Hey:

The short answer to your questions is no. The long answer will take several pages, but here is a short synopsis:

1) When an official copy of a text was made and approved the original was destroyed, and the copy of the original was considered authentic. This accounts for the lack of "ancient" mss in the Byzantine text-type. Both the Jewish Church in the OT and the Christian Church in the NT considered newer copies of the autographs more authoritative than older copies (since the older copies were considered destroyed).

If you find, then, older copies lying around one can argue that these were never copied - hence the very small number of copies of the Alexandrian Varients. If these texts were copied, then they would have been destroyed, and the newer copies would have survived in exactly the same fashion that we see the Byzantine texts surviving.

2) Ancient translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, the Old Italic of the Waldensians, and the Syriac all agree with the Byzantine texts. The Old Italic of the Waldensians, for example, has been traced back to circa 130 AD.

3) If you consider where the Autographs of the New Testament originated, or, which churches these Autographs would be found in, then you will find that they will be found in what would be known as the Byzantine Empire. From Jerusalem, Matthew, James, and Jude (possibly), through Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, Thessolonica, Rome (Romans), the epistles of Peter (1 Pet. 1:1), and of the rest of the NT will be found in the Byzantine Empire.

I would suggest that those churches that actually handled and copied the Autographs would be able to recognize which are authentic and which are not. That after the Roman persecutions were aleviated by Constantine (313 AD) these churches came together and standardized the New Testament Text. The result is the Byzantine mss. Consequently, once the standard text was determined the multitude of copies would be made.

4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.

Consider, the Apostle Peter warned the Church of heretics who were corrupting the Scriptures even in his very day:

...which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Peter 3:16b.

Out of some eight hundred thousand various readings of the Bible that have been collated, about seven hundred and ninety-five thousand are of just about as much importance to the sense of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the question in English orthography is, whether the word honour should be spelled with a u or without it. The vast majority of the remaining readings come from the Alexandrian Varients. These readings change the doctrinal nature of the passage in question.

I will leave you to your own conclusions.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: Psa 101:3 I wil set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the worke of them that fall away: it shal not cleaue vnto me.

Psa 119:104 By thy precepts I haue gotten vnderstanding: therefore I hate all the wayes of falshoode.

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

The horse may be likened to that body of manuscripts called the critical text; it's violent assailant, Mr. Wieland.

Great argument. Greatly appreciated.

__________________
Matthew Vaughan
Attending Presbyterian Reformed Church, Northern Va.
Bowie, MD

Excellent point. In that situation the copy would probably be considered better than the original because it had the same words but was without the decay.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

The mythical recension of Hort's devising is said to have taken place in the 4th century when Christianity had conquered the civil establishment and a uniform Bible was to be placed in the churches (50 copies, if I remember correctly). It's Da Vinci code material.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I'm a Byz supporter, but even I see the holes in the providential preservation argument......

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
Sunday School Teacher (Elementary 2), Gaithersburg Community Church (EFCA)
http://www.gchurch.org
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
The Upcoming CD: The Definition

Could you be more specific?

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

OR, it could very well be that there are no older Byzantine manuscripts because they never existed prior to the 5th Century. Judging from the fact that we have copies reflecting the Western Text Type and the Alexandrian Text Type from these earlier centuries but no copies of the Byzantine Text Type it is extremely curious that not a single manuscript exists of this text type prior to the 5th Century if it is indeed most representative of the original.

Furthermore, what you are describing was the process for the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but you are going way out on a limb to say that this was the process for the copying of the New Testament text. There is no evidence that the original was destroyed when a copy was made of the New Testament Text during the first several centuries of its transmission (I'm not even sure one can establish that from the later stage of the transmission of the text either.).

This is pure fiction. A 'trip into cloud land' to quote one textual scholar .

The Old Italic is a representative of the Alexandrian Text as Tischendorf pointed out...

"...the Sinaitic copy, which more than any other is in closest agreement with the old Italic version. We do not mean that there are no other versions which agree as closely with the Sinaitic copy as the old Italic version, which the translator, who lived in North Africa, somewhere near our modern city of Algiers, had before him. For we find that the old Syriac version which has been recently found is quite as closely related as the Italic."

Regarding the Syriac...While the Peshitta does reflect the Byzantine Text Type, the Old Syriac copies (which pre-date the Peshitta) does not (as Tischendorf also pointed out in the quote above).

Finally, the Latin Vulgate...neither the Old Latin that preceeded the Latin Vulgate nor the Vulgate itself reflect a Byzantine Text Type. The Latin Vulgate most closely identifies with the Western Text Type.

The troublesome fact that history seperates the Byzantine Text Type four hundred years from the autographs AND the fact the the longest surviving autograph of any New Testament book probably did not survive to the end of the First Century or, at best, the very beginning of the Second put significant dents in this reasoning.

Then how under the heavens do we have the Alexandrian manuscripts (and other non Byzantine manuscripts and translations) today if God did not preserve them?

Even if you contend that God preserved it in use but the other manuscript traditions were not used, it would be fiction. Prior to the 5th Century, the textual evidence reveals the texts in use were either Western, Alexandrian or mixed. After the Byzantine gained preimmenance in the Eastern Church during the Middle Ages, the west used the Latin Vulgate which reflects more of the Western Text Type.

Finally we come to the arguement that the Alexandrian manuscripts are the deliberate result of heretics perverting the Scriptures. The doctrines which some claim are under attack in the Alexandrian manuscripts are all so thouroughly present, that these heretical copyists must have been the most inept heretics in the history of the Christian church.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably pick up a translation like the NASB and claim the text reflects the deliberate work of heretics (since translation like the NASB are essentially Alexandrian in nature).


God has preserved the scriptures in the manuscripts. In the case of the varients between the manuscripts, we deal with each one on a case by case basis weighing the evidence for each based upon the internal and external evidence of each witness. I find this approach to be far more biblical as was as reasonable than starting with the KJV and working backwards.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

The main problem that i find with text critics who take the reasoned eclectic approach is that they all seem to totally discount the Byzantine witness altogether. And although the text-type is not seen to be in existence during the early Church, Byzantine readings do exist. And i don't think that the Byzantine text-type just came out of thin air. I would feel much better about the critical text if it treated the Byzantine text with a little more respect.

Reasoned Eclectics do not completely throw out the Byzantine witnesses. Rather, based upon the evidence, see it as a secondary witness.

The fact that the 27th Edition of the Nestle Aland contains numerous readings that are Byzantine is proof that this approach does not completely throw out this manuscript family.

Post #48 lays out a few. Thanks Robert.

Give me a day or three and I'll be back with a few more.

One major one, of course, is the fact that I can use 'special pleading' in the same fashion to claim providential preservation of the Alexandrian text:

[special pleading]
And proof of God's leading and providential care over the Alexandrian text is that He kept them safe for thousands of years in a dry area where they would not rot or decay so that in an age where we can spend more time on biblical scholarship, they would gradually become more available to us. [/special pleading]

Greetings:

To exemplify prespastor's unreliability concerning the Old Italic Bible. Here are 16 examples of verses in the Old Italic that are not found in the Critical Text 3rd Edition:

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast."

John 5: 3b - 4 "waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip 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 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the capital lettered words are missing in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV but found in the Old Latin and the KJB.

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, 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; by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." Again, all the capital lettered words are omitted in the modern versions.

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I can only speak of the 3rd edition since that is the copy I own. Tishendorf was simply trying to link his new found copy with that of accepted versions without criticism. In other words - he had a bias. In these passages, and many others, the Old Latin, Syriac, and Old Italic agree with the Byzantine Textus Receptus against the "Western" and "Critical" Texts.

It was the Alands who argued that the "Western Text type" is not a legitimate text type, and I have seen no refutation of their arguments from the Critical Text group?

Robert Olivetan translated the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians into French. He did so at the College of the Barbar's in the Waldensian valley. This Bible is decidedly Byzantine in its readings. The Olivetan Bible, or the French Geneva translation, was also a source document for the Geneva Bible in English, Now, who will argue that any of these translations are not Byzantine?

We do not deal with the Alexandrian Varients in regards to determining the correct text because these varients were entirely rejected by the Church after the 4th century.

Blessings,

-CH

If the Old Italic from the second century contain those readings, it would be a revolutionary discovery for the science of textual criticism. One would wonder why much use has not been made of this by Traditional Text advocates?

I am curious to know exactly where you are getting your data. Which Old Italic manuscripts contain those readings exactly? I would very much like to research that.

As for the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate conforming to the Byzantine Text Type...I'm sorry my brother, you are just wrong about that.

Other problems with Prespastor's post:

Speculation: he wrote:

When did the Autographs cease to exist? Prespastor seems to know exactly when. Does he have proof? or, Was he there when it happened? - Talking about "significent dents"!!! Does he even know the nature of textual transmission? The large majority of Christians in the 1st through 3rd Centuries were Jews - 3000 Jews were converted at Pentecost alone, Acts 2. How could the church not adopt the Jewish method of textual transmission?

Revelation, according to most scholars, was written circa 97 AD - to say that it did not survive 3 years is rather egregious to say the least.

Prespastor is relying on liberal scholars such as Tischendorf to prove his points, but neglects the fact that these liberal scholars agree, in part or in whole, with the heretics of the 1st through 4th centuries: the denial of the deity of Christ, miracles, and the nature of God.

More speculation, he writes:

Do we have all of the texts used during the 1st through 3rd centuries? No, we do not. If the Church was in the practice of destroying the older mss, and we have no reason to think that they did not, then it would follow that we would not find many texts during these centuries - which is exactly what we do find. We should expect that texts which differ from the newer texts were not copied, but ignored - which is exactly what we find in the Alexandrian varients!

Too many coincidences creates Providence. The very reason why we do not have many Alexandrian mss is because these varients were not copied, The reason why they were not copied is because they were not considered authentic. And, that is the reason why they are the "older" texts - because they were never copied or considered authentic.

Older does not mean better. From the Apostle Peter and all through the history of the Church, we find complaints concerning heretics, "wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction," 2 Pet. 3:16. The Alexandrian varients prove in their variations that they are the corrupted texts compiled by heretics.

Blessings,

-CH

Odd - I provide reasons for my position, but all prespastor can say in response is - you're wrong???

And, we are supposed to accept prespastor's beliefs because he is prespastor? - a little ex cathedra reasoning going on here? possibly?

You mean to say that you do not have copies of the Old Italic, Old Latin, or even the Vulgate to make comparisons? - And you are making such sweeping and "authoritative" statements about them?

A Berean you are not.

Dr. Hort himself states that the dominant text-type after the declaration of Constantine (313 AD) is the Byzantine mss:

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, Wescott, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)

-CH

People who wish to study the subject out may do so. I'm just repeating what is universally accepted in the scholarly community by men who have dedicated their lives to the study of this subject.

I'm still waiting on your source for those Old Italic readings.

But what about Chester Beatty? Aren't those both Byzantine AND old...prior to the 5th century?

And while we are at it...why don't we carbon date some of these manuscripts??? Or has that been done yet?