[b-hebrew] The New Testament
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sat Oct 21 21:25:22 EDT 2006
Those who champion the Majority Text (not the same as the Textus
Receptus) make an interesting claim: that the better manuscripts of
antiquity were less likely to survive because they were more used, and
more copied. Thus the survival of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
is partly due to the fact that they were early on recognized as
inferior copies. It also helped that they were in a dry climate.
As a linguist, I notice that the Majority Text preserves evidence of
what appears to be a shift in Hebrew pronunciation in its
transliterations, that hard consonants (e.g. t, p, etc.) were becoming
softened (to th, ph, etc.) and that apparently Galilee lagged behind
in this shift (hence Peter's accent). That evidence, slight as it is,
is not seen in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and other similar manuscripts so
heavily depended upon by Nestle Aland. Which raises the question to
me, if the Majority Text is accurate enough to preserve evidences of a
pronunciation shift in Aramaic / Hebrew, where else might it be more
But as I am not a Greek scholar nor an expert in textual criticism, my
comments end here. Further, I do not know of a single doctrine that is
changed by using Nestle Aland over against Majority Text. As the above
comments are the limits of what I know, I have to stop here.
As for the KJV, I have to thank it for getting me into the Hebrew and
Greek. I found it so hard to understand that I took to reading Tanakh
and New Testament in their original languages. I found the Greek
pretty consistent no matter who I consulted (only one exception,
μυστεριον means "revelation", which was a mystery (English meaning) to
those who did not get it). But not so with Hebrew, and I'm still just
working on the vocabulary to understanding Biblical Hebrew. Other than
having read a few short passages, I have not read any other
translation into English.
Karl W. Randolph.
On 10/21/06, Schmuel <schmuel at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks
> Peter Kirk -
> > Schmuel who made unqualified claims like "Texts full of scribal blunders" which could be
> > taken as suggesting significant unreliability in the New Testament.
> This is by taking the quotes from Dean John Burgon (who examined the manuscripts) vis a vis the scribal condition, various types of errors, in the most favored manuscripts, especially Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Note, the discussion here is scribal errors, not doctrinal questions or textual variants.
> I have often checked whether anybody disagrees or rebuts these numbers and have never gotten a response indicating a challenge to the Dean John Burgon statements.. There are hundreds of scribal blunders.
> Since I do not use a Bible that relies on those two corrupt manuscripts, this exposure of corruptions as no effect on making any reliability in the New Testament that I use, the King James Bible. Nor any Received Text or Majority Text New Testament. It only effects the nouveau corruptus modern versions.
> Steven Avery
More information about the b-hebrew