Condensed Compilation

The Majority Text source (MAT), consists of most of extant manuscript copies. The Minority Text source (MIT), which consists of a few manuscript copies recently rediscovered (around mid 1800's) ; Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex, Alexandrinus codex.

The Minority text (MIT) is a recent addition to the manuscript tradition (17th-18th century) and is known as the Alexandrian text (which comprise 30 manuscripts--as opposed to 6,000 copies in the MAT). They were never used for copying purposes, the scribes would reject them because they did not sufficiently represent the Byzantine Text (which is where most of the extant copies reside).

Believers who are not used to Bible study will not understand the extent of difference between the Traditional Text, which has been in use for English speaking Protestants for 500 years; and the Alexandrian Text, which recently became part of the Bible tradition.

They are not even nearly identical, as great masses of Scripture in the Alexandrian Text-type translations are omitted, interpolated and transposed; and only avid readers of the Word can notice the subtle (which are great) variations between the two sources of translations.

"There are approximately 20,000 or more corrections in the Codex Sinaiticus, made by multiple scribes over several centuries." -Google AI

They are not even nearly identical, as great masses of Scripture in the Alexandrian Text-type translations are omitted, interpolated and transposed; and only avid readers of the Word can notice the subtle (which are great) variations between the two sources of translations.

“The Codex Alexandrinus is in a condition described as "Just OK," with significant damage and loss of folios, making it fragile and requiring restricted access for preservation. The vellum has deteriorated, with holes in many places, and the ink is prone to flaking, which limits handling to prevent further damage. The manuscript has lost ten leaves from the Old Testament and 31 leaves from the New Testament, along with portions of 1 and 2 Clement, and many sections are damaged or have defects due to age and poor modern binding” –Brave Browser

“The Codex Alexandrinus is currently in a fragile condition, with some pages being brittle and damaged, which limits handling. It has deteriorated more than other ancient manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus.” –purebibleforum.com –Wikipedia

The Minority text (MIT) is a recent addition to the manuscript tradition (17th-18th century) and is known as the Alexandrian text (which comprise 30 manuscripts—as opposed to 6,000 copies in the MAT). They were never used for copying purposes, the scribes would reject them because they did not sufficiently represent the Byzantine Text, which is where most of the extant copies reside – 90% of copies.

They are not even nearly identical, as great masses of Scripture in the Alexandrian Text-type translations are omitted, interpolated and transposed; and only avid readers of the Word can notice the subtle variations between the two sources of translations.

It's my opinion that the majority of Christians have come short of reading and studying God's Word for the last century, and thus most will never receive enough spiritual-growth in the Lord Jesus so they can be useful, until He returns and brings all up to par!
 
Believers who are not used to Bible study will not understand the extent of difference between the Traditional Text, which has been in use for English speaking Protestants for 500 years; and the Alexandrian Text, which recently became part of the Bible tradition.

It's my opinion that the majority of Christians have come short of reading and studying God's Word for the last century, and thus most will never receive enough spiritual-growth in the Lord Jesus so they can be useful, until He returns and brings all up to par!

Hello netchaplain;

Chances are most Bible students will not understand the difference between the Traditional Text, the Alexandrian Text, Majority Text source (MAT) (consists of most of extant manuscript copies,) the Minority Text source (MIT), (which consists of a few manuscript copies recently rediscovered around mid 1800's); the Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex and Alexandrinus codex.

The student's aim in Bible study is a growing process, of knowing who God is, His purpose and plan, develop an intimate relationship with Him and become equipped in the applications in our ministry service and sharing the Gospel to those who don't know Jesus.

The students who enjoy studying the technical side of the manuscripts deserve praise to God for attaining knowledge behind the Scriptures. But this not the ultimate goal of a disciple.

If this were so, one can imagine sharing the technical manuscripts in the mix of the Gospels to the unbeliever. No doubt the unbeliever would become intimidated and turned off from listening.

Now, as a teacher of the Bible I agree many disciples (students) fall short of their academic discipline of the Word and there are those who have become seasoned disciples. As a teacher and student it's everyone's responsibility to nurture and encourage each other in our personal study. It's also wise to acknowledge no teacher or student have mastered the Bible in one's lifetime. It's a continuous work in progress.

Therefore, in between the manuscripts and the Bible there are two teachings here.

God bless you, brother.

Bob





 
Hello netchaplain;

Chances are most Bible students will not understand the difference between the Traditional Text, the Alexandrian Text, Majority Text source (MAT) (consists of most of extant manuscript copies,) the Minority Text source (MIT), (which consists of a few manuscript copies recently rediscovered around mid 1800's); the Vaticanus codex, Sinaiticus codex and Alexandrinus codex.

The student's aim in Bible study is a growing process, of knowing who God is, His purpose and plan, develop an intimate relationship with Him and become equipped in the applications in our ministry service and sharing the Gospel to those who don't know Jesus.

The students who enjoy studying the technical side of the manuscripts deserve praise to God for attaining knowledge behind the Scriptures. But this not the ultimate goal of a disciple.

If this were so, one can imagine sharing the technical manuscripts in the mix of the Gospels to the unbeliever. No doubt the unbeliever would become intimidated and turned off from listening.

Now, as a teacher of the Bible I agree many disciples (students) fall short of their academic discipline of the Word and there are those who have become seasoned disciples. As a teacher and student it's everyone's responsibility to nurture and encourage each other in our personal study. It's also wise to acknowledge no teacher or student have mastered the Bible in one's lifetime. It's a continuous work in progress.

Therefore, in between the manuscripts and the Bible there are two teachings here.

God bless you, brother.

Bob
Very interesting article on this very discussion found here
 
Could you give a example of how the text is different?
Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (NIV)
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (NKJV)
Act 28:29, Jn 5:4 Totally omitted in the modern versions. These are a couple of examples of hundreds in the modern translations.
 
The student's aim in Bible study is a growing process, of knowing who God is, His purpose and plan, develop an intimate relationship with Him and become equipped in the applications in our ministry service and sharing the Gospel to those who don't know Jesus.
Hi Brother Bob! It's good to attempt to determine where one's maturity level is in the Lord Jesus! Then it can be decided from there what would be the best to share.
there are two teachings here.
Not sure what you mean here. Thanks and God bless!
 
Yes, and the Received Text and the Byzantium Texts.
I asked about the Majority text not the Textus Receptus (i.e. Received Text). They are NOT identical. When they differ (and they do differ) which one is the correct text? Is it the Majority text or the Textus Receptus?
 
Last edited:
I asked about the Majority text not the Textus Receptus (i.e. Received Text). They are NOT identical. When they differ (and they do differ) which one is the correct text? Is it the Majority text or the Textus Receptus?
I do not think that there are any problems between the two texts. So far I see their differences mostly complimenting one another:

"The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus complement each other as they are both based on the Byzantine text tradition, which is supported by a large number of manuscripts. They share many similarities, but the Majority Text includes readings that may not be found in the Textus Receptus, providing a broader textual basis for comparison." -unforsaken.org -puritanboard.com
 
I do not think that there are any problems between the two texts. So far I see their differences mostly complimenting one another:
I showed you one at 1 John 5:7.


That passage is NOT found in the Majority text. The evidence against it is overwhelming.

So do you accept the Majority text reading or not?
 
That passage is NOT found in the Majority text. The evidence against it is overwhelming.
I accept that the Comma Johannine lacks much Greek support in the MT, but this doesn't mean there is no support, because there are other
Greek sources that support it. Esp. the Received Text by Erasmus, being a primary credibility, in my opinion. The presence of the The CJ is not only a welcoming passage, it also is a strong witness concerning the Trinity, and I gratefully accept it.

One significant attribute it provides is that it is a witness of the Holy Spirit's deity of omnipresence, manifesting He is in Heaven and Earth simultaneously; same for the Lord Jesus' deity of omnipresence in Heaven and Earth simultaneously in Jn 3:13; which is omitted in the modern versions. It's supposed to end with, "which is in Heaven."
 
I accept that the Comma Johannine lacks much Greek support in the MT, but this doesn't mean there is no support,
So you reject the Majority text reading in this case. Yet you claimed one ought to follow the Majority text. The majority of those manuscripts are Byzantine. Why do you now reject the Majority\Byzantine text?
 
So you reject the Majority text reading in this case. Yet you claimed one ought to follow the Majority text. The majority of those manuscripts are Byzantine. Why do you now reject the Majority\Byzantine text?
The accepting of the MT's evidence doesn't put me against it, because I believe in the MT. One can believe in the MT, while accepting the fact it has no support for the CJ.
 
The accepting of the MT's evidence doesn't put me against it, because I believe in the MT. One can believe in the MT, while accepting the fact it has no support for the CJ
You did not address my questions.

In the case of 1 John 5:7 are the Majority\Byzantine manuscripts wrong?

Numerous times and in numerous post you have told everyone that the Majority\Byzantine text is the correct text. However, in this case you reject the Majority\Byzantine text. Why all of a sudden is it now wrong?
 
You did not address my questions.

In the case of 1 John 5:7 are the Majority\Byzantine manuscripts wrong?

Numerous times and in numerous post you have told everyone that the Majority\Byzantine text is the correct text. However, in this case you reject the Majority\Byzantine text. Why all of a sudden is it now wrong?
I think I've openly told you I believe in the MT! Which means I also believe in the Byzantine because it is a part of the MT.
 
I accept that the Comma Johannine lacks much Greek support in the MT, but this doesn't mean there is no support, because there are other
Greek sources that support it. Esp. the Received Text by Erasmus, being a primary credibility, in my opinion. The presence of the The CJ is not only a welcoming passage, it also is a strong witness concerning the Trinity, and I gratefully accept it.

One significant attribute it provides is that it is a witness of the Holy Spirit's deity of omnipresence, manifesting He is in Heaven and Earth simultaneously; same for the Lord Jesus' deity of omnipresence in Heaven and Earth simultaneously in Jn 3:13; which is omitted in the modern versions. It's supposed to end with, "which is in Heaven."
Eramus though could not find textual source support for it in either of the first 2 editions of His Greek text, and did found Latin support for it for the 3rd edition Greek text
 
I think I've openly told you I believe in the MT! Which means I also believe in the Byzantine because it is a part of the MT.
You seem to be unable to give a straightforward answer.

“Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good.” (Proverbs 20:23)

In the case of 1 John 5:7 are the Majority\Byzantine manuscripts wrong?

Numerous times and in numerous post you have told everyone that the Majority\Byzantine text is the correct text. However, in this case you reject the Majority\Byzantine text. Why all of a sudden is it now wrong?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top