Ask Doug: byzantine over alexandrian text?

Doug Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church, in Moscow, ID, answers some questions that were asked of him.

[johndisalvo]

Thank you Doug! I have just gotten a whole new respect for you !

[JWGinge]

Would love to hear what Doug has to say on the MEV translation!

[DavidRamirez-wwkv]

Agree with Pastor Doug 100%. There is so much history here but the history will help us come to a better understanding of these manuscripts.

[franciscoscaramanga]

Of note, basically EVERY problem raised by critical textual theory disappears if you trust the Byzantine text was authoritative.

[BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Such an interesting and complex subject!

[kightsun]

I'd like to see a longer video showing the in depth reasoning and evidence.

[larrybedouin]

Because it's the word of God which He Himself preserved as he promised.

[bstring]

11 years later and it still has not been done, I find that odd. I know pieces of the Codex Sinaiticus are translated on the web but still no translation from my searching.

[adamdenny]

Isn't what he's calling for the NKJV? Or am I missing something?

[Miroslaw-rsip]

The apostolic fathers cited scripture that lines up more with the Byzantine texts, besides the Alexandrian texts may have been corrupted by the Gnostics who were prevalent in Egypt at the time.

[SibleySteve]

Grew up KJVO, dove into this at college and sem in the 80’s, heard every angle. Doug’s main argument (would God hide his Word for centuries in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?) is good until you follow the logic all the way and realize that old Roman Catholic Church used the same argument to protect the Vulgate (Latin Bible of St Jerome). When Luther and Erasmus made printed Bibles available, many Roman apologists used Doug’s argument to defend the Latin Bible that was preserved for over a thousand years in the Western empire (almost nobody could read Greek during the Middle Ages in the west). Nowadays even Catholic scholars acknowledge that the oldest mss are the oldest mss, and very few Catholics hold to Doug’s “Catholic” logic.

[betawithbrett]

All the respect to Doug Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, ID, but I think what he is saying is a bit oversimplified and can paint the wrong picture. So let me share my perspective.

First off, who am I? Like Pastor Wilson, I am not a Textual scholar, but I began studying NT Greek in late 2015 and began in 2016 to learn to speak the language as an improved way to read the NT text. I went to Jerusalem for a 2 year MA degree from Polis Institute in Ancient Philology and studied both NT Greek as a living language as well as OT Hebrew. Also, I have been studying and practicing Modern Hebrew since summer 2020 as a means to bolster my Biblical Hebrew. Having said that, I have gobbled up over the years from Textual scholars, whatever I could learn about Textual Criticism, BUILDING MY OWN PERSONAL LIBRARY of NT manuscripts, etc.

I have learned that the classifications of Alexandrian, Western, Cesarean, and Byzantine (Majority Text) are treated as all verses in one of these classifications are identical. Some textual scholars in the 1800s came up with these groups by identifying the major differences in manuscripts they found at the time. However, some verses in a particular manuscript might be shared between more than of the four families mentioned. Since then, 1000s more of NT manuscripts have been recovered. The ones identified and classed as Byzantine are primarily 9th century AD until 15th/16th century AD. Due to the printing press invention, manuscripts stopped being copied manually after that, but printed instead. There are some, Byzantine manuscripts from 6th to 9th century AD, but not a lot. The earliest manuscripts found, which are not Byzantine, start from about 150 AD continuing for the next 4 or 5 centuries primarily, but there are some even up until the 14th century, but not a lot. Some verses in the Byzantine would be shared by Alexandrian, Western and Cesarean. As for the earliest "Codex" (codices for plural) that we have, they are primarily Alexandrian. These would be complete or nearly complete bibles dating to the 300s... and a few more not so complete in the 400s AD.

When we consider what the early christian writings from the 100s to the 300s AD quote or paraphrase, it is often the Alexandrian or Western texts, sometimes the Byzantine. Again, for the most part, all three of these have the majority of passages the same, it is just for those that typically differ, those minority of verses that puts a manuscript in a particular Textual family.

Now it would make sense that since copying manuscripts on plant material (papyrus) that only lasts a few centuries would have many that disintegrated by the time 2023 arrives, does it not? Some survived in dry desert regions, like the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT did in Qumran, Israel (I have been there, right by the Dead Sea). Or Alexandria, Egypt also dry and arid, low humidity that is great for papyrus preservation. Other regions with high humidity like Rome, or Byzantium (modern day Turkey) and modern day Europe that manuscripts there would not survive. Also, in those first few centuries after Christ, they began using animal skin as well called Parchment or Vellum to write the scriptures on. All Codices like Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus or Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus were written on animal skin. So of course there are only hundreds of these manuscripts compared to ones 700 years plus after these. A second century AD Alexandrian gospel manuscript has 1800 years until it meets us, and harder to survive, but a typical Byzantine manuscript has less than 900 years until it could meet us today. Which is more likely to survive? Which is more likely to be closer to the original autographs penned by the NT authors, those who show up 1000 years after the event or those who are 200 years after the event?

As for the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, there has been so many revisions and versions of this since Erasmus began the work in the early 1500s AD. He used primarily Minuscule 02 (12th century AD) and also secondarily relied on Miniscule 01 (12th century AD) to create a Greek NT that would become known by that name. He used the Latin Vulgate a bit for consultation, and maybe a few others.

Now, I just cannot seem to understand why someone would prefer a textual family (Byzantine) that has passages that don't show up until the 12th century AD, and ignore the earlier ones (Alexandrian) that are within 200 to 300 years after Jesus.

[hanraddas]

Watch Bridge to Babylon on Youtube. For me, this is a very easy issue: stick with the KJV.

[runningonfullnostanks]

The only reason the Alexandrian texts appear to be older is because of the super Dry climate they were stored in.
That dosen't mean they were closer to the original copies.
Textus receptus all the way friends.

[danm]

I also saw that the majority text has a decent amount of the verses that are not present in most modern translations. Do you think most or all of those “missing verses” should be in our bibles?

[Blakefan]

Does anyone know if the Textus Receptus accurately represents the broader Byzantine Text types? I think Erasmus only used about seven manuscripts, which are now represented as the Textus Receptus. I am curious how these compare to the broader of the Byzantine texts.

[YusefAlTahir]

not that it effects the answer but the Textus receptus is not majority text and it's not fully byzantine. just figure I'd let you know. Peace to you

[cherilynhamilton]

Psalm 12:6-7 God promises to preserve His Word! God is not a man that he should lie!

[blackeyedturtle]

Simple explanation. The Majority, Received, and Textus Receptus matches with the majority of copies found. The Critical Text uses the oldest found texts, which have also been shown to be the most corrupted. They also contain the most corrections, and not only disagree with the majority of copies discovered, but disagree with one another in 1000's of places. The most logical reason for their high degree of preservation, is that their corruption was so evident to early Christians, they were marked as not preferable for use in reproduction, thus they were rarely touched by human hands. Today's critical textual scholars recognize these facts, but adopt the view that due to their age they are the most reliable. Which in essence as illogical as a jury accepting the testimony of 2 witnesses in a court case, whose testimony contradict one another, but is accepted as the truth because the 2 witnesses are geriatrics. While rejecting the witness of 8 witnesses whose testimony harmonizes with one another, simply because they are younger.

[Wink]

Dr michael Kruger for the opposing view 👍