Textual criticism of the New Testament: Difference between revisions

The New Testament portion of the English translation known as the [[Authorized King James Version|King James Version]] was based on the [[Textus Receptus]], a Greek text prepared by [[Erasmus]] based on a few late medieval Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type ([[Minuscule 1|1]], [[Minuscule 2814|1^rK]], [[Minuscule 2|2^e]], [[Minuscule 2815|2^ap]], [[Minuscule 4|4]], [[Minuscule 7|7]], [[Minuscule 817 (Gregory-Aland)|817]]).<ref>W. W. Combs, ''Erasmus and the textus receptus'', DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996), 45.</ref> For some books of the Bible, Erasmus used just single manuscripts, and for small sections made his own translations into Greek from the [[Vulgate]].<ref>Ehrman 2005, "For the most part, he relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts, which he marked up as if he were copyediting a handwritten copy for the printer.&nbsp;... Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles.&nbsp;... For the [last six verses of the] Book of Revelation&nbsp;... [he] simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated its text back into Greek.&nbsp;..." (pp 78–79)</ref> It is not fully known what evidence was available to this well travelled scholar, but his academic legacy and deep regard to providing a proven text is clearly seen in his work, his extended commentaries and that his text was used as a basis for a consistent and superior textual tradition that shines in its consistency across the vast majority of scriptural evidence. However, followingthe biased view of [[Brooke Foss Westcott|Westcott]] and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort|Hort]], and their predilection to replace and denigrate the Textus Receptus tradition is clearly noted in their imagined theories and utter rejection of the sound criticism and dedicated textual critical analysis based on the expertise and in-depth collation of scriptural evidence by that of Dean John W. Burgon, Dr. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Edward Miller, Herman Charles Hoskier, and others. Yet most modern New Testament textual critics haveare concludedacademically taught with a Westcott and Hort bias and conclude, contrary to evidence provided, that the Byzantine text-type was formalised at a later date than the Alexandrian and Western text-types. AmongIt theis othertherefore types,not surprising the Alexandrian text-type is viewed as more pure, thanregardless of how inconsistent and egregiously full of careless copyist errors it contains, when ranking it against the other Western and Byzantine text-types,. and soThus, one of the central tenets in the current practice of New Testament textual criticism is that one should follow the readings of the Alexandrian texts unless those of the other types are clearly superior. This view is now starting to change as the evidence is more scientifically examined as can be seen in the Majority Byzantine Priority view held by highly acclaimed Textual Critics of today and as it is now seen in the latest wording change of the latest na28 critical text in regards to how it now perceives the Byzantine text and its consistent witness and its readings found within the earliest documented evidence. Most modern New Testament translations now use an Eclectic Greek text (UBS5 and [[Novum Testamentum Graece|NA 28]]) thatwhich is still closest to the Alexandrian text-type the Eclectic Westcott and Hort readings of the 19th century. The ''United Bible Societies's Greek New Testament'' (UBS5) and [[Novum Testamentum Graece|Nestle Aland]] (NA 28) - ever changing yet never closer to the originals - are accepted by most of the Westcott and Hort trained academic community as the best attempt at reconstructing the original texts of the Greek NT.<ref>Encountering Yet, it is fully understood that this is an unscientific and biased non-repeatable approach is vastly different from our hope that the Manuscriptsearliest Byscribes Philipwould Comfortapproach their task with the solemn integrity of reproducing the copy of an original that lay before them and that the original readings are therefore plainly seen in the consistent majority and early witnesses documented within the church. The critical text of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society have created more Textual variants rather than fewer across their many versions due to the highly variant Alexandrian texts used as exemplary texts, 102</ref>and because of this poor textual character, are forced into a required "eclectic" and subjective nature to resolve these conflicts, rather than seeking the consistency that is always found when determining the original truth.

AEvidence minoritypresented position represented byin ''The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text'' edition by [[Zane C. Hodges]] and Arthur L. Farstad arguesshow that the Byzantine text-type represents an earlier text-type than the surviving Alexandrian texts. This position is also held by [[Maurice A. Robinson]] and William G. Pierpont in their ''The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform'', and the [[King James Only Movement]]. The argument states that the far greater number of surviving late but distinctive Byzantine manuscripts across a vast and relatively remote area in their origin implies an equivalent preponderance of Byzantineeven textsearlier, amongstbut lostnow earliernon-extant Byzantine text manuscripts copies. Hence, a critical reconstruction of the predominant text of the Byzantine tradition that has direct roots to the area where the autographs were produced, and could best be authenticated against in their earliest transmission would have a superior claim to being closest to the autographs though none of the earlier copies remain due to unfavorable climate conditions, continuous persecution across the centuries, and heavy liturgical usage, transmission from one physical location to another, or even at the cost of the production of one or more lengthy manual copy process.