Change font size


Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 3   [ 23 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:10 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
I want to go over the history of both, if everyone wants to post what they have on this matter, I invite them wholeheartly. From what I have come across it seems that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Important points on the Majority Text (Textus Receptus):

· Textus Receptus is based on the vast
majority
(90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the
Majority
Text.
· Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
· Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc.
· Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast
majority
of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
· Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return.

Now lets look a the Minority Text which are based on previously unknown or unrecognized Alexandrian manuscripts. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices.

The Gnostic heresy was a Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism. We find it specially in the background of the Pastoral Epistles, the Letter to the Colossians and the Fourth Gospel. This Gnostic line of thought had certain characteristics which appear all through the Pastoral Epistles as the characteristics of those whose heresies were threatening the Church and the purity of the faith. It had serious moral and ethical consequences. Its basic belief was that matter was essentially evil and spirit alone was good. That issued in two opposite results.

If matter is evil, the body is evil; and the body must be despised and held down. Therefore Gnosticism could and did issue in a rigid asceticism. The Gnostic looked on creation as an evil thing, the work of an evil god; the Christian looks on creation as a noble thing, the gift of a good God. The Christian lives in a world where all things are pure; the Gnostic lived in a world where all things were defiled.(Titus 1:15)

But Gnosticism could issue in precisely the opposite ethical belief. If the body is evil, it does not matter what a man does with it. Therefore, let him sate his appetites. These things are of no importance, therefore a man can use his body in the most licentious way and it makes no difference. So the Pastorals speak of those who lead away weak women until they are laden with sin and the victims of all kinds of lusts.(2 Timothy 3:6) Such men profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds.(Titus 1:16) They used their religious beliefs as an excuse for immorality.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The one thing thay all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the orthodox Christian faith, but the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The Alexandrian Codices that Westcott & Hort's version used, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus reflect this and are unique in their reading in toto. In fact many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says:'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:37 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic Greek copies back into their original Greek language and differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV) But since the Alexandrian Codices were considered older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory for many years.

However, since Westcott & Hort's version, some reavealing scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place anthere now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even fragments of the Gospel of Matthew dating to AD 50 a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text.

With the discovery of a Gnostic Library called the Nag Hammadi, it became clear that the sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Nor did they really believe in His humanity either. They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.

Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Coptic texts as they were caught up in the veiws prevalant from darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. These corrupted Coptic texts easily appealed to Westcott & Hort's own sensibilities (as testified to by their surviving correspondence with each other). They in my opinion from the letters they exchanged, knowingly made a Greek translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Coptic translation of a Greek original.


Last edited by hobie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:46 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
Theologian Benjamin G. Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: 'The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful.'

In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus, that all churches fall into one of two basic study categories:
Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus.
Fuller continues: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text."

Rev. Samuel C. Gipp comments on this issue:
"The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents themajority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants."

Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' "

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out."

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
"For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 2081
Location: Amarillo, TX
Not sure that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are Coptic...pretty sure they are greek, but they originated, or at least represent what is known as the "Alexandrian" Text type.

There is a subtle difference between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (MT). The MT is just that....the Majority reading on any given passage.
The TR is generally the MT, but at times differs slightly.
The TR is NOT PERFECT. For instance, when Erasmus came to Revelation 22, he had to borrow the last 6 verses from the Latin manuscripts. The TR is also missing a few other places here and there...just can't think of them right now...I'll have to dig that up.

The great thing about the KJV is that it CORRECTS the minor errors of the TR, and gives us the entire Bible correctly. We would have a mess on our hands if we had to constantly run back to the Greek NT, especially given the condition it is in today since we have had non-believers "editing" and making all of the "critical notations" in the available printed copies today for the last 100+ years.

_________________
Pastor Steve Schwenke
Liberty Baptist Church
Amarillo, TX
Psalm 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:17 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
Steve Schwenke wrote:
Not sure that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are Coptic...pretty sure they are greek, but they originated, or at least represent what is known as the "Alexandrian" Text type.

There is a subtle difference between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (MT). The MT is just that....the Majority reading on any given passage.
The TR is generally the MT, but at times differs slightly.
The TR is NOT PERFECT. For instance, when Erasmus came to Revelation 22, he had to borrow the last 6 verses from the Latin manuscripts. The TR is also missing a few other places here and there...just can't think of them right now...I'll have to dig that up.

The great thing about the KJV is that it CORRECTS the minor errors of the TR, and gives us the entire Bible correctly. We would have a mess on our hands if we had to constantly run back to the Greek NT, especially given the condition it is in today since we have had non-believers "editing" and making all of the "critical notations" in the available printed copies today for the last 100+ years.
Yes, when they went to translate it was into the Greek, the problem is that Alexandria had become a major center for the Ghostic heresy and it shows in the manuscripts that came out of there. Thus Christians could easily see it was corrupted, but now those same few manuscripts are picked up and incorporated into most versions of the Bible today including the NIV, and you have to see what the core purpose of the changes were, and they come down to the denial of the diety of Christ. The TR has its flaws, but its purpose remained true, the Alexandrian manuscripts never were and thus the issue goes beyond flaws.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:32 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
A few examples,

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
(King James Version)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
(Revised Standard Version)
For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost---
NIV(New International Version)
( missing )

Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
(King James Version)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'which was made' of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Revised Standard Version)
concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'who was born' of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV(New International Version)
regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, 'who as to his human nature' was a descendant of David,

Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
(King James Version)
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
(Revised Standard Version)
and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV(New International Version)
wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Then you have the removal or deletion in the new RSV/ NIV the following so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24


If you go to the Textus Receptus it is very hard to change the meaning with so many copies, 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. This ensures the integrity of the words and meaning, but if you use the Alexandrian/Minority Texts which is a few copies which have gnostic influences and other corruptions, then you are looking for trouble.

And more and more modern Bible versions are picking this corrupted texts, most modern English Bible versions are translated from Greek new Testament texts (Hort/Westcott -- Nestle/Aland etc...) based on primarily the Alexandrian text coming basically from two sources-- the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:45 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
Now lets look at another issue which most people have not come across. The "Septuagint" and its origin, I came across some interesting things that I want to give everyone here to go over and comment.

The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitamacy. But why is this important to them...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:47 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refering to.

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts?


Now the Alexandrian manuscripts which the Septuagint shows itself to be, makes it the same basic text as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are part of a group of texts which are considered the "Minority" Texts, because they were not accepted into the mainstream as the texts were not in agreement with the manuscripts used by the majority of Christians and even these two texts do not even agree with one another. So they were considered unusable or corrupted text by Christians, yet in the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort put together their version of the Greek New Testament text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since Westcott and Horts version another revision was created called the Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That means that the newer versions of the Bible are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark contrast to 90% of the manuscripts which the KJV and older Bibles are based on.

The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists two classes of Bibles; those based upon the
Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek
New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard
Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort,
Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the
existing manuscripts since they use as their basis the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes and the scribes who did the text did a word for word translation, or the Alexandrian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every new Bible version since Westcott/Hort came out with their version.


Last edited by hobie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:10 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 2081
Location: Amarillo, TX
Hobie, please do not misunderstand me. I agree with your position....just want to make sure we all have our facts straight.
You said that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written in the Coptic (Egyptian) language. I don't think so. In fact, the Vaticanus and Septuagint are the same thing...at least according to my copy of the Septuagint....which means Vaticanus is a Greek mss not a Coptic mss that was translated into Greek.

If we don't have our facts straight, we lose credibility.

I really appreciate all of your posts here....good material...thanks!

_________________
Pastor Steve Schwenke
Liberty Baptist Church
Amarillo, TX
Psalm 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The History of the Majority Text and the Minority Text
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:37 am 

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 pm
Posts: 117
Steve Schwenke wrote:
Hobie, please do not misunderstand me. I agree with your position....just want to make sure we all have our facts straight.
You said that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written in the Coptic (Egyptian) language. I don't think so. In fact, the Vaticanus and Septuagint are the same thing...at least according to my copy of the Septuagint....which means Vaticanus is a Greek mss not a Coptic mss that was translated into Greek.

If we don't have our facts straight, we lose credibility.

I really appreciate all of your posts here....good material...thanks!

From what I read it seems it was translated into Greek with Coptic style/charatcters, here is what I came across...


'Kenyon proposed the manuscript originated in Alexandria: "It is noteworthy that the section numeration of the Pauline Epistles in B shows that it was copied from a manuscript in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between Galatians and Ephesians—an arrangement which elsewhere occurs only in the Sahidic version."A connection with Egypt is also indicated, according to Kenyon, by the order of the Pauline epistles and by the fact that, as in the Codex Alexandrinus, the titles of some of the books contain letters of a distinctively Coptic character, particularly the Coptic mu, used not only in titles but frequently at the ends of lines where space has to be economized.According to Metzger, "the similarity of its text in significant portions of both Testaments with the Coptic versions and with Greek papyri, and the style of writing (notably the Coptic forms used in some of the titles) point rather to Egypt and Alexandria"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus


'Up until the 9th century, Greek texts were written entirely in upper case letters, referred to as Uncials. During the 9th and 10th centuries, the new lower-case writing hand of Minuscules came gradually to replace the older style. Most Greek Uncial manuscripts were recopied in this period and their parchment leaves typically scraped clean for re-use. Consequently, surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts from before the 9th century are relatively rare; but nine — over half of the total that survive — witness a more or less pure Alexandrian text. These include the oldest near-complete manuscripts of the New Testament Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus (believed to date from the early 4th century CE).
A number of substantial papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament survive from earlier still, and those that can be ascribed a text-type — such as 66 and 75 from the early 3rd century — also tend to witness to the Alexandrian text.
The earliest translation of the New Testament into an Egyptian Coptic version — the Sahidic of the late 2nd century — uses the Alexandrian text as a Greek base; although other 2nd and 3rd century translations — into Old Latin and Syriac tend rather to conform to the Western text-type.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type



Please read and comment as I think this gives a correct view of the Alexandrian codices..Thanks


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 3   [ 23 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

9,634,635 Views


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net