Why are Alexandrian manuscripts better?

Which is also true of the Byzantine text type ... and forms one of the strong arguments against the Majority text. Remember the old saying, One hundred copies of an error is still an error. To count the Majority text as different witnesses is largley misguided on the same principle that you state here.

The fact that they agree with each other as much as they do shows that they are in fact reliable witnesses to the text of Scripture. "Commendable" is a tricky term, especially in hand copying in less than ideal conditions. The remarkable uniformity of the texts as a whole testify to the preservation of God. It is misguided to rule out a particular text type or manuscript merely because it differs. We must try to discern why it differs.

 

Amen Pastor Larry

 

Yes, very simple ... as was yours. I didn't know what your position was. I was simply pointing out the fact that we textual criticism should be concerned with readings, not number of manuscripts in which readings are found.

You would have to refresh my memory on Matt 27:49 ... But my point is not to say that any particular reading is original. My point is that the great agreement among the Alexandrian texts demonstrate that they are a reliable witness to the text of Scripture.

 

I didn't see that. I am of the opinion that that was a gloss and not original. The Byzantine texts are certainly guilty of the same thing in other places, such as Col 1:14 and 1 John 5:7, notably. Yet, we do not write off the value of the Byzantine texts simply because they also have copyists errors. The Byzantine texts are usually the longer texts, that most agree came from scribal harmonization. These are not serious issues, but nor can they be attributed only to one text type.

 

You appear to be misunderstanding me.

First, yes, the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts may be wrong. The consensus of Byzantine manuscripts may also be wrong. In fact, where the two are different, one is most certainly wrong. The question is, What method do we use for determining which is wrong and which is right? That is the question of textual criticism, and taht question is not answered by pulling your favorite English version off the shelf as the last word.

Second, with respect to the examples, I pointed out two clear instances where the Byzantine text includes the same type of scribal gloss that the Alexandrian manuscript does in Matt 27:44.

My point is simply this: If you use a variant to argue against the trustworthiness of the Alexandarian text type (as you appear to be doing), you must also use variants to argue against the trustworthiness of the Byzantine text type. Now, obviously that is simplistic for the sake of time, space, and those who don't have a clue about what is being said. But the truth is that you cannot hold a standard for the Alexandrian text that you do not hold for the Byzantine text. God has preserved both for us. We must avail ourselves of them.

I am not proving corruption in the consensus of all Greek MSS. I am showing that all text families have variants and those variants must be dealt with. If the entire Byzantine text were absolutely unanimous, then I imagine that all evangelicals would agree that the Byzantine text is the final word. But it is not. The Byzantine text type has the same types of issues that the Alexandrian text type does. The KJVOs just don't tell you that, probably because they haven't studied enough to actually know that.

 

Actually, they do show a clear consensus of the Byzantine manuscripts. The consensus of the Byzantine manuscripts is that those passages are spurious. Yet they are still included.

I am not trying to prove the consensus wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. You seemed to be saying that one Alexandrian witness has an addition in Matt 27. You rightly say that no version (or Greek text that I know of apart from WH) includes it. And for good reason. The existence of a reading does not make it right. I used two examples from the TR where the existence of a reading does not make it right. The consensus of manuscripts agree that those passages should not be included.

 

PL: "You seemed to be saying that one Alexandrian witness has an addition in Matt 27."

On the contrary, BF's point was that the *four* primary uncial MSS of the Alexandrian texttype (Aleph B C L, plus about 36 other mostly non-Alexandrian MSS) contain the longer reading at Mt 27:49. Generally in the Nestle/UBS editions, the union of Aleph B C L tends to be accepted as original, since it reflects a true early Alexandrian consensus.

As I noted previously, Abidan Shah just presented a persuasive paper at the ETS suggesting on some very solid eclectic grounds that the modern critical editions *should* follow Westcott-Hort and *include* the longer reading in this passage as part of the original archetype, in accordance with their normal operative principles.