Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peshitta = majority text ?
#1
Hello everyone.

Searching to understand a few things about the NT manuscripts, I've found this page :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lirelabible.com/corps.php?page=manuscrits/index.htm">http://www.lirelabible.com/corps.php?pa ... /index.htm</a><!-- m -->
Sorry, it's in french, but you'd be able to read it, in the middle of the page (it's the third section starting by "Les ??crits du Nouveau Testament") you'll find 2 columns.
The left one is for the "TBS" text, so called "Textus Receptus", and the right one is for the "Majority Text", so called "Hodges-Farstadt"
This table gives in one glance the differences between theses two "families".
Having a fast look in the Peshitta, i found that it is closest to the "Majority Text" and not to the "Textus Receptus". Do you agree ?
Is this correct ?

For example, in John 1,28 : These things happenned in Bethabara // Bethania.
Peshitta has Bethania.

If it is correct, then is it a rule to keep in mind that "shorter texts are older" ?

Further on, a list of verse is given, which points the passages found in the Textus Receptus, and not found in the "Minority Text" (Vaticanus) :
Mt 17.21 ; 18.11 ; 23.14 ; Mc 7.16 ; 9.44, 46 ; 11.26 ; 15.28 ; 16.9-20 ; Lc 17.36 ; 23.17 ; Jn 5.4 ; Ac 28.29 ; Ro 16.24.

(I know all of theses distinctions are based on greek manuscripts, but it is important to see if it matches Peshitta or not).

These questions must have been already discussed in this forum, please give me some links.

Peace,

Samuel
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://eecho.fr/?page_id=5">http://eecho.fr/?page_id=5</a><!-- m --> (english presentation down of the page).
Reply
#2
Shlama Samuel,

Yes from what I've found the Peshitta has more agreements with the MT than the TR but this is to be expected as the TR contains interpolations from the Vulgate. Your table ought to take care of the false statement that the Peshitta reads like the KJV as some uninformed people claim, nevermind the readings that are unique to itself. There are agreements with the CT (Critical/Alexandrian Text) as well but the Peshitta has more agreements with the MT than any other Greek text. I haven't actually compiled a comprehensive comparisson between the Peshitta and Greek texts (TR, MT & CT) but I plan to in the near future. BTW where did you get an electronic version of Hodges & Farstad MT? I've been looking for one for ages, I only have the Robinson-Pierpont MT.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#3
Hi Christina,

Thanks for your answer.
Sorry, I don't have an electronic version of the greek text made by Hodges & Farstad. It is mentioned on the web site I pointed to, but I don't have it.

A web site listing all the differences between Peshitta and MT would be very interesting.

Samuel
Reply
#4
Quote:A web site listing all the differences between Peshitta and MT would be very interesting.

Samuel

Shlama Akhi Samuel:
Feel free to check out <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->. The Peshitta Tool is set up for quick comparisons between five different Greek texts along side two English translations of the Peshitta New Testament, as well as the King James Version. The Eastern Peshitta text is the recently discovered (1967) Khabouris Codex and the more widely used 1905 UBS text, side by side. Lars Lindgren (site owner and operator) has designed the interface to be user friendly. The Peshitta tool has become one of the best teaching tools in the study of Aramaic Primacy vis-a-vis Greek primacy. When you analyze any chapter of the New Testament the new window Grammatical Analysis appears. The data in the lexicon/concordance and parser is based upon Sedra III by Dr. George Kiraz. There are three other lexicons for word definitions (Payne Smith, William Jennings and Bar Bahlul).

Also, you may download, free of charge any of the files and fonts to your computer. Enjoy.

Shlama,
Stephen P. Silver
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
I am having difficulty in understanding the historical and functional differences among the following Greek New Testament texts:

(1) Byzantine Text
(2) Greek Orthodox Church NT
(3) Textus Receptus (1550)
(4) Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus
(5) Modern versions of the Textus Receptus
(6) Majority Text.

Is one of 1-5 the so-called "Majority Text"?

Thanks for any help..

Sincerely,

Otto
Reply
#6
ograabe Wrote:I am having difficulty in understanding the historical and functional differences among the following Greek New Testament texts:

(1) Byzantine Text
(2) Greek Orthodox Church NT
(3) Textus Receptus (1550)
(4) Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus
(5) Modern versions of the Textus Receptus
(6) Majority Text.

Is one of 1-5 the so-called "Majority Text"?

Thanks for any help..

Sincerely,

Otto

Shlama Otto,

Here's how I understand it:

Byzantine/Majority Text

The "Byzantine Text" is the "Majority Text" i.e. the majority of all Greek mss are of the Byzantine text-type.

Greek Orthodox Church NT

This is the official NT of the Eastern Orthodox churches, which is used in the Greek-speaking EO parishes and is the NT text used for all EO Bible translations (modern Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, ect.). It's known as the "Patriarchal Text" by EO Christians, as it was commissioned and approved by the Patriarch. This text was compiled at Mt. Athos, Greece in 1904 from 20 Byzantine mss, so it also belongs to the Byzantine text-type. It's very close to the modern editions of the Majority Text (Robinson-Pierpont, Hodges & Farstad). Here's a good English translation: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download/nt6x9.pdf">http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download/nt6x9.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550 & Scrivener 1894)

Intro to EOB NT Wrote:The Textus Receptus (Latin: ???received text???) is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible. The TR was also used for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, of the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. This series of printed texts originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published. This project was undertaken in Basel in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Roman Catholic scholar and humanist. This first TR was assembled on the basis of six manuscripts which put together did not actually contain the entirity of the New Testament. For this reason, the Erasmus TR is especially problematic for the book of Revelation. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus??? edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text. In 1,838 places (1,005 translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type (Majority Text). The TR was subsequently revised by Robert Estienne (known as Stefanus) (1503-1559), a printer from Paris, who edited four times the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. The origin of the term ???Textus Receptus??? comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by the Elzevir brothers in Amsterdam.

The 1550 revision of the TR by Stephanus is the text that was used for the KJV. Scrivener's 1894 revision is the latest one as far as I'm aware. While the TR is a Byzantine text, it contains too many interpolations from the Vulgate to be classified under "Majority Text".

Hope that helps.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#7
Dear Christina,

Thanks. This reference is very informative. Your response puts things in perspective.

One more question: How can there be more than one "majority text"? Are the two versions different?

Otto
Reply
#8
Thanks Stephen for you advice. Your tool is fantastic.
Thanks Christina for you precisions, you're right.
Ograabe, the thing is that among the around 5700 greek manuscripts of the Bible that we got around the world not two full manuscripts are exactly the same. There is always, at least, a few differences.
The "majority text" is the gathering of all the manuscripts which are the more numerous and the closest. They are around 5200 manuscripts from this type. That is why it is called "the majority text". But, among the 5200 manuscripts with a very similar text, there is still, you can guess it, hundreds of differences. These differences are small. Most of the time they do not affect the sense of the theological aspect. Anyway, depending on which manuscripts you decide are the best witnesses among the others, you might have a slightly different text at the end. That's why you have a few different versions of the same "majority text" depending on whom did it, and which manuscripts it refers to.

Hope I'm clear enough. Sorry, for my english, which might be quite awkward sometimes.

Samuel
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://eecho.fr/?page_id=5">http://eecho.fr/?page_id=5</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#9
Thanks, Samuel. Your comments are very helpful also.

It is amazing that the majority text is based on about 5700 manuscripts while the minority text is apparently based primarily only on two. Wow!

Sincerely,

Otto
Reply
#10
Hi,

No, this is not exact. The majority text is based on around 5200 manuscripts.
So, since there is around 5700 manuscripts, there is still 500 hundreds manuscripts to go.

You can go on this page to have a short introduction :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories ... anuscripts</a><!-- m -->
But keep in mind that all this work is always based on Greek !

Peace.

Samuel
Reply
#11
ograabe Wrote:Dear Christina,

Thanks. This reference is very informative. Your response puts things in perspective.

One more question: How can there be more than one "majority text"? Are the two versions different?

Otto

There are two printed editions of the MT:

Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad

and:

New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont

The Robinson & Pierpont edition (which is the later one) is considered the better of the two by most. These two modern editions are compilations based on Byzantine mss, they differ in some places obviously because they were compiled by different people who used different mss.

Someone is currently compiling a new edition, here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering2.htm">http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering2.htm</a><!-- m -->

ograabe Wrote:Thanks, Samuel. Your comments are very helpful also.

It is amazing that the majority text is based on about 5700 manuscripts while the minority text is apparently based primarily only on two. Wow!

Sincerely,

Otto

Yes you are correct the 2 mss that form the back-bone of the modern edition of the CT (Nestle-Aland/UBS) are the 2 earliest complete Greek NT mss (Siniaticus & Vaticanus). However other mss were also used such as Ehpremi, Alexandrinus & various papyri fragements. But the point is only a handful of all Greek mss are of this (Alexandrian) text-type. They weren't copied over & over like the Byzantine mss as they were rejected by the Greek church (note the treatment of the St. Catherine Monks of Sinaiticus), so they can hardly be considered superior. MS age is not the most important thing when determining the original readings of the NT - pedigree is - the CT lacks a continuous tramission record. Here's a good article demonstrating the CT's inferiority: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm">http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm</a><!-- m -->, many of these Alexandrian Zorban scholars claim that "no doctrine is at stake" regarding Greek NT variants, well that article shows that this is not the case!

But we're Peshitta primacists so we are free from the burdens of the "Greek mess". <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> But if you're interested these are all the English translations of the Byzantine/Majority Text that I know of:

World English Bible & the Messianic Edition - Hebrew Names Version (public domain)
English Majority Text Version
Analytical-Literal Translation (very literal)
Fan S. Noli's Translation (paraphrasic)
Orthodox New Testament
Eastern Orthodox Bible, Vol. III: The New Testament
A Conservative Version (public domain)
Wilbur N. Pickering Translation (in progress)
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#12
This one, available for download along with English translation, looks like the Greek Orthodox Byzantine text to me:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/default.asp">http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-te ... efault.asp</a><!-- m -->

What do you think?

Otto
Reply
#13
Yes the Greek text is the EO text but the English translation is the KJV, which is not translated from the same text, though the KJV & NKJV are popular English translations among the Orthodox. This is a nice program for studying the EO NT (Orthodox New Testament - translated from the EO text), though it's a bit expensive ($99.50!): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.holyapostlesconvent.org/ont1-advertisement.shtml">http://www.holyapostlesconvent.org/ont1 ... ment.shtml</a><!-- m -->.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#14
Over three years ago I decided to make an updated version of the Peshitta based on both Murdock and Etheridge. Initially I just wanted to clean up the arcane English, so it would read as smoothly as possible, and I wanted it to be free online for anyone to use. Shortly after starting the project, I decided to note as many differences between the Majority Texts and the Peshitta as I could find and note them as footnotes, without being too nit picking. But I also wanted to verify the many places of agreement between the two, so there are over 2,400 live links to an online Greek lexicon. I call it the Testimony of Yeshua. It can be read at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.everlastingkingdom.net">http://www.everlastingkingdom.net</a><!-- m --> It is also available on lulu.com in print or a free download. Lon
Reply
#15
PS, Oops, actually that is <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.everlastingkingdom.info">www.everlastingkingdom.info</a><!-- w -->. I have a business that's a .net Lon
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)