If by early church fathers you mean the RCC, they were totally against the MT, and is why they burned Tyndale. If you mean the early Christian fathers, the majority of the early Christians only used the Majority Text, which was well known to them as "the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus or the Traditonal Text, rather than the critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies." Which is primarily the Alexandrinus, which has the least importance due to it being more corrupt that the prior two. One of other examples: "Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects: Lacking: 1 Samuel 12:18-14:9 (1 leaf); Psalms 49:19-79:10 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves) Damaged: Genesis 14:14-17, 15:1-5, 15:16-19, 16:6-9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost).
Bible Problem
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
Back then no one knew what a majority text was. The possibility of collating manuscripts was not even possible at that time. One reason is no one knew just how many manuscript there were or even where for that matter. There was no list as there is today.
That is not correct. Again, (see above) no one at that time knew what a majority text was. No Church Father claims to cite the majority text. You making claims without shred of concrete evidence.
And as I have shown, the majority text often goes against textus receptus readings.
So? There are many byzantine manuscript that are also damaged\missing sections.
For example Minuscule 50 is missing\damaged at Matthew 1:1-9.35; 12:3-23; 17:12-24; 25:20-32; John 5:18-21:25 (Byzantine text-type).
Minuscule 50 - Wikipedia
Another example is minuscule 42. It is missing\damaged at Acts 2:2-34; 2 Pt 1:2; 1 John 5:11-21; Rev 18:3-13 (Byzantine and Caesarean text-type).
Minuscule 42 - Wikipedia
There are literally dozens of Byzantine manuscripts\codices with missing\damaged sections. It is in no way unusual. I can provide more examples.
Last edited:
You are quite right.
I like what you have said here. I would make one point. The Church Fathers had no idea what a majority text is. They simply followed the texts that were available to them.
However somebody like Jerome (4th and 5th cent.), who produced a Latin translation of the N.T., would have had a great deal more knowledge concerning the manuscripts than most other Church Fathers. Keep in mind he was well traveled and live in a number of places which would have allowed him to seek out and examine manuscripts from difference areas (i.e. Rome, Antioch, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Trier, etc.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Which are clearly completely lacking in any objective verifiable evidence.
Please name a Greek New Testament manuscript and prove the scribe was a Gnostic.
You evidence will come down to this. An early scribe produced a manuscript. That manuscripts does not fit into your (or someone else's) expectations of what a manuscript should and should not have. Therefore was it written by a Gnostic when it does not meet that expectation.
I keep asking for objective verifiable evidence yet nothing.
Last edited:
I realize that, but I was speaking from our vantage point. So we would check to see if they quoted from what we call the majority text.
"Beginning shortly after the death of the apostle John, four names stand out in prominence whose teachings contributed both to the victorious heresy and to the final issuing of manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. These names are (1) Justin Martyr, (2) Tatian, (3) Clement of Alexandria, and (4) Origen.
"The year in which the apostle John died (100 AD) is given as the date in which Martyr was born . . . his teachings were of a heretical nature. In the teachings of Martyr we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical sects fifty years after the death of apostle John."
"It was Tatian, Martyr's pupil, that these regrettable doctrines were carried to alarming lengths. After the death of Martyr in Rome, Tatian returned to Palestine and embraced the Gnostic heresy."
Clement of Alexandria (200AD) "was Tatian's pupil," and "he went much further than Tatian in that he founded a school at Alexandria which instituted propaganda along the heretical lines."
"Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels which was called the Diatesssaron, meaning four in one. The Gospels were so corrupt . . . the Bishop of Syria, because of the errors was obliged to throw out of his churches two hundred copies of this Diatessaron, sine the church members were mistaking it for the true Gospel."
Clement's pupil was Origen, and he "did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries . . . In order to estimate Origen rightly, we must remember that as a pupil of Clement, he learned the teachings of the Gnostic heresy . . and lightly esteemed the historical basis of the Bible . . . He turned the whole law and Gospels into an allegory."
"Which Bible," David Otis Fuller, D.D., pages 191, 192.
First, I do not see the names of any Greek manuscripts. Nor do I see any evidence that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen produced any Greek New Testament manuscripts.
All anyone has is Fuller's word for it, nothing more. I see no reason to trust someone who does not provide concrete evidence for his claims.
Second, the Diatesssaron is a Syriac language harmony of the Gospels. No ancient Syriac manuscript of the Diatesssaron itself exists.
Name the Greek New Testament manuscript they produced. Once again I ask for objective verifiable evidence.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I choose to believe the books I have been studying for the last ten years, which teaches Textual Criticism, and is where I get all my information. God bless!
Do you also study the works of Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman?
so which one of you has the true translation
Any that are derived from the Majority Text. All the modern translations have omitted much of Scripture.
Netch when looking upon the early church fathers as Roman Catholics that would come under the Ante Nicene fathers period. From memory I think 200 AD to the 5th century AD. The Roman Catholic Church never officially came into being until around 600 AD under pope Gregory. Prior to that the church had designated bishops for geographical areas . You had the bishop of Alexandria the bishop of Antioch the bishop of Rome etc and later the bishop of Constantinople. The office of bishop was never looked upon on as a papal like authority in those centuries. It was only in the 7th century with the collapse of Rome did papal authority take hold and even than many of the Roman Catholic writers brilliant in the things they wrote. Many of the traditions and false doctrines of Roman Catholicism took time to take hold over scripture a gradual downhill spiral you could say.If by early church fathers you mean the RCC, they were totally against the MT, and is why they burned Tyndale. If you mean the early Christian fathers, the majority of the early Christians only used the Majority Text, which was well known to them as "the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus or the Traditonal Text, rather than the critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies." Which is primarily the Alexandrinus, which has the least importance due to it being more corrupt that the prior two. One of other examples: "Due to damage and lost folios, various passages are missing or have defects: Lacking: 1 Samuel 12:18-14:9 (1 leaf); Psalms 49:19-79:10 (9 leaves); Matt 1:1-25:6 (26 leaves); John 6:50-8:52 (2 leaves); 2 Cor 4:13-12:6 (3 leaves) Damaged: Genesis 14:14-17, 15:1-5, 15:16-19, 16:6-9 (lower portion of torn leaf lost).
Codex Alexandrinus - OrthodoxWiki
orthodoxwiki.org
Secondly the church fathers give us a wealth of scriptural knowledge covering well over 95 percent of our bible. A treasure house within itself. Thirdly there be so many topics of discussion within its volumes like the many descriptions of the cults and enemies that threatened the church at the time. Such as the Gnostics that you did mention. As to the Majority text it was no doubt there but just not known as the Majority Text and certainly not in one voluminous collection that we package it under today. You might enjoy these publications. 
You should read any translation you like and enjoy, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, NLT, etc.
The majority of N.T. manuscripts of any sizes have variants. This is just a fact that believers have to confront. I have been does this since the fall of 1983 when I first stated college. Since that time I have studied\looked at numerous variants, manuscripts, and Greek texts. It has NOT diminished my faith in the slightest degree. So don't worry. You can have confidence in your Bible.
From the Preface of the KJV:
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Last edited:
I can't help but wonder which modern versions have so completely obliterated Christ's gospel so as to make it impossible for readers to find salvation.
Forgiven that be your choice to decide. Do we stick with the faithfulness of the King James that has not changed in over 400 yrs. Or do you go with the new translations that are forever changing. The day must eventually come when there is a point of no return. Perhaps one day there won’t be that bench mark to compare. Choose wisely
.
Last edited:
Ever hear of the CSB? = Crossnote Standard Bible?
actually i like a good sarcastic reply to a sarcastic question
BTW there is a Christian standard Bible 
Yup, got one.actually i like a good sarcastic reply to a sarcastic question
i dont have one i use it online once in a while
I hear the Crossnote Standard Bible is very suspect amongst Bible scholars, and for good reason.