It gets a lot wrong and leaves out important details. First off, the Alexandrian Texts are not older than the Textus Receptus, th-cam.com/video/S0Q39VPjz0c/w-d-xo.html And also, Westcott and Hort were not Christians at all, so trusting them with their translations is not wise at all.
Thanks. I was searching n searching for a video to clear this to me, didnt find and finally found this. Thanks a lot. Its such a relief. God bless you. Praise the Lord for all His works thro His people!
I learned more than I knew before, but it could be that the reason that the Byzantine type text is not deemed the oldest and representing the ordinal autographs is that at least one Roman Emperor--Diocletian--had the true texts destroyed and/or confiscated in the empire
Erasmus did not call his text the Textus Receptus. That term was not used until the Elzevier brothers and is used anachronistically for earlier print editions.
Also, Only problem is that the TR is after the kjv. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT deriving from an English translation (kjv) which comes for about 6 Greek manuscript and also relied on Latin for last 6 vs or revelation It’s backwards i know.
@@avismore3938 A reverse translation done by F.H.A. Scrivener, finally printed in 1894, after Scrivener's death. Scrivener's exercise was to determine the textual critical work of the KJV translators.
I am a Christian and trying to learn more about the history of how we have the Bible. This was easy to understand and provided a lot of information. Thank you!
I thank Adonai for leading me to this video. This is an issue I was completely in the dark about. Byzantine vs. Alexandrian. This coming from someone who is currently comparing and contrasting all the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text!
Well, considering the fact, that maniscripts "live" for just 100-200 years when being used activelly, it's not surprising that we don't have originals, but it is surprising that we have manuscripts that are 50-150 years older than authographs (originals). Off course, those are not full copies, but still are very important. Yes, there are chunks that are added to the texts by the scribes, but they don't effect the doctrins, like you said. And they look like additions that have roots in oral tradition. Other than that, the presentation is great! Thank you for your work!
@@stevenaguilera9202 I don't think so. While they are similar as in the Byzantine Text type, they are not exactly the same. Majority Text is more eastern while the Received Text is more western. The Majority Text is also based on the majority agreement of a compilation of manuscripts this the name Majority Text. While the TR contains 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, the Majority Text does not. Blessings!!
@@rodneyjackson6181 Then it's clear which one is wrong. I hope you have figured that out. If you think for one split second that either of these verses don't belong in your Bible you have been grossly misled. The Majority text is wrong. As a Christian, you should be able to read the passage in Acts 8 and discern if verse 37 belongs in the passage. The same goes for First John 5:7. Both those verses are inspired words of God and should belong in all Bibles. If you don't think Acts 8:37 is scripture there is something seriously wrong with you. I hope you know the truth about it.
@@randyd9805all I did was state a fact between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. All of a sudden you come at me with assumptions and assertions. Usually the case when someone does not like facts. Did I ever say that 1 John 5:7 or Acts 8:37 does not belong in Scripture? Nope. The fact is 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript. It was a marginal note in 1. Acts 8:37 is also minority reading and is not found in most Greek manuscripts. This is Biblical history. Erasmus did not put 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament until his third edition. Fact is 1 John 5:7 came from the Latin. Bottom line is that I like both verses and read them from my translations whether in the text or the footnote.
@@rodneyjackson6181 There is zero doubt in my mind that both of those verses are holy scripture. You have taken a position on them and that's clear. Any believer should be able to read the passage in Acts 8 and discern if verse 37 belongs in that text. It was NOT added as you and some others claim. IT DOES CHANGE BIBLE DOCTRINE to remove it. If you believe in what is commonly called baptismal regeneration you may have a motive for not wanting that verse in your Bible. The TR is right and the Majority text is wrong. You cannot prove your position is right no matter how much you try. There is evidence that these verses were in the originals, but no matter what I do you will reject any evidence to the contrary. The texts that are used as the basis for almost all modern translations are not just corrupt, but extremely corrupt. We are not talking about a few verses or words here and there, but so many changes and omissions it boggles the mind that any real believer in Jesus Christ would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Two of them are those 2 verses. There are literally hundreds more. I actually appreciate that you showed me that they are removed from the Majority Text. As many years as I've been studying and watching this, I did not know that. I checked your statement out and found you are correct using this useful website. textusreceptusbibles.com/EMTV Btw, my position is solid as a rock. I would challenge you to read at least the passage in Acts 8 carefully and thoughtfully. You might even pray about it sincerely. Does that verse belong in your Bible? I am convinced it does. If you believe it doesn't that's totally on you. Read it with the verse and again without it. textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/44008001/KJV/GNV/EMTV Notice the DATES of these 3 translations that predate the KJV. textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/44008001/TYN/WYC/COV
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 (KJB) 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not _soon shaken_ _in mind_, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, _nor by_ _letter_ _as from us_, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Great video ! I put forward the hypothesis that the manuscrits that are fewer (those who differ from de mainstream byzantine text) have been transmitted orally. It seems to be a commun practice these days to memorize large portions of texts. (the coran in it's early stages was mainly transmitted orally) I seems to me that the Alexandrian texts were not considered as valuable. They would all know that copies of an orally transmitted text wasn't as valuable as a written copy. That's the reason why they have been preserved better (not used as much as others), it's the reason why they have been forgotten in the libraries, and also why the differences between the manuscripts of the minority text are much more frequent.
This was an excellent and very interesting explanation of positions on both sides. This is what I refer to as objective evidence as opposed to the subjective one sided view of people like James White.
Just two quick points and a couple suggestions. First God preserved his Word according to many verses in the Scriptures. Second Desidarius Erasmus revised his work a total of 5 times to try to perfect it. I suggest you look into the writings of Hort and Wescott published after their deaths and definitely look up and listen to the testimony of repentance that Dr. Frank Logsdon gave. Dr. Logsdon wrote the Preface of the NASB version when it was first put out. It along with nearly ALL the new translations are based on the Hort, Wescott, Nestle and Aland Greek text. Then you can discern and decide for yourself what Scripture you should be using. God Bless All
The fact that NIV, CSB, HCSB, NET, ESV, NASB, LSB and many others are based on the work of these four non-real christians, it is evidence of how the enemy has blinded the eyes of most of the people involved in the work of translating these modern bible translations, what a big shame. Desideruis was used by God to bring us the real and trustworthy word of God, that's why the Reformers' translations are the way to follow.
@@joseramonperez9609So God inspired Erasmus to lie about the last 6 verses of Revelation? Get out of here with the KJVonlyism. It’s 2024, that’s a tired gag.
@@TheDmitriProject Hi, I think that God used the *_Reformers_* to give us translations in English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and Portuguese from the most truthworthy sources, the latest modern translation have cut off verses which were part of the original, the manuscripts before the corrupted *_"Alexandrian manuscripts"_*
@@TheDmitriProject Hi, I'm not a KJVonlysm at all, I'm just seeing how the modern English Translations which almost all of them are based on the corrupted *_"Alexandrian manuscripts*"_** not in the earliest ones used by the **_*"Church Fathers"_* these corrupted manuscripts are the base for these translations which have cutt off important verses which were part of the *_Scriptures_* and that's the problem.
Thank you so much! I appreciate you presenting both sides. The last time I revisited this, it was a horrible experience and I gave up. I defended the NT as a whole. But I am starting to see holes in my position. I will continue to believe in good faith, that God is faithful. We are blessed to have this problem. If we can even call it a problem.
A must to know, look very basic and easy.But with out proper hard work of learning the stuff can not makes such great summarize of biblical history..Well done!
There is a detail that the video overlooked, but it reinforces what it supports is about an older version and much closer to the original texts: the Peshita Bible. Already in the 2nd century BC a text had been produced in Cyriac that faithfully supports what was written in the Byzantine texts. Due to this detail, the critical text has a major fidelity and authenticity problem.
As for the Pool of Bethesday 4:51 we have Tertullian referring to this around 200 AD and saying the angel stirred the water. This is the "west" and his manuscript references are characterized often as WESTERN Textual family. So maybe John did not have the included, but since that is EARLY tradition and belief, I tend to believe it and therefore appreciate that it is in the KJV.
Overall a good introduction to the manuscript tradition of the Bible. I would like to point out though, that from 8:05-8:50 you have mistyped the word "uncial" as "unical" and therefore mispronounced uncial. Otherwise, I enjoyed the video.
I didn't know that only 6 manuscripts were used for the Textus Receptus. It is synonymous with the Byzantine text which is known as the majority text. Where does the term Critical text come in then that all modern translations use? I've heard its Alexandrian but also that it has the most manuscripts for scholars to choose. That cannot be possible right?
Hey Mike, the TR is only synonymous with the Byzantine/Majority text in less knowledgeable circles, in fact the TR differers from the Majority Text in ~1800 places, this is explained by the facts that Erasmus didn't use the best examplars of the Majority Text, he didn't have a manuscript of Revelation (and was forced to extract one from a greek/latin commentary in which the last page was missing, thus he translated the last 6 verses directly from the latin Vulgate into greek) and consulted the Vulgate on a number of readings in which he prefered it in comparison to the greek manuscripts. An interesting note is that since Erasmus colated from 6 manuscripts to create his TR it is, in fact, also a "critical text" because he adopted textual criticism when he chose readings from these manuscripts, which were all different. The modern concept of "Critical Text" began in the 19th Century with Westcott-Hort, and the recent archeological findings of ever earlier manuscripts and the adoption of scientific methodology to reconstruct the original text out of the huge number of manuscripts we possess (~5800), particularly from the very earliest ones like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the papyri like P45, P66, P75 and others which are the earlist surviving witnesses of the text.
The “older” texts were found in Catholic monasteries in 19th century. Other than claims we have zero evidence they’re older. They don’t allow any chemical tests.
@mrk4954 are you not familiar with the 16th and 17th centuries? Who do you think created the Greek and English texts in the late middle ages, up through much of the 17th century. The 1611 revision of the Bishop's Bible (CATHOLIC PUE BIBLE), which is called the KJV is Anglican. I hope this helps some.
I've seen it claimed that the numerous differnces between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are nearly all very minor differences. Also, since the Catholic Church used the Western Text (Gospels and Acts in Codex Bezae, Pauline Epistles in Codex Claromontanus) as the basis for most of the Old Testament in the Vetus Latina before Jerome, it should have gotten a little mention.
Where did you obtain this incomplete, inaccurate Koine Greek (KG) NT, manuscript (MSS), & English translation info. THE Majority Text of Farstad & Hodges differs from the 1769* edition of KJ translation in1838 places including that it lacks 1 John 5:7. *has nearly 4000 more words than the 1611 While the accounts vary Erasmus had between 6 & 12 INCOMPLETE MSS. He filled in the gaps w/translation portions from the Latin Vulgate. Anyone who doesn’t know Reformation history would think Erasmus published only one NT. And/or no one performed & published add’l KG NTs after him. Also Erasmus was dead nearly 100 before anyone heard the phrase or term coined by the Elzevir brothers: Textus Receptus or TR. Erasmus published FIVE KG NTs 1516, 1519 , 1522, 1527, & 1535. Luther used the 1519 edition for his first German translation. Stephanus published four: 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The 1551 had the same Greek text as the third, but is especially noteworthy for its division of the NT books into verses. Lastly, before the KJ Translators* went to work in 1604, was Theodore Beza. He published a total of 12, three of which were available to the translators*, the 3rd, his 1598 they* relied upon the most. Also omitted were numerous English translations in between Tyndale and the Geneva** translations plus a translation that followed**, the Bishop. An English translation recap that omits a late 16th Catholic English translation from the Latin Vulgate 1. Tyndale Bible (1526) by William Tyndale. 2. Coverdale Bible (1535) by Myles Coverdale. 3. Matthew’s Bible (1537) by Thomas Matthew.. 4. Great Bible or Whitchurch Bible (1539) by Myles Coverdale. 5. Taverner’s Bible (1539) by Richard Taverner. 6. Becke’s Bible (1551) by Edmune Becke. 7. Geneva Bible (1560) by William Whittingham. 8. Bishop’s Bible (1568) by Matthew Parker. All available to the translators You down play the significance of the papyri discoveries over the last 130+ years
An excellent presentation. Its noteworthy that so called Byzantine texts were quoted by Christians from the 1st and 2nd century. I would assume that would validate them to some degree. I am curious to know more about this topic.
I am uncertain where the number 5800 originated. Determining the actual number of manuscripts is difficult. Considering the ones in Greek: The Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in Münster, Germany has catalogued over 320 uncial codices, which are the older ones. However, many believe a few of these should be removed from the list (055 is actually a commentary; 0100, 0129, and 0192 are lectionaries; 0168 is lost; 0212 is a diatessaron; 0152 and 0153 are not manuscripts at all). The same institute has catalogued 2911 minuscule codices. These were generally created between 700 and the invention of the printing press. As of 2021, only 141 papyri fragments were known, and some of these have been judged to be fragments of the same original manuscript. Manuscripts also include at least 100 in Old Latin and many more of the Vulgate; also New Testament manuscripts in Syriac, German (Codex Koridethi, for example), and Ethiopian Ge’ez (The Garima Gospel).
One comment I should make is that the Catholic Church since 420 AD has used the Latin Vulgate. The Byzantine text was used by the Eastern Orthodox Church as they rejected the Latin translation and kept it in their original language. That being said too the Douay-Rheims is a weird middle ground between Alexandrian & Byzantine text families. It does not omit verses that are in less manuscripts in the Majority Text.
An excellent, though "scholarly", work on this is "The Original Ending of Mark" but I cannot recall the sub-title or Author (and I can't find my kindle).
Thanks a lot for this. The New Testament just got more complicated. It does seem like the division occured earlier if church fathers quoted the Byzantine manuscripts.
How could the early Church fathers QUOTE manuscripts that came 600 - 800 years later or more. By "Church Fathers", I assume you mean Ante Nicene Fathers (1st century AD to 325), but maybe you mean 10th century AD church fathers eh? I say that since the Byzantine manuscripts are primarily nineth (9th) century to 15th century AD? since all NT manuscripts, other meaningless variations, match each other, for the MOST PART then of course you could see common ground between the quotes they made and the Byzantine Majority text family. In such as comparison, you could say that about any of the Textual families. By meaningless variations they all have, in Greek word order is VERY flexible but not so much in English. So putting some words before or after others technically is a variation. Also, if the definite article was included in some but not in others (translates as the word THE), then that is a variation. Spelling variations are considered textual variations. No, the church fathers of the first 300 years quotes match mostly the Alexandrian and Western text families, which these two are the oldest NT manuscripts we have.
Quite apart from the fact that the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) has been established as not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel*, it clearly does not say Jesus _forgave_ the woman her sins. Rather, the passage shows only that Jesus applied the Torah (John 8:7) and, in the absence of the witnesses and processes required by the Torah, released her with the admonition to stop sinning. In so upholding the Torah, Jesus’ alleged statement “Neither do I condemn you” doesn’t even remotely imply forgiveness - especially given the absence of any evidence of repentance being expressed by the woman. All it means is that Jesus dismissed the charges against the woman for want of due process. Relevant Torah provisions include: • Not deciding a case on the evidence of a single witness (Deuteronomy 19:15); • A transgressor shall not testify (Exodus 23:1); • Not to execute someone for a capital offence before he/she has stood trial (Numbers 35:12); and • Not accepting the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in capital cases (Deuteronomy 24:16). Note, too, the lack of reference in the _Pericope Adulterae_ to the required two or more witnesses; it is they whom the Torah required to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). Presumably it is also they to whom Jesus’ challenge was specifically addressed. Once fewer than two witnesses were present, there was never any prospect of the woman being stoned (if there ever was). * See, for example Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger & Wikgren (The Greek New Testament, 1983, pp. xii, xlvii, 355-357), Marsh (1968, pp. 681-683). For a discussion of the manuscript evidence, see Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 1968, pp. 223-224).
Seems odd you say the Papyrus was earliest... yet Dead Sea Scrolls dating to before Christ were mostly parchment. Perhaps the most notable being the great Isaiah scroll which was dated older than 100 BCE is made of 17 sheets of parchment. Kinda strange statement as I see it. Do you have sources you're leaning on for this claim? Also stating the writing style of miniscule came later seems equally odd. Would like to know your source for that also.
Only problem is that the TR is after the kjv. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT deriving from an English translation (kjv) which comes for about 6 Greek manuscript and also relied on Latin. It’s backwards i know.
Erasmus created the Textus Receptus in 1516 from eight Greek miniscule manuscripts, although in a few verses, he followed the 4th Century Latin Vulgate translation by Jerome. The King James Bible was first printed in 1604, eighty-eight years later. Erasmus, the translator of the TR, died in 1536.
@@CornerTalkerErasmus' Greek New Testament is not the same as the Textus Receptus. FWIW, both include the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1522 and, from there, into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus.
@2:05 he should have included "that despite minor variations the monks missed, copies from those manuscript mistakes can be compared to properly copied manuscripts, because properly copied manuscripts were MUCH more plentiful" thus we could trace that we have God's Word
The very last chart is very telling. It's missing the "original" source. All the various Greek "translations" can be explained if you include the original Aramaic that the authors wrote it ALL in. There's so much evidence for this that almost no one investigates. But scholars of the 1800's worked this all out. The books are no longer published but they are available.
The Majority Text is slowly gaining support among scholars, for it is the real text. It may take a few decades, but the Majority Text will eventually overtake the Critical Text.
Byzantine texts has never misleaded the church, even if those verses were added they're not negative teachings neither contradicts the doctrines of the apostles.
yeah I agree with you,. If these "added texts" were actually harmful or even a little concerning then I would no doubt join the Alexandrian camp, but, they instead push more christ into the picture. I don't see how that is evil.
@@exposingtruth600And the KJV has texts that have changed meanings too compared to modern English - in thousands of places. Languages morph and drift. The KJV also has deliberate mistranslations to support the political agenda of King James and minimise embarrassment over some of his policies that conflicted with actual Biblical teachings.
Thank you for this splendid introduction the best I've seen so far. Just one question: how do we know the dates of all the different manuscripts? Perhaps the most interesting case would be the date of the Rylands manuscript.
From my understanding none of them are carbon dated, I think they use writing styles of certain periods in history and they make a guess of most likely when the texts are dated. I could be wrong but I’d like to know more too instead of taking different scholars word for it.
I believe handwriting analysis is generally used - which means precise dates are impossible(only ranges). However, it is possible to establish the general age of the document. And (by way of example) it's unlikely a 5th century scribe would try to make a 4th century forgery. After all, there would have been older manuscripts available in his time. As to carbon dating(someone correct me if I'm wrong), I believe the process wouldn't actually provide clarification. Carbon dating is used for very old things, and gives a general age range. However, from what I know of the process, it's not precise enough to clarify between a few hundred years.
When Erasmus finished his collation, collected manusctipts to form the greek, it was called Novum Instrumentum Omne, not the Textus Receptus. There were many typo errors and versions that people complained about. so on the last page within a sentence the PRINTERS wrote "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus ("so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt"). Later elzivar tried to make the TR one word. after, after....
I’m not a king James onlyist even though I only use the KJV but to be honest even if my argument for the king, James is mostly emotional I don’t care. I feel so much more connected to God when I read the KJV compared to the other versions
That was worth typing "Text types of NT" on youtube , glad that i got this video , i am really trying to know more about that , so thanks for ur lovely effort. Can i ask is it possible to get this wonderful powerpoint presentation?
Erasmus DID NOT call his text "Textus Receptus" That phrase was coined by printers The Elzevir Brothers Abraham and Bonaventure in 1633 A.D. A full 97 years after Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus died in 1536 A.D.
You show an image of a page from Vaticanus as an example of 4th to 8th century manuscripts. However, it shows obvious initial drop caps. Initial drop caps were not used until the middle ages.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
Curious as to where your getting your information? My understanding is that without using certain patristic writings that the PA is not found or has no prominence in any pre-800’s ad manuscripts. That’s one huge reason not to include that story in that there’s no line of transmission. Any videos or articles that you have I’d love to watch
@@Kenneth-nVA That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate. purelypresbyterian.com/2016/12/01/defense-of-the-pericope-adulterae/ Also James Snapp,Jr. and my elder son Jonathan Sheffield have videos on You Tube
@@jamessheffield4173 I’ve watched some of his debates on TH-cam regarding this issue! Thank you and I’ll research the link you sent…I seriously started studying this about 2 years ago and I’m muddled somewhere in the middle. I’ve wanted to ask someone this so maybe you can also help: how far back to the 2-4th centuries can the TR position be traced? If I’m understanding Gurry, Wallace and the text criticism camp ( James white as well…) then the TR manuscripts are fairly closer to the 1500’s and generally could not be reproduced in the 2nd-4th centuries…any help would be appreciated.
@@Kenneth-nVA The classic Books on the issue would be The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and his The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both I believe are on Amazon. A more up to date work is The Identity of the New Testament Text II by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ Good luck on your studies. Blessings.
That's great in theory, but are you aware that there were people who didn't like Jesus? That's obvious, but the devil will do anything to get back at him. How do you know that the manuscripts weren't corrupted by evil people? We don't have the originals.
1. Some of the greatest corruption of God's Word occurred in the first two centuries A.D. New Testament writers were already warning of this before the NT was complete. 2. Manuscripts most used due to their purity would be those most copied repeatedly, making their witness newer. 3. Governmental and religious ruling authorities had more money for longer lasting manuscript materials. That doesn't make the contents more pure or true - "better." An example would be the animal skin Bibles Constantine (very questionable in his "Christianity") had Eusebius make (influenced by philosopher and Bible doctrine heretic Origen). The materials the common Christians used to copy their Bibles wore out faster. Bottom Line: "Oldest is best" sounds good as a catch phrase, but doesn't hold water.
base on alexandrian Text . in Codex Sinai. Read the chapter John 1:18.. Juan Said. "Monogenes Theo's" it means "Only Begotten God" in the Byzantine Text all Manuscript s Said "Only begotten Son". that verse at different .. I'm right? in my Country the sec. Church of Christ...they belief that Jesus are only a man ....
If people would start obeying Jesus, extracting from their Bibles what Jesus wants us to find, the manuscript source and the translation, assuming it's a whole lot better than the message, will transform lives. Just pick up a Bible and read it and obey it and trust it and find God in it. Who cares about the T crossing and the I dotting? The more we do this, the more we deliberately and directly disobey our God.
The Douay-Rheims version is the most Catholic of English translations and it is not a "descendant" of the "Alexandrian text type". So not quite correct to say that "all Catholic Bibles" are "Alexandrian" text type Bibles.
At some points you overstate the affect of the variants. At no point do they concern Christian doctrine. Someone reading ANY of the textual schools will learn the same doctrinal teachings.
Meaningful, viable differences are found in less than 1% of the text. Most variants (like when you say 3000 of them in the Gospels) are simple spelling or word order differences and these make zero difference in translations (word order in Greek is not important like in English).
Over 5800 manuscripts is slightly misleading as close to 1000 are simply fragments and not what the average lay person would imagine to be understood as a "manuscript".
A Catholic Bible would be a Bible published by and for Catholic Christians. They are pretty much all minor revisions of Protestant or Ecumenical scholarship. But thr video maker made a mistake in saying that *all* Catholic Bibles are translations of Alexandriam texts. The Douay-Rheims version, pubsluh3d slightly before the King James, is the most Catholic of English translations and it isn't a translation of "Alexandrian" texts.
5:50 you are saying this NT Greek dilemma hinges on the possibility that the church has been missing the true text for almost 2000 years. Well consider this, here is a brief on the Christian bible history. *Up until near 400 AD, the worldwide churchs had Greek OT and NT. Sure we can debate what NT Greek they had, but the point is it was Greek. *After 400 AD, Jerome having finished his Latin bible, aka the Latin Vulgate since the Roman empire having defeated the Greek 500 years earlier, the language had finally evolved to be primarily Roman (Latin) in the Western church, so he was asked by Pope Damasus, being his secretary, to translate the Greek bible into Latin. Jerome used the unbelieving Jews' Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint LXX that the church had been using for centuries and most NT quotes in our bibles today, even the KJV bible, match MOST OF THE TIME the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew used in the KJV and all protestant bibles. So to your point at 5:50, that could not have happened since the church had been using EXCLUSIVELY the Latin Vulgate from about 400 to about 1550 AD when William Tyndale completed the first English bible to ever not use the Latin Vulgate (his OT used it a bit though). In truth, he was martyred before a complete English bible could be presented to the people. Coverdale completed the work and his was the first COMPLETE English bible not based on the Latin Vulgate. Wycliff had used the Latin Vulgate (not Greek NT manuscripts) for his English Translation in the 14th century AD.
Just finished David Daniell's "William Tyndale: A Biography" - pretty good stuff. The Reformation and the Puritans are actually more my interest area. I'll be checking out your channel as a late-in-life Greek student.
@@CornerTalker me too...late in life Greek student to teacher. I began about age 50 in late 2015 but am about to turn 58. ha! Better late than never. Reading the bible in Greek is a rush.. and then reading actual ancient manuscripts, is a double dose. I have a Textus Receptus from the Trinitarian Bible Society that I read too.
Good presentation, but I believe the word is uncial, not unical. Also, the argument that those of us who believe the majority text believe it because there are more manuscripts is generally not true. Most people I know who trust the majority text, trust it because it was passed down to us by the church; therefore preserved.
this is an outstanding summary of the issue. The visuals you composed are edifying.
amen
So sad that you have the best video on the topic yet so little views
thanks
People don't know what time it is that's why😉....... they're eyes are wide ( shut) 👁️👁️
It gets a lot wrong and leaves out important details. First off, the Alexandrian Texts are not older than the Textus Receptus, th-cam.com/video/S0Q39VPjz0c/w-d-xo.html
And also, Westcott and Hort were not Christians at all, so trusting them with their translations is not wise at all.
Its an ok presentation. If you want real depth on this, the King James Bible Research Council provides comprehensive coverage...www.youtube.com/@kjbrc
A very well put together presentation. Learned quite a lot. Thank you for this gift
Very well done video. Your way of explaining everything was very easy and your visual cues made everything super clear. God bless 🙏
Great video! Thanks for sharing. It has helped me tremendously, praise God!
Thanks. I was searching n searching for a video to clear this to me, didnt find and finally found this. Thanks a lot. Its such a relief. God bless you. Praise the Lord for all His works thro His people!
I learned more than I knew before, but it could be that the reason that the Byzantine type text is not deemed the oldest and representing the ordinal autographs is that at least one Roman Emperor--Diocletian--had the true texts destroyed and/or confiscated in the empire
Thank you for such an excellent summary of how we got our Bible.
Erasmus did not call his text the Textus Receptus. That term was not used until the Elzevier brothers and is used anachronistically for earlier print editions.
Took the words from my finger tips! :)
Well of course since it’s an academic term to differentiate the biblical sources
Also, Only problem is that the TR is after the kjv. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT deriving from an English translation (kjv) which comes for about 6 Greek manuscript and also relied on Latin for last 6 vs or revelation It’s backwards i know.
@@avismore3938 A reverse translation done by F.H.A. Scrivener, finally printed in 1894, after Scrivener's death. Scrivener's exercise was to determine the textual critical work of the KJV translators.
Ive been a KJV all my life, but have recently been reading the 1599 Geneva , i really like it.
Thats the Bible that made the USA, GNV
Thank you for this concise presentation. Indeed i am interested to know more details about how we got our present day Bible. Hope you can, soon 🙏🏼
Great video! 👏 Thanks very much for uploading this!
A concise overview of the various manuscript traditions. Thanks for sharing that!
Great video. It sums up the whole topic better than any other presentation I've seen before.
Peace
Clear and well put together. Thank you!
Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
@@ernieland2480
What about the MasoNretic text?
I am a Christian and trying to learn more about the history of how we have the Bible. This was easy to understand and provided a lot of information. Thank you!
I thank Adonai for leading me to this video. This is an issue I was completely in the dark about. Byzantine vs. Alexandrian. This coming from someone who is currently comparing and contrasting all the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text!
Well, considering the fact, that maniscripts "live" for just 100-200 years when being used activelly, it's not surprising that we don't have originals, but it is surprising that we have manuscripts that are 50-150 years older than authographs (originals). Off course, those are not full copies, but still are very important.
Yes, there are chunks that are added to the texts by the scribes, but they don't effect the doctrins, like you said. And they look like additions that have roots in oral tradition.
Other than that, the presentation is great! Thank you for your work!
Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
What this video failed to mention is that there are 1800 differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text (Textus Receptus).
Isn't the Received Text just a subset of the Majority Text ?
@@stevenaguilera9202 I don't think so. While they are similar as in the Byzantine Text type, they are not exactly the same. Majority Text is more eastern while the Received Text is more western. The Majority Text is also based on the majority agreement of a compilation of manuscripts this the name Majority Text. While the TR contains 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37, the Majority Text does not. Blessings!!
@@rodneyjackson6181 Then it's clear which one is wrong. I hope you have figured that out. If you think for one split second that either of these verses don't belong in your Bible you have been grossly misled. The Majority text is wrong. As a Christian, you should be able to read the passage in Acts 8 and discern if verse 37 belongs in the passage. The same goes for First John 5:7. Both those verses are inspired words of God and should belong in all Bibles. If you don't think Acts 8:37 is scripture there is something seriously wrong with you. I hope you know the truth about it.
@@randyd9805all I did was state a fact between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text. All of a sudden you come at me with assumptions and assertions. Usually the case when someone does not like facts. Did I ever say that 1 John 5:7 or Acts 8:37 does not belong in Scripture? Nope. The fact is 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript. It was a marginal note in 1. Acts 8:37 is also minority reading and is not found in most Greek manuscripts. This is Biblical history. Erasmus did not put 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament until his third edition. Fact is 1 John 5:7 came from the Latin. Bottom line is that I like both verses and read them from my translations whether in the text or the footnote.
@@rodneyjackson6181 There is zero doubt in my mind that both of those verses are holy scripture. You have taken a position on them and that's clear. Any believer should be able to read the passage in Acts 8 and discern if verse 37 belongs in that text. It was NOT added as you and some others claim. IT DOES CHANGE BIBLE DOCTRINE to remove it. If you believe in what is commonly called baptismal regeneration you may have a motive for not wanting that verse in your Bible. The TR is right and the Majority text is wrong. You cannot prove your position is right no matter how much you try. There is evidence that these verses were in the originals, but no matter what I do you will reject any evidence to the contrary. The texts that are used as the basis for almost all modern translations are not just corrupt, but extremely corrupt. We are not talking about a few verses or words here and there, but so many changes and omissions it boggles the mind that any real believer in Jesus Christ would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Two of them are those 2 verses. There are literally hundreds more.
I actually appreciate that you showed me that they are removed from the Majority Text. As many years as I've been studying and watching this, I did not know that. I checked your statement out and found you are correct using this useful website. textusreceptusbibles.com/EMTV
Btw, my position is solid as a rock. I would challenge you to read at least the passage in Acts 8 carefully and thoughtfully. You might even pray about it sincerely. Does that verse belong in your Bible? I am convinced it does. If you believe it doesn't that's totally on you. Read it with the verse and again without it.
textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/44008001/KJV/GNV/EMTV
Notice the DATES of these 3 translations that predate the KJV.
textusreceptusbibles.com/Parallel/44008001/TYN/WYC/COV
What a great video. I’ve often thought of making a similar video. Now I don’t have to. Thanks for doing this.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 (KJB)
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not _soon shaken_ _in mind_, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, _nor by_ _letter_ _as from us_, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Thank you for this nice summary of the issues.
Dope video 💯💯💯 I started with the NIV , slowly transitioning to the King james. As of now I’m reading them side to side.
Great video ! I put forward the hypothesis that the manuscrits that are fewer (those who differ from de mainstream byzantine text) have been transmitted orally.
It seems to be a commun practice these days to memorize large portions of texts. (the coran in it's early stages was mainly transmitted orally)
I seems to me that the Alexandrian texts were not considered as valuable. They would all know that copies of an orally transmitted text wasn't as valuable as a written copy.
That's the reason why they have been preserved better (not used as much as others), it's the reason why they have been forgotten in the libraries, and also why the differences between the manuscripts of the minority text are much more frequent.
Good thinking. This idea helps me understand more about the topic. I can really picture this being how it happened.
This was an excellent and very interesting explanation of positions on both sides. This is what I refer to as objective evidence as opposed to the subjective one sided view of people like James White.
Excellent overview, thank you.
Just two quick points and a couple suggestions. First God preserved his Word according to many verses in the Scriptures. Second Desidarius Erasmus revised his work a total of 5 times to try to perfect it. I suggest you look into the writings of Hort and Wescott published after their deaths and definitely look up and listen to the testimony of repentance that Dr. Frank Logsdon gave. Dr. Logsdon wrote the Preface of the NASB version when it was first put out. It along with nearly ALL the new translations are based on the Hort, Wescott, Nestle and Aland Greek text. Then you can discern and decide for yourself what Scripture you should be using. God Bless All
The fact that NIV, CSB, HCSB, NET, ESV, NASB, LSB and many others are based on the work of these four non-real christians, it is evidence of how the enemy has blinded the eyes of most of the people involved in the work of translating these modern bible translations, what a big shame. Desideruis was used by God to bring us the real and trustworthy word of God, that's why the Reformers' translations are the way to follow.
@@joseramonperez9609So God inspired Erasmus to lie about the last 6 verses of Revelation?
Get out of here with the KJVonlyism. It’s 2024, that’s a tired gag.
@@TheDmitriProject Hi, I think that God used the *_Reformers_* to give us translations in English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and Portuguese from the most truthworthy sources, the latest modern translation have cut off verses which were part of the original, the manuscripts before the corrupted *_"Alexandrian manuscripts"_*
@@TheDmitriProject Hi, I'm not a KJVonlysm at all, I'm just seeing how the modern English Translations which almost all of them are based on the corrupted *_"Alexandrian manuscripts*"_** not in the earliest ones used by the **_*"Church Fathers"_* these corrupted manuscripts are the base for these translations which have cutt off important verses which were part of the *_Scriptures_* and that's the problem.
@@joseramonperez9609Thoughts on the johannine comma?
Thank you for this. So helpful.
Thank you so much! I appreciate you presenting both sides. The last time I revisited this, it was a horrible experience and I gave up. I defended the NT as a whole. But I am starting to see holes in my position. I will continue to believe in good faith, that God is faithful. We are blessed to have this problem. If we can even call it a problem.
Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
shalom from indonesia.
thanks for the video...
Great video easy to understand
Outstanding presentation!
Thanks
Excellent work! Thanks.
A must to know, look very basic and easy.But with out proper hard work of learning the stuff can not makes such great summarize of biblical history..Well done!
There is a detail that the video overlooked, but it reinforces what it supports is about an older version and much closer to the original texts: the Peshita Bible. Already in the 2nd century BC a text had been produced in Cyriac that faithfully supports what was written in the Byzantine texts. Due to this detail, the critical text has a major fidelity and authenticity problem.
As for the Pool of Bethesday 4:51 we have Tertullian referring to this around 200 AD and saying the angel stirred the water. This is the "west" and his manuscript references are characterized often as WESTERN Textual family. So maybe John did not have the included, but since that is EARLY tradition and belief, I tend to believe it and therefore appreciate that it is in the KJV.
Overall a good introduction to the manuscript tradition of the Bible. I would like to point out though, that from 8:05-8:50 you have mistyped the word "uncial" as "unical" and therefore mispronounced uncial. Otherwise, I enjoyed the video.
thanks
I didn't know that only 6 manuscripts were used for the Textus Receptus. It is synonymous with the Byzantine text which is known as the majority text. Where does the term Critical text come in then that all modern translations use? I've heard its Alexandrian but also that it has the most manuscripts for scholars to choose. That cannot be possible right?
Hey Mike, the TR is only synonymous with the Byzantine/Majority text in less knowledgeable circles, in fact the TR differers from the Majority Text in ~1800 places, this is explained by the facts that Erasmus didn't use the best examplars of the Majority Text, he didn't have a manuscript of Revelation (and was forced to extract one from a greek/latin commentary in which the last page was missing, thus he translated the last 6 verses directly from the latin Vulgate into greek) and consulted the Vulgate on a number of readings in which he prefered it in comparison to the greek manuscripts. An interesting note is that since Erasmus colated from 6 manuscripts to create his TR it is, in fact, also a "critical text" because he adopted textual criticism when he chose readings from these manuscripts, which were all different.
The modern concept of "Critical Text" began in the 19th Century with Westcott-Hort, and the recent archeological findings of ever earlier manuscripts and the adoption of scientific methodology to reconstruct the original text out of the huge number of manuscripts we possess (~5800), particularly from the very earliest ones like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the papyri like P45, P66, P75 and others which are the earlist surviving witnesses of the text.
Do we have a citation re Erasmus using Codex Bezae?
Can anyone tell how the TR has longer verses? Where did they get said longer verses from if the older CT doesn’t have them?
The “older” texts were found in Catholic monasteries in 19th century. Other than claims we have zero evidence they’re older. They don’t allow any chemical tests.
@mrk4954 are you not familiar with the 16th and 17th centuries? Who do you think created the Greek and English texts in the late middle ages, up through much of the 17th century. The 1611 revision of the Bishop's Bible (CATHOLIC PUE BIBLE), which is called the KJV is Anglican.
I hope this helps some.
I've seen it claimed that the numerous differnces between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are nearly all very minor differences. Also, since the Catholic Church used the Western Text (Gospels and Acts in Codex Bezae, Pauline Epistles in Codex Claromontanus) as the basis for most of the Old Testament in the Vetus Latina before Jerome, it should have gotten a little mention.
Thanks.. very clear and well presented
Where did you obtain this incomplete, inaccurate Koine Greek (KG) NT, manuscript (MSS), & English translation info. THE Majority Text of Farstad & Hodges differs from the 1769* edition of KJ translation in1838 places including that it lacks 1 John 5:7.
*has nearly 4000 more words than the 1611
While the accounts vary Erasmus had between 6 & 12 INCOMPLETE MSS. He filled in the gaps w/translation portions from the Latin Vulgate.
Anyone who doesn’t know Reformation history would think Erasmus published only one NT. And/or no one performed & published add’l KG NTs after him. Also Erasmus was dead nearly 100 before anyone heard the phrase or term coined by the
Elzevir brothers: Textus Receptus or TR.
Erasmus published FIVE KG NTs 1516, 1519 , 1522, 1527, & 1535. Luther used the 1519 edition for his first German translation. Stephanus published four: 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva.
The 1551 had the same Greek text as the third, but is especially noteworthy for its division of the NT books into verses.
Lastly, before the KJ Translators* went to work in 1604, was Theodore Beza. He published a total of 12, three of which were available to the translators*, the 3rd, his 1598 they* relied upon the most.
Also omitted were numerous English translations in between Tyndale and the Geneva** translations plus a translation that followed**, the Bishop.
An English translation recap that omits a late 16th Catholic English translation from the Latin Vulgate
1. Tyndale Bible (1526) by William Tyndale.
2. Coverdale Bible (1535) by Myles Coverdale.
3. Matthew’s Bible (1537) by Thomas Matthew..
4. Great Bible or Whitchurch Bible (1539) by Myles Coverdale.
5. Taverner’s Bible (1539) by Richard Taverner.
6. Becke’s Bible (1551) by Edmune Becke.
7. Geneva Bible (1560) by William Whittingham.
8. Bishop’s Bible (1568) by Matthew Parker.
All available to the translators
You down play the significance of the papyri discoveries over the last 130+ years
Just how long were you expecting an introductory vid to be? 1 hr & 1/2?
An excellent presentation. Its noteworthy that so called Byzantine texts were quoted by Christians from the 1st and 2nd century. I would assume that would validate them to some degree. I am curious to know more about this topic.
I am uncertain where the number 5800 originated. Determining the actual number of manuscripts is difficult. Considering the ones in Greek:
The Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in Münster, Germany has catalogued over 320 uncial codices, which are the older ones. However, many believe a few of these should be removed from the list (055 is actually a commentary; 0100, 0129, and 0192 are lectionaries; 0168 is lost; 0212 is a diatessaron; 0152 and 0153 are not manuscripts at all).
The same institute has catalogued 2911 minuscule codices. These were generally created between 700 and the invention of the printing press.
As of 2021, only 141 papyri fragments were known, and some of these have been judged to be fragments of the same original manuscript.
Manuscripts also include at least 100 in Old Latin and many more of the Vulgate; also New Testament manuscripts in Syriac, German (Codex Koridethi, for example), and Ethiopian Ge’ez (The Garima Gospel).
Thank you, keep it up.
You are a great teacher thank you
Thank you! Very helpful.
Great video, thanks!
One comment I should make is that the Catholic Church since 420 AD has used the Latin Vulgate. The Byzantine text was used by the Eastern Orthodox Church as they rejected the Latin translation and kept it in their original language. That being said too the Douay-Rheims is a weird middle ground between Alexandrian & Byzantine text families. It does not omit verses that are in less manuscripts in the Majority Text.
In case I missed it, the 1901 ASV bible also uses the Westcott and Hort NT text. In fact, I think it may have been the first to do so.
Really nice work
Good presentation... Uncials not Unicals
but one of the better presentations on the subject as far as understandable and well thought out.
Very helpful.
Thank you.
so interesting thank you god bless
An excellent, though "scholarly", work on this is "The Original Ending of Mark" but I cannot recall the sub-title or Author (and I can't find my kindle).
It can also be a rabbit hole one can dive into and be lost for decades.
@@CornerTalker The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 by Nicholas P. Lunn
@@CornerTalker Amen!!
Thank you!
Thanks a lot for this. The New Testament just got more complicated. It does seem like the division occured earlier if church fathers quoted the Byzantine manuscripts.
How could the early Church fathers QUOTE manuscripts that came 600 - 800 years later or more. By "Church Fathers", I assume you mean Ante Nicene Fathers (1st century AD to 325), but maybe you mean 10th century AD church fathers eh? I say that since the Byzantine manuscripts are primarily nineth (9th) century to 15th century AD? since all NT manuscripts, other meaningless variations, match each other, for the MOST PART then of course you could see common ground between the quotes they made and the Byzantine Majority text family. In such as comparison, you could say that about any of the Textual families. By meaningless variations they all have, in Greek word order is VERY flexible but not so much in English. So putting some words before or after others technically is a variation. Also, if the definite article was included in some but not in others (translates as the word THE), then that is a variation. Spelling variations are considered textual variations. No, the church fathers of the first 300 years quotes match mostly the Alexandrian and Western text families, which these two are the oldest NT manuscripts we have.
Well done. Thank you
Well done👍🏽
Thanks for the details, additional info on text of the gospel by james snapp jr
I suggest that you watch "Netiher oldest nor best" by the King James Bible research council on TH-cam. It will shed more light on the subject.
Quite apart from the fact that the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) has been established as not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel*, it clearly does not say Jesus _forgave_ the woman her sins. Rather, the passage shows only that Jesus applied the Torah (John 8:7) and, in the absence of the witnesses and processes required by the Torah, released her with the admonition to stop sinning. In so upholding the Torah, Jesus’ alleged statement “Neither do I condemn you” doesn’t even remotely imply forgiveness - especially given the absence of any evidence of repentance being expressed by the woman. All it means is that Jesus dismissed the charges against the woman for want of due process.
Relevant Torah provisions include:
• Not deciding a case on the evidence of a single witness (Deuteronomy 19:15);
• A transgressor shall not testify (Exodus 23:1);
• Not to execute someone for a capital offence before he/she has stood trial (Numbers 35:12); and
• Not accepting the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in capital cases (Deuteronomy 24:16).
Note, too, the lack of reference in the _Pericope Adulterae_ to the required two or more witnesses; it is they whom the Torah required to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). Presumably it is also they to whom Jesus’ challenge was specifically addressed. Once fewer than two witnesses were present, there was never any prospect of the woman being stoned (if there ever was).
* See, for example Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger & Wikgren (The Greek New Testament, 1983, pp. xii, xlvii, 355-357), Marsh (1968, pp. 681-683). For a discussion of the manuscript evidence, see Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 1968, pp. 223-224).
Seems odd you say the Papyrus was earliest... yet Dead Sea Scrolls dating to before Christ were mostly parchment. Perhaps the most notable being the great Isaiah scroll which was dated older than 100 BCE is made of 17 sheets of parchment. Kinda strange statement as I see it. Do you have sources you're leaning on for this claim? Also stating the writing style of miniscule came later seems equally odd. Would like to know your source for that also.
This is in reference to New Testament manuscripts only. The oldest Old Testament bit is written on copper.
Only problem is that the TR is after the kjv. The TR is a Greek edition of the NT deriving from an English translation (kjv) which comes for about 6 Greek manuscript and also relied on Latin. It’s backwards i know.
Erasmus created the Textus Receptus in 1516 from eight Greek miniscule manuscripts, although in a few verses, he followed the 4th Century Latin Vulgate translation by Jerome. The King James Bible was first printed in 1604, eighty-eight years later. Erasmus, the translator of the TR, died in 1536.
@@CornerTalkerErasmus' Greek New Testament is not the same as the Textus Receptus. FWIW, both include the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1522 and, from there, into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus.
This is a very helpful video. Thank you. Please be aware that the word is uncial, not unical.
@2:05 he should have included "that despite minor variations the monks missed, copies from those manuscript mistakes can be compared to properly copied manuscripts, because properly copied manuscripts were MUCH more plentiful" thus we could trace that we have God's Word
Wow excellent presentation.
The very last chart is very telling. It's missing the "original" source. All the various Greek "translations" can be explained if you include the original Aramaic that the authors wrote it ALL in. There's so much evidence for this that almost no one investigates. But scholars of the 1800's worked this all out. The books are no longer published but they are available.
It seems to me that the textual criticism of the alexandrian text pointing to writer errors can just be differences between the two.
Great short intro
thank you
v good and mercifully short
EXCELLENT VIDEO
Erasmus entitled his first Greek NT Novum Instrumentum omne, NOT Textus Receptus.
The Majority Text is slowly gaining support among scholars, for it is the real text. It may take a few decades, but the Majority Text will eventually overtake the Critical Text.
Byzantine texts has never misleaded the church, even if those verses were added they're not negative teachings neither contradicts the doctrines of the apostles.
I agree and perhaps wasn't clear that I was reporting what my sources had said and not stating my personal belief.
yeah I agree with you,. If these "added texts" were actually harmful or even a little concerning then I would no doubt join the Alexandrian camp, but, they instead push more christ into the picture. I don't see how that is evil.
@Hiram Serna I believe alexandrian text is misleading as in some verses it changes meanings.
@@exposingtruth600And the KJV has texts that have changed meanings too compared to modern English - in thousands of places. Languages morph and drift.
The KJV also has deliberate mistranslations to support the political agenda of King James and minimise embarrassment over some of his policies that conflicted with actual Biblical teachings.
@@allangibson8494 I don’t believe in the KJV anymore as much as I used to
Thank you for this splendid introduction the best I've seen so far. Just one question: how do we know the dates of all the different manuscripts? Perhaps the most interesting case would be the date of the Rylands manuscript.
From my understanding none of them are carbon dated, I think they use writing styles of certain periods in history and they make a guess of most likely when the texts are dated. I could be wrong but I’d like to know more too instead of taking different scholars word for it.
I believe handwriting analysis is generally used - which means precise dates are impossible(only ranges). However, it is possible to establish the general age of the document. And (by way of example) it's unlikely a 5th century scribe would try to make a 4th century forgery. After all, there would have been older manuscripts available in his time.
As to carbon dating(someone correct me if I'm wrong), I believe the process wouldn't actually provide clarification. Carbon dating is used for very old things, and gives a general age range. However, from what I know of the process, it's not precise enough to clarify between a few hundred years.
@@bstring3967 Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
@@NomadJournalistNews Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
Excellent video, very thoroughly researched and well presented!!!
Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
This was a very well presented and informative video. Thank you for this.
Go to the 1611 Ministries and listen and learn!
When Erasmus finished his collation, collected manusctipts to form the greek, it was called Novum Instrumentum Omne, not the Textus Receptus. There were many typo errors and versions that people complained about. so on the last page within a sentence the PRINTERS wrote "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus ("so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt"). Later elzivar tried to make the TR one word. after, after....
Neat presentation. The issue is complex, but good thing getting to Heaven isn't... Rom 3: 23, Rom 4: 5, John 6: 47, Eph 2: 8-9, Titus 3: 5,
The fact that devils come out of people when they renounce catholic saints, just says it all
I’m not a king James onlyist even though I only use the KJV but to be honest even if my argument for the king, James is mostly emotional I don’t care. I feel so much more connected to God when I read the KJV compared to the other versions
That was worth typing "Text types of NT" on youtube , glad that i got this video , i am really trying to know more about that , so thanks for ur lovely effort.
Can i ask is it possible to get this wonderful powerpoint presentation?
Erasmus DID NOT call his text "Textus Receptus" That phrase was coined by printers The Elzevir Brothers Abraham and Bonaventure in 1633 A.D. A full 97 years after Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus died in 1536 A.D.
You show an image of a page from Vaticanus as an example of 4th to 8th century manuscripts. However, it shows obvious initial drop caps. Initial drop caps were not used until the middle ages.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark
16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the
earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a
problem,
what would you see as a problem?
Curious as to where your getting your information? My understanding is that without using certain patristic writings that the PA is not found or has no prominence in any pre-800’s ad manuscripts. That’s one huge reason not to include that story in that there’s no line of transmission. Any videos or articles that you have I’d love to watch
@@Kenneth-nVA That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate. purelypresbyterian.com/2016/12/01/defense-of-the-pericope-adulterae/ Also James Snapp,Jr. and my elder son Jonathan Sheffield have videos on You Tube
@@jamessheffield4173 I’ve watched some of his debates on TH-cam regarding this issue! Thank you and I’ll research the link you sent…I seriously started studying this about 2 years ago and I’m muddled somewhere in the middle. I’ve wanted to ask someone this so maybe you can also help: how far back to the 2-4th centuries can the TR position be traced? If I’m understanding Gurry, Wallace and the text criticism camp ( James white as well…) then the TR manuscripts are fairly closer to the 1500’s and generally could not be reproduced in the 2nd-4th centuries…any help would be appreciated.
@@Kenneth-nVA The classic Books on the issue would be The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and his The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both I believe are on Amazon. A more up to date work is The Identity of the New Testament Text II by
Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ Good luck on your studies. Blessings.
If Ciprean us quoting a sentence from 1st john doesn't that mean he at least had a copy of 1st John?
great graphic.
The earlier the manuscript.
THE BETTER
That's great in theory, but are you aware that there were people who didn't like Jesus? That's obvious, but the devil will do anything to get back at him. How do you know that the manuscripts weren't corrupted by evil people? We don't have the originals.
1. Some of the greatest corruption of God's Word occurred in the first two centuries A.D. New Testament writers were already warning of this before the NT was complete.
2. Manuscripts most used due to their purity would be those most copied repeatedly, making their witness newer.
3. Governmental and religious ruling authorities had more money for longer lasting manuscript materials. That doesn't make the contents more pure or true - "better." An example would be the animal skin Bibles Constantine (very questionable in his "Christianity") had Eusebius make (influenced by philosopher and Bible doctrine heretic Origen). The materials the common Christians used to copy their Bibles wore out faster.
Bottom Line: "Oldest is best" sounds good as a catch phrase, but doesn't hold water.
base on alexandrian Text . in Codex Sinai. Read the chapter John 1:18..
Juan Said. "Monogenes Theo's" it means "Only Begotten God" in the Byzantine Text all Manuscript s Said "Only begotten Son".
that verse at different .. I'm right?
in my Country the sec. Church of Christ...they belief that Jesus are only a man ....
No
If people would start obeying Jesus, extracting from their Bibles what Jesus wants us to find, the manuscript source and the translation, assuming it's a whole lot better than the message, will transform lives. Just pick up a Bible and read it and obey it and trust it and find God in it. Who cares about the T crossing and the I dotting? The more we do this, the more we deliberately and directly disobey our God.
Huh?
Unical??
Do you mean uncial?
The Douay-Rheims version is the most Catholic of English translations and it is not a "descendant" of the "Alexandrian text type". So not quite correct to say that "all Catholic Bibles" are "Alexandrian" text type Bibles.
Thank you for pointing this out
Gnosticism was dominant in Alexandria? Isn't that a consideration here?
At some points you overstate the affect of the variants. At no point do they concern Christian doctrine. Someone reading ANY of the textual schools will learn the same doctrinal teachings.
Meaningful, viable differences are found in less than 1% of the text. Most variants (like when you say 3000 of them in the Gospels) are simple spelling or word order differences and these make zero difference in translations (word order in Greek is not important like in English).
Over 5800 manuscripts is slightly misleading as close to 1000 are simply fragments and not what the average lay person would imagine to be understood as a "manuscript".
What is a Catholic bible?
Alexandrian
A Catholic Bible would be a Bible published by and for Catholic Christians. They are pretty much all minor revisions of Protestant or Ecumenical scholarship. But thr video maker made a mistake in saying that *all* Catholic Bibles are translations of Alexandriam texts. The Douay-Rheims version, pubsluh3d slightly before the King James, is the most Catholic of English translations and it isn't a translation of "Alexandrian" texts.
actually the original Declaration of Independence is lost
It was very helpful. Thnx.
5:50 you are saying this NT Greek dilemma hinges on the possibility that the church has been missing the true text for almost 2000 years. Well consider this, here is a brief on the Christian bible history.
*Up until near 400 AD, the worldwide churchs had Greek OT and NT. Sure we can debate what NT Greek they had, but the point is it was Greek.
*After 400 AD, Jerome having finished his Latin bible, aka the Latin Vulgate since the Roman empire having defeated the Greek 500 years earlier, the language had finally evolved to be primarily Roman (Latin) in the Western church, so he was asked by Pope Damasus, being his secretary, to translate the Greek bible into Latin. Jerome used the unbelieving Jews' Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint LXX that the church had been using for centuries and most NT quotes in our bibles today, even the KJV bible, match MOST OF THE TIME the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew used in the KJV and all protestant bibles.
So to your point at 5:50, that could not have happened since the church had been using EXCLUSIVELY the Latin Vulgate from about 400 to about 1550 AD when William Tyndale completed the first English bible to ever not use the Latin Vulgate (his OT used it a bit though). In truth, he was martyred before a complete English bible could be presented to the people. Coverdale completed the work and his was the first COMPLETE English bible not based on the Latin Vulgate. Wycliff had used the Latin Vulgate (not Greek NT manuscripts) for his English Translation in the 14th century AD.
Just finished David Daniell's "William Tyndale: A Biography" - pretty good stuff. The Reformation and the Puritans are actually more my interest area. I'll be checking out your channel as a late-in-life Greek student.
@@CornerTalker me too...late in life Greek student to teacher. I began about age 50 in late 2015 but am about to turn 58. ha! Better late than never. Reading the bible in Greek is a rush.. and then reading actual ancient manuscripts, is a double dose. I have a Textus Receptus from the Trinitarian Bible Society that I read too.
Good presentation, but I believe the word is uncial, not unical.
Also, the argument that those of us who believe the majority text believe it because there are more manuscripts is generally not true. Most people I know who trust the majority text, trust it because it was passed down to us by the church; therefore preserved.