The "Critical Text" Criticized

Steven Avery

Rookie
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
37

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
THE IMPORTANCE OF ARCHAIC MARK IN MANUSCRIPT DATING

The Greek codex called Archaic Mark (MS2427), shows clearly why we should never rely on paleographic estimates alone to date important manuscripts. It also gives a credible reason why biblical manuscripts that claim to be "the oldest and best" need to be scientifically tested using the technologies available today.

Over the past 80 years Archaic Mark was claimed by many critical text scholars to be a leading representative of the Alexandrian text-type. It was recognized by Ernest Cadman Colwell (1901-1974) as having an extraordinary degree of correspondence with the Codex Vaticanus. According to Colwell the codex preserved a "primitive text" of the Gospel of Mark. Text of the codex was highly esteemed by T. C. Skeat, another eminent scholar of his time. At that time, the dating of Archaic Mark had been based purely on paleographic estimates.

What makes Archaic Mark even more interesting is that textual criticism specialist and founder of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Münster Germany), Kurt Aland, placed Archaic Mark in Category I (the critical texts highest category of witnesses to the original autographs) and published this in his book: "The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism" Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). Erroll F. Rhodes (trans.). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.

In 2006, the University of Chicago Library digitized the Archaic Mark, making it available to scholars worldwide and stimulating renewed interest in it. The following year, in response to that growing interest in the mysterious manuscript, Alice Schreyer, Director of the Special Collections Research Center, convened a committee to lead a complete and definitive examination of the material components of the Archaic Mark.

In 2009 The Library commissioned materials analysis from McCrone Associates, a recognised world leader in scientific analysis, and also enlisted the aid of Abigail Quandt, a rare books expert and preservationist at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore. Joseph G. Barabe, a senior scientist at McCrone, took 24 samples of parchment, ink and a range of paints used in illustrations. Barabe analyzed the samples using an array of scientific techniques. Barabe determined the Archaic Mark was created after 1874, using materials not available until the late 19th century, and on a parchment that carbon dating determined was from an animal hide killed sometime between 1485-1631. (case study notes: https://www.mccrone.com/case-studies/ink-analysis-the-archaic-mark).

A biblical expert at the University of Chicago, Margaret M. Mitchell, together with experts in micro-chemical analysis and medieval bookmaking, concluded that the enigmatic Archaic Mark was indeed a forgery. Mitchell completed the analysis with a study of the textual edition the forger had used. She confirmed and refined Stephen C. Carlson's proposal that the modern edition from which the forger copied the text was the 1860 edition of the Greek New Testament by Philipp Buttmann.
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT LUCIAN RECENSION THEORY

To establish the supremacy of their new Alexandrian text in 1881, Westcott, and Hort argued that the Byzantine textual tradition (which includes the Textus Receptus) did not originate before the mid-fourth century and that it was the result of merging earlier corrupt texts. This so-called recension of the text was theorized to have been perpetrated by Lucian of Antioch.

They further argued that this text was taken to Constantinople, where it became popular and spread throughout the Byzantine Empire. Westcott and Hort also theorized that such a prevailing text type could only have happened if it was sanctioned by the church.

All of these claim were made without a single shred of historical evidence for this supposed empire-wide church council, these men simply picked out a place (Antioch), and a time (250-350 AD) and a coordinator (Lucian) and concocted a theory. All this sounds impressive but to this day, there is not one piece of historical evidence to support any of this theory.

Westcott and Hort rewrote the history of the text with their "Lucian Recension". For the most part liberals, today reject the validity of the Westcott-Hort Lucian theory. However, this does not repair the damage already done by this fairytale.

One of the most striking revelations is the paradox of textual criticism insisting that manuscripts be extant while being all too willing to theorize why the Byzantine texts were so prolific in the 4th century without even the slightest piece of extant historical evidence.

The Westcott and Hort Lucian Recension is just the first of a series of rationalizations and theories that critical text advocates have produced over the years, to try and explain the situation from their point of view. One such theory is called: "Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts —Ernest C. Colwell." All of these theories have failed to produce any historical support for their theories and fail to sufficiently account for the widespread dominance of the Byzantine texts among churches in the 4th century.

So widespread was the Byzantine text by the 4th century that it would have taken 100-200 years to become so well established across the known world. It therefore stands to reason, the Byzantine text is much older than many critical-text advocates would have people believe. The New Testament was not complete until the end of the 1st century and so it makes greater sense to conclude that the Byzantine text has been there from the very beginning.
 

Steven Avery

Rookie
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
37
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT LUCIAN RECENSION THEORY
And I have gathered some material on the W-H recension.
First, let me show you that this is their term and their claim!

the Westcott-Hort Recension

When discussing in textual circles, we can say directly what we are dealing with the Westcott-Hort recension. That was their accurate claim, and was well understood, even if today's Critcal Text seminarian "scholars" want to hide the simple truth.

==================

Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Sometime Bishop of Durham
Arthur Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=G_JDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA144

Westcott: Oct 12, 1853
"As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable - after Griesbach's manner"

==================

St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans: with notes (1859)
Charles John Vaughan (1816-1897)
http://archive.org/stream/gyprsrwmaouspis00paulgoog...

"Mr Westcott has thus allowed me to anticipate (with regard to this Epistle) the publication of that complete recension of the text of the New Testament, on which he has been for some time engaged."

====================

Blurb from Vaughan's book (1870)
https://books.google.com/books?id=yZFUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA39

"This volume contains the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Romans as settled by the Rev. B. F. Westcott, D. D. , for his complete recension of the Text of the New Testament."

==================

St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,(1866)
Joseph Barbour Lightfoot (1828-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=N8ECAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR8

"the promise of assistance from my friends the Rev. B. F. Westcott and the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, who are engaged in a joint recension of the Greek Testament"

==================

Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L.: sometime bishop of Durham, Volume 1 (1870)
Arthur Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=iCI3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA331

"The text which Dr. Vaughan has published ... represents in the main my recension .. We [with Hort] have now revised the text together.."

==================

Blurb to W-H GNT (1881)
https://books.google.com/books?id=pGAOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA572

"Nowhere else in the compass of a single volume of moderate size will the student of our day find so complete and satisfactory a recension of the Greek Testament." Christian Intelligencer, N. Y.

==================

Extracts from foreign criticisms of Westcott and Horts' Greek text of the New Testament [first publ. in 1881].1885
Orello Cone
https://books.google.com/books?id=gp4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6

Dr Carl Bertheau, of Hamburg, in the Theologische Literaturzeitung...
The editors "have produced a new and entirely independent recension of the text of the New Testament..."

======

This is a good book of extracts for seeing how totally duped many of the "scholars" were by Hort's gibberish.

==================

The Universalist Quarterly and General Review (1884)
"The New Covenant" and its Critics
Review of English version by Henry Prentiss Forbes (1849-1913)
John Wesley Hanson (1823-1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_gcSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA476

the Greek text from which "The New Covenant" is rendered. It is substantially and almost entirely from the recension of Westcott and Hort .."

==================

The Contemporary Review (1903)
Review of Life and Letters
https://books.google.com/books?id=mwI4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA901

"striking achievements of his life--the recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament"

==================

Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 79 (1922)
Order of Events in Matthew and Mark
J. F. Springer
https://books.google.com/books?id=vKTNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA333

"Westcott and Hort's recension of the Greek NT" - (1922)

Bonus: Springer discussing Markan priority nonsense:
"history teaches us that a consensus of experts is by no means always in the right"
https://books.google.com/books?id=yMg7LRMd4LsC&pg=PA113

===================

The Papyri and New Testament Textual Criticism (1986)
Jacobus Hendrik Petzer
https://books.google.com/books?id=Di8jYgnbeO4C&pg=PA24

"There is, however, not enough historical evidence to replace Westcott and Hort’s recension with a new one, while the former had been proven not to be relevant any more"

====================

Some additional notes

====================

WESTCOTT-HORT RECENSION and VATICANUS

where did the Westcott-Hort recension differ from Vaticanus?
https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/724129361007400/

This leads to other studies, such as the Vaticanus-primacy nature of the W-H text.

==================

Stephen C. Carlsen
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Manuscript-2427.pdf

"Westcott and Hort were not the first to base a critical text largely on B. Some twenty years earlier. Philipp Buttmann (1860) published a recension of the Greek New Testament based on Cardinal Mai’s edition of B (1857, 1859)."

This earlier Buttmann recension text was actually 1856:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu53300777;view=1up;seq=5

Any possible relationship or connection or use of the Philipp Carl Johann Ludwig Buttmann text to W-H 1881 (and the text distributed to the revision committee in 1871) has not been studied, afaik.

==================

One of the better discussions of the W-H history

While Latinos Slept (2005)
Gary Lamore
https://books.google.com/books?id=-0e1NG2PpZwC&pg=PA11

While Men Slept. . .: A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity (2002)
Kirby F. Fannin
https://books.google.com/books?id=9yFfFQVtmqUC

==================

This Westcott-Hort recension is the underlying base of the Alphabet Soup versions, NIV, NAS, HCSB, ESV, etc. The textus corruptus today is essentially the same textual recension, the singular significant change being the rejection by most editions today of the absurd Western non-interpolations. One of many of Hort's sick textual jokes.

==================

Pure Bible Forum in 2018 uses 2015 Facebook post for this info

Westcott Hort recension
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-westcott-hort-recension-source-for-modern-versions-and-critical-texts.848/#post-1797

==================

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
And I have gathered some material on the W-H recension.
First, let me show you that this is their term and their claim!

the Westcott-Hort Recension

When discussing in textual circles, we can say directly what we are dealing with the Westcott-Hort recension. That was their accurate claim, and was well understood, even if today's Critcal Text seminarian "scholars" want to hide the simple truth.

==================

Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Sometime Bishop of Durham
Arthur Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=G_JDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA144

Westcott: Oct 12, 1853
"As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use...With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable - after Griesbach's manner"

==================

St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans: with notes (1859)
Charles John Vaughan (1816-1897)
http://archive.org/stream/gyprsrwmaouspis00paulgoog...

"Mr Westcott has thus allowed me to anticipate (with regard to this Epistle) the publication of that complete recension of the text of the New Testament, on which he has been for some time engaged."

====================

Blurb from Vaughan's book (1870)
https://books.google.com/books?id=yZFUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA39

"This volume contains the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Romans as settled by the Rev. B. F. Westcott, D. D. , for his complete recension of the Text of the New Testament."

==================

St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,(1866)
Joseph Barbour Lightfoot (1828-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=N8ECAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR8

"the promise of assistance from my friends the Rev. B. F. Westcott and the Rev. F. J. A. Hort, who are engaged in a joint recension of the Greek Testament"

==================

Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L.: sometime bishop of Durham, Volume 1 (1870)
Arthur Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=iCI3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA331

"The text which Dr. Vaughan has published ... represents in the main my recension .. We [with Hort] have now revised the text together.."

==================

Blurb to W-H GNT (1881)
https://books.google.com/books?id=pGAOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA572

"Nowhere else in the compass of a single volume of moderate size will the student of our day find so complete and satisfactory a recension of the Greek Testament." Christian Intelligencer, N. Y.

==================

Extracts from foreign criticisms of Westcott and Horts' Greek text of the New Testament [first publ. in 1881].1885
Orello Cone
https://books.google.com/books?id=gp4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA6

Dr Carl Bertheau, of Hamburg, in the Theologische Literaturzeitung...
The editors "have produced a new and entirely independent recension of the text of the New Testament..."

======

This is a good book of extracts for seeing how totally duped many of the "scholars" were by Hort's gibberish.

==================

The Universalist Quarterly and General Review (1884)
"The New Covenant" and its Critics
Review of English version by Henry Prentiss Forbes (1849-1913)
John Wesley Hanson (1823-1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_gcSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA476

the Greek text from which "The New Covenant" is rendered. It is substantially and almost entirely from the recension of Westcott and Hort .."

==================

The Contemporary Review (1903)
Review of Life and Letters
https://books.google.com/books?id=mwI4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA901

"striking achievements of his life--the recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament"

==================

Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 79 (1922)
Order of Events in Matthew and Mark
J. F. Springer
https://books.google.com/books?id=vKTNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA333

"Westcott and Hort's recension of the Greek NT" - (1922)

Bonus: Springer discussing Markan priority nonsense:
"history teaches us that a consensus of experts is by no means always in the right"
https://books.google.com/books?id=yMg7LRMd4LsC&pg=PA113

===================

The Papyri and New Testament Textual Criticism (1986)
Jacobus Hendrik Petzer
https://books.google.com/books?id=Di8jYgnbeO4C&pg=PA24

"There is, however, not enough historical evidence to replace Westcott and Hort’s recension with a new one, while the former had been proven not to be relevant any more"

====================

Some additional notes

====================

WESTCOTT-HORT RECENSION and VATICANUS

where did the Westcott-Hort recension differ from Vaticanus?
https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/724129361007400/

This leads to other studies, such as the Vaticanus-primacy nature of the W-H text.

==================

Stephen C. Carlsen
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Manuscript-2427.pdf

"Westcott and Hort were not the first to base a critical text largely on B. Some twenty years earlier. Philipp Buttmann (1860) published a recension of the Greek New Testament based on Cardinal Mai’s edition of B (1857, 1859)."

This earlier Buttmann recension text was actually 1856:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu53300777;view=1up;seq=5

Any possible relationship or connection or use of the Philipp Carl Johann Ludwig Buttmann text to W-H 1881 (and the text distributed to the revision committee in 1871) has not been studied, afaik.

==================

One of the better discussions of the W-H history

While Latinos Slept (2005)
Gary Lamore
https://books.google.com/books?id=-0e1NG2PpZwC&pg=PA11

While Men Slept. . .: A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity (2002)
Kirby F. Fannin
https://books.google.com/books?id=9yFfFQVtmqUC

==================

This Westcott-Hort recension is the underlying base of the Alphabet Soup versions, NIV, NAS, HCSB, ESV, etc. The textus corruptus today is essentially the same textual recension, the singular significant change being the rejection by most editions today of the absurd Western non-interpolations. One of many of Hort's sick textual jokes.

==================

Pure Bible Forum in 2018 uses 2015 Facebook post for this info

Westcott Hort recension
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-westcott-hort-recension-source-for-modern-versions-and-critical-texts.848/#post-1797

==================

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
Thanks for your input @Steven Avery - some good sources to delve into here…
 

Bubbajay

Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
834
So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums.

From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be.

What of the "Book of Barnabas", the woman caught in the act of adultery, the ending of the Gospel of Mark?

Which texts can we really rely on? Do we need to stick with the KJV or ditch it for Bibles based on the Revised Version?

When I was growing up, and growing in the faith I had paraphrases with plenty of pictures in. At university, I had "The Message", the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible, the NKJV and the NIV.

After a while I started to notice the odd verse where the end was missing where I had expected something more. Sometimes there would be a gap where a whole verse was gone!

What was going on? Why so much difference? It turned out much of the controversy turned on which manuscripts were considered "oldest and best".

Before you think this is a typical "KJV only" thread, I need to say that I grew in the faith and understood the Gospel from versions that contain phrases as incongruous as "as above, so below" in the Lords Prayer (the message), "woe to you drunken bums" (the Living Bible or were more notable for their artwork than their text! (The Good News Bible). With all their faults, I could still see the big picture. The problem came in getting into the fine detail...

View attachment 5757

Prompted by questions from @Kung Fu and @Etagloc I made it my business to look into the grounds for their questions and doubts. Was Bart Ehrman right? Were the sad looking "liberals" I grew up avoiding party to some tragic truths about the substance of what I had been brought up to believe?

A week ago I started reading a very interesting book...

View attachment 5733

Surely not?!

So much is built on it! It lends authenticity to other "alternate" readings and excluded apocryphal writings.

The Codex Sinaiticus has only very recently been available for scrutiny, and that is when the controversy began.

Searching further, I came across a playlist that represented perhaps a year and a half of research by the author and other contributors into the authenticity of this manuscript and the story of how it came to be regarded as such a cornerstone of textual criticism. I will post that up as a separate posting, as it has absorbed me for the best part of a week.

The ongoing research into this is published at http://sinaiticus.net
Sainaiaticus is a Gnostic text rewritten by pseudo Christians from the Alexandrian school in Egypt. The author was more than likely Origin. It changed all the verses that speak on the deity of Christ, and changed others to emphasize a "spiritual" christ and not a Christ who came in the flesh.

I've learned the authenticity of the textus receptus long ago. The modern Bible are responsible for all the weird and fake doctrine in Christianity today. It turns salvation into an ongoing process, instead of the moment in time when one fully trusts Christ Jesus.

It also upholds many catholic doctrines like self flaggelation, baptismal salvation, and many others.

The textus receptus can be traced back just as far as those texts claim. The Geneva bible, and the Bishops Bible were based off the received texts as well.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
Sainaiaticus is a Gnostic text rewritten by pseudo Christians from the Alexandrian school in Egypt. The author was more than likely Origin. It changed all the verses that speak on the deity of Christ, and changed others to emphasize a "spiritual" christ and not a Christ who came in the flesh.

I've learned the authenticity of the textus receptus long ago. The modern Bible are responsible for all the weird and fake doctrine in Christianity today. It turns salvation into an ongoing process, instead of the moment in time when one fully trusts Christ Jesus.

It also upholds many catholic doctrines like self flaggelation, baptismal salvation, and many others.

The textus receptus can be traced back just as far as those texts claim. The Geneva bible, and the Bishops Bible were based off the received texts as well.
You might find this piece of research interesting then …

Gnostic Corruptions in the Alexandrian Texts

There is a Gnostic Revival going on today. It has been fueled by the Gnostic fairy tale, The Da Vinci Code, the National Geographic Societies sponsorship, television special and publication of the Gnostic Gospel of Judas and a renewed interest in The Nag Hammadi Codices. With that in mind, I present this paper titled “Christian Gnosticisms Corruption of the Western/Alexandrian Manuscripts” for your consideration.

Please note that the word “Christian” is between quotation marks. By using the quotation marks I am indicating to the reader that I am saying that the “Christianity” of the Gnostics is not really Christianity at all. In fact, the only way that the Gnosticism that I am speaking of can be considered Christian is in the sense that they scrounged words, writings and ideas from Christianity, and then redefined, rearranged, edited and rewrote them to fit their own purposes and to advance their own false teachings. I present this paper to you, so that you will realize that the “scholarly” community is all in a frenzy about the so called Gnostic Gospels, and are in the process of rewriting early Christian History with a Gnostic spin to reflect the findings at Nag Hammadi Egypt and the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. I trust this information will be helpful.


 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
@Bubbajay

What intrigued me as well as the Gnostic influences of Alexandria was the recent closer examination of the Sinaiticus text. It does appear that there is a compelling case to be made for the codex being a 19th Century copy of Alexandrian texts by Simonides at Mt Athos, elevated to a forgery by Tischendorff.

 

recure

Established
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
380
I've learned the authenticity of the textus receptus long ago. The modern Bible are responsible for all the weird and fake doctrine in Christianity today. It turns salvation into an ongoing process, instead of the moment in time when one fully trusts Christ Jesus.

It also upholds many catholic doctrines like self flaggelation, baptismal salvation, and many others.
So a text is wrong if it doesn't support your doctrines? This sounds like something a Muslim would say. But I would suggest that even the Textus Receptus teaches those doctrines you reject, as the KJV also says "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Mat.10.22). However, I'd like to see an example of where those "Catholic doctrines" are inserted in the other texts. It was my belief that Catholics historically used the Latin Vulgate (which I have certainly seen glosses in, mainly in the Old Testament) and not the Greek.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
So a text is wrong if it doesn't support your doctrines? This sounds like something a Muslim would say. But I would suggest that even the Textus Receptus teaches those doctrines you reject, as the KJV also says "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Mat.10.22). However, I'd like to see an example of where those "Catholic doctrines" are inserted in the other texts. It was my belief that Catholics historically used the Latin Vulgate (which I have certainly seen glosses in, mainly in the Old Testament) and not the Greek.
I think there are two major types of translation, the Antiochan (later becoming the Byzantine) Textus Receptus readings and the Alexandrian.

The church at Antioch was a persecuted and faithful church while the Alexandrians flirted with Gnosticism. There are many bad doctrines that have their roots in the Alexandrian texts e.g. “Adoptionism”.

There is also significant evidence that the same scribes who were working on the Alexandrian texts of the Bible were also producing known Gnostic texts that the church as a whole had rejected:-

Heretical Greek text of 'Jesus' secret teachings to his brother James' is discovered by biblical scholars in Oxford after being lost for 1,600 years

“"This new discovery is significant in part because it demonstrates that Christians were still reading and studying extra-canonical writings long after Christian leaders deemed them heretical," Geoffrey Smith, an assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the two scholars who made the discovery, told Newsweek.​

 

recure

Established
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
380
The church at Antioch was a persecuted and faithful church while the Alexandrians flirted with Gnosticism. There are many bad doctrines that have their roots in the Alexandrian texts e.g. “Adoptionism”.
This is a claim that's often made by TR apologists but it doesn't hold much weight. Firstly, the Church was persecuted everywhere in the Roman Empire for the first 3 centuries, the Alexandrians were no exception. Secondly, Gnosticism was a general phenomenon in the Christian world, for example the Paulicians who believed in adoptionism were named after Paul of Samosata, a 3rd c. Bishop of Antioch. But as I said, it would be nice to see which readings in the Alexandrian text support these "bad/Catholic doctrines" that the TR or Majority text does not.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
P.s. I posted this up some time ago but I can’t find where so I include it again - a lineage of Bible versions…

7AB5E5E0-076B-4972-80BA-9B0BBBF427F1.gif
*note - 1988 - the chart above was published prior to recent investigations (only made possible from 2011 onwards) into the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus.

p.s. This short overview is good…


And so is this…

 
Last edited:
Top