TR vs Majority Text!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DeclareHim, Apr 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recently read on a site that the Majority text differs from the TR 1,838 times. The TR was originally based on 7 mss from the Byzantine text type, the Majority text based on all (about 4,000) manuscripts of the Byzantine text type.

    TR-earliest mss 11th Century

    Majority- earliest mss 4th Century

    TR- contains trinitarian formula

    Majority- does not contain trinitarian formula

    TR- Contians Acts 8:37 and Luke 17:36

    Majority- does not contain Acts 8:37 or Luke 17:36

    Are most of these true?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,163
    Likes Received:
    1,311
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you specify which ones aren't and which are?
    Thanks
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,163
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I would have to ask "which TR?" There are about 30 Greek New Testaments going by "TR" all of which are different.
    That is kind of misleading. The TR of 1516 was based on minuscules 1, 2, 2ap, 4ap, and 1r. Erasmus's edition of 1522 had input from manuscript 61. However, the manuscripts Erasmus worked from were representative of the Byzantine textform so it is misleading to say the MT is based on more manuscript evidence than the TR of 1516. It really doesn't matter if it is 4 or 4000 if they substantially agree.
    The earliest TR was published in 1516. The manuscripts used by Erasmus are usually dated as follows, 1 (12th century), 2 (12th century), 2ap (12th century), 4 (13th century), 4ap (15th century), and 1r (12th century).

    However, it is an error to draw a dichotomy between those manuscripts and the Byzantine manuscripts as all of them, with the exception of manuscript 1, are Byzantine, (1 is Caesarean).

    It is true that Byzantine readings date to the mid 4th century (and even earlier) but it is probably an error to claim a distinctively Byzantine manuscript exists that is older than the 6th century (p84). It is true that A dates to the 5th century and is distinctively Byzantine in the Gospels, but it is also distinctively Alexandrian in the rest of the New Testament. N and P date to the 6th century and are mostly Byzantine as is Q, which dates to the 5th century. W, also 5th century, is Byzantine in Matthew and Luke 8 and following, but the rest is a mix of Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian. Σ and Φ are 6th century but only contain Matthew and Mark, and parts of Matthew and Mark respectively. There are a couple of 6th century Gospels (064 and 065), and a 6th century Byzantine text of Acts (093) but after that it gets pretty thin. Manuscript p68 is a partial Byzantine Gospel of John dating to the 5th century.

    Actually, no. The first and second TR editions of Erasmus (1516 and 1519) omitted the comma. (That is why I mentioned above that his edition of 1522 included input from manuscript 61 which was the 15th century manuscript given to him that contained the comma.)
    Correct.

    On the basis of 36, 307, 453, 610, 945, 1678, 1739, 1891, l 592, l 1178, Acts 8:37 has remained in the TR, but Erasmus did not have any of those manuscripts. It is most likely he included that on the testimony of the Latin and other ancient vernaculars.

    Luke 17:36 is attested to by D, 579, 1243, 180, 700, 1006, 1071 (all with slight variants), l 68, l 76, l 673, l 813, and l 1223 none of which Erasmus had in his possession, so, again, probably included on the weight of the ancient vernacular witnesses.

    Well, the majority of the Byzantine witness is lacking, but there is still substantial testimony supporting the reading.
     
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Fascinating, TCassidy. Thank you.

    DeclareHim, I have compared in about a dozen books of the NT the Stephanus TR in the Power Bible program with Pierpont-Robinson's 1st Ed. Byzantine. I found that the vast majority of the differences in the two were very minor and had nothing to do with the translation. There were quite a few differences in the spelling of names and places, for example, and often the word order is slightly different or an article was left out, or something similar.
     
  6. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Doc.
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doc, why don't you write a book that just basically summarizes every manuscript, where found, when found, etc. etc. and list each text used such as Majority, each TR, etc and give the family trees.

    I think you would clarify a lot of issues regarding the history of God's Word.

    Just a thought.

    I know there are books out there, but they usually contain so much data that the facts get lost in the forrest.
     
  8. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent suggestion I to would greatly enjoy a book of this nature. So Doc you now have 2 requests. I would even buy and donate a copy to our Church Library.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...