Subject: Critical Text vs. Received Text |
Bible Note: Good observations retxar, and I appreciate your honest answer and coming forward!You specifically mentioned certain verses, like Matt. 17:21.. The critical text seems to lead us to the conclusion that this verse was 'borrowed or copied' from Mark 9:29- thus a scribal error.. Good observation on John 7:8! I think that the 'broader range' of the question concerning this verse could be addressed on its own in a different thread. I agree with you on John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20, these should be in the Bible even though many manuscripts do not include these, they include them in different places, or they contain fragments of each or even a different rendering than that which is traditionally agreed upon. I also agree that Acts 8:37 should be at least in brackets and not excluded from the text. This was one of the main reasons that drove me away from the NIV and to the NASB. The NASB includes this passage (and other critical renderings) whereas the NIV takes it out of the text and places it in the commentary. Another good observation on Romans 8:1. However, it could appear that Romans 8:1 is the 'introductory' verse, therefore making it possible that a scribe could have copied part of 8:4 into the 'heading' of 8:1. I agree with what you said about the addition/deletion issue on part, but I also believe that one could place an addition to a verse after copying so many manuscripts that sound almost exactly the same! As far as deletion, if they skipped over a verse or phrase than they would have to scrap the entire manuscript that they were copying, since they adhered to strict 'rules' while copying Scripture. So either premise for addition/deletion could explain why there are so many variants. But like you said, the history of Alexandria cannot compare to the history of Constantinople. But we must not forget the other cities and sources of 'found Biblical manuscripts'. God indeed has blessed the texts (and the cities) that used the Byzantine family of manuscripts. However, that is not to say that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are in any way inferior, since they have a greater age then any of the Byzantine manuscripts. This is all very good food for thought! Thank you retxar, and I look forward to more input.. |