Derec

What is the current scholarly position on NT source? Byzantine, Alexandrian or Western/Peripheral? And what about the so-called Textus Receptus that KJV is based on that is similar, but not identical to the Byzantine text?

I am having a discussion with one of those KJV only poeple so I need to know more.

UMoC

Intelligitimate

The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism should help answer your questions.

Amlodhi

Hello UglyManOnCampus,

I put some of this together for another person a while back. Maybe it will answer some of your questions.


Text type (families) per Westcott & Hort*:

Alexandrian: associations > Codex Sinaiticus (aleph), Vaticanus (B), oldest textual witnesses, virtually all extant early papyri.

Byzantine: associations > Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Ephraemi (C), adapted in Constantinople and used as the common text in the Byzantine world, (A) and (C) are the oldest textual witnesses to the Byzantine text family. (Be careful, as many people confuse Alexandrinus (A) with Sinaiticus (aleph), thus thinking it's Alexandrian rather than Byzantine.)

Western: associations > Codex Bezae (D), western church, particularly North Africa.

Ceasarean: associations > Washington codex (W), p45, derivative of Alexandrian but mixed with Western.


Modern revision:

While the terminology of the above text types is still used today, there has been a shift in paradigm regarding the "family" characteristics. During the heyday of Westcott & Hort it was thought possible to trace a "lineage" of the text types back to a single "type specific" origin. Recent re-evaluations, however, suggest that the variety of "types" and "mixed texts" cannot be connected genealogically and some (specifically Western and Ceasarean) may not be separate "families" at all. Thus, while the above "text types" are still used to describe the texts, they are less often used in terms of "familial" characteristics.

Today then, we most often hear the terms:

Majority Text (MT): association > Byzantine - c. the 4th century, Latin began to be adopted as the dominate language in the West. The eastern Byzantine, however, continued to use the Greek. From that point onward, then, virtually all manuscripts still being written in Greek were of the Byzantine text type. Thus, in later ages, when bible translators sought the "original language" (Greek) texts as sources, not surprisingly, the Majority of Greek manuscripts still in existence were Byzantine.

Textus Receptus (TR): association > (MT) - When (c. 1500) the first bibles began to be translated into the common languages of local populations, Erasmus (etal.) made their translations from (limited) samples of the Greek (Byzantine) exemplars. A subsequent publication by Elzevirs in 1633 included a preface (in Latin) which began, "Consequently, you now have the text received by everyone . . .", the Latin "text received" being "textum receptum", this translation became commonly known as the "Received Text" or, the "Textus Receptus". These (TR) translations were used as a guide in the translation of the KJV, and has led the "KJV only" group to believe that they have the text as it was "received" from God himself. Yet, because the (TR) was formulated from a limited number of the Byzantine manuscripts, the MT and the TR disagree in many (some very significant) places. (see below)

Critical Text (CT): association > Alexandrian/Byzantine - This is an attempt to deduce the "best reading" from the available manuscripts. Without going into explicit detail it is usually a matter of manuscript agreement. For example, (all else being relatively equal), if (A) and (B) agree on a reading against (aleph), the (A)(B) reading is used and the (aleph) reading is relegated to the critical apparatus (margin notes). Closer calls are decided by commitee vote. But contrary to some misunderstandings, this produces only a "working text" and not a reproduction of the original. David Parker** comments on the fact that the text in the Novum Testamentum Graece edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (27th edition, Stuttgart, 1993) was agreed upon by the committee as the "best" reading, and not necessarily the "original" reading.

And, IMO, this tends to obscure some early traditions. As an example, according to committee and late manuscript agreement, the "best" reading for John 1:34 is:

John 1:34 "And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God."

And yet, in a range of early and significant manuscripts and fragments including (aleph), (77), (218), (syr sc) and one of the oldest papyri witnesses to John 1:34 (p5), this verse reads:

John 1:34 "And I saw and bare record that this is the elect of God." or as some have translated, "God's chosen one."

And according to Bart Ehrman***, this is not an isolated incident. In his words, "It should be observed that . . the idea of Jesus' election is associated with his baptism, an association that the orthodox took some pains to eschew. It is striking that this association occurs in both Luke and John. Other similarities between these two gospels (i.e., in passages that are not disputed) have led a number of scholars to posit some kind of common oral tradition behind their accounts. In short, John (as well as Luke) appears to have understood Jesus to be "the elect of God".


As to disagreement between the Majority Text (MT) and the Textus Receptus (TR), here is a sampling:

Matthew 27:35 -- The Majority Text is missing the following words: "that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

Mark 15:3 -- The Majority Text does not have: "but he answered nothing."

Luke 7:31 -- The Majority Text does not have: "And the Lord said"

Luke 9:1 -- The Majority Text does not have: "his disciples"

Luke 17:36 -- The Majority Text does not have: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall betaken, and the other left."

Luke 20:19 -- The Majority Text does not have: "the people"

John 6:70 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Jesus"

John 10:8 -- The Majority Text does not have "before me"

Acts 7:37 -- The Majority Text does not have: "him shall ye hear"

Acts 8:37 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 9:5,6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

Acts 9:17 -- The Majority Text does not have "Jesus"

Acts 10:6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"

Acts 10:21 -- The Majority Text does not have: "which were sent from him from Cornelius"

Acts 15:11 -- The Majority Text does not have "Christ"

Acts 15:34 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 20:21 -- The Majority Text does not have the word: "Christ"

Acts 24:6-8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee"

Romans 13:9 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "Thou shalt not bear false witness"

2 Corinthians 8:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "that we would receive"

1 Thessalonians 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"

2 Timothy 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"

Hebrews 11:13 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and were persuaded’

Hebrews 12:20 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "or thrust through with a dart’

1 John 5:7,8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth"

Revelation 1:8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the beginning and the ending"

Revelation 1:11 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "1 am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and"

Revelation 2:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "hast laboured"

Revelation 5:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and to read"

Revelation 5:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the book"

Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "four and twenty"

Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "him that liveth forever and ever"

Revelation 7:5-8 -- -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "were sealed"

Revelation 8:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "angel"

Revelation 11:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and the angel stood"

Revelation 11:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and art to come"

Revelation 12:12 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "to the inhabiters"

Revelation 12:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"

Revelation 14:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four"

Revelation 14:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four"

Revelation 14:5 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "before the throne of God"

Note: Some modern bibles that claim to follow the MT, such as the New King James World English Bible, still include some of the above readings; such as I John 5:7-8, even though this reading is found in only 8 out of all the extant manuscripts.


As to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, these manuscripts date to the 4th century c. 350 A.D. and it has been speculated that one or the other may have been a copy of the bible manuscripts commissioned by Constantine.

Sinaiticus, while (in general) complete in the NT portion, is rife with erasures, corrections, additions, and variant readings. Additionally, Sinaiticus includes the letter of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas among its scriptures.

Vaticanus (B) is not actually complete since it ends at Hebrews 9:14. Also, not only do both (aleph) and (B) contain significant variants to the Byzantine (MT) and, hence, the (TR), but they also show disagreement between each other in some 3000 instances just in the gospels alone.

Some examples of these variant readings are:

Luke 23:17 "for of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." Included in Sinaiticus, however, Vaticanus omits the whole verse.

Luke 24:51 - Luke's account of the "ascension" of Jesus and how he was "raised up into heaven." In Sinaiticus and some other older manuscripts the words "and was carried up into heaven" are completely missing. The verse says only: "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them."

Mark 1:1 reads "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" Sinaiticus reads only: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

In Sinaiticus, the words of Jesus in Luke 9:55-56 are missing.

In Luke 22:43 Codex Sinaiticus and (TR) claim that an angel appeared before Jesus, strengthening him. In Codex Vaticanus, this angel (i.e. the entire verse) is absent.

John 5:4 is missing from Codex Sinaiticus.

In Mark chapter 9, the words "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." are again missing in Sinaiticus..

In Mark 6:11, the (TR) contains the words "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." These (alleged) words of Jesus are not found in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Again, alleged words of Jesus (teaching how one should pray) are not found in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.


References:

* B.F. Westcott & F.J.A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, Hendrickson pub., Peabody, Mass.

** David C. Parker, The Living Text Of The Gospels, 1997, Cambridge University Press, p. 3.

*** Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993

Also:

Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism, 1995, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the Study of the New Testament, Abingdon pub., Nashville, 1982.


I hope some if the information here will be of help to you.

Amlodhi

andrewcriddle

When discussing things with KJV people it can be useful to point out
the places where they strongly criticize modern translations but where
the KJV/Textus Receptus reading is not that of the Byzantine text.

Apart from the Trinitarian addition in 1 John 5 vs 7-8 which has almost
no Greek manuscript support there are other interesting examples.

The Ethiopian Eunuch's profession of faith in Acts 8:37 is part of the
very ancient Western text of Acts but it is not part of the Byzantine
text type and is missing in the great majority of Greek manuscripts.

The addition of 'through his blood' in Colossians 1:14 (from Ephesians 1:7)
is present in nearly half of all Greek manuscripts but this is part of the
very late history of the text. The great majority of manuscripts more than
a thouasnd years old lack this addition including most early witnesses to
the Byzantine text.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I think that Codex Ephraemi (C) is generally regarded as a rather bad late
representative of the Alexandrian text with some Byzantine readings rather
than a Byzantine text per se, and although Codex Alexandrinus (A) is
certainly Byzantine in the Gospels it is Alexandrian in the rest of the New Testament.

(The problem of manuscripts representing different text types in different
books is quite widespread the Washington codex (W) is Caesarean in
most of Mark but in other parts of the Gospels is Byzantine Western and
Alexandrian)

Andrew Criddle

Amlodhi

Yes, I am in complete agreement with you. Aland/Aland lists C as category II and A as category III - V in the gospels and category I elsewhere.

Category I - Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the "original" text (e.g. the Alexandrian texts belong here).

Category II - Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences (particularly of the Byzantine text).

Category III - Manuscripts of a distinctive character with an independent text.

Category V - Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text.

But note that the association was with regard to "A and C (being) the oldest textual witnesses to the Byzantine text family" as per Westcott & Hort.


And I agree with you here as well. But, of course, such evaluation was not the purpose of my post to UglyManOnCampus.


Thank you for your remarks. Careful review is always welcome.

Amlodhi