Sign In
Register
Help
Quote
Today textual critics are divided on which of the thousands of manuscripts and papyri coming from these
areas are most accurate.For most,the arguments boil down to two areas—the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Greek
and the Byzantine Greek texts.When we compare the manuscripts from each we find a number of variants
between these families. So there was some failure to copy one or the other accurately.The question is, which
is more accurate and which is less accurate?
Most scholars today think that the texts from Alexandria, because they are older, are more accurate or
closer to the originals.The oldest Alexandrian manuscripts date from around the fourth century after Christ
while the oldest Byzantine manuscripts come from around the seventh century. However, does older
necessarily equate to better? There are several factors to consider.
First, we must consider that there are fewer than 45 texts from Alexandria, compared with around 5,000
of the Byzantine manuscripts.Thus the Alexandrian texts appear to be a tiny minority.
Second,Alexandria was a major center of gnosticism, a religious/philosophical movement that corrupted
early Christianity.When we look at the variants in the Alexandrian texts, we find that their gnostic leanings
tend to portray Jesus Christ as neither divine nor having come in the flesh as a physical human being.
A third area to consider is that the Byzantine scribes were known to be reputable in their faithfulness in
the copying process. Many more points could be argued, but English translations based on the Byzantine
texts of the New Testament appear to be more accurate. (For more information, request or download our
reprint article “Which Bible Translation Should I Use?”)
For your peace of mind,however,the numbers of variants of any real significance between the Alexandrian
texts and the Byzantine texts are few.We could sum up the differences by saying that 99.5 percent of the
New Testament is the same no matter which version you have or use. The remaining half a percent would
amount to about 20,000 variants. Of these, the overwhelming majority are minor scribal errors such as
differences in spelling.
Of some 2,500 real differences, only about 300 involve any substantial difference in meaning.These variants
involve less than one tenth of one percent of the text of the New Testament. The numbers of variants
that actually affect the meaning—not just spelling—of the text are minuscule.
areas are most accurate.For most,the arguments boil down to two areas—the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Greek
and the Byzantine Greek texts.When we compare the manuscripts from each we find a number of variants
between these families. So there was some failure to copy one or the other accurately.The question is, which
is more accurate and which is less accurate?
Most scholars today think that the texts from Alexandria, because they are older, are more accurate or
closer to the originals.The oldest Alexandrian manuscripts date from around the fourth century after Christ
while the oldest Byzantine manuscripts come from around the seventh century. However, does older
necessarily equate to better? There are several factors to consider.
First, we must consider that there are fewer than 45 texts from Alexandria, compared with around 5,000
of the Byzantine manuscripts.Thus the Alexandrian texts appear to be a tiny minority.
Second,Alexandria was a major center of gnosticism, a religious/philosophical movement that corrupted
early Christianity.When we look at the variants in the Alexandrian texts, we find that their gnostic leanings
tend to portray Jesus Christ as neither divine nor having come in the flesh as a physical human being.
A third area to consider is that the Byzantine scribes were known to be reputable in their faithfulness in
the copying process. Many more points could be argued, but English translations based on the Byzantine
texts of the New Testament appear to be more accurate. (For more information, request or download our
reprint article “Which Bible Translation Should I Use?”)
For your peace of mind,however,the numbers of variants of any real significance between the Alexandrian
texts and the Byzantine texts are few.We could sum up the differences by saying that 99.5 percent of the
New Testament is the same no matter which version you have or use. The remaining half a percent would
amount to about 20,000 variants. Of these, the overwhelming majority are minor scribal errors such as
differences in spelling.
Of some 2,500 real differences, only about 300 involve any substantial difference in meaning.These variants
involve less than one tenth of one percent of the text of the New Testament. The numbers of variants
that actually affect the meaning—not just spelling—of the text are minuscule.
Regarding Paul's hand in the bible :
Quote
Paul himself appears to have had a hand in the process of canonization of the
New Testament, selecting which books and letters, particularly of his writings, were
to be preserved for us.
In 2 Timothy 4:13,the last of Paul’s prison letters that remains from before his execution,
he tells Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you
come—and the books, especially the parchments.”
This is a puzzling request,unless Paul was asking Timothy to bring books and letters
from which he would select those that would be part of the canon.We know
that some of his letters, such as the one to the church in Laodicea mentioned in
Colossians 4:16, were not preserved—so obviously some selection process took
place. Presumably those Paul chose were then passed off to other apostles, likely
Peter and then John.
New Testament, selecting which books and letters, particularly of his writings, were
to be preserved for us.
In 2 Timothy 4:13,the last of Paul’s prison letters that remains from before his execution,
he tells Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you
come—and the books, especially the parchments.”
This is a puzzling request,unless Paul was asking Timothy to bring books and letters
from which he would select those that would be part of the canon.We know
that some of his letters, such as the one to the church in Laodicea mentioned in
Colossians 4:16, were not preserved—so obviously some selection process took
place. Presumably those Paul chose were then passed off to other apostles, likely
Peter and then John.
Regarding the OT manuscripts
Quote
The Jewish scribes who made the copies of the Old Testament Scriptures from generation to generation were scrupulously
cautious about their copying procedures.
This meticulous care was perpetuated by the Masoretes, a special group of Jewish scribes who were entrusted with making copies of the Hebrew Bible from about A.D. 500 to 900. Their version of the Old Testament, widely considered the most
authoritative, came to be known as the Masoretic Text.Their version of the Old Testament, widely considered the most authoritative, came to be known as the Masoretic Text.
cautious about their copying procedures.
This meticulous care was perpetuated by the Masoretes, a special group of Jewish scribes who were entrusted with making copies of the Hebrew Bible from about A.D. 500 to 900. Their version of the Old Testament, widely considered the most
authoritative, came to be known as the Masoretic Text.Their version of the Old Testament, widely considered the most authoritative, came to be known as the Masoretic Text.
So we have the OT being "copied" by "a special group of scribes" between AD500-900, the period when the light of Islam arrived and spread. We know how "special" the Jews at the time of Prophet PBUH were.
We also have in
Quote
About A.D. 90 Jewish elders meeting in the Council at Jamnia, in Judea near the Mediterranean coast, affirmed that the canon
—the set of writings acknowledged as being divinely inspired—of the Jewish Bible was complete and authoritative.
...........
The Jewish Council at Jamnia rejected other questionable books, known as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as inspired or authoritative. So they are not part of
this count or the accepted Hebrew canon. Thus these books are left out of most modern Bibles.
—the set of writings acknowledged as being divinely inspired—of the Jewish Bible was complete and authoritative.
...........
The Jewish Council at Jamnia rejected other questionable books, known as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as inspired or authoritative. So they are not part of
this count or the accepted Hebrew canon. Thus these books are left out of most modern Bibles.
AD 90, i.e after the attempt to crucify Isa alaihi salaam and after the Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple(AD70) by Titus.
Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Quote
When the Dead Sea Scrolls (primarily portions of the Old Testament dating mostly from the
first century B.C.) were discovered in 1947, many people were initially concerned that they would show marked differences with
the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament......
After years of study, they found that the Dead Sea Scrolls they examined have only
a relatively few minor, insignificant differences from today’s Masoretic Text of the
Old Testament...........
“Although there are, as we might expect, some minor differences, these are mostly
the interchange of a word or the addition or
absence of a particular phrase.........
Where there are differences, however, this does not mean the Dead Sea Scrolls were correct and the Masoretic Text incorrect.
We should keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not necessarily transcribed with the same meticulous preservation practices as those used by the main scribes of the
time. Nonetheless, the remarkable discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is astounding confirmation that the Old Testament has indeed
been accurately preserved for us today..........
first century B.C.) were discovered in 1947, many people were initially concerned that they would show marked differences with
the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament......
After years of study, they found that the Dead Sea Scrolls they examined have only
a relatively few minor, insignificant differences from today’s Masoretic Text of the
Old Testament...........
“Although there are, as we might expect, some minor differences, these are mostly
the interchange of a word or the addition or
absence of a particular phrase.........
Where there are differences, however, this does not mean the Dead Sea Scrolls were correct and the Masoretic Text incorrect.
We should keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not necessarily transcribed with the same meticulous preservation practices as those used by the main scribes of the
time. Nonetheless, the remarkable discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is astounding confirmation that the Old Testament has indeed
been accurately preserved for us today..........
www.ucg.org/reprints/pdf/BiblePreservedAccurately.pdf
MultiQuote
