I hope that I didn’t overstate my case. I do think this issue matters. We are talking about the very words that are God-breathed, but of the 5000 to 6000 differences between the Critical Text and the Byzantine text, the vast majority of these differences hardly impact the meaning of the text. So please don’t misunderstand me.
Well said… this “understanding where other people are coming from” is essential in any theological debate among BELIEVERS…. We are all dealing with Cognitive Dissonance and tend to be threaded by ideas that do not AGREE with our assumptions… Thanks for showing RESPECT & real compassion for other scholars
The critical NT text and the Majority NT texts contain a relatively tiny amount of differences. If one opened up one and read a random passage, one would be hard pressed to say which it is. In my experience!
lol... The ending. Great video! I really appreciate your attitude towards other viewpoints! I hold more to a Byzantine position like yourself but had been pulled both to the TR and to the Critical text, each time finding myself back into the Byzantine type. It's been really awesome talking to other people from the various view points. It has certainly given me a greater respect for those on either side!
Yes it’s a really hard thing for me to wrap my head around concerning textual families. I know and know of many men of God on both sides of the debate and lack enough education on the subject to follow one camp or the other . I pray for all involved and listen to each . About mid year 2022 I am going to take up learning biblical Greek . My plans right now is to use a majority text and a critical text . So this April to may or so will find one of each . My is to find one with a good apparatus . Good video brother. Blessings
Awesome perspective and manner of approach. I like what you said about not assuming the other side has malicious intent... Btw, I'm loving your intros!
I always enjoy your discussions regarding textual criticism. I strongly lean towards the Byzantine text for a number of reasons regardless of the stance most scholars today take.
Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ. I came across your channel for the first time just a few weeks ago. I soon subscribed and have since listened to many of your podcasts. My usual go-tos include John McArthur; Doug Wilson; James White; Reformed Forum; Founders Ministries; Answers in Genesis; Jason Lisle; Justin Peters; Chris Rosebrough; Bruce Gore; Mike Winger; Matt Everhard; Jon Harris; and more. I'm blessed and grateful to have found your channel and to have added it to my sources of good Christian teaching and discussion. Grace to you, brother. Keep up the good work!
Friend, I share your concerns. The moment I found out that Wescott and Hort virtually ignored and disregarded the byzantine texts I have been confounded that almost all of the newer translations we have, have been translated without the vast majority of Greek texts. It doesn't make sense to me. Why use two Alexandrian codices, which may have been the oldest, yet have many variations, and not use slightly newer (possibly) Greek byzantine texts which are more internally consistent simply because they aren't that old, it really does seem like a big problem, in fact it seems so crazy that I wonder was it really only about the age?
Thanks! I find Dr. Pickering to be a little bit of a mixed bag personally. His view on family 35 is a bit idiosyncratic. He has produced the most helpful Byzantine based apparatus, however. He tends to be quite impatient with people who can’t see his view. So I have mixed feelings about his work.
Byzantine Text person here. I wouldn't argue with TR or KJVO or CR views, either. "Love one another as I love you!". Am I truly regenerate if I don't want to obey that command? I will listen to all sides because I can learn that way, but I'm convinced of the Byzantine Text Type.
Scribes did not make multiple copies of a research document in a “foreign” language, but in the language that they and the audience who paid them used . it seems reasonable for the greatest quantity of Greek manuscripts with the highest level of accuracy would be copied by those who still used Greek in their daily language. The Byzantine Empire which still spoke Greek would be this source for the Greek NT.
I believe there is a shift in textual critiscm based on new Papyri demonstrating Byzantine readings from 2nd century plus works from maurice Robinson Harry Sturz and wilbur pickering plus the key principles of Westcott and Hort ie shorter reading is better have been found wanting
Really helpful video. You’re a bit ahead of me but I’ve been thinking about similar things regarding the Critical text. I need to become more familiar with Dr. Robinson and his work.
In my opinion, the angle that is not taken into account on the UBS/NA side, is issues of canonicity. I know people on that side of the debate that flat out state they would never teach (for example) from the longer ending of Mark because they don't think it is "original" so to speak. But this neglects the fact that this passage was actually used by some of the earliest church fathers. What this tells me is that (again for example) the longer ending was accepted as God's word for the purpose of teaching and arguing theology. Im all for the latest science in technology working to analyze the text families in an attempt to find the closest thing we can get to the autograph (original), but not at the expense of considering the theology and role of canonicity. I don't mind if someone wants to argue that the woman caught in adultery might not have been in the autograph. But we must also respect that that passage floated around both inside and outside of John's gospel. The church used it, taught from it, and did not reject it. I would like to see the bible societies shift from simply printing something that aims to find the "autograph" and start considering the role the bible societies have in producing a text that is canonical (serves the purpose of the church as well).
I love to read Antoniades PT as my default text and just occasionally consult UBS 4th for apparatus (and headache) thanks for the scholars who questioning everything in the text!
This is an area that I have been wrestling with for about 2 years now, and I still can't fully get settled or at easy with. I had been firmly in the CT camp, so to speak, for most of my life, but recently I have become concerned with the methodology used to make up the CT that is being used in modern translations. I've found myself currently in the process of transitioning from the ESV (which I've used for about 15 years) to the NKJV. I'm not sure all the differences are major and worth dividing over, but some of them do have significance and this is the Word of God we are seeking to hold and live by. I really appreciate the last section of this video, we are called to speak the truth... in love. I don't believe our brothers and sisters in Christ who uses different versions of the bible than I do, don't care for or value God's Word. They are mostly just as keen to know God and His will as I am. P.S. I finally got myself a R/P Greek New Testament ordered. Very excited to get it!
I like everything you wrote. I honestly think that there are tides of evangelical thinking. Most people have never taken the time to investigate and have just assumed the CT position is correct because that’s what they were told. Or they just think the buzz about modern translations is about “thees” and “thous”. But there is a solid case to be made for the Byzantine text. If a person takes the time to wrestle with it, they will realize that both sides can make a strong case. If conservatives scholars had lined up against Westcott and Hort in the beginning, then we would see scores of evangelical scholars defending the Byzantine text. I know this is an apple and oranges comparison, but bear with me….there was a resurgence of Young Earth Creationism in the 1960s when it had been effectively dead among even conservative scholars. The case for Byzantine priority is awaiting its resurrection, in my view. This what I meant by tides in evangelical thinking.
Precisely why I still continue to use the NKJV! Like you, I find myself in 'textual limbo'. I think it gives an advantage in learning the position of both TR Advocates and CT advocates :)
@@Dwayne_Green The NKJV is definitely a great choice for those who are studying the differences between the Majority Text, TR, and Critical Text, since it uses the TR for the main text and presents pretty much all of the translatable variants from the Majority Text and Critical Text in the footnotes wherever they differ from the TR.
@@SirChristoferus When preaching, it's great also for letting me know when people in the congregation may have a variant here, and if it's worth addressing.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I may be way off but I feel like with both examples of manuscripts and creation there has been a danger of and temptation to be accepted by secular academia as a whole and so too much focus goes into showing that the church works just like any other study so people should accept what is said. We don't want to be see as irrelevant or outdated, but if we are in a position where we need our bible to be approved by people like Bart Ehrman who is out to discredit the Gospel, then something is wrong. It worries me to hear people say they want to do textual criticism as of God doesn't exist or that we can't effectively defend our faith without using the critical text.
thanks again, for a nice discussion on the textual issue, very good attitude to the text... yes, it is so important to preserve that humility, and have a respectful attitude through it all, and be understanding of the views... every position or view should be approached from an understanding perspective... (though we should admit that sometimes, in the heat of discussion or debate, there can be room for a little stronger language, but that's the nature of debate and defense)... i would like to make one point re. "the resultant text not present in any MS", i think today we should always emphasize the "extant" part: the resultant text not present in any *extant* MS.... we have learned much in more recent times that there must be a very large amount of MSS and sources that have not been kept "extant" (though the autographic *text* has been preserved).... (btw, nice new "animated" video-intro... :)
What do you think is the best translation to use for those who lean toward the Byzantine Text? I have been using the NKJV and using the M Footnotes whenever possible, especially the main differences like 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:6, Revelation, etc.
Well I personally use the KJV and just make my own notes of the differences. The NKJV does most of this work for you. There are a couple Majority text translations available but I don’t really think they should be your primary translation.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I love the KJV. I have fewer problems with it than all other modern readable Bibles I’ve gone through by far. I think if we could blend the more perfect parts of the Tyndale/Geneva translations into the KJV that it would be an even more perfect English translation. I liked that in those translations the Church was called the Congregation instead whereas the word Churches was specifically used in Acts 19:37 to describe the heathen Temples. Church comes from the word Circe which is a false goddess. When the KJV was made the translation team was given a list of requirements by King James and Bishop Bancroft, among those requirements was the requirement to purposely embrace older ecclesiastical terms and portray a Church Hierarchy that’s simply not expressed by the earlier and more honest English translations. King James did this specifically to enrich the power of the King because he considered the Geneva Bible a threat to his empire. I still love the KJV, and I think it’s the best Bible a person can still buy in English. But I’m still studying as best I can to see where it could have been translated better. Keep up the good work! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 I love the KJV as well. It "speaks" to me unlike any other versions. I have several versions at hand (NKJV, and old Douay-Rheims, NEB, HCS...) and, If I'm having trouble with a passage, I'll pull those off of the shelf and see how they read. What I'm looking for is something that will enable me to understand the KJV text, not to replace it overthrow it. One of the things that I notice about commentary writers like Walvoord is that they spend so much time writing about "unfortunate renderings" they unknowingly or unwittingly throw everything into doubt and destroy the "sure word of prophecy".
Great video! You made some really great points that any believer can understand. Your point on critical text notes messed me up for al least a year. Which caused me to study this issue for myself. Which book were you quoting from by Dr. Robinson?
Thanks! Sorry for messing you up for a year! But glad you decided to dig into it. The book I was reading from was the appendix to Byzantine Textform Greek New Testament.
Here is a link rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html. Dr. Robinson has a great deal of his work freely available, releasing it into the public domain.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm sorry I didn't mean you messed me up, but the Critical Text's notes messed me up for a year. If you take their view that the ending of Mark is not part of the original then all Scripture comes into question.
My biggest concern with the Critical text position is that it indirectly places the believer in the pew (and even some Preachers), at the mercy of textual scholars telling him what the Bible is and isn’t! I don’t think we should approach our Bible reading time cherry-picking which verses are inspired and the others that are not! Now, I’m not saying that every critical scholar/Pastor is like this. There are many godly Pastors that are critical text preachers but I think their position is sadly inconsistent with their stance and it’s my aim to be charitable here. I have the utmost respect for Dr. John MacArthur, and the late R.C Sproul, and many others that held to the critical text. Again, my concerns are where this critical methodology could lead... I’m an ordinary guy with his Bible and whenever I hear some of these critical text preachers holding up their Bibles, and rightly urging us in building our lives upon it and at the same time, those same Bibles were corrupted in it’s transmission and contains numerous scribal errors than logically, one may ask, “well, what else has been corrupted that could be fixed in 2021?” If the longer ending of Mark is questionable than what about 2 Peter? Does it even belong in the New Testament canon? In uncertain times, does the Church have a settled text or not? Will one ever come out before I die? If I’m to be held accountable for the words of Jesus (John 12:48) than, why would he permit them to be lost? Now to about cultural issues, What about homosexuality? What about female Pastoring? Are we wrong on that too? This and much more is what led me back to the traditional text position.
I wish i could find 1 video that would explain the following (with their relationship between each terms and/or distinctions): Textus receptus Majority text Byzantine text Alexandrian text Critical text Are some of them relatively synonyms (critical text is the text receptus or something?) which is older and from where, etc? I think it would help clear out stuff for people getting interested in the subject. I feel that most video i saw (not all on same channel) take for granted some sort of knowledge frome the audience. And maybe add how each (in the list I made) have an impact on the text (maybe something like which impact which translation?).
I see the F35, RP, and MT as all essentially the same text except in Revelation. I think the TR is an excellent text and I have no problems reading from it for study and devotion. I do like to be aware of the places it disagrees with the Byzantine majority. I think there maybe half dozen truly impactful differences, 1 John 5:7 being the biggest one. What I like about the RP text is that it has been released into the public domain. That just feels right.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews oooo, what’s the change in 1 John 5:7 in the Majority reading? Haven’t heard that yet. The verse is practically missing from the critical Text. How’s it different from TR to MT?
@@narrowistheway77 Erasmus did not include it in his first edition. But came under some pressure to include it. A rather late Greek MSS containing it was shown to Erasmus and Erasmus inserted it in later editions.TR advocates have defended it. @TheJesusNerd40 who commented above probably knows this one better than I do, I would bet.
The fact a matching manuscript has not been found for a few verses doesn’t mean they do not exist. Because a majority of found manuscripts agree on a verse does not mean it is correct. Especially if they were found in a small area. I wish you the best.
Appreciate the video. I'm pretty heavily TR leaning atm but absolutely open to having my mind changed. As you say the eclecticism of the CT just doesn't sit right with me. I currently use KJV as well, have you tried MEV? I'm interested in giving it a go as a more modern alternative.
Why do you need another bible? Is the one you have not inspired? It needs to be updated? Doesn't the idea that the bible has been wrong for more than a thousand years until the Catholic church, a church famous for forging manuscripts to justify their false doctrines, invented paleography and the textual criticism model and started "discovering" manuscripts in the counter reformation sound weird to you? Like, the kind of things that a salesmen would desperately say to you to sell you stuff? The Lord promised to preserve his word, and he did. In the textus receptus. The only line of manuscripts always being attacked left and right by all the so called experts, fallible men with their own biases and agendas. Every fake codex like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and other Alexandrian manuscripts are always praised on tv, internet, documentaries... But the KJV and the TR? Oh no, those hateful bigots, those separatists, those zealots, bigots, that text and those who defend it need to disappear to make way for a new more ecumenical Christianity with changed doctrines closer to catholicism. As Wescott and Hort, creators of the fake new testament in Greek from Alexandrian manuscripts said themselves, they want to destroy the TR. This guys were textbook Vatican agents, Jesuits, they weren't protestants, no way. What a farce.
I really like the textus receptus. But lately the majority text seems more accurate. The verses in the textus receptus that are only in the tr seeped in somehow( I think). The Catholic Church views tradition as important as scripture ( or so it seems). For Protestants, the Bible becomes paramount. The sheer amount of Byzantine texts is proof enough. If you have a nkjv, read the footnotes. Looking to buy a decent majority text soon
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I would have to agree with you that the critical text approach does have its faults. The NA28's conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3:10 is especially troubling.
@@MaiaGothmog Part of my reservation about the critical text is this intuition…..it just feels wrong to me that individuals are essentially reconstructing their own text with the apparatus of their Nestle Aland. (I realize most of difference are extraordinarily minor) Something just feels off to me about that. I’m not saying that’s an actual argument, but the Byzantine text gives a good and stable text from which to start the conversation, in my judgment.
Great video with some very good points. I'm inclined more to the critical texts primarily because they do represent the majority of the earliest available manuscripts whereas the Byzantine texts don't begin to appear until sometime in the 4th century (I believe the Gospels of Codex Alexandrinus represent some of the earliest examples of Byzantine text). Now, that said, I will argue strongly against any idea that the Byzantine texts are worthless because we have no really early copies. That's simply not true. They do have much value because they are the majority. Of course, giving them a priority just because they are the majority is, to me, much the same as saying the Vulgate should be given a priority because it makes up the majority of Bibles in the West. Numbers don't make something more correct than those things without the volume. One accurate manuscript is worth more than a million inaccurate copies. The same goes for the 'Alexandrian' text type, it's earliness doesn't mean it's the most accurate, it's just that's its age makes it more likely unless we find a cache of very early copies that changes things. But, because we don't have the autographs or even any provably first century copies my position is somewhat like yours in that we shouldn't be overly dogmatic about the text we choose. For all we know, we are wrong and the others are right or (more likely) even that neither of us has a truly accurate text. What we can be confident of is that what we have is still the true, God-breathed writings given to us by the men chosen by God to present his word to us. Apart from a handful of contested verses most of the differences are things like whether David's name is spelled Δαυειδ, Δαυιδ, or Δαβιδ or if Pilate should be Πιλατος or Πειλατος. We aren't even 'disputing over words' (2 Tim 2:14) at this point, we are splitting hairs. Just avoid the Western text family, things get pretty funky there. My position is that we should prayerfully consider what text to use and use it. We should always be ready to look at evidence and, again, prayerfully consider that evidence and whether it requires a change. And don't just discard other text types, they are still the word of God and contrary to some people's opinions, they aren't going to lead you to eternal punishment because you chose the NA28 over the TR or vice versa.
I know you use the KJV but what do you think of the new king James. I was using the Christian standard Bible. But made the switch to the new king James. Indi own the KJV but find the old language hard to understand. Wish I could read Greek Hebrew.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yeah I watched your other video about KJV nkjv and a few others. Thanks for your videos. I'd like to see your thoughts on like more of end times. I really enjoy your videos. Like I've said your one video brought new thinking when reading the Bible. What I thought I knew might not be what I thought. It's hard to explained. Thanks for commenting back. Take care and god bless
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ok thank you I'll use both. The KJV and the new king James. After watching your videos it's like a fresh look at the bible. When you was talking about Mathew 24 I believe it was. I found it very interesting. I think you'll agree these are the last days. Me I don't believe in a pre rapture. I believe it will happen. I just don't know exactly when. God bless. Have a good night and thank you
99 percent of all Greek texts are Byzantine Type. ALL Ancient translations, lectionaries and greek apostolic writers (over 12 thousand sources) quote Byzantine type texts. The Nestle-Aland (Westcott-Hort) Greek Text (28 editions and going) is an ecclectic (completely imaginary) concoction.
Tyndale House had an excellent video (see below) on the preservation of the Scriptures, which demonstrated that God does indeed preserve His word (even using flawed men) in multiple languages over the centuries. I thank God for the Greek speaking Byzantines preservation of the Greek NT, just as I thank God for the Roman Empire, the Coptics and the Syrians who preserved the text in their respective languages. “Studying the Manuscripts of the New Testament” at ruclips.net/video/F5tUU920ZnY/видео.html
I believe even the most educated scolars can be deceived and led down the wrong path. Please keep in mind there is an author of confusion who walks the earth seeking whom he may devour.
Shalom, God doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea of progressive revelation, from OT to NT, and according to Daniel and God's angel, in the last days, there must be a great progress in knowledge. Along with great apostasy and very few retaining THE faith. God clearly said to Daniel that it didn't matter that much if during millenia people did not have as much of that knowledge, they had what they needed and will be judged accordingly. And the Qumran treasure trove is certainly to be included in that latter-day gift, it doesn't affect our theology in a terrifying way but it's still a great blessing in the midst of great temptations (higher criticism as well as great tribulation coming, WW3 now started, etc.) Praise God on whom we depend entirely and who provided everything every generation needed for godliness in spite of new revelations in subsequent centuries!
There’s definitely nefarious intent coming from the Critical Text side of things. Those are wolves in sheep’s clothing and we need to be on strong guard against them. But I appreciate your candor on the topic nonetheless, you’re a very polite man 😉 I’ve been wanting to see more of the variations from TR to MT. I know the original TR has been jokingly called the most errored document ever released and Erasmus worked a lot to refine it along with others in its subsequent releases. My understanding is that the errors were essentially worked out by the time it was used on the Geneva Bible, but I also know the text was only pulled from less than 10 manuscripts. I’m sure the bulk recording of the manuscripts leaves further evidence on what we were intended to read. Any verses you think I should specifically go study against the MT to see a notable variation?
As far as the evil intentions, I genuinely don’t feel that way. In regards to differences, I think the 1 John 5:7 that you and I both mentioned in another comment is worth studying. It is an important difference. The Greek manuscript support for it is slender. But it has been defended by some very good minds.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews What about the parts of Revelation you said to look into in a different comment? What verses specifically have a different treatment in the MT/PR?
@@narrowistheway77 the text of Revelation is the most difficult of the NT book in this regard. Oftentimes the Byzantine witnesses themselves are divided. Mostly microscopic differences. Here is an example lib Revelation 4:2 the RP text reads: και ευθεως “and immediately” but the Hodges Farstad (MT) reads: “ευθεω” without the και (and). There are over a 100 of these minor splits in the book of Revelation. Otherwise the RP and Hodges and Farstad hardly disagree. Very rarely at least.
I don't feel angry at those who prefer Bibles that use the revised Greek text that began with Westcott and Hort because I see them as victims of a satanic conspiracy, especially since it is clear (to me) that Westcott and Hort were not even true believers in Christ Jesus or even the Father, since they both outright disobeyed Him by getting into spiritualism (which they were called spiritists at the time) and they wrote letters to one another that show that they did not believe that Jesus really did miracles -- in other words, I DO think Westcott and Hort were coming from a place of maliciousness.
I am not going to rush to the defense of Westcott and Hort. Hort does appear to have attended a seance. That is very troubling. But some of the charges that have been brought against them have been slanderous. Many of these mischaracterizations have been re-told over and over again.
And when you accept the Byzantine you accept entire verses that were added and therefore get farther away from the originals. We have no absolutely perfect translation of the Bible but the Critical Text is by far the best we have. The Textus Receptus is nothing but the critical text of it’s day. Going through many revisions and still not matching any text perfectly. Even if you for some reason prefer the Byzantine text over the Critical Text, We have no Bible translation that perfectly matches the Byzantine. The Textus Receptus certainly doesn’t match the Byzantine and contains readings that aren’t found in any Greek Text. None.
Hi Shawn, I’m not defending the Textus Receptus, for the record. My position has nothing to do with English translations. You might like my series with Dr. Maurice Robinson for more details. Blessings! thanks for watching and commenting!
That is why I do not like the critical text. Just the name by itself "Critical" doesn't that tell you something?? Something that cannot be trust because it is critical. How come some christians do not see this.
Sounds like you were into the KJV Only stuff and will not let it go... The message is the core part. I know this because Paul happily quoted the LXX more than the Masoretic but used both as the word of God. When you start down this rabbithole you have to consider the children of Abraham who spoke at the camp fire and told their kin about what their parents told them right up until after the Israelites returned to Israel... Which told the better story at the camp fire? Which said the right word? Silly stuff. It is all about the message underneath these words friends. A word doesn't save but the message, the gospel message, does!
its a very big issue. the devil has been doing this from the beginning of time now today the bait and switch is from are saved to the works gospel being saved in 1st Corinthians 1:18.
I watched your whole video and the one before about KJV & Byzantine text. You did a great job BUT stop being over polite with your "let's show everyone respect" approach. It really made your video drag.... I am saying this respectfully.🙂
Thank you *ever* so much for your kind and respectful feedback! I deeply appreciate your thoughtful observation about my, perhaps overly generous, ‘respect everyone’ approach. I humbly accept that my enthusiasm for spreading joy and goodwill might have unintentionally turned my video into a bit of a polite marathon. 😂 I shall strive, with the utmost courtesy and consideration, to inject a tad more brevity and a sprinkle less respect-only just a sprinkle, mind you! Your valuable insight will be cherished and woven delicately into the fabric of my future content. 🙏 Wishing you a wonderfully concise day filled with only the most necessary pleasantries! Respectfully (but not overly so), Stephen 😉. Seriously thanks for watching!
You are asking patience with one another. Okay, I found the problem I have with your position. You are obviously a highly intelligent person, yet you are saying you don't understand something that is purely a data analysis exercise. You are deferring to those more highly intelligent. You are being far too nice. If you can look at the issue (which is data analysis) for as long as you have and not understand the rational the editors of the Greek Text for the decisions they are making then they are making the wrong decisions. Based on what you are saying here, and what James White has said, the Vatican could find some documents in the basement of the library and do some major re-writes of the Bible. The fact that I am 55 and I never once understood the issue you raise in this video make me ashamed of myself. Great video.
The critical text seems to be the result of an insufficient fear of God. They are creating entirely new versions of the scriptures intentionally and that is absolutely forbidden. One of the most stern and gravest warnings is given directly on the subject of adding to and taking away from the scriptures. My mother taught me this when I was just a small child, and warned me of hellfire. Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. If the people involved in the work of chopping up the Bible have a saving grace it may be that they are acting out of ignorance. But it is very difficult to imagine how men who are Bible scholars are ignorant of this warning. Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Now all that said, if scholars want to discuss textual differences that’s all fine, discuss that all day and there’s no fault in that. But to actually make new scriptures intentionally by the process of adding and subtracting text is in my mind one of the most dangerous things a human being can possibly do. And Given the directness of the warning in Revelation 22 I can’t fathom any reason they would choose to toy with this except that they do not believe the warning or fear God. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
I know what you mean. But I’m not angry at sincere people who come to different conclusions than I do. But I certainly think that scripture is precious beyond imagination and every word of it is of incalculable value. Yet, I think it is this very scripture which teaches me to have a charitable spirit towards those that disagree with me out of an honest heart.
I hope that I didn’t overstate my case. I do think this issue matters. We are talking about the very words that are God-breathed, but of the 5000 to 6000 differences between the Critical Text and the Byzantine text, the vast majority of these differences hardly impact the meaning of the text. So please don’t misunderstand me.
Well said… this “understanding where other people are coming from” is essential in any theological debate among BELIEVERS…. We are all dealing with Cognitive Dissonance and tend to be threaded by ideas that do not AGREE with our assumptions…
Thanks for showing RESPECT & real compassion for other scholars
The critical NT text and the Majority NT texts contain a relatively tiny amount of differences. If one opened up one and read a random passage, one would be hard pressed to say which it is. In my experience!
Kongebarn has a good video to see . it's Proof that the textus receptus & traditional text preceeds the critical text.
Thank you for your video on this topic and your humility. God bless you!
lol... The ending.
Great video! I really appreciate your attitude towards other viewpoints! I hold more to a Byzantine position like yourself but had been pulled both to the TR and to the Critical text, each time finding myself back into the Byzantine type. It's been really awesome talking to other people from the various view points. It has certainly given me a greater respect for those on either side!
Looking forward to your videos coming out on these subjects. Enjoyed your ones with Dr. Riddle.
I meant to type “Threatened”…. This spell checker changes words and I DO NOT ALWAYS PROOFREAD as I should
Yes it’s a really hard thing for me to wrap my head around concerning textual families. I know and know of many men of God on both sides of the debate and lack enough education on the subject to follow one camp or the other . I pray for all involved and listen to each .
About mid year 2022 I am going to take up learning biblical Greek . My plans right now is to use a majority text and a critical text .
So this April to may or so will find one of each . My is to find one with a good apparatus . Good video brother.
Blessings
Thanks Bill, wherever you land on the subject, you always most welcome here. If I can help you in any way, just let me know.
The Wilbur pickering family 35 Greek NT has in my opinion has the best critical apparatus
@@lloydcrooks712 I agree
Awesome perspective and manner of approach. I like what you said about not assuming the other side has malicious intent... Btw, I'm loving your intros!
Thanks!
I always enjoy your discussions regarding textual criticism. I strongly lean towards the Byzantine text for a number of reasons regardless of the stance most scholars today take.
Thank you!
Greetings in the Lord Jesus Christ. I came across your channel for the first time just a few weeks ago. I soon subscribed and have since listened to many of your podcasts. My usual go-tos include John McArthur; Doug Wilson; James White; Reformed Forum; Founders Ministries; Answers in Genesis; Jason Lisle; Justin Peters; Chris Rosebrough; Bruce Gore; Mike Winger; Matt Everhard; Jon Harris; and more. I'm blessed and grateful to have found your channel and to have added it to my sources of good Christian teaching and discussion.
Grace to you, brother. Keep up the good work!
Honored to have you here, brother. Thank you very much!
Helpful insights. I appreciate your humble approach, thanks.
Thanks! I appreciate your encouragement very much!
Friend, I share your concerns. The moment I found out that Wescott and Hort virtually ignored and disregarded the byzantine texts I have been confounded that almost all of the newer translations we have, have been translated without the vast majority of Greek texts. It doesn't make sense to me. Why use two Alexandrian codices, which may have been the oldest, yet have many variations, and not use slightly newer (possibly) Greek byzantine texts which are more internally consistent simply because they aren't that old, it really does seem like a big problem, in fact it seems so crazy that I wonder was it really only about the age?
Thank you for your work. I'm just going over the appendix now, thanks to you! very informative.
Any thoughts on Dr, Wilbur Pickering's work?
Thanks! I find Dr. Pickering to be a little bit of a mixed bag personally. His view on family 35 is a bit idiosyncratic. He has produced the most helpful Byzantine based apparatus, however. He tends to be quite impatient with people who can’t see his view. So I have mixed feelings about his work.
Byzantine Text person here. I wouldn't argue with TR or KJVO or CR views, either. "Love one another as I love you!". Am I truly regenerate if I don't want to obey that command?
I will listen to all sides because I can learn that way, but I'm convinced of the Byzantine Text Type.
Thank you for your labor!
Scribes did not make multiple copies of a research document in a “foreign” language, but in the language that they and the audience who paid them used
. it seems reasonable for the greatest quantity of Greek manuscripts with the highest level of accuracy would be copied by those who still used Greek in their daily language. The Byzantine Empire which still spoke Greek would be this source for the Greek NT.
To the Hebrews for Hebrew. To the Greeks for Greek. That’s what I think.
Excellent video 👍. Great job articulating these points.
Thank you!
I believe there is a shift in textual critiscm based on new Papyri demonstrating Byzantine readings from 2nd century plus works from maurice Robinson Harry Sturz and wilbur pickering plus the key principles of Westcott and Hort ie shorter reading is better have been found wanting
Really helpful video. You’re a bit ahead of me but I’ve been thinking about similar things regarding the Critical text. I need to become more familiar with Dr. Robinson and his work.
I find him to be helpful. Anyone who releases so much of his hard work into the public domain is so someone that I admire.
Exactly. Very admirable.
In my opinion, the angle that is not taken into account on the UBS/NA side, is issues of canonicity. I know people on that side of the debate that flat out state they would never teach (for example) from the longer ending of Mark because they don't think it is "original" so to speak. But this neglects the fact that this passage was actually used by some of the earliest church fathers. What this tells me is that (again for example) the longer ending was accepted as God's word for the purpose of teaching and arguing theology. Im all for the latest science in technology working to analyze the text families in an attempt to find the closest thing we can get to the autograph (original), but not at the expense of considering the theology and role of canonicity. I don't mind if someone wants to argue that the woman caught in adultery might not have been in the autograph. But we must also respect that that passage floated around both inside and outside of John's gospel. The church used it, taught from it, and did not reject it. I would like to see the bible societies shift from simply printing something that aims to find the "autograph" and start considering the role the bible societies have in producing a text that is canonical (serves the purpose of the church as well).
I know exactly what you mean.
I love to read Antoniades PT as my default text and just occasionally consult UBS 4th for apparatus (and headache)
thanks for the scholars who questioning everything in the text!
I’m concerned with the people who are not concerned with this issue. I find the KJB side love the word and have a high regard for God’s word
I understand what you mean. I think for many, the differences are small enough not to matter to them too much.
And the rest of us believers don’t?
@@petermillist3779 that needs not to be true.
This is an area that I have been wrestling with for about 2 years now, and I still can't fully get settled or at easy with. I had been firmly in the CT camp, so to speak, for most of my life, but recently I have become concerned with the methodology used to make up the CT that is being used in modern translations. I've found myself currently in the process of transitioning from the ESV (which I've used for about 15 years) to the NKJV. I'm not sure all the differences are major and worth dividing over, but some of them do have significance and this is the Word of God we are seeking to hold and live by.
I really appreciate the last section of this video, we are called to speak the truth... in love. I don't believe our brothers and sisters in Christ who uses different versions of the bible than I do, don't care for or value God's Word. They are mostly just as keen to know God and His will as I am.
P.S. I finally got myself a R/P Greek New Testament ordered. Very excited to get it!
I like everything you wrote. I honestly think that there are tides of evangelical thinking. Most people have never taken the time to investigate and have just assumed the CT position is correct because that’s what they were told. Or they just think the buzz about modern translations is about “thees” and “thous”.
But there is a solid case to be made for the Byzantine text. If a person takes the time to wrestle with it, they will realize that both sides can make a strong case. If conservatives scholars had lined up against Westcott and Hort in the beginning, then we would see scores of evangelical scholars defending the Byzantine text.
I know this is an apple and oranges comparison, but bear with me….there was a resurgence of Young Earth Creationism in the 1960s when it had been effectively dead among even conservative scholars. The case for Byzantine priority is awaiting its resurrection, in my view. This what I meant by tides in evangelical thinking.
Precisely why I still continue to use the NKJV! Like you, I find myself in 'textual limbo'. I think it gives an advantage in learning the position of both TR Advocates and CT advocates :)
@@Dwayne_Green The NKJV is definitely a great choice for those who are studying the differences between the Majority Text, TR, and Critical Text, since it uses the TR for the main text and presents pretty much all of the translatable variants from the Majority Text and Critical Text in the footnotes wherever they differ from the TR.
@@SirChristoferus When preaching, it's great also for letting me know when people in the congregation may have a variant here, and if it's worth addressing.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I may be way off but I feel like with both examples of manuscripts and creation there has been a danger of and temptation to be accepted by secular academia as a whole and so too much focus goes into showing that the church works just like any other study so people should accept what is said. We don't want to be see as irrelevant or outdated, but if we are in a position where we need our bible to be approved by people like Bart Ehrman who is out to discredit the Gospel, then something is wrong. It worries me to hear people say they want to do textual criticism as of God doesn't exist or that we can't effectively defend our faith without using the critical text.
thanks again, for a nice discussion on the textual issue, very good attitude to the text... yes, it is so important to preserve that humility, and have a respectful attitude through it all, and be understanding of the views... every position or view should be approached from an understanding perspective... (though we should admit that sometimes, in the heat of discussion or debate, there can be room for a little stronger language, but that's the nature of debate and defense)... i would like to make one point re. "the resultant text not present in any MS", i think today we should always emphasize the "extant" part: the resultant text not present in any *extant* MS.... we have learned much in more recent times that there must be a very large amount of MSS and sources that have not been kept "extant" (though the autographic *text* has been preserved).... (btw, nice new "animated" video-intro... :)
Thanks Helge! I take your point about “extant manuscripts”. Very true!
I like how you try to be balance and kind about it but deep inside you are a strong advocate of the Byzantine text even it seems the TR.
Could be :)
What do you think is the best translation to use for those who lean toward the Byzantine Text? I have been using the NKJV and using the M Footnotes whenever possible, especially the main differences like 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:6, Revelation, etc.
Well I personally use the KJV and just make my own notes of the differences. The NKJV does most of this work for you. There are a couple Majority text translations available but I don’t really think they should be your primary translation.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I love the KJV. I have fewer problems with it than all other modern readable Bibles I’ve gone through by far. I think if we could blend the more perfect parts of the Tyndale/Geneva translations into the KJV that it would be an even more perfect English translation. I liked that in those translations the Church was called the Congregation instead whereas the word Churches was specifically used in Acts 19:37 to describe the heathen Temples. Church comes from the word Circe which is a false goddess.
When the KJV was made the translation team was given a list of requirements by King James and Bishop Bancroft, among those requirements was the requirement to purposely embrace older ecclesiastical terms and portray a Church Hierarchy that’s simply not expressed by the earlier and more honest English translations. King James did this specifically to enrich the power of the King because he considered the Geneva Bible a threat to his empire.
I still love the KJV, and I think it’s the best Bible a person can still buy in English. But I’m still studying as best I can to see where it could have been translated better. Keep up the good work! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 I love the KJV as well. It "speaks" to me unlike any other versions. I have several versions at hand (NKJV, and old Douay-Rheims, NEB, HCS...) and, If I'm having trouble with a passage, I'll pull those off of the shelf and see how they read. What I'm looking for is something that will enable me to understand the KJV text, not to replace it overthrow it. One of the things that I notice about commentary writers like Walvoord is that they spend so much time writing about "unfortunate renderings" they unknowingly or unwittingly throw everything into doubt and destroy the "sure word of prophecy".
Great video! You made some really great points that any believer can understand. Your point on critical text notes messed me up for al least a year. Which caused me to study this issue for myself. Which book were you quoting from by Dr. Robinson?
Thanks! Sorry for messing you up for a year! But glad you decided to dig into it. The book I was reading from was the appendix to Byzantine Textform Greek New Testament.
Here is a link rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html. Dr. Robinson has a great deal of his work freely available, releasing it into the public domain.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm sorry I didn't mean you messed me up, but the Critical Text's notes messed me up for a year. If you take their view that the ending of Mark is not part of the original then all Scripture comes into question.
My biggest concern with the Critical text position is that it indirectly places the believer in the pew (and even some Preachers), at the mercy of textual scholars telling him what the Bible is and isn’t! I don’t think we should approach our Bible reading time cherry-picking which verses are inspired and the others that are not! Now, I’m not saying that every critical scholar/Pastor is like this. There are many godly Pastors that are critical text preachers but I think their position is sadly inconsistent with their stance and it’s my aim to be charitable here. I have the utmost respect for Dr. John MacArthur, and the late R.C Sproul, and many others that held to the critical text. Again, my concerns are where this critical methodology could lead...
I’m an ordinary guy with his Bible and whenever I hear some of these critical text preachers holding up their Bibles, and rightly urging us in building our lives upon it and at the same time, those same Bibles were corrupted in it’s transmission and contains numerous scribal errors than logically, one may ask, “well, what else has been corrupted that could be fixed in 2021?” If the longer ending of Mark is questionable than what about 2 Peter? Does it even belong in the New Testament canon? In uncertain times, does the Church have a settled text or not? Will one ever come out before I die? If I’m to be held accountable for the words of Jesus (John 12:48) than, why would he permit them to be lost? Now to about cultural issues, What about homosexuality? What about female Pastoring? Are we wrong on that too? This and much more is what led me back to the traditional text position.
I totally understand that. Sometimes I don’t think that Biblical scholars really appreciate how much this matters to some of us.
I wish i could find 1 video that would explain the following (with their relationship between each terms and/or distinctions):
Textus receptus
Majority text
Byzantine text
Alexandrian text
Critical text
Are some of them relatively synonyms (critical text is the text receptus or something?) which is older and from where, etc?
I think it would help clear out stuff for people getting interested in the subject. I feel that most video i saw (not all on same channel) take for granted some sort of knowledge frome the audience.
And maybe add how each (in the list I made) have an impact on the text (maybe something like which impact which translation?).
How about I make that video
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews that would be great. I just subscribed hopefully I get to see this video.
In the meantime this video would help: The Lost Verses: Bible Mystery Unveiled
ruclips.net/video/v0o87Jc0Ibg/видео.html
Majority Text is a good base. I lean toward TR myself but I love the MT and Byzantine text types. F35 and Robinson pierpont texts I'm not as familiar.
I see the F35, RP, and MT as all essentially the same text except in Revelation. I think the TR is an excellent text and I have no problems reading from it for study and devotion. I do like to be aware of the places it disagrees with the Byzantine majority. I think there maybe half dozen truly impactful differences, 1 John 5:7 being the biggest one. What I like about the RP text is that it has been released into the public domain. That just feels right.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews oooo, what’s the change in 1 John 5:7 in the Majority reading? Haven’t heard that yet. The verse is practically missing from the critical Text. How’s it different from TR to MT?
@@narrowistheway77 the Byzantine manuscripts mostly omit it.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Interesting, I’ll look into that. Is there precedence for a time period for insertion or deletion currently?
@@narrowistheway77 Erasmus did not include it in his first edition. But came under some pressure to include it. A rather late Greek MSS containing it was shown to Erasmus and Erasmus inserted it in later editions.TR advocates have defended it. @TheJesusNerd40 who commented above probably knows this one better than I do, I would bet.
The fact a matching manuscript has not been found for a few verses doesn’t mean they do not exist. Because a majority of found manuscripts agree on a verse does not mean it is correct. Especially if they were found in a small area. I wish you the best.
Thanks for popping in and sharing your thoughts.
Appreciate the video. I'm pretty heavily TR leaning atm but absolutely open to having my mind changed. As you say the eclecticism of the CT just doesn't sit right with me. I currently use KJV as well, have you tried MEV? I'm interested in giving it a go as a more modern alternative.
I think the MEV is ok. It just isn’t as literal as I would like.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks for the reply :)
@@ninerocks happy to share the little bit I know. Blessings
Why do you need another bible? Is the one you have not inspired? It needs to be updated? Doesn't the idea that the bible has been wrong for more than a thousand years until the Catholic church, a church famous for forging manuscripts to justify their false doctrines, invented paleography and the textual criticism model and started "discovering" manuscripts in the counter reformation sound weird to you? Like, the kind of things that a salesmen would desperately say to you to sell you stuff?
The Lord promised to preserve his word, and he did. In the textus receptus. The only line of manuscripts always being attacked left and right by all the so called experts, fallible men with their own biases and agendas. Every fake codex like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and other Alexandrian manuscripts are always praised on tv, internet, documentaries... But the KJV and the TR? Oh no, those hateful bigots, those separatists, those zealots, bigots, that text and those who defend it need to disappear to make way for a new more ecumenical Christianity with changed doctrines closer to catholicism. As Wescott and Hort, creators of the fake new testament in Greek from Alexandrian manuscripts said themselves, they want to destroy the TR. This guys were textbook Vatican agents, Jesuits, they weren't protestants, no way. What a farce.
Good video! I too have struggled with this issue for some time. I tend to lean toward TR.
Thanks brother!
Another great video brother!
Thanks!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews you’re welcome
Just use the text that lines up with the Latin Vulgate. It agrees with the TR and the NU text 👍
I didn’t expect you to be Vulgate supporter. I thought you were more of a TR advocate. Thanks for your comment. Always appreciate your comments
Hello I'm new to your channel and I'm glad to fing it. Could you please tell me if CEPHER is TR or M text? Thanks and be blessed
Unfortunately I don’t know much about the CEPHER.
I 100% believe that God led me to this video. Thank you and God bless you!
Praise God!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews is there any english bible based on the majority text?
@@jakeham4017 textusreceptusbibles.com/EMTV.
I really like the textus receptus. But lately the majority text seems more accurate. The verses in the textus receptus that are only in the tr seeped in somehow( I think). The Catholic Church views tradition as important as scripture ( or so it seems). For Protestants, the Bible becomes paramount. The sheer amount of Byzantine texts is proof enough. If you have a nkjv, read the footnotes. Looking to buy a decent majority text soon
I hold a critical text position but I do have a deep interest in the Byzantine textual tradition.
Well I hope you found my approach welcoming. I want this to be a friendly channel of constructive dialogue. You are most welcome here.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Yes very welcoming. Thank you!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I would have to agree with you that the critical text approach does have its faults. The NA28's conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3:10 is especially troubling.
@@MaiaGothmog Part of my reservation about the critical text is this intuition…..it just feels wrong to me that individuals are essentially reconstructing their own text with the apparatus of their Nestle Aland. (I realize most of difference are extraordinarily minor) Something just feels off to me about that. I’m not saying that’s an actual argument, but the Byzantine text gives a good and stable text from which to start the conversation, in my judgment.
Great video with some very good points. I'm inclined more to the critical texts primarily because they do represent the majority of the earliest available manuscripts whereas the Byzantine texts don't begin to appear until sometime in the 4th century (I believe the Gospels of Codex Alexandrinus represent some of the earliest examples of Byzantine text). Now, that said, I will argue strongly against any idea that the Byzantine texts are worthless because we have no really early copies. That's simply not true. They do have much value because they are the majority.
Of course, giving them a priority just because they are the majority is, to me, much the same as saying the Vulgate should be given a priority because it makes up the majority of Bibles in the West. Numbers don't make something more correct than those things without the volume. One accurate manuscript is worth more than a million inaccurate copies. The same goes for the 'Alexandrian' text type, it's earliness doesn't mean it's the most accurate, it's just that's its age makes it more likely unless we find a cache of very early copies that changes things.
But, because we don't have the autographs or even any provably first century copies my position is somewhat like yours in that we shouldn't be overly dogmatic about the text we choose. For all we know, we are wrong and the others are right or (more likely) even that neither of us has a truly accurate text. What we can be confident of is that what we have is still the true, God-breathed writings given to us by the men chosen by God to present his word to us. Apart from a handful of contested verses most of the differences are things like whether David's name is spelled Δαυειδ, Δαυιδ, or Δαβιδ or if Pilate should be Πιλατος or Πειλατος. We aren't even 'disputing over words' (2 Tim 2:14) at this point, we are splitting hairs.
Just avoid the Western text family, things get pretty funky there.
My position is that we should prayerfully consider what text to use and use it. We should always be ready to look at evidence and, again, prayerfully consider that evidence and whether it requires a change. And don't just discard other text types, they are still the word of God and contrary to some people's opinions, they aren't going to lead you to eternal punishment because you chose the NA28 over the TR or vice versa.
Thanks Stuart! Always appreciate your input!
Is there an English translation that takes a priority Byzantine text approach?
Yes. The World English Bible
You handled this well
Thanks
I know you use the KJV but what do you think of the new king James. I was using the Christian standard Bible. But made the switch to the new king James. Indi own the KJV but find the old language hard to understand. Wish I could read Greek Hebrew.
The NKJV is a great translation overall. I don’t think it’s as beautiful, but it’s a good translation
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yeah I watched your other video about KJV nkjv and a few others. Thanks for your videos. I'd like to see your thoughts on like more of end times. I really enjoy your videos. Like I've said your one video brought new thinking when reading the Bible. What I thought I knew might not be what I thought. It's hard to explained. Thanks for commenting back. Take care and god bless
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews ok thank you I'll use both. The KJV and the new king James. After watching your videos it's like a fresh look at the bible. When you was talking about Mathew 24 I believe it was. I found it very interesting. I think you'll agree these are the last days. Me I don't believe in a pre rapture. I believe it will happen. I just don't know exactly when. God bless. Have a good night and thank you
99 percent of all Greek texts are Byzantine Type. ALL Ancient translations, lectionaries and greek apostolic writers (over 12 thousand sources) quote Byzantine type texts. The Nestle-Aland (Westcott-Hort) Greek Text (28 editions and going) is an ecclectic (completely imaginary) concoction.
They definitely dominated. Thanks for watching
Sorry I'm a little dense sometimes: are the Majority text and Byzantine text the same thing?
Yes. Essentially.
For me it all boils down to 2 words in Matthew 5, verse 22.
Tyndale House had an excellent video (see below) on the preservation of the Scriptures, which demonstrated that God does indeed preserve His word (even using flawed men) in multiple languages over the centuries. I thank God for the Greek speaking Byzantines preservation of the Greek NT, just as I thank God for the Roman Empire, the Coptics and the Syrians who preserved the text in their respective languages.
“Studying the Manuscripts of the New Testament”
at ruclips.net/video/F5tUU920ZnY/видео.html
Thanks Mark!
I believe even the most educated scolars can be deceived and led down the wrong path. Please keep in mind there is an author of confusion who walks the earth seeking whom he may devour.
This is true.
Shalom, God doesn't seem to have a problem with the idea of progressive revelation, from OT to NT, and according to Daniel and God's angel, in the last days, there must be a great progress in knowledge. Along with great apostasy and very few retaining THE faith. God clearly said to Daniel that it didn't matter that much if during millenia people did not have as much of that knowledge, they had what they needed and will be judged accordingly. And the Qumran treasure trove is certainly to be included in that latter-day gift, it doesn't affect our theology in a terrifying way but it's still a great blessing in the midst of great temptations (higher criticism as well as great tribulation coming, WW3 now started, etc.) Praise God on whom we depend entirely and who provided everything every generation needed for godliness in spite of new revelations in subsequent centuries!
There’s definitely nefarious intent coming from the Critical Text side of things. Those are wolves in sheep’s clothing and we need to be on strong guard against them. But I appreciate your candor on the topic nonetheless, you’re a very polite man 😉
I’ve been wanting to see more of the variations from TR to MT. I know the original TR has been jokingly called the most errored document ever released and Erasmus worked a lot to refine it along with others in its subsequent releases. My understanding is that the errors were essentially worked out by the time it was used on the Geneva Bible, but I also know the text was only pulled from less than 10 manuscripts.
I’m sure the bulk recording of the manuscripts leaves further evidence on what we were intended to read. Any verses you think I should specifically go study against the MT to see a notable variation?
As far as the evil intentions, I genuinely don’t feel that way. In regards to differences, I think the 1 John 5:7 that you and I both mentioned in another comment is worth studying. It is an important difference. The Greek manuscript support for it is slender. But it has been defended by some very good minds.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews What about the parts of Revelation you said to look into in a different comment? What verses specifically have a different treatment in the MT/PR?
@@narrowistheway77 the text of Revelation is the most difficult of the NT book in this regard. Oftentimes the Byzantine witnesses themselves are divided. Mostly microscopic differences. Here is an example lib Revelation 4:2 the RP text reads: και ευθεως “and immediately” but the Hodges Farstad (MT) reads: “ευθεω” without the και (and). There are over a 100 of these minor splits in the book of Revelation. Otherwise the RP and Hodges and Farstad hardly disagree. Very rarely at least.
I don't feel angry at those who prefer Bibles that use the revised Greek text that began with Westcott and Hort because I see them as victims of a satanic conspiracy, especially since it is clear (to me) that Westcott and Hort were not even true believers in Christ Jesus or even the Father, since they both outright disobeyed Him by getting into spiritualism (which they were called spiritists at the time) and they wrote letters to one another that show that they did not believe that Jesus really did miracles -- in other words, I DO think Westcott and Hort were coming from a place of maliciousness.
I am not going to rush to the defense of Westcott and Hort. Hort does appear to have attended a seance. That is very troubling. But some of the charges that have been brought against them have been slanderous. Many of these mischaracterizations have been re-told over and over again.
Do you think any manuscript in the world is just like the original?
Yes I do.
Good stuff right here
Authorised version is KJV great
In Matthew 20:23, is this the word in question? τουτο
Yes, that is one of them.
Good content, but too long...Can you compress it, with visual bullet points, down to 15 minute or less?
Just watch it at 2x sped, brother :)
99% of variations are typos.
Absolutely! I don’t the percent but the vast majority are simple slips of the pen and mind. They copied much better than I could have.
And when you accept the Byzantine you accept entire verses that were added and therefore get farther away from the originals. We have no absolutely perfect translation of the Bible but the Critical Text is by far the best we have. The Textus Receptus is nothing but the critical text of it’s day. Going through many revisions and still not matching any text perfectly. Even if you for some reason prefer the Byzantine text over the Critical Text, We have no Bible translation that perfectly matches the Byzantine. The Textus Receptus certainly doesn’t match the Byzantine and contains readings that aren’t found in any Greek Text. None.
Hi Shawn, I’m not defending the Textus Receptus, for the record. My position has nothing to do with English translations. You might like my series with Dr. Maurice Robinson for more details. Blessings! thanks for watching and commenting!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews , Thank you for your reply. God bless you and your ministry!
That is why I do not like the critical text. Just the name by itself "Critical" doesn't that tell you something?? Something that cannot be trust because it is critical. How come some christians do not see this.
Sounds like you were into the KJV Only stuff and will not let it go... The message is the core part. I know this because Paul happily quoted the LXX more than the Masoretic but used both as the word of God. When you start down this rabbithole you have to consider the children of Abraham who spoke at the camp fire and told their kin about what their parents told them right up until after the Israelites returned to Israel... Which told the better story at the camp fire? Which said the right word? Silly stuff. It is all about the message underneath these words friends. A word doesn't save but the message, the gospel message, does!
Thanks for watching. I do like the KJV but I have never been KJV only. Blessings
its a very big issue. the devil has been doing this from the beginning of time now today the bait and switch is from are saved to the works gospel being saved in 1st Corinthians 1:18.
I watched your whole video and the one before about KJV & Byzantine text.
You did a great job
BUT
stop being over polite with your "let's show everyone respect" approach.
It really made your video drag....
I am saying this respectfully.🙂
Thank you *ever* so much for your kind and respectful feedback! I deeply appreciate your thoughtful observation about my, perhaps overly generous, ‘respect everyone’ approach. I humbly accept that my enthusiasm for spreading joy and goodwill might have unintentionally turned my video into a bit of a polite marathon. 😂
I shall strive, with the utmost courtesy and consideration, to inject a tad more brevity and a sprinkle less respect-only just a sprinkle, mind you! Your valuable insight will be cherished and woven delicately into the fabric of my future content. 🙏
Wishing you a wonderfully concise day filled with only the most necessary pleasantries!
Respectfully (but not overly so),
Stephen 😉. Seriously thanks for watching!
You are asking patience with one another. Okay, I found the problem I have with your position. You are obviously a highly intelligent person, yet you are saying you don't understand something that is purely a data analysis exercise. You are deferring to those more highly intelligent. You are being far too nice.
If you can look at the issue (which is data analysis) for as long as you have and not understand the rational the editors of the Greek Text for the decisions they are making then they are making the wrong decisions.
Based on what you are saying here, and what James White has said, the Vatican could find some documents in the basement of the library and do some major re-writes of the Bible.
The fact that I am 55 and I never once understood the issue you raise in this video make me ashamed of myself.
Great video.
The critical text seems to be the result of an insufficient fear of God. They are creating entirely new versions of the scriptures intentionally and that is absolutely forbidden. One of the most stern and gravest warnings is given directly on the subject of adding to and taking away from the scriptures. My mother taught me this when I was just a small child, and warned me of hellfire.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
If the people involved in the work of chopping up the Bible have a saving grace it may be that they are acting out of ignorance. But it is very difficult to imagine how men who are Bible scholars are ignorant of this warning.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Now all that said, if scholars want to discuss textual differences that’s all fine, discuss that all day and there’s no fault in that. But to actually make new scriptures intentionally by the process of adding and subtracting text is in my mind one of the most dangerous things a human being can possibly do. And Given the directness of the warning in Revelation 22 I can’t fathom any reason they would choose to toy with this except that they do not believe the warning or fear God.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Shouldn't we get bent out of shape when our Bibles get corrupted?
I know what you mean. But I’m not angry at sincere people who come to different conclusions than I do. But I certainly think that scripture is precious beyond imagination and every word of it is of incalculable value. Yet, I think it is this very scripture which teaches me to have a charitable spirit towards those that disagree with me out of an honest heart.