Alexandrian vs Byzantine

[B-A-C]

This is a much bigger topic than can be covered easily in one thread. But I am surprised that most people don't know that virtually all modern Bibles come from two sources.

The Byzantine manuscripts, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. The good news is, they match each other about 99%. But there are some differences.

On one side, you have the Byzantine, which there are over 5,000 copies of. The oldest copy is from the 5th century.
On the other side, you have the Alexandrian, There are less than 200 of these manuscripts, but they go back to the 2nd century.

.. so which is more accurate? The debate has been going on for more a dozen centuries. We don't have the entire Bible from either set, but we have
more of the Bible text in Byzantine form. ( 95% in Byzantine, about 75% in Alexandrian form ).

The Geneva Bible, King James, New King James, and Modern King James are Byzantine based.

Most other Bibles, ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, NLT, RSV, and others are mostly Alexandrian based.

Have you ever wondered why some Bibles have certain words added, or verses removed? These manuscripts are the biggest reason.

To make it a little interesting, we have something called the Textus Receptus, which is Byzantine based. Again, the say Textus Receptus
matches the majority text about 99% of the time. But the Bible is a BIG book. There are over 6,000 differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts.

So Bibles like the Geneva, King James and New King James are based on the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine.
You could say the Textus Receptus is a copy of a copy.
The reason most scholars prefer the Alexandrian over the Byzantine, is because not only are they older ( 2nd century, vs 5th century )
but they match the majority text better. Also now that the dead sea scrolls were discovered, we have something from the 1st century
to compare them to.

The dead sea scrolls weren't discovered until 1946/1947., and indeed some are still being found even as of 2021. (There may be yet more undiscovered)
On one hand that was over 75 years ago. So you would think there has been a lot of time to compare notes. But because of wars, political reasons,
and even the time it takes to compare one set of scrolls against another takes a lot of times. Decades.. and even longer. Here we are 75 years later
and this still hasn't been completed 100% yet, but it does seem that the Alexandrian as a whole is more accurate compared the Dead sea scrolls.

 

[B-A-C]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We do have Bibles as early as the 4th century.

10 Oldest Bibles of All Time - Oldest.org

Discover the 10 Oldest Bibles of All Time here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest bibles that exist.

www.oldest.org

 

[B-A-C]

A few examples of "some" of the differences... ( it would take years to compile complete lists )

[NASB] and almost all non KJV based Bibles are similar.
[NASB] 1Jn 5:7; For there are three that testify:

[KJV] NKJV and other King James variants.
[KJV] 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The last sentence isn't in the Alexandrian or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Another thing unique about King James variants is the word "hell" in the old testament. All other Bible's use the more accurate "sheol".
No non-King James variants use the word hell in the old testament.

But this isn't only Byzantine vs Alexandrian, there are other differences. For example in the NLT. Christ doesn't descend into hell.
[NLT] Eph 4:9; Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world.

Almost all other Bibles say...
[NASB] Eph 4:9 Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?

The original Greek says "descended to the inferior division of the soil".

Then in the ESV we have Adam and Eve with marriage issues
[ESV] Gen 3:16; To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Most others Bibles say something similar to...
[NASB] Gen 3:16; To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

For would appear to be saying "in agreement with". Contrary would appear to be saying "not in agreement with".

Another example, in the ESV would be how many apostles there were.
[ESV] Rom 16:7; Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Most other Bibles say something similar to...
[NASB] Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Here are some 16 Bible verses entirely missing from the NIV.

Bible Verses Missing From the NIV | Bible Senders l Tampa l Florida

Bible Verses Missing From The NIV l While it is true that the NIV is easy to read and has become one of the most popular versions of the bible, there are a few bible verses missing from the NIV as well as a few mistranslated verses. Here is the most complete list that we have found reflecting all

www.biblesenders.org

Again... this isn't a complete comprehensive list by any means. But it gives you an idea of how specific Bible versions differ.

 

[Rhema]

On one side, you have the Byzantine, which there are over 5,000 copies of. The oldest copy is from the 5th century.
On the other side, you have the Alexandrian, There are less than 200 of these manuscripts, but they go back to the 2nd century.

One must understand that the Greek Orthodox Church oversaw the churches and monasteries of the Byzantine Empire. The overwhelming majority of the Byzantine texts start from the 11th century onward through the 14th century, and yes they mostly all agree with one another. Why? Because the Orthodox Church would collect the old worn out manuscripts from across the empire and replace them with standardized newer ones. The mss. which were then thrown into the rubbish bin decayed because of the humid climate.

The Alexandrian texts are older, precisely because they did not decay in the dry, arid climate of the Middle East. (But Islam took over by 625 on.)

.. so which is more accurate? The debate has been going on for more a dozen centuries.

A dozen centuries? That sounds a bit extreme, in that the Codex Sinaiticus was basically unknown by scholars until the mid 1800's, and unavailable as a whole until 1911. The Vaticanus hadn't really garnered much attention until Erasmus triggered off the whole Greek manuscript kerfuffle when trying to promote his Latin text to replace the Vulgate.

You could say the Textus Receptus is a copy of a copy.

Technically, the TR is an editorial compilation of copies that are copies of copies.

[KJV] 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The last sentence isn't in the Alexandrian or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Uh... the DSS don't contain any NT texts at all, so... ???
(You have me a bit perplexed, where are you heading with this?)

The Johannine Comma (1 Jn 5:7) should have its own thread, if it already doesn't. It truly is not a Byzantine v. Alexandrian issue, having originated in old Latin mss.

Also now that the dead sea scrolls were discovered, we have something from the 1st century
to compare them to.

I would strongly suggest that any "B v. A" as a discussion be split into separate conversations when discussing OT (i.e. LXX) issues and NT considerations.

But because of wars, political reasons,
and even the time it takes to compare one set of scrolls against another takes a lot of times. Decades.. and even longer. Here we are 75 years later
and this still hasn't been completed 100% yet, but it does seem that the Alexandrian as a whole is more accurate compared the Dead sea scrolls.

That's not the reason.

The reason that the DSS have been suppressed is because they contradict (to some extent) the "official" Jewish Masoretic texts.

We do have Bibles as early as the 4th century.

Uh... well, we do have the Council of Nicaea and their canons as early as the 4th century.

But sometime it may be of benefit to discuss the Catholic viewpoint of scripture, as opposed to the very recent Protestant "Sola Scriptura," because, to them, this all really isn't a big deal at all.

Rhema

Another thing unique about King James variants is the word "hell" in the old testament. All other Bible's use the more accurate "sheol".
No non-King James variants use the word hell in the old testament.

I don' thin' so....

(Psalms 9:17 Great 1539) The wycked shall be turned vnto hell, & all people that forget God:​

​

(Psalms 9:17 Geneva 1560) The wicked shall turne into hell, and all nations that forget God.​

​

(Psalms 9:17 Bishops 1568) The wicked shalbe turned vnto hell: and all people that forget God.​

All of the above are prior to the KJV. A King James "variant" would be the RV, the ASV, the NKJV, no? Unless one means all the printer's mess-ups of subsequent KJV printings.

 

[Rhema]

But this isn't only Byzantine vs Alexandrian, there are other differences. For example in the NLT. Christ doesn't descend into hell.
[NLT] Eph 4:9; Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world.

Uh, now wait a second.

As your post reads, it does imply that the KJV in Eph 4:9 uses the word "hell." But of course that's not the case:

(Ephesians 4:9 KJV) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?​

But where is there a substantive difference in the B v. A text in this verse?

B - εις τα κατωτερα μερη της γης​

A - εις τα κατωτερα μερη της γης​

And neither hades nor Gehenna are used in either Greek text.

( If you could be so kind as to clarify....)

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

Luke 24:1; (MKJV) And on the first of the sabbaths, while still very early, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

All other BIbles I have say 'first day of the week' or 'Sunday' or 'after the Sabbath'.
MKJV is the only Bible I have that places this on Saturday.

 

[Rhema]

MKJV is the only Bible I have that places this on Saturday.

Well I have two more....

(Luke 24:1 Bishops) But vpon the first day of the Sabbathes, [very] early in the mornyng, they came vnto the sepulchre, & brought ye sweete odours which they had prepared, and other women with them.​

(Luke 24:1 Young's Literal) And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain others with them,​

Young's is pretty good (a few hiccups here and there) but it's my first go to for the OT before I bring in a Hebrew Interlinear.

But if "sabbath" meant "Saturday," then why is the word written in plural ?? (σαββατων Genitive plural)

During the Unleavened, wasn't each of the days a Sabbath?

All other BIbles I have say 'first day of the week'

In Hebrew, how would one say a week? How would one say "in three weeks" ? Wouldn't one say, in three Sabbaths? So A Sabbaths (plural) would be a week. A book on Hebrew expressions might help explain this better.

that places this on Saturday.

So in saying Sabbaths plural, I don't think it means the same thing as Sabbath singular. How do you support the transition from Sabbaths plural to mean Saturday singular?

Thanks,
Rhema

(Still waiting for the above requested clarification....)

 

[B-A-C]

But if "sabbath" meant "Saturday," then why is the word written in plural ?? (σαββατων Genitive plural)

I assume it is a 'specific' week of the month. ( i.e. the 3rd Saturday )

During the Unleavened, wasn't each of the days a Sabbath?

Not in the same sense. Even Judaism teaches some days of the passover are "more Holy" than others.

As your post reads, it does imply that the KJV in Eph 4:9 uses the word "hell." But of course that's not the case:

(Ephesians 4:9 KJV) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

OK, I will concede that one, but the point is, He didn't just come to the Earth, He went to the nether-regions also.

And neither hades nor Gehenna are used in either Greek text.

You forgot tarturus, no not in that verse. But they are in plenty of others. My point wasn't really specifically "hell". But rather that He went to a place besides the physical surface of the earth.
Now before we get to hung up on this,.. I'm not trying to say one is right and the other is wrong. There is no doctrinal agenda in the thread... it's simply pointing out a few minor differences
in some Bible translations. I use just about all of the translations and consider the majority to to be valid. I admit I do have a number of problems with the "Passion Translation".

(Psalms 9:17 Geneva 1560) The wicked shall turne into hell, and all nations that forget God.

I'm not the only one who lumps the Geneva Bible in the King James variants.

That's not the reason.

The reason that the DSS have been suppressed is because they contradict (to some extent) the "official" Jewish Masoretic texts.

Which would be a "political" reason.

 

[B-A-C]

In Hebrew, how would one say a week?

I don't know, I don't know Hebrew nearly as well as I would like to. But I'm doing pretty good in Koine Greek. I am fortunate have a Greek in the family and she is a Greek language professor. She spent the first 35 years of her life in Greece.

(Still waiting for the above requested clarification....)

I am not your enemy, nor do I wish to be. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, or right, or anything... just pointing out differences... that's all.

 

[Rhema]

I assume it is a 'specific' week of the month. ( i.e. the 3rd Saturday )

Well then the translations using "week" are not wrong, and "first of the week" would be Sunday.

Even Judaism teaches some days of the passover are "more Holy" than others.

So then "more Sabbath" (an high holy day). But during the Unleavened, a Sunday would also be a Sabbath.

OK, I will concede that one, but the point is, He didn't just come to the Earth, He went to the nether-regions also.

But from their mindset, the grave or tomb would be a nether-region as well, no?

But rather that He went to a place besides the physical surface of the earth.

Yes, into a tomb under the surface of the earth.

You forgot tarturus, no not in that verse. But they are in plenty of others.

Well, just one...

(2 Peter 2:4 YLT) For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,​

Interesting. The word is a verb, not a noun in that verse. It's curious that a place would also have a corresponding verb for being deported to that place. I don't recall running into that before, but since Second Peter is not in our canon, it's not that I'd be looking.

I wonder why the author would appeal to such an obvious word from Greek mythology, personified as husband of Gaia and father of Typhoeus.

Now before we get to hung up on this,.. I'm not trying to say one is right and the other is wrong. There is no doctrinal agenda in the thread...

Okay, I hadn't thought we were getting hung up.

I use just about all of the translations and consider the majority to to be valid. I admit I do have a number of problems with the "Passion Translation".

I save a lot of time just using the Greek text. Also, I am curious.... okay, ... I see the "Passion Translation" is a specific Bible. Published 2017... Egads, translations are popping up like cockroaches.
rolleyes: Those poor Paya-Kuna people of Panama.)

Did you buy one?

I'm not the only one who lumps the Geneva Bible in the King James variants.

That undermines the definition of the word variant. A variant cannot come before. Destroying definitions destroys the language which in turn destroys the ability to communicate. It doesn't matter if you're not the only one. That just means y'all are wrong, having bought into a nonsense theory.

You made a statement, and I provided clarification... you are welcome.

Which would be a "political" reason.

No, I think that's a theological reason supported by political powers.

I don't know, I don't know Hebrew nearly as well as I would like to.

I hear you there. Truly I wish I had spent more time with Aramaic.

I am fortunate have a Greek in the family and she is a Greek language professor. She spent the first 35 years of her life in Greece.

Fantastic... then she should be able to readily identify the differences between modern Greek and Koine. I would be quite interested in seeing how she reads 2 Tim. 3:15,16. (As well as Eph. 6:17)

I am not your enemy, nor do I wish to be

I concur. My apologies if it came across sounding that way. But the tenor of my replies tend to be concise and to the point.

... just pointing out differences... that's all.

And my, are there differences...

Kind regards,
Rhema