TomboyMom

I think I'm beginning to get it. You got a few papyri, in greek, from the 2d-8th century. Unfortunately none of them are complete. We now call the ones we think are the most original the "Alexandrian." You got the Byzantine, aka Syrian, which shows up starting around the 5th century. Most scholars consider this to be derived from the earlier papyri, and with many copying and other errors. You got your vulgate, in latin from the late 4th century, by Jerome. This was the KJV of its day, but was recopied until it became filled with errors. Finally Erasmus comes in and starts with the Byzantine (with a couple of arbitrary and confusing additions from elsewhere) and results eventually in the Textus Receptus, which is what the KJV is based on. So if the Byzantine is corrupted, the KJV is irredeemably corrupted. Something like that? So on what do people like Orthodox_Freethinker, who must have me on ignore because he never answers my questions, base their assertion that the Byzantine is more original than the Alexandrian?

TomboyMom

What's MT? What's TR? Could you slow down for the clueless among us? Think of me as the youngest child at the Passover Seder. Thank you.

Diogenes the Cynic

MT is Masoretic Text, the accepted Hebrew manuscript basis for the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). There is little controversy over the provenance of the MT anymore, especially since the discovery of Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts which closely match the MT. (I think there might still be some who try to argue for the Septuagint, though).

TR is Textus Receptus.

Diogenes the Cynic

You've pretty much got it. The argument for Byzantine priority, as far as I can tell, is based mostly on an a priori belief in the KJV as a perfect, revealed text as well as some disingenuous assaults on the Alexandrian Texts as being "corrupted."

SaintCog

Small correction Dio. In the context of this discussion, MT refers to the Majority Text. For the sake of the youngest child at the Passover Seder, the Majority Text is comprised of hundreds of late Greek MSS (manuscripts) of a Byzantine text type with little deviation from one another.

the hunt

I do not have much to add other than I heard a bit of the show and that Ehrman has recorded several audio lectures for the teaching company:
http://www.teach12.com/store/profess...rt+D%2E+Ehrman

Diogenes the Cynic

Oops. That'll teach me to skim.

I was wondering why Praxeus would bring the Masoretic Text into the conversation.

TomboyMom

Sorry, lost again. Why again is this night different from all other nights? The Hebrew is actually translated from the Greek?
Where does the Hebrew fit in? Why are the first fragments Greek? Does this whole prior discussion apply to the New Testament only? What's the text history on the old testament?

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm sorry, this is my fault. I never should have brought the Hebrew into it. When I skimmed and saw the initials MT, I assumed they were talking about the Masoretic Text, which, as I said, is the extant Hebrew basis for the OT. They were actually talking about the Majority Text, which is only a way of saying that the Byzantine Texts comprise a majority of extant NT manuscripts (which is not to say that they are closest to the ORIGINAL texts). Hebrew texts are completely irrelevant to the conversation. Please forget I said anything about them.