Alexandrian Texts Corrupted?

[Ave Maria]

Hi everyone. One of the main arguments of King James Onlyists and King James Preferred people is that the Alexandrian texts are corrupted and that only the Majority Texts are pure and trustworthy. Is there any truth to this argument? Please help me refute this.

 

[clinzey]

You have to be careful who you ask when you're talking about Alexandrian vs. the TR. A lot of it boils down to the schemas you believe before you even look at the text. Those of us who believe in the reliability of the Alexandrian over the TR usually follow the guidelines proposed by Westcott and Hort about gauging the age and authenticity of a given text. KJV-only thinkers refute the guidelines. People on both sides will tell you what to think and that they are right - so weigh the evidence and make a decision (but yes, I think the Alexandrian texts are preferable).

 

[AVBunyan]

Hi everyone. One of the main arguments of King James Onlyists and King James Preferred people is that the Alexandrian texts are corrupted and that only the Majority Texts are pure and trustworthy. Is there any truth to this argument? Please help me refute this.

Origen of Alexandria is the origin of the texts you are referring to. The new versions are a result of his 5 column hexapla - Origen's was the fifth column. He just wrote out what he thought the scriptures should say.

Read what Origen believed about the deity of Christ, salvation, the 2nd coming and you will understand why those doctrines are picked at in the new bibles. Origen question the deity of Christ, the blood atonement and the 2nd coming.

Don't take my word for it - read his life and beliefs. He was a philosopher at heart though he did suffer a bit for his "faith".

I do not believe he was even regenerated. How can one trust hs work?

God bless

 

[Logos1560]

Origen of Alexandria is the origin of the texts you are referring to.

Can you provide documentation for your statements?
Are you sure that there are no connections between Origen and the Textus Receptus?

KJV-only author Peter Ruckman even acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (King James Onlyism, p. 10). Irena Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (Reformed Roots of the English N.T., p. 39). MacCulloch referred to “Erasmus’s discreet fascination with Origen” (Reformation, p. 111). Eugene Rice pointed out that we "find Erasmus relying on the authority of Origen when he attacked Luther in 1524" (Saint Jerome, pp. 91-92). John Gleason noted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (John Colet, pp. 262-263). In his Paraclesis to the N. T., Erasmus wrote: 'If you refer to commentaries, choose out the best, such as Origen (who is far above all others)" (Hexter, Traditions, II, p. 301). Bouyer noted that Erasmus "showed repeatedly a strong liking for the Greek Fathers, particularly for Origen" (Erasmus and his Times, p. 149). MacCulloch maintained that Erasmus “frequently turned both to Origen and Jerome’s analysis” of Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians (Reformation, p. 110). Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his Annotations cited "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 67). Estep pointed out: "At the time of his last illness, Erasmus was living in Froben's home and working--as much as his waning strength permitted--on a new edition of Origen's works, a task that his death interrupted" (Renaissance, p. 92). Sargent claimed that "the most influential agent in the corruption of the Biblical text" was Origen (English Bible, p. 115). If KJV-only advocates are correct in their strong condemnations of Origen, will they also condemn Erasmus [a editor of some Textus Receptus text editions] for following the views of Origen?

 

[a_ntv]

Can you provide documentation for your statements?
Are you sure that there are no connections between Origen and the Textus Receptus?

The 'textus receptus' (official text) was prepared by Erasmus in the XVI century in a hurry to print the first greek Bible.
Now it is considered full of mistakes by all modern scolars: Erasus based this text on one or two very late middle age codex.
More: some parts were translated back in greek from latin!!!

There is no a direct connection between Origen and the Textus Receptus: in fact such a text was built without any even little study to prepare it.

But it was a best-seller!

The KJV is based on the the greek text of Stephanus , who used, unfortunatly, mainly the uncorrect "textus receptus" (well, sometime also the Complusentian text, a serius critical edition of the Vatican codex was used): anyway for sure the KJV is a traslation of a un-correct greek NT text.

Those of us who believe in the reliability of the Alexandrian over the TR usually follow the guidelines proposed by Westcott and Hort about gauging the age and authenticity of a given text. KJV-only thinkers refute the guidelines.

No...Westcott and Hort were against the Alexandrian
The Alexandrian family of texts inclide the codex Vatican B, Codex Sinaticus alfa (discovered only in 1844) and codex Alexandrinus A.
Westcott and Hort, on the other side, prefered the 'Occidental' family of texts (the codex of Beza D, the syrian translations of the NT, the veterus latin traslations of the NT).
Both these two positions are anyway seriuos and based on a work of research, while the TR was simply a text prepared without any study, made in a hurry to sell a best-seller

Recent discoveries of II century papyrs are towards the Alexandrine family and clearly demostrate that the TR (and the KJV) is completly unreliable.

 

[Logos1560]

The old Wycliffe’s Bible on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles has a different reading than the KJV at John 1:28. Wycliffe’s has “Bethany” while the KJV has “Bethabara.” Murdock’s 1851 English translation of the Syriac Peshitta Version, which is also on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “Bethany” at John 1:28. Likewise, the Old Latin on the KJV-only line of good Bibles has “Bethany” at this verse. The Anglo-Saxon has “Bethania” (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 442). David Cloud acknowledged that the first and second editions of the Greek text edited by Stephanus have “Bethany” at John 1:28 (Bible Version Question/Answer Database, p. 173). Edward F. Hills also affirmed that the first and second editions of Stephanus’ Greek text along with the “majority of Greek manuscripts” have “Bethany” at John 1:28 (KJV Defended, p. 222). That means that at least two editions of the Textus Receptus have “Bethany” at John 1:28. In agreement with these two TR editions, the Majority Text Interlinear translated by Farstad and others has “Bethany.” Likewise, Gary Zeolla’s Analytical-Literal Translation of the Byzantine Majority Text edited by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont has “Bethany” at John 1:28. Tyndale’s to Bishops’ Bibles have the same reading as the KJV--“Bethabara.” Which of these two different readings on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles is the correct or more accurate one?


F. W. Farrar asserted: “Bethany is the most ancient and best supported reading. It was conjecturally altered by Origen, in the second century, into Bethabara, because he only knew of one Bethany” (Texts, p. 90). Ralph Earle also maintained that Origen “tells us that he could not find any Bethany near the Jordan River, although he admits that Bethania is the reading of ‘nearly all the manuscripts.’ So he deliberately changed Bethania to Bethabara, and the latter became the dominant reading in the late manuscripts” (Word Meanings, p. 83). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer wrote: “The true reading is Bethany, which was changed to Bethabara owing to the powerful influence of Origen, who could find no Bethany beyond Jordan in his day” (p. 74). Metzger wrote that “at John 1:28 Origen altered Bethania to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty” (Text, p. 199). A. T. Robertson wrote “not ‘in Bethabara’ as Origen suggested . . . under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem” (Word Pictures, V, p. 22). McClintock and Strong wrote: “Instead of Bethabara in John 1:28 (where the text was altered since Origen’s time), the reading in the oldest and best MSS is Bethany” (Cyclopedia, I, p. 772).

 

[AngCath]

none of the Greek texts are perfect... so you can always refer to the Vulgate or the Peshitta which have far less problems.

 

[BigNorsk]

A lot of it gets down to what one means by corrupted. The Alexandrian texts pretty clearly have mistakes, some of them quite a few. But often tied into the idea of corruption of them is that there was this group of heretics that took the scriptures and changed them to agree with their beliefs and of that, there really isn't any evidence.

The only case of heretics really having much to do with a particular text actually occurs in the Byzantine or Majority text family and it has to do with Revelation and the heretics "love" of that book.

But KJO people need not fear because the manuscript that Revelation is based on in the Textus Receptus family is Alexandrian in nature, of course some verses and such were missing and that's why we see Revelation as probably the poorest book in the KJV because it rests on only one manuscript throughout much of it and none except the Latin ones in some places.

Ah history is funny, if you wrote it in a book people wouldn't believe all the strange twists.

Marv