favor accurate copies. I like all copies. But prefer the more accurate ones.

I believe early scribes particularly in Egypt accidentally lost text. I think later dated manuscripts from different regions did not lose words but accurately recorded them.

Oh come on you are being ridiculous. Of course we want the autographs. We could weed out all man made errors out of all Bibles. Why settle for errors?

My apologies. I haven't studied the Text of Revelation at all. I have read Revelation, but not studied it enough to know. Time for me to catch up. But my unqualified opinion is three Holies would be the Original. Not nine. I could be wrong of course.

By being aware of the issues you get some say. By being aware of what Greek New Testament your Bible uses gives you some knowledge. I think they are all good. But I think some are more accurate than others.

You can repeat what scholars say if you have studied and agree with them. You should use your own mind and study the issue. Not just believe what some scholar said. All scholars are good. Some are wrong in their theories. Some are partially right. Some mostly right. It is especially good to read those you disagree with, and to read all sides. But it is good to know for yourself, and not just quote others because you don't know.

In my opinion opposing the discussion.

I am saying that Pickering is right about many things, and has pointed out many errors in the critical text. I am not telling you to like him or worship him or to even like what he is saying. Just read him for yourself. I am saying he is worth reading.

Have I stopped you from learning the truth?

 

Coincidence?
I was reading in Genesis this evening and came across a strange set of names that have a similar spelling discrepancy.

Imagine calling your kids, Andy and Randy, or Gary, Jerry, Harry, and Larry.

(Then there's Mrs. McCave, she had twenty-three sons and she named them all Dave)​

But in Genesis 22:21 there's the brother's 'Huz and Buz'. or is it 'Uz and Buz'?

(AV 1873) Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, ...
(NASB 2020) Uz his firstborn, Buz his brother, ...​

Uz (Hebrew עוּץ - pronounced - ʿuts)
The KJV translated it as "Huz" but in all other places, using the same Hebrew letters, they translate it as "Uz" (it's both a place name and a personal name. c.f. Jer. 25. 20. Lam. 4. 21. Comp. Gen. 10:23, 36:28. 1 Chr. 1:17, or 42.

The name Eli / Heli in Luke 3:23 has similar lingual pronunciation discrepancy between Hebrew, Greek and English.

Ἠλί, ὁ (edd. also Ἡλί, Ἡλεί; עֵלִי; cp. e.g. 1 Km 1:3; 2:12, 20, 22; 3 Km 2:27.—In Jos., Ant. 5, 340f al. Ἠλ[ε]ίς, gen. Ἠλεῖ 5, 341; 350) Eli (Heli), the father (or, acc. to some, the grandfather) of Joseph, in the genealogy of Jesus Lk 3:23.—M-M. s.v. Ἠλεί.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 435.​

Both Luke 3:23 and John 13:2 (passages you brought up) are single letter variants and are among the most inconsequential variants in Scripture.

No doctrine is effected by difference.

Rob

 

Yes I know you think that text was lost from the autographs but the later scribes could have just as easily have added text. It all depends upon who you read.

My concern is that over time man would come to worship them rather than the author. Do you really think that modern man is any different from the Jews that worshiped the bronze serpent? The biblical text that we have is sufficient to teach us about God and how one can come to trust in Him for their salvation.

We already have people that look at a bible and will not mark in it for fear of offending God or ruining the word of God. Let alone that someone should actually throw one out or burn it. We are to worship the author of the book not the book that tells us about the author.

Of course some manuscripts are more accurate than others but that is the question, which are the more accurate manuscripts.

Just as you are opposing what I have said.

I agree that Pickering is right on some things and wrong on others just as all the various scholars are. You have made a concerted effort to champion Pickerings F35 theory. Why do you not understand that not all agree with Pickering. The errors that you say he has pointed out are what he considers errors but do all the various scholars agree with him?

As I have said before I have bibles from both lines of transmission and use them in my studies. I have not seen any serious problem come up in my studies when comparing the texts.

As Bill Mounce said 99% of the variations are inconsequential. They simply don't really matter. Or we can easily see why one morphed into the other. This is the most important thing, that remaining 1%, it's actually less than 1%, do not contain any biblical doctrine. There is no belief either core or frankly incidental that you believe that is brought into question by variations among the Greek manuscripts.

I do not see the need to continue going over this again and again. You keep pushing the F35 text type and as I have said many times it is pickerings opinion and others do not agree so nothing changes does it.

The reality is that we as non-scholars can only trust what some scholar has said we do not have the expertise to actually judge whether what they are saying is correct or not.