Just bought my first Interlinear Bible (Greens Edition). It's got my head spinning alittle. Im trying to digest the preface, but I feel alittle lost.
Can someone give a breakdown of the Recieved Text, Alexandrian Text, Majority Text and the Latin Vulgate? Maybe just a quick summary of thier roles to us?
From what I understand the KJV & NKJV are translations of the Recieved Text which is comprised of 5000ish manuscripts of later dating. All other translations are from the Alexandrian Text which is made up of 2 sets of manuscripts (Codex Siniatic and Codex something else I can't remember right now) of much earlier dating. Thats about all I know about it. Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track here?
Interlinear Bible & the manuscripts used
Interlinear Bible & the manuscripts used
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Lotta Luv,
john b
john b
Hi john b,
It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure Steve layed out all the info you're seeking in the section 'Authority of the Scriptures.'
Good luck and be blessed...
It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure Steve layed out all the info you're seeking in the section 'Authority of the Scriptures.'
Good luck and be blessed...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
It is well to inquire about the origin of the Greek New Testaments in our possession today. The Greek of these New Testaments is not limited to Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, etc. The Greek is drawn from many different manuscripts, depending on the editor's theory of text restoration.
They were put together by editors who used manuscripts from the various centuries, and attempted to reconstruct what they considered to be the true text. Perhaps the earliest editor was Erasmus, who published his Greek NT in 1516. Then Stephens compiled his edition in 1550. Beza closely followed Erasmus’s NT, which was based on a few medieval manuscripts. Beza’s edition came out in 1589. Although he had access to two manuscripts dating from the 5th and 6th centuries, he made very little use of them, because they differed from the edition of Erasmus. Another of these editors was Elzevir whose edition of 1624 is the one called the Received Text, or Textus Receptus, because of the words “Textum.. Ab omnibus receptum” occuring in the preface. Some say the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. Impossible, of course, since the KJV was translated in 1611, 13 years before Elzevir’s edition was made. Rather, the basis for the KJV was Beza’s edition of the Greek NT. And the Latin Vulgate was also consulted a lot in making the translation.
In about 1770, Griesbach brought out his NT. His approach was to classify
the Greek manuscripts into 3 families, and then deal with each family as one witness. These families were the Alexandrine, the Western, and the Byzantine. When two of the families agreed in a reading, that decided the text for him.
Another editor, Lachmann, having little respect for the common text, formed a text independent of that. He went with ancient evidence only. He tried to recover the text as it was up to the 4th century. Of course, he couldn’t actually restrict himself to the evidence of or before the 4th century, or he could not have produced an edition of the NT.
Tischendorf aimed at reconstructing the original text. Here is his approach in his own words: “The text is only to be sought from ancient evidence, and especially from Greek MSS, but without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and Fathers.” He differed from Lachmann in receiving evidence as late as the 9th century.
Tregelles’ approach was much the same as Lachman’s
Alford stated “The Text which I have adopted has been constructed by following in all ordinary cases, the united or preponderating evidence of the most ancient authorities. In cases where the most ancient authorities do not agree or preponderate, taking into account later evidence; and in cases where the weight of diplomatic testimony is interfered with by adventitious circumstances (such as parallelism or the like), applying those principles of criticism which appear to furnish sound criteria of a spurious or genuine reading. The object of course is, in each case, where evidence is divided, to mount up, if possible, to the original reading from which all the variations sprung; in other words to discover some word or some arrangement which shall account for the variations, but for which none of the variations will account."
Just to give you an idea of the quantity of manuscripts that exist --- I am privileged to own a book that contains transcripts of ALL the extant Greek manuscripts prior to 301 A.D. (Consisting of 64 papyri and 4 uncials). These manuscripts taken together take up 619 pages of the book. Yet there are portions of the New Testament which are not found in ANY of them!
They were put together by editors who used manuscripts from the various centuries, and attempted to reconstruct what they considered to be the true text. Perhaps the earliest editor was Erasmus, who published his Greek NT in 1516. Then Stephens compiled his edition in 1550. Beza closely followed Erasmus’s NT, which was based on a few medieval manuscripts. Beza’s edition came out in 1589. Although he had access to two manuscripts dating from the 5th and 6th centuries, he made very little use of them, because they differed from the edition of Erasmus. Another of these editors was Elzevir whose edition of 1624 is the one called the Received Text, or Textus Receptus, because of the words “Textum.. Ab omnibus receptum” occuring in the preface. Some say the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. Impossible, of course, since the KJV was translated in 1611, 13 years before Elzevir’s edition was made. Rather, the basis for the KJV was Beza’s edition of the Greek NT. And the Latin Vulgate was also consulted a lot in making the translation.
In about 1770, Griesbach brought out his NT. His approach was to classify
the Greek manuscripts into 3 families, and then deal with each family as one witness. These families were the Alexandrine, the Western, and the Byzantine. When two of the families agreed in a reading, that decided the text for him.
Another editor, Lachmann, having little respect for the common text, formed a text independent of that. He went with ancient evidence only. He tried to recover the text as it was up to the 4th century. Of course, he couldn’t actually restrict himself to the evidence of or before the 4th century, or he could not have produced an edition of the NT.
Tischendorf aimed at reconstructing the original text. Here is his approach in his own words: “The text is only to be sought from ancient evidence, and especially from Greek MSS, but without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and Fathers.” He differed from Lachmann in receiving evidence as late as the 9th century.
Tregelles’ approach was much the same as Lachman’s
Alford stated “The Text which I have adopted has been constructed by following in all ordinary cases, the united or preponderating evidence of the most ancient authorities. In cases where the most ancient authorities do not agree or preponderate, taking into account later evidence; and in cases where the weight of diplomatic testimony is interfered with by adventitious circumstances (such as parallelism or the like), applying those principles of criticism which appear to furnish sound criteria of a spurious or genuine reading. The object of course is, in each case, where evidence is divided, to mount up, if possible, to the original reading from which all the variations sprung; in other words to discover some word or some arrangement which shall account for the variations, but for which none of the variations will account."
Just to give you an idea of the quantity of manuscripts that exist --- I am privileged to own a book that contains transcripts of ALL the extant Greek manuscripts prior to 301 A.D. (Consisting of 64 papyri and 4 uncials). These manuscripts taken together take up 619 pages of the book. Yet there are portions of the New Testament which are not found in ANY of them!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Thanks guy's,
I feel like I have a better grip on the subject. Overall it seems like the issue is the best method of translation and the manuscripts used. However I'm still unclear on what the Majority Text is. Can anyone comment on that?
I feel like I have a better grip on the subject. Overall it seems like the issue is the best method of translation and the manuscripts used. However I'm still unclear on what the Majority Text is. Can anyone comment on that?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Lotta Luv,
john b
john b
Here are some excerpts from:
What about the Majority Text?by Michael D. Marlowe
The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991....
What is the Difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text?
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type). I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case. .....
Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?
The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.
If you want the full text of the above, search for "majority text" using Google. Be sure to enclose the two words in quotation marks. The very first entry is the article.
The bible-researcher.com website is the best I have ever encountered for finding all sorts of bible information.
What about the Majority Text?by Michael D. Marlowe
The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991....
What is the Difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text?
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the "Alexandrian" text-type). I personaly do not put much store by the terms "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian," because I think that these terms are prejudicial. They imply that the texts are local products of Byzantium or Alexandria, and this cannot be proven in either case. .....
Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?
The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.
If you want the full text of the above, search for "majority text" using Google. Be sure to enclose the two words in quotation marks. The very first entry is the article.
The bible-researcher.com website is the best I have ever encountered for finding all sorts of bible information.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Perfect,
Thanks Paidion.
It's funny you mentioned Marlowe because I just started looking on his site
... which is reeeaall in depth.
Thanks again
Thanks Paidion.
It's funny you mentioned Marlowe because I just started looking on his site
... which is reeeaall in depth. Thanks again
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Lotta Luv,
john b
john b