The Origin of the New World Translation

Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts

The Alexandrian Manuscripts - Are They Reliable?

It is common to see textual critics and other scholars make claims about the Alexandrian uncials which minimize, and often ignore, the scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest and best" manuscripts. For instance, Ladd claims,


"Codex Vaticanus contains both Testaments, with only three missing portions, and most of the Apocrypha. Its excellent text is very close to that of Codex Sinaiticus."
The actual facts of the matter contradict this rather sanguine assessment. These manuscripts, which comprise the basis of all modern Greek editions, are indeed notorious for their unreliability and general poor quality of transmission. Hoskier noted over 3,000 points in the Gospels alone at which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the two primary Alexandrian witnesses) differ between themselves, not including spelling errors and variants between synonyms which could be attributed to "provincial exchange." Concerning Vaticanus (also known as Codex B), Scrivener stated,


"One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions...That no small portion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice...but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity."
The other representatives of the Alexandrian exemplars used to critically challenge the Textus Receptus are not any better. Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is well-known for its slipshod scribal errors and general unreliability, yet it still finds its weight used as a determiner when other preferred texts are found to differ at a point. Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C) likewise suffers from transmission issues, and is actually a palimpsest, having had a large portion of its original biblical text rubbed off and replaced with copies of sermons from the 5th century Syrian patristic Ephraem Syrus (which in and of itself ought to give an idea of the likely low esteem in which this text was held by 5th century Christians...). Pickering sums up the matter of reliability with the Alexandrian texts as follows,


"The variation between two 'Byzantine' MSS will be found to differ both in number and severity from that between two 'Western' MSS or two 'Alexandrian' MSS -- the number and nature of the disagreements between two 'Byzantine' MSS throughout the Gospels will seem trivial compared to the number (over 3,000) and nature (many serious) of the disagreements between Aleph and B, the chief 'Alexandrian' MSS, in the same space."

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts

The Alexandrian Manuscripts - Are They Reliable?

It is common to see textual critics and other scholars make claims about the Alexandrian uncials which minimize, and often ignore, the scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest and best" manuscripts. For instance, Ladd claims,


"Codex Vaticanus con ...[text shortened]...

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

The Instructor

yes but you have still not told us how they differ, only that they do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts

The Alexandrian Manuscripts - Are They Reliable?

It is common to see textual critics and other scholars make claims about the Alexandrian uncials which minimize, and often ignore, the scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest and best" manuscripts. For instance, Ladd claims,


"Codex Vaticanus con

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

The Instructor

studytoanwser.net, bwahahahha,

What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. Since their day, a good number of manuscripts as old and in some cases a century or more older than these two manuscripts have been discovered. With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents. (16) It is true that these papyrus manuscripts occasionally contain Byzantine-type readings, but none of them could in any way be legitimately described as being regularly Byzantine in text. (17) The agreement of some of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the early third century, has been quite remarkable.

Of the early versions, the Westcott-Hort text has strong support in the various Coptic versions of the third and later centuries, plus frequent support in the Old Latin versions and the oldest forms of the Syriac, in particular the Sinaitic and Curetonian manuscripts whose text form dates to the second or third century (though there are also strong Western elements in the Old Latin and the early Syriac). (18) Jerome's revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made ca. 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. Of early Christian writers before the fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous.

concerning the textus receptus

These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related. (4) Proof of this is to be found in a number of "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text. (5) Since the first and only "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life." Numerous other unique or extremely rare readings in the textus receptus editions could be referenced.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

that will be checkmate i believe, Robbie and the witnesses of the most high God 1 - Jonah Hindus and the infidels 0

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
studytoanwser.net, bwahahahha,

What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has [b]firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. Age of ...[text shortened]... and the witnesses of the most high God 1 - Jonah Hindus and the infidels 0

Byzantine Text advocates often assert that many manuscript copies of the Scripture were corrupted in the early centuries of the church (pre-fourth-century), and these corrupted manuscripts are identified with the non-Byzantine Text-types, or particularly the Alexandrian Text-family which usually stands behind the modern translations. The following quotes from the Church Fathers do confirm that there were some heretical groups in the early church who did change and corrupt some manuscripts:

"But their chief and founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is the gospel by the four, or the gospel formed of the four; which is in the possession of some even now. It is also said that he dared to alter certain expressions of the Apostles, in order to correct the composition of the phrase." [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Reprinted 1991), 166.]

"...Theodotus, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, as the first one that asserted that Christ was a mere man. ... The sacred Scriptures ... have been boldly perverted by them; the rule of the ancient faith they have set aside, Christ they have renounced, not inquiring what the Holy Scriptures declared, but zealously laboring what form of reasoning may be devised to establish their impiety."... But as to these men who abuse the acts of the unbelievers, to their own heretical views, and who adulterate the simplicity of that faith contained in the Holy Scriptures,.… For this purpose they fearlessly lay their hands on the Holy Scriptures , saying that they have corrected them. And that I do not say this against them without foundation, whoever wishes may learn; for should any one collect and compare their copies one with another, he would find them greatly at variance among themselves. For the copies of Asclepiodotus will be found to differ from those of Theodotus. Copies of many you may find in abundance, altered, by the eagerness of their disciples to insert each one his own corrections, as they call them, i.e. their corruptions. Again the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these, for those of Appollonius are not consistent with themselves. For one may compare those which were prepared before by them, with those which they afterwards perverted for their own objects, and you will find them widely differing. ... For either they do not believe that the Holy Scriptures were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and they are thus infidels, or they deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what alternative is there but to pronounce them daemoniacs? For neither can they deny that they have been guilty of the daring act, when the copies were written with their own hand, nor did they receive such Scriptures from those by whom they were instructed in the elements of the faith; not can they show copies from which they were transcribed." [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Reprinted 1991), 214-216.]

Tertullian (second-century AD) spoke of Marcion's tampering with Luke's gospel, saying, "For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way - when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on." [Tertullian, Book III Ch. V]

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/kjvevaluation.htm

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Byzantine Text advocates often assert that many manuscript copies of the Scripture were corrupted in the early centuries of the church (pre-fourth-century), and these corrupted manuscripts are identified with the non-Byzantine Text-types, or particularly the Alexandrian Text-family which usually stands behind the modern translations. The following quotes fro III Ch. V]

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/kjvevaluation.htm

The Instructor

These texts (textus receptus ) were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related

but

What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries

read it and weep fatboy Hindus, read it an weep!

... Deleted

Originally posted by kd2acz
... Deleted

yes i have been quoting from it consistently in an attempt to get those who advocate the King James version of the Bible to see its limitations as a truly accurate portrayal of the original word of God. I suspect they favour it because of its dogma rather than its accuracy.

pretty decent i think your words were,

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

A New Greek Text Created?

1853 Jan.-Mar. - Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.

1861 Apr. 12th - Hort to Westcott: "Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." (Life, Vol.I, p.445).

1870 Westcott and Hort print tentative edition of their Greek N.T. for private distribution only. (This they later circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of N.T. revisers, of which they were members).

July 7th - Hort: "Dr. Westcott and myself have for above seventeen years been preparing a Greek text of the New Testament. It has been in the press for some years, and we hope to have it out early next year." (Life, Vol.II, p.137).

Aug. ? - Hort to Lightfoot: "It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit." (Life, Vol.II, p.140). (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).

1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.

May 12th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).

May 17th - the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.

Sept. 4th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).

Oct. - first of Dean Burgon's three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version appears.

1882 May - Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/westcott_and_hort_exposed.htm

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
A New Greek Text Created?

1853 Jan.-Mar. - Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.

1861 Apr. 12th - Hort to Westcott: "Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, is tp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/westcott_and_hort_exposed.htm

The Instructor

What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries

ahhh if that aint the truth!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries

ahhh if that aint the truth!

The Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, first published in 1881. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak.

On the other hand, the Byzantine text-type, of which the textus receptus is a rough approximation, can boast of being presented in the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, as well as several important versions of the New Testament from the fourth century or later, and as being the text usually found in the quotations of Greek writers in the fifth century and after.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, first published in 1881. [b]The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the v ...[text shortened]... eek writers in the fifth century and after.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html[/b]

Indeed, which is why its so accurate a translation of the Greek text.

Is it just me who thinks this thread is a yawn?

Originally posted by divegeester
Is it just me who thinks this thread is a yawn?

perhaps you would like to learn how to mate with a bishop and knight instead?