Bble History

[Hanna]

The Siniaticus and the Vaticanus I believe are both corrupt ms.


There are actually closer to 6000 manuscripts total and 90% of them are in agreement with each other almost exactly. Those are the Majority Text. There is another 5% that is in disagreement with the 90% and even with themselves. These are called the minority text. Then there is another 5% that is in agreement sometimes with the Majority Text and sometimes with the minority text. The Sinaiatic and Vaticanus fall under the minority text.

Most critics call the minority text better ms only because they were in better condition(practically unused) and had no notes in them. However, most of the minority texts do not agree with each other.

The KJV was taken from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation from the Majority Text.

So the Byzantine line are the majority text, meaning there are more of them and these agree with each other. Now are these copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

Then there are the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus, which are considered the minority texts because there are less of them, but again, are they copies of the original or translations of the original?

Also why are they grouped like this. One group Siniaticus/Vaticanus and the other Byzantine? Is it location where they were found or who copied or translated them or what?

I have been to a number of websites and they are all so biased one way or the other all I got is confused. I love my KJV. I would never use anything else. I hate it when a verse is quoted from one of these other translations and it sounds slightly familair.

I am just trying to gather the facts concerning this issue due to some strife in my own family over it all, but I want to be sure I am correct in what I present as the facts before I open my mouth at all.

[Will]

So the Byzantine line are the majority text, meaning there are more of them and these agree with each other. Now are these copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

Then there are the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus, which are considered the minority texts because there are less of them, but again, are they copies of the original or translations of the original?

Also why are they grouped like this. One group Siniaticus/Vaticanus and the other Byzantine? Is it location where they were found or who copied or translated them or what?

I have been to a number of websites and they are all so biased one way or the other all I got is confused. I love my KJV. I would never use anything else. I hate it when a verse is quoted from one of these other translations and it sounds slightly familair.

I am just trying to gather the facts concerning this issue due to some strife in my own family over it all, but I want to be sure I am correct in what I present as the facts before I open my mouth at all.

"Byzantine" has to do with the type of text used in these manuscripts. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican, Alexandrian/Sianicus was found in Egypt(someone correct me if I'm wrong).

They are normally copies of the originals, but as I said before, I believe that at least two of the Gospels were likely originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic instead of Greek. Most of the NT was likely written in Greek however.

[JJJ4given]

So the Byzantine line are the majority text, meaning there are more of them and these agree with each other. Now are these copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

Then there are the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus, which are considered the minority texts because there are less of them, but again, are they copies of the original or translations of the original?

Also why are they grouped like this. One group Siniaticus/Vaticanus and the other Byzantine? Is it location where they were found or who copied or translated them or what?

I have been to a number of websites and they are all so biased one way or the other all I got is confused. I love my KJV. I would never use anything else. I hate it when a verse is quoted from one of these other translations and it sounds slightly familair.

I am just trying to gather the facts concerning this issue due to some strife in my own family over it all, but I want to be sure I am correct in what I present as the facts before I open my mouth at all.

There are a couple of webpages that I found which are pretty good on this issue. Kind of some boring reading but if you are curious the information is there. It is all in support of the KJV and the texts which the KJV came from.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vit ... rt1-1.html

http://www.purewords.org/

I can't say I agree doctrinally with the first website, but what he has found about this issue is quite informative and alarming. He used to be in support of the MVs and the minority texts. But, just recently, after he thoroughly examined this issue he is now KJVO. I think the doctrinal issues will fall in to place now that he's in God's Word.

The second website is pretty good.

[justalex]

So the Byzantine line are the majority text, meaning there are more of them and these agree with each other. Now are these copies of the original or are they translations of the original?

Then there are the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus, which are considered the minority texts because there are less of them, but again, are they copies of the original or translations of the original?

Also why are they grouped like this. One group Siniaticus/Vaticanus and the other Byzantine? Is it location where they were found or who copied or translated them or what?

I have been to a number of websites and they are all so biased one way or the other all I got is confused. I love my KJV. I would never use anything else. I hate it when a verse is quoted from one of these other translations and it sounds slightly familiar.

I am just trying to gather the facts concerning this issue due to some strife in my own family over it all, but I want to be sure I am correct in what I present as the facts before I open my mouth at all.

The Byzantine text is the majority text. Well over 90% of manuscripts would be part of this family. They are copies of the originals rather than translations. These texts hardly differ from one another other than in things you would expect to find in a copied work. Sometimes a line of text or word is repeated or accidental skipped. Occasionally a word would be misspelled as well. If you think copying the Bible mistake free would be easy try writing out a chapter or two. These errors were easy for the readers to identify when compared to other texts and were frequently corrected within the text or by the next copy. Even our KJV went though many Early editions as the editor fixed typos the printer had made.

Now the Alexandrian family of texts are another story. These are called Alexandrian because they are thought to originate in Alexandria, Egypt. They are also copies rather than translations because they too are written in greek. The Siniaticus and Vaticanus are manuscripts within this family. This is a small group of manuscripts that number about a couple hundred. Most of these would be just bits of a page or a few verses here or there. What makes the Vaticanus and Siniaticus significant is that they are more or less complete. Also, they were written in about the 5th century. There is evidence that more than one scribe modified the text between the 6th and 9th centuries as well. These texts are significantly different from the majority text and also conflict with one another to a great extent. Unlike the Byzantine manuscripts which differences are minor and can be traced to mistakes in copying the Alexandrian texts go beyond this. There has been willful altering of the texts and seemingly in specific areas. The major one being the Deity of Christ. Again these alterations are not uniform. One Alexandrian text will conflict with another.

Modern translator often view the Bible like any other book. They see the original text as lost and believe it is their job to guess which text is accurate for a particular passage. They believe ever text is corrupt and refuse to disregard any manuscript even ones that have been proven corrupt in numerous areas.

[Hanna]

The Byzantine text is the majority text. Well over 90% of manuscripts would be part of this family. They are copies of the originals rather than translations. These texts hardly differ from one another other than in things you would expect to find in a copied work.

Great:) See I had read where this Byzantine was a text type, like JJJ had said and that lead me to believe it was something different than Siniaticus/Vaticanus interms of its relationship to the original.

So we can conclude that these 3 manuscripts are the 2nd generation of the Bible, correct?

This is a small group of manuscripts that number about a couple hundred. Most of these would be just bits of a page or a few verses here or there. What makes the Vaticanus and Siniaticus significant is that they are more or less complete. Also, they were written in about the 5th century.

How can they be complete if they are bits and pieces?
And are you saying that the Byzantine are not complete? And where did the Byzantine come from?

One of the websites I looked at said the TR was to translate the text from Latin to Greek, and it made it sound like until then the Greek language had been lost.

[JJJ4given]

How can they be complete if they are bits and pieces?
And are you saying that the Byzantine are not complete? And where did the Byzantine come from?

One of the websites I looked at said the TR was to translate the text from Latin to Greek, and it made it sound like until then the Greek language had been lost.

Most of the ms were only a few chapters here and there. By combining them together, you could have the entire Word of God several times over with slight variations(such as "Dauid" being spelt "Dabid" in Matt. 1:1; where we get "David" from).

The TR was not taken from the Latin. I believe it had been compared with the Old Latin Vulgate(not to be confused with the Jerome's Catholic Latin Vulgate) but that is about the extent of that. From what I understand, the Old Latin Vulgate was a good translation into the Latin which was done a little after 100 A.D.

[justalex]

Great:) See I had read where this Byzantine was a text type, like JJJ had said and that lead me to believe it was something different than Siniaticus/Vaticanus interms of its relationship to the original.

So we can conclude that these 3 manuscripts are the 2nd generation of the Bible, correct?

Not really. There is more than 1 Byzantine manuscript. There is actually close to 6000 of them. Maybe more. They haven't all been cataloged or counted. These range from a few pages or even verses of text to complete books. Of course the older the manuscript; the worse shape it will be in.

The Alexandrian family of manuscripts number something like 240. Only the Sinaticus, Vaticanus and a couple others are anywhere near complete.

As far as text type there are "Uncials" and "Minuscules".
Uncials were greek letters written all in capitals with no spaces between the words and little punctuation. Each letter is about 1 inch tall which is how they got their name. This formal style of written greek is how the originals would have been written. Along about the 9th century we start seeing minuscles which were smaller and not all capitalized. They had spaces between the words and room for punctuation. Remember the greek language isn't a dead language like Latin. This both saved space and made the individual words easier to see for the untrained eye. This is not considered a new translation because it is still greek. It would be akin to you or I typing out a handwritten letter. It would not be considered a translation but, merely a copy using a different font. In any case Minuscles became the font of choice around the 9th century. We find very little use of Uncials during or after this century. The Alexandrian family of texts are almost all represented by Unicials because their corrupt texts weren't copied to any great extent. Part of the reason for the preservation of the Sintaticus and the Vaticanus was that they weren't used. Even a bible written on leather will wear in a hundred years or so if it's being read and/or copied.

This is a small group of manuscripts that number about a couple hundred. Most of these would be just bits of a page or a few verses here or there. What makes the Vaticanus and Siniaticus significant is that they are more or less complete. Also, they were written in about the 5th century.

How can they be complete if they are bits and pieces?
And are you saying that the Byzantine are not complete? And where did the Byzantine come from?

There are just under 3000 largely complete manuscripts within the Byzantine family. The newer copies obviously being the most intact. Remember the Alexandrian Family has only 3 or 4 manuscripts which are anywhere near complete and these manuscripts disagree almost as much with each other as they do the Byzantine family(majority text).

One of the websites I looked at said the TR was to translate the text from Latin to Greek, and it made it sound like until then the Greek language had been lost.

The TR relied mainly on the Byzantine text but also looked at the early translations including the old Latin(Italick), Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, Romaunt or Occitan(Waldenses) and the Church Fathers(so called). These early tranlations overwhelmingly confirm the text behind the KJV.

If God is true to His word then we have the preserved word of God in english and it is the KJV of scriptures. If God failed to preserve it then we must place our faith in the subjective faithless hypothesis of the modern textual critic. I believe we have God's preserved word.

[Will]

One of the websites I looked at said the TR was to translate the text from Latin to Greek, and it made it sound like until then the Greek language had been lost.

Only the last few verses of Revelation. Those were translated from the Latin Vulgate.

[Alen]

Only the last few verses of Revelation. Those were translated from the Septuigant.

Septuigant, isn't that the Greek translation of the OT?

-Alen

[Will]

Greek translation of the OT?

-Alen

:oops: Yep. I fixed it.

[Hanna]

Not really. There is more than 1 Byzantine manuscript. There is actually close to 6000 of them. Maybe more. They haven't all been cataloged or counted. These range from a few pages or even verses of text to complete books.

My goodness how could anyone just let them sit there? Doesn't their curiosity kill them??

So there is the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Both are in the original language, and both are copies of copies. There are more manuscripts in the Byzantine family, over 5000 and there are about 240 in the Alexandrian family. Thus the distinction "majority text" and "minority text". The Byzantine family of manuscripts agree with each other 99% of the time, whereas the Alexandrian family of manuscripts do not agree with each other.

[Alen]

The Latin Vulgate got adopted by the Catholic church, but it wasn't created by one of them, I don't think.

-Alen

[JJJ4given]

Remember the greek language isn't a dead language like Latin.

Koine Greek, which the Bible was written in, is a dead language. Modern Greek is different altogether.

Also, even though all the language was written only in capital letters when the Bible was written, there was a different way to distinguish a capital letter from a normal letter. For instance:

Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Though all the letters were capitalized, the ones that had significance were written slightly differently. From what I heard it is the difference between writing in cursive and writing in print.

When smaller case letters were developed, then the letters written with significance stayed capitalized while all the rest were put in smaller case.

God bless!

[Hanna]

Koine Greek, which the Bible was written in, is a dead language. Modern Greek is different altogether.

Then how/when did the mss change to something people could read and translate?

[Alen]

Ancient Egyptian has been a dead language for a long time, as well as ancient Babylonian, yet these languages are still able to be translated, it is just a time consuming process. Though with Egyptian they hit the jackpot when they found the Rosetta stone, the same text written in several languages, one of them Egyptian, the other 2 already known.

-Alen