Biblical Manuscripts: Why are copied Greek texts different, and what does that mean for the Bible?

[@infingirl8488]

What most people who say that it is impossible to know that the Bible we have today is the same as the Bible of the first century fail to mention is that the ones who were in charge of copying the manuscripts highly valued their jobs and were very conscientious about their work. From what I learned in the partial course I took on textual criticism of New Testament manuscripts, being a scribe was a huge deal back then. Even the smallest error could mean the difference between making a living or losing it. There is a reason why the Bible is both the most copied book in all of history and the book with the least amount of variants within its manuscripts. Few people question the validity of ancient Greek texts, for example by Homer or Plato, yet those texts have far fewer copies and far more variants. Remember this if you are ever in doubt, if Christians truly believe that the Bible is the living, active, and authoritative Word of God, we can trust that the scribes who came before did the very best that they could do to give us what we read today.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Maurice Robinson wouldn't be considered outside the scholarly world ;P aside from the disregard for Byzantine manuscripts... great summary for such a complex issue.

[@alexandersmith9385]

Thank you for addressing this subject. This is a lot to grasp especially the family of text types. I have the 2nd edition of the Metzger text.

[@JamesSnappJr]

12:15 - Or, the Byzantine Text was used in areas where papyrus naturally decomposed, and that is the main reason why we don't find papyri with the Byzantine Text in those places - i.e., for the same reason we don't find very many papyri of anything else in those areas. One you focus on what is early, defining "early" as pre-400s, you're putting the emphasis on the text used in Egypt by default. Not because it's necessarily a better text, but because the dry climate conditions in Egypt were friendlier to papyrus-preservation than conditions elsewhere.

[@brucestrom5317]

Everyone knows that all ancient civilizations developed in hot and dry environments, because they knew that if they lived in cold and damp places, their civilization would disappear, and who wants that to happen?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

13:43 lol. Actual images of me…yelling at my phone. Just kidding! Great video!

[@rubypye7617]

🤣

[@JamesSnappJr]

16:45 - Since you seem to think the 5,800 Greek MSS provide an embarrassment of riches yielding huge confidence in the Greek New Testament, why do you also seem to simultaneously (and somewhat casually) reject the Byzantine Text? Remove the Byzantine-text-displaying MSS from that 5,800 number, and what do you have then?

[@wesleytyler147]

James, what number do you get if the Byzantine text is removed?

[@bma]

Thanks for your questions, James. What makes you say I reject the Byzantine Text? Just because I don’t hold to Byzantine priority doesn’t mean I think that Byzantine transmission line is worthless. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@Shamsi419]

Amazing thank you. All Christian’s need to learn this for the apologetics of Christianity

[@joelfields9807]

Very insightful thank you!

[@steven7876]

Greatly appreciate this video! An excellent overview for such a mammoth topic (in under 20mins!)

[@Dougeb7]

You did an amazing job of concisely presenting the subject of textual transmission from a mainstream point of view. I disagree with that point of view, but I gave the video a like because I appreciate your work overall. God bless!

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

I prefer to trust that God kept the Text via His Church. So, where there is a question as to what has been handed down, we must assess it based on trusting God to have handed His Scriptures down through His Church. While there is a good amount of data available, it can spur inaccurate speculation, so we cannot elevate our speculations above our trust in God.

[@pierreabbat6157]

In Romans 5:1, the majority text is split between εχομεν and εχωμεν. The Majority Text says εχομεν, as do the TR and Cr (the siglum in the MT for Nestle-Aland and UBS where they agree). Some lulus: Rev. 15:5: A and C say "ενδεδυμενοι λιθον καθαρον λαμπρον" (wearing clean bright stone) instead of λινον (which you can guess). Rev. 2:25: One strand of the majority says "Πλην ο εχετε κρατησατε αχρις ου ανοιξω" (But hold on to what you have until I open" instead of "αν ηξω" (I come). Οι and η were distinguished for a few centuries after that was copied (/y/ and /i/, respectively), so this was probably a case of sloppy, rapid speech or mishearing.

[@waterlogga]

They “update” I don’t know what is on their hearts but some have actually added versus and they reword and say to keep up with the language but the problem with this is they will use words that can’t be taken back to the original language. It’s also a problem for new people who don’t know the Bible came from 3 different languages! So the pastor may read from a verse then explain it, “watered down” but the newcomer won’t know because they open the Bible and notice it matches the pastors reading and the explanation sounds right.

[@tedtuttle6527]

So what r u saying r the scripts Spiritually inspired or not.

[@bma]

The original autographs (i.e. what Paul, Peter, Jude, John, etc wrote) are inspired, yes. The copies, however, are not. Not sure if that helps or not though.

[@tedtuttle6527]

@@bma according to your answer than no our current Bible is not Spirituality inspired because we don't have the originals. So 2 Ti 3:16 does not apply to us since we can't be sure it is actually the truth.

[@tedtuttle6527]

@@bma so 2 Ti 3 : 16 does not apply to us. So believe whatever u want I guess ha.

[@wesleytyler147]

@@tedtuttle6527 The original autographs/papyrus were not necessary inspired, but God breathed out the words on them. So, the Scripture we have is inspired. We don't need to have the original papyrus that it was presumably written on, so that we can claim we have inspired Scripture. Think about it. If God inspired the words/Scripture, we can still have inspired Scripture today. But, if God only inspired the papyrus rolls, we have no inspired Scripture today.

[@Kayokak]

this the text i do like.

[@robertnieten7259]

What do I tell people who tell me that there is no reliable Greek text to track the English translations back to ?

[@bma]

There are reliable Greek texts. Just because there are differences does not make the texts unreliable. The significance of these differences is generally very slight and seldom theologically significant. I'll cover this more in another upcoming video.

[@dubblyewjay1133]

Enjoyed is perhaps not the best verb.. but it'll do. I appreciated your work and skills. But, what is your take on 2 Timothy 3: Amp version..for the rich text.😉 [16]Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), [17]So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work. Hmmm? Thank you!

[@bma]

I’m not sure what you’re asking me here with regards to my take. I believe it is true… but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking. Thanks for asking though!

[@jaredvaughan1665]

I think most errors resulted in things being left out. And the Majority texts are more accurate than the isolated Alexandrian.

[@judywong9412]

I want to point out that all of these copies including the original manuscripts were transcribed by scribes

[@CM-bv4kz]

do any of yous know a a good bible translation that uses our lords name yeshua

[@bma]

Not off hand, though there might be one that has been produced by a Messianic Jewish group. Bear in mind that Yeshua as a name is actually Hebrew and the New Testament uses a Greek form of the name which is translated differently, and sounds like the traditional "Jesus" that we use. The meaning of the name is the same, but the pronunciation in the NT is Greek, not Hebrew. A more important translation distinction is to use YHWH in the OT rather than LORD. There are a couple of translations that do this now.

[@BC-ev4hl]

I see all the time is how KJV is the only real true Bible. When it too is a revision. And every version of the Bible has changes and editing according to local culture and customs and their own bias.

[@omaryasin7326]

The KJV is a translation, no translation is perfect. KJV also translated from the Latin Vulgate sometimes which is a HUGE problem, and it causes a lot of Verses to lose their meaning, like in Titus 2:13 where is says "Our lord and our Savior Jesus Christ", it should actually be translated as "Our lord and savior, Jesus Christ" according to the Greek Grammar. That's just one example.

[@bma]

How can you watch a video like this and come to that conclusion?

[@briteddy9759]

So those of us whose first language is not English are not reading the only true Bible? And those who lived before 1611 did not have a real Bible? That would include the apostles.

[@iandacosta107]

​@@briteddy9759 Read beyond that user's first phrase. The user is saying the exact opposite of what you might interpret from just reading that first phrase.

[@marccornelius6989]

ρяσмσѕм 😜

[@anonimo-um2ng]

And the manuscripts were written by oriental Catholics let´s not forget that.