Byzantine vs Alexandrian Text: What's the Difference?

[faceofbear]

I don't understand what the difference is. There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread and I don't want to start another debate about which translation is accurate but what's the difference and why do some consider one more accurate than the other?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Greek manuscripts can generally be classed into four categories based on similarities.

The overwhelming majority of Greek texts come from places that were part of the Byzantine Empire, where the primary language was Greek. These texts are classified as Byzantine. Because Greek continued to be used as a primary liturgical language in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, these were produced in greater number, but are also generally much younger texts.

The next major group is Alexandrian, or Egyptian. These texts were used by the Church in Egypt, but are generally older because Greek died out as a liturgical language after not too many centuries. When there's doubt over which tradition preserves the correct reading, the Alexandrian text wins more often than not, given that Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are all largely within this category, and these three are among our earliest complete Greek bibles.

The third is the Western Text. "Western" is something of a misnomer - a good number of Western texts come from Syria. The western text tends to gloss and paraphrase, and will give the longer version if a text has a long and short recension.

The fourth is Caesarean. The Caesarean is poorly attested, and not everyone accepts its classification as an independent textual family. Texts which are supposedly Caesarean will often seem to a mix of Western and Alexandrean readings.

 

[KJVO]

Greek manuscripts can generally be classed into four categories based on similarities.

The overwhelming majority of Greek texts come from places that were part of the Byzantine Empire, where the primary language was Greek. These texts are classified as Byzantine. Because Greek continued to be used as a primary liturgical language in the Byzantine Empire for centuries, these were produced in greater number, but are also generally much younger texts.

The next major group is Alexandrian, or Egyptian. These texts were used by the Church in Egypt, but are generally older because Greek died out as a liturgical language after not too many centuries. When there's doubt over which tradition preserves the correct reading, the Alexandrian text wins more often than not, given that Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus are all largely within this category, and these three are among our earliest complete Greek bibles.

The third is the Western Text. "Western" is something of a misnomer - a good number of Western texts come from Syria. The western text tends to gloss and paraphrase, and will give the longer version if a text has a long and short recension.

The fourth is Caesarean. The Caesarean is poorly attested, and not everyone accepts its classification as an independent textual family. Texts which are supposedly Caesarean will often seem to a mix of Western and Alexandrean readings.

I agree with everything except the part bout the alexandrian texts being correct most of the time.... I prefer the MT myself, but that's. Because from my greek and hebrew view, the MT has the better manuscripts...

 

[Epiphoskei]

If by MT you mean Majority Text, that only refers to Greek manuscripts, never Hebrew.

 

[EdMa]

What about Antioch text? I spell that wrong, I apologized.

 

[Epiphoskei]

There is no "Antioch Text" within the modern classification system.

 

[1611AV]

What about Antioch text? I spell that wrong, I apologized.

Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text)

The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which the King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new bible versions come.

 

[Epiphoskei]

That's not accurate.

The Byzantine text isn't Syrian, it's Byzantine. Certain Byzantine manuscripts come from Syria, most do not.

The Alexandrian text isn't a collection of Egyptian manuscripts either. Many Alexandrian manuscripts are from Egypt, but some are not. Two of the major Alexandrian codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were probably either written in Rome or Caesarea, independent of Egypt.

And modern Bibles do not come from the Alexandrian text, they come from an eclectic text. "Alexandrian" is a text type, not a specific text. There is no "The Alexandrian Text," just like there is no "The Byzantine Text," such that modern Bibles could be translated from them.

 

[1611AV]

That's not accurate.

The Byzantine text isn't Syrian, it's Byzantine. Certain Byzantine manuscripts come from Syria, most do not.

The Alexandrian text isn't a collection of Egyptian manuscripts either. Many Alexandrian manuscripts are from Egypt, but some are not. Two of the major Alexandrian codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were probably either written in Rome or Caesarea, independent of Egypt.

And modern Bibles do not come from the Alexandrian text, they come from an eclectic text. "Alexandrian" is a text type, not a specific text. There is no "The Alexandrian Text," just like there is no "The Byzantine Text," such that modern Bibles could be translated from them.

OK!

 

[Makram Guendi]

I don't understand what the difference is. There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread and I don't want to start another debate about which translation is accurate but what's the difference and why do some consider one more accurate than the other?

The main difference appears in the text style used in the manuscript.
Every century has its text, so we can define the date of a manuscript from it.
So, it is very important to come closer to the time of the apostles, and to judge the genuinity of the manuscript.
That applies also on the Papyrus.

 

[prodromos]

"Older" doesn't necessarily equate to "more accurate" in terms of biblical manuscripts. Some old texts survived for the simple reason they were not used, whereas the manuscripts which found favor would eventually fall apart from a life of being constantly used. Copies made from the latter would be more favorable than the former.

 

[DeaconDean]

In a nut-shell, the biggest difference between Alexandrian and Byzantine is, Alexandrian texts tend mostly to be shorter. Byzantine texts tend to be longer.

But also, Maurice A. Robinson can show, there are a few Byzantine texts at the time of Alexandrian texts.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Makram Guendi]

"Older" doesn't necessarily equate to "more accurate" in terms of biblical manuscripts. Some old texts survived for the simple reason they were not used, whereas the manuscripts which found favor would eventually fall apart from a life of being constantly used. Copies made from the latter would be more favorable than the former.

++++++++
Yes, it is not: (necessarily equate to "more accurate"). But just a very important factor of a group of other factors. May be the most important one. Otherwise, why we respect the manuscripts?
++ If the new writing is on the same level of importance with the old one, then:- there is no need to the manuscripts at all!
++ But the manuscripts and Papyrus are our routs, and who has no roots has no proof of his authenticity.

 

[DeaconDean]

There's a lot of talk in the KJVO thread

Let me give you fifty cents worth of advice.

I wouldn't get too involved in KJVO threads or discussions.

What started in 2014 in the Fundamentalist area, bleed over to this area.

As a consequence, I have been on my own study on textual criticism. Its been 4 years now, and I'm nowhere close to an answer, with a few exceptions.

I do know the KJVO crowd, there is no changing their opinion. If, mind you, if their position is correct, "The KJV is the inspired Word of God" then what happened during the 1500 years prior to it?

If they are wrong, then Catholicism, and their tradition of "oral tradition" could be correct.

There are some problems with the KJV, one of the most noted, is the Comma Johanneum. (1 Jn. 5:7-8)

Prior to Erasmus, it didn't exist.

But, having said that, it does not mean that the doctrine of the "trinity" is not true. There are too many passages that speak of it.

The KJV is somewhere between 97.9%-99.7% true. It is reliable. But is it the "inspired word of God"?

No.

The only MSS that were 100% accurate were the ones penned by the Apostles themselves. And unfortunately, we lost them to time.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Makram Guendi]

There are some problems with the KJV, one of the most noted, is the Comma Johanneum. (1 Jn. 5:7-8)

Prior to Erasmus, it didn't exist.

But, having said that, it does not mean that the doctrine of the "trinity" is not true. There are too many passages that speak of it.

The KJV is somewhere between 97.9%-99.7% true..

+++
That addition does not present neither in Coptic nor in Greek manuscripts, since the very earliest one and until now!
The trinity is very clear in the whole NT, without that addition.
That addition does not support the real dogma of trinity, but in the opposite side, it puts it under questions!
Because after finding that it is false, the faith of many people may be hesitated!
Our God is the true Light and Truth. Everything false, is against the Light and the Truth, and it comes not from our true God. Even if it appears sweet.
Let us serve the Truth, and only the Truth, whatever it is sweet or bitter.

 

[DeaconDean]

+++
That addition does not present neither in Coptic nor in Greek manuscripts, since the very earliest one and until now!

Until Erasmus started his Greek, it did not exist. He did later, after his first addition was published, finally produce a Greek MSS that dated to around the 11th century, that was questionable.

The trinity is very clear in the whole NT, without that addition.

Never argued against it. In fact, I said there was many passages that show it.

That addition does not support the real dogma of trinity, but in the opposite side, it puts it under questions!

Exactly. Which shows the lacking of the KJVO argument.

Because after finding that it is false, the faith of many people may be hesitated!

Nobody said it was false. Just that the source was questionable given the circumstances surrounding it.

Our God is the true Light and Truth. Everything false, is against the Light and the Truth, and it comes not from our true God. Even if it appears sweet.
Let us serve the Truth, and only the Truth, whatever it is sweet or bitter.

Now where have I said any different?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Makram Guendi]

Now where have I said any different?

God Bless

Till all are one.

++++++++++

I do not speak as correcting something, but rather to support what you have said about that addition.
It is not false in meaning, but false as unoriginal phrase.
I spoke while in my mind other false additions or cancellations, made against the Septuagint, and some people defend the opposite because it said "mighty God" instead of the Septuagint's words: "the messenger of the great counsel", which appoints directly to the secret of the Incarnation of the Word.

So, we are in the same direction of thinking, to support the original words of God against any additions, even if they are correct in their meaning.

 

[DeaconDean]

++++++++++

I do not speak as correcting something, but rather to support what you have said about that addition.
It is not false in meaning, but false as unoriginal phrase.
I spoke while in my mind other false additions or cancellations, made against the Septuagint, and some people defend the opposite because it said "mighty God" instead of the Septuagint's words: "the messenger of the great counsel", which appoints directly to the secret of the Incarnation of the Word.

So, we are in the same direction of thinking, to support the original words of God against any additions, even if they are correct in their meaning.

I believe the LXX is a great resource because it shows the evolution of the Attic Greek to Koine.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Makram Guendi]

I believe the LXX is a great resource because it shows the evolution of the Attic Greek to Koine.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Certainly.
It is great also because of the high level of the translators: the great 72 elders, under the order of the great emperor.
And because our lord and his disciples agreed with it.
And because nobody attacked it for about 3 or 4 centuries, but only the unbelievers started to attack it after finding how it Testifies to our Lord.
In every side of view, it is really great.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

Thread underwent a cleanup do to posts violating the
House Rules:
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.
And
Disruptive Behavior
Maintain the peace and harmony of CF by not rehashing alleged grievances or disputes, publicly complaining about posts, threads, Christian Forums or its staff. Attempting to undermine these rules or policies via campaigns, petitions, or protests is not allowed. Please do not publicly discuss reported posts or staff actions taken on yourself or other members. Use the Support Center to submit questions and complaints about staff disciplinary actions or rules.
MOD HAT OFF​