In our in-depth exploration of the Textus Receptus, we unravel the complex narrative of Desiderius Erasmus, a monumental figure whose contribution to Biblical literature left a mixed legacy. Discover the journey that led to the compilation of this highly criticized text and its profound impact on subsequent Bible translations.
This comprehensive study explores the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types, two primary categories of New Testament manuscripts. Delve into their origins, distinctive characteristics, and implications for our understanding of the biblical text, and join the quest to hear God's Word as clearly and accurately as possible.
Unearth the fascinating journey of New Testament Manuscripts from their origins in the first century AD to their transmission into today's widely available versions. Explore the importance of textual criticism, the significance of discoveries like the John Rylands Papyrus, and the impact of the printing press on the New Testament's availability
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 Westcott & 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 have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?
When you open your Bible today, can you be confident that the words you are reading are, in fact, the very corresponding English words that were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude nearly 2,000 years ago? Confident, you say? Just how confident are you? Are you confident because of what you know or what you hear?
From its very nature, New Testament textual criticism concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds that it brings to light.
In the days of Westcott and Hort, the argument was that the Alexandrian scribes removed what we have in the Byzantine manuscripts, while the other argument was that the Byzantine scribes added and altered. How could we ever solve it once and for all?
The King James version Onlyist love to use a handful of men’s arguments to defend the corrupt Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Hills’ work The King James Version Defended is used to have some kind of modern-day scholarly work to give credibility to their tired, old theories about Bible translations.
In the earliest days of the Christian church, after an apostolic letter was sent to a congregation or an individual, or after a gospel was written to meet the needs of a particular reading public, copies would be made in order to extend its influence and to enable others to profit from it as well. It was inevitable that such handwritten copies would contain a greater or lesser number of differences in wording from the original. NOTE: This is an introductory article, but filled with links to more in-depth articles if one desires a deeper look.
What is the meaning of Luke 23:34, and why does it not appear in the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) of the Holy Scriptures? Yet, it is found in the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Bible, and the New American Standard Bible 1995 but within single square brackets in the NASB2020 and within double square brackets in the Lexham English Bible. Isn't part of the text spurious?