Majority Text (Textus Receptus) versus Alexandrian Texts

[Ave Maria]

I have heard that copies of the originals come in these two main types of texts. I have also heard that the Majority Text agrees with each other most of th etime while the Alexandrian Texts do not. Which do you believe are the most accurate and why?

 

[BigNorsk]

Hi,

First, there are more than two families of manuscripts, if you had read the documents I and others have pointed to, I would expect you to already know that. I would suggest reading more before asking more.

Your question also equates the Textus Receptus with the Majority (or better, Byzantine) text. They would differ in, if I remember correctly, about 1500 places. The manuscripts which give us Revelations in the Textus Receptus aren't from the Byzantine family at all, edited Some parts of the Textus Receptus don't come from Greek or Hebrew manuscripts at all, but from late Latin manuscripts.

The majority of the time, the texts agree with each other, across manuscripts and across families. The way you put it, it would sound like we end up with totally different Bibles depending on which manuscript or which family we use. That is not the case, the majority of the text stays the same, without regard to the family used.

Which would you give the edge on accuracy to, the one copied a few times, or the one copied many times?

Marv

 

[Ave Maria]

Hi,

First, there are more than two families of manuscripts, if you had read the documents I and others have pointed to, I would expect you to already know that. I would suggest reading more before asking more.

Your question also equates the Textus Receptus with the Majority (or better, Byzantine) text. They would differ in, if I remember correctly, about 1500 places. The manuscripts which give us Revelations in the Textus Receptus aren't from the Byzantine family at all, edited Some parts of the Textus Receptus don't come from Greek or Hebrew manuscripts at all, but from late Latin manuscripts.

The majority of the time, the texts agree with each other, across manuscripts and across families. The way you put it, it would sound like we end up with totally different Bibles depending on which manuscript or which family we use. That is not the case, the majority of the text stays the same, without regard to the family used.

Which would you give the edge on accuracy to, the one copied a few times, or the one copied many times?

Marv

I apologise but I didn't know you pointed anyone to any documents. I also didn't know that there was more than two families of manuscripts. But is it true that the Textus Receptus is considered to be one of the most accurate manuscripts?

 

[Knight]

Check out the following site for tons of information on Bibliology:

www.bible.org

Also, look at these articles on the issue you mention.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=677

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=673

 

[Ave Maria]

Check out the following site for tons of information on Bibliology:

www.bible.org

Also, look at these articles on the issue you mention.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=677

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=673

Thank you Knight.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. The Majority Text does not equal the TR. This is absolutely incorrect; there are ~5,000 MTs of which the oldest date even into the 2nd century while the TR is only 12 manuscripts that date no later than the 1100's ce. These texts disagree far more than they agree.
2. The "minority" or Alexandrian Texts are even older. In addition, they were, in fact, the real Majority Text for Christianity's first 500 or 600 years.

 

[Ave Maria]

Does older equal better?

 

[PaladinValer]

Usually, but not always.

If you want the facts on various texts, I suggest this place: http://www.revneal.org/

 

[Knight]

You might also look at this book:

"How We Got the Bible" by Neil Lightfoot.

It's an easy read and explains things very well.

 

[Glisten]

The MT may have been copied more, but these copies were separated by a great deal of space and time, and still ended up being quite accurate compared with each other. However, I use the NRSV, which I believe has been corrected by the Alexandrian texts for the omissions, and corrects the gender specific areas of the KJV from the masculine only to the meanings for men & women. I really don't believe one is vastly greater than another, but if age impresses you, then go for it.

 

[PaladinValer]

The NRSV and the RSV are not just "Minority Text" translations; they are "Eclectic Text" translations.

 

[BigNorsk]

I would like to apologize to Holly, I was rather short with her. It wasn't called for.

Holly, the links I was referring to are in the thread on the KJV started by you, I mixed the threads in my mind. Many of what those links refer to are also important to this thread.

Problem was I couldn't at that time post an actual link due to board rules. Since I now can, I went back in the KJV thread and put the links in.

One that I posted there that really applies to this thread is
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=677
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

Going on, I think there are some other places that you would enjoy reading.
A site with a lot on the manuscript evidence is http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html If you go to the Greek Text link there are a lot of articles on the subject.

This article is also good for an understanding of the subject. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=706
The Conspiracy Behind the New Bible Translations

The thing that bothers me the most is that there quite literally is no Greek manuscript evidence behind parts of the Textus Recepticus, but the name itself is used to allude to a special treatment by God. Due to this tradition of man, we still have things like Rev 22:19 where the Textus Recepticus has peoples' names being removed from the book of life. All the evidence is that it should read the tree of life (literally wood), yet just on the strength of tradition, the incorrect rendering persists.

KJV And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

NKJV and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

NASB and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Now some might not think that is much of a big deal, but I have heard sermons on this very verse and told how the removal from the book of life proves that people can loose their salvation. How can you argue, the book of life is where the names of those that are saved have been written since the beginning of time? If your name can be removed, you can loose your salvation. If some can have their name removed, then those verses written giving us assurrance of salvation must be interpreted that the individual can indeed do something that will cost him his salvation.

All this is based on a transcription error in a late Latin manuscript used by Eramus way back in the early 1500's to fill in where he didn't have any Greek manuscript evidence. To this date, the only Greek manuscript evidence of the "book of life" actually seem to have acutally come from Eramus' text instead of the other way. The whole body of evidence, including the Majority Text render "tree of life" and yet it persists so strongly it is even in the New King James Translation. Such is the strength of tradition when it opposes truth.

Marv

 

[JohnJones]

Now some might not think that is much of a big deal, but I have heard sermons on this very verse and told how the removal from the book of life proves that people can loose their salvation. How can you argue, the book of life is where the names of those that are saved have been written since the beginning of time? If your name can be removed, you can loose your salvation. If some can have their name removed, then those verses written giving us assurrance of salvation must be interpreted that the individual can indeed do something that will cost him his salvation.

Thank you BigNorsk, because it has solved the controversy FOREVER. Allow me to expound this more fully.
Rev 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (KJV)


Rev 13:8 "And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain." (NAS)

We find according to the KJV that the Book of Life belong to the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world, and we further find that it is proper to refer to Jesus as slain from the foundation of the world due to the predestination of the cross.

We find according to the NAS that the names of the saved are written in the Book of Life fro mthe foundation of the world, not that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.
Which is right? We will find out by examining what follows.
​

Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (KJV)



Rev 22:19 "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." (NAS)

If the Textus Receptus and the KJV are correct then people can lose their salvation, as you pointed out.

If the NAS and the Alexandrian text are correct then the names of the "saved have been written since the beginning of time" in the Book of Life and cannot be removed, and although a saved man may remove words from the book of Revelation he will still go to heaven. Howbeit, he will die once he gets to heaven because God will not allow him to eat of the Tree of Life nor will God allow him into the Holy City. So he will make it heaven, and yet die outside of heaven due to not eating of the Tree of Life, without which he will be mortal. But why and how can he make it to heaven and yet die outside heaven? God will not let him into the city, which, of course, is heaven.
This proves that the KJV and TR are right, because unlike the NAS and Alex. text they do not lead to an absoulte absurdity. Surely even the most biased Alexandria supporters will admit that it is absurd to say a man will live forever in heaven even though he is shut out of heaven and will certainly die because he is allowed no acess to the tree of life.
This also proves that the story about Erasmus mentioned above is an absolute lie, but that's to be expected for "such is the strength of tradition when it opposes truth" and that falsehood concerning Erasmus is tradition in the camp of Alexandria.
​

 

[BigNorsk]

Not only does the NAS and the Alexandrian texts contain "tree of life" but also the Majority (Byzantine) text. Every family of Greek manuscripts contains "tree of life", every one. The following is from the Majority text. I bold the two occurances of "book" and the one of "tree".

Rev 22:19καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.


You can easily see the two uses of "book" in the Greek. Note how different the word translated book looks from the word translated tree. A difficult error in Greek to substitute book with it's two beta's for the word translated tree.

If you have trouble being sure in Greek, see the Majority text translation here
http://www.emtvonline.com/

which reads: (I boldfaced the three words again)
19 And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things having been written in this book.

I would also point to his translator's notes, http://www.emtvonline.com/emtv/revelation/r27tn.htm if you take the time to read them, you will see he considers the Alexandrian manuscripts corrupt and doesn't use them. He uses the Byzantine or Majority text.

So what text does the Textus Receptus use? There isn't any Greek family to take the text from. That leaves the Latin manuscripts. From the Vulgate we see the original was correct:
Rev 22:19 et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto


Notice how much closer the Latin words are to each other. 5 letters, starts with "l" and note they were handwritten, not neatly typeset. It was probably a common error in Latin manuscripts.

For evidence of that, I will add the Wycliffe translation which was taken from Latin manuscripts.
19 And if ony man do awei of the wordis of the book of this prophesie, God schal take awei the part of hym fro the book of lijf, and fro the hooli citee, and fro these thingis that ben writun in this book.

So you see book in his as well, taken from Latin even though the original Vulgate had it correctly the error occured in his Latin manuscript.

I can understand saying the Byzantine Greek manuscripts are superior to the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. I do not understand saying that using no Greek manuscript is superior to all Greek manuscripts, and to say the Textus Receptus is correct in Rev 22:19 makes just that claim.

Marv

 

[JohnJones]

I can understand saying the Byzantine Greek manuscripts are superior to the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts. I do not understand saying that using no Greek manuscript is superior to all Greek manuscripts, and to say the Textus Receptus is correct in Rev 22:19 makes just that claim.

Marv

As for the unquoted portions of your last post, I don't appreciate being spoken to as a child seeing I am equally competent (if not moreso) on this issue. I say if not moreso because your words quoted above show that you have simply bought the traditional lie concerning Erasmus backtranslating from Latin and have not honestly researched the Greek evidence. Besides this, though, you are ignoring the obvious absurdity of having your name written in the Book of Life and yet being denied access to the Tree of Life - that is ludicrous!

Also see the following articles:
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/rev2219.htm
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.html

Did Erasmus really translate the Latin back into Greek? Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position. [3] Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067.

[3] H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644.

 

[BigNorsk]

John,

The thread is not just for you, but for others to weigh the evidence as well. My argument is not simple in order to belittle you, no insult is meant.

Despite it's human flaws, the KJV transmits God's Word to us. The only error I find in KJVO is the Only. I cannot find a single translation that does not have some problems, either caused by a human mistake or by the difference in how I would understand the language compared to how the translator understood it.

All this aside, God's truth is transmitted to us. This is true both of the KJV and other translations.

To restrict oneself to a single translation makes understanding of some things more difficult.

To hold to the position you do, it makes all study of manuscripts that has occurred since 1611, not to mention much of it from before 1611 worthless. Older translations in other languages like the Greek Septagint have to be changed to agree with the KJV in those places where they don't now agree perfectly. We should spend all our effort studying the KJV. If our language has changed too much, we should translate from the KJV not the Greek manuscripts. We couldn't even use the manuscripts in the Textus receptus tradition because they weren't the only things used by the translators. No, the way to maintain the scriptures would be to go to the KJV. Really, we should probably have a big bonfire and burn all those manuscripts so that people can no longer commit what you seem to think is the "heresy" of using them rather than the KJV for translations.

I don't believe your mistake is one of believing God when he told us he would preserve the scriptures. I believe your mistake is restricting God's preservation to one moment in time and one translation, the KJV as first printed in 1611.

Marv

 

[JohnJones]

We should spend all our effort studying the KJV.

AMEN.

 

[YahwehLove]

Does older equal better?

No it does not.

The ones that were being used were the ones wearing out and being replaced.
That is why theyre not as old, USE.
AND why they are greater in number.
AND why they agree among themselves FAR more than the minority texts do.

heres a little link for ya.

http://www.majoritytext.org/aboutmts.htm
just a start.
Not a lot of info there.

btw. I am NOT kjv or TR only
I just trust the MT more.
But there isnt enough differnce in either type of text to ruin the understanding or doctrine.

 

[Knight]

There is no evedince provided by that site that indicates what you have claimed about the MT. It is apparently an assumption.

You are correct that older does not mean better all by itself. But neither do numbers.

Just thought I'd mention this as well as agree with you that there is no cardinal doctrine that is affected by any of these MSS differences. I have no intention of being drawn into a long Textual debate that has already been done over and over again by those much wiser than either one of us.

Peace, and Merry Christmas.

 

[YahwehLove]

I think thats why I put this.

just a start.
Not a lot of info there.

There is way too much info on this topic to bombard someone with.
that site gives a good start.