The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, Royal MS 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02, Soden δ 4) is a fifth-century Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It is one of the four Great uncial codices.
NTTC 1 PETER 2:2: Was the Original Reading “you may grow into salvation” OR “you may grow”?
"The scribes of the Byzantine text were guilty of taking liberties with the text in both adding to and taking away from." Andrews "It was the corrupt Byzantine form of text that provided the basis for almost all translations of the New Testament into modern languages down to the nineteenth century." - Metzger
1 John 5:7-8: The Story of an Interpolation
MODERN textual scholars do not hesitate to omit from the Bible the spurious passage found at 1 John 5:7-8. It is omitted by the translations ERV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, LEB, CSB, UASV, etc.) Commenting on these words, the greatest textual scholar of the 20th century Bruce M. Metzger said, "these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain ..." - Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), 647.
NTTC MARK 1:41: Was Jesus “Moved with Pity” or “Moved With Anger”?
The reason that this text is considered difficult is that one is compelled to think contrary to the leading internal textual principle: Which reading is it that the other reading(s) most likely came from? It is easy to see how “moved with anger” would have been changed to “moved with pity.” In that case, the scribe would have been softening the reading. It is very difficult to understand why a scribe would be tempted to change “moved with pity” to “moved with anger.”
NTTC ACTS 20:28b: Is It “which he [God] purchased with the blood of his own [Son]” OR “which he [God] purchased with his own blood”?
Be honest in all things Follow the truth regardless Obey God not man If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.
OMISSIONS or ADDITIONS?: Why Are Thousands of Variant Readings Missing from the Modern Bible Translations?
The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Wescott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which has now been restored to its original form by removing spurious interpolations? Who is correct?
Setting Straight the Indefensible Defenders of the Textus Receptus
While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin of the Textus Receptus. The 1881 British Revised Version (RV), also known as the English Revised Version (ERV) of the King James Version,... Continue Reading →
NTTC MATTHEW 1:3: “Zara” or “Zare”
Matthew 1:3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 3 and Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez became the father of Hezron, and Hezron became the father of Ram,
BRIAN WALTON (1600 – 1661) NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM SCHOLAR
He was an English priest, divine and scholar. He was born at Seymour, in the district of Cleveland, Yorkshire. His early education was at the Newcastle Royal Free Grammar School.
NTTC LUKE 9:2 “and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal [the sick (τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς)]”
While Metzger's point is well taken that this was Luke's style to have an infinitive followed by an object, when we have two variant readings, this suggests to us that we have ...