[Jordan]

Can someone show/tell me why these manuscripts are wrong? I know they remove verses and stuff, but I'm just searching for some info here.

[bibleprotector]

The problem is that they do not tend to represent a single text, because of the high amount of variations in each individual copy (at least, this is true for the Sinai and Vatican Codices, which are the two main represenatives of this family).

Dr Thomas Holland wrote, in Crowned with Glory:

Sir Alfred Chester Beatty discovered several papyrus manuscripts known as P45, P46, and P47. They date to the second and third centuries, and demonstrate a mixed text revealing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. P46, however, has recently been argued by some to date to the last half of the first century, around 85 AD. The same may be said of the findings of M. Martin Bodmer concerning P66, P72, and P75. These manuscripts traditionally date around the third century. P66, however, has been redated by some to the first half of the second century. If the redating of all these texts holds true it lends support to the thought that most textual changes occurred before 200 AD. It also could suggest that the Alexandrian text-type was in an evolutionary stage only to be fully developed by the fourth century. In either case, we see that the earliest manuscripts reveal a mixed text containing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.
No one would demand that each and every scholar, theologian, textual critic, and church historian agree on everything as it relates to Bible doctrine. But, when we find early heresies mixed with present day false teachings, it should cause us some concern. The concern should intensify when we discover that many who have influenced Biblical transmission held such heresies. At the very least, their influence should be called into question. After all, do we really want to trust the safe keeping of Holy Scripture with those who have proven themselves to be corrupt in regard to Biblical doctrine?

[Jordan]

What about Origen, who was he?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Jordan

Can someone show/tell me why these manuscripts are wrong? I know they remove verses and stuff, but I'm just searching for some info here.

Jordan, I am sure this thread will run a long time, but I'm going to start the ball rolling.

The Alexandrian texts comprise 45 manuscripts, alleged to be the "best text" because they are alleged to be "earliest". If truly they are earlier, their own supporters recognize that they have survived this long because they were never used.

The "oldest and best", Vaticanus, had as many as 8 corrections of one verse where scribes have marked through a given verse. Also, there is a blank spot that by letter count would match exactly the last twelve verses of the ending of the book of Mark. Rather than Mark 16:9-20 being an "addition", it was OMITTED. The Majority Text that the KJV represents is over 5000 manuscripts in Greek from 3 continents, the Alexandrian is 45 manuscripts all localized within the area of Egypt and traced to ONE AUTHOR, Origen.

The Alexandrian Text was in existence prior to Westcott and Hort and are a family of manuscripts the Protestant Reformers rejected by and large. The KJV translators rejected them utterly, as the Alexandrian also is entirely 100 percent Roman Catholic in nature.

There was at one time a site you could read Scrivener's "Codex B(Vaticanus) and It's Allies") describing the corrupt nature of the Alexandrian manuscripts.

This is a start, as I said, this thread I think will go on for quite a while.

Grace and peace

Tony

[Jordan]

So then they are definitely corrupted?

[bibleprotector]

The "oldest and best", Vaticanus, had as many as 8 corrections of one verse where scribes have marked through a given verse.

If this is not corrupt, what is?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Jordan

What about Origen, who was he?

Origen was essentially nothing more than a scribe assigned by the Emperor Constantine to produce a number of Bibles for the different churches after Constantine allegedly converted to "Christianity". Origen was more of a philosopher than theologian, and in the Scriptural realm codified Roman Catholicism as a systematized belief. That particular belief can be found in the manuscripts he edited, although as I said, Vaticanus was itself edited so many times as to be almost unreadable over the centuries.

Origen was an extreme ascetic(separatist) who had himself castrated after reading what Christ said about if your eye offends thee, pluck it out.

One thing you find evident in the Alexandrian manuscripts that survive today: They are written on very expensively tanned animal hides(vellum). It's apparent then that these manuscripts were abandoned very early as a textual foundation, which is why there are only 45 manuscripts in existence while the Majority text was copied onto papyrus, very cheap and widely used but not so durable. Though alleged to be "late" the Majority text is just that, the majority with over 5000 manuscripts extant. My question for the Alexandrian proponents is why would there not be over 5000 "late" copies of the Alexandrian text in evidence, if it were the "correct" text, in competition to the "incorrect" Majority text and also copied on cheap but not-so-durable papyrus?

To anyone with any logic running their thought processes, this is clear evidence the Alexandrian text was a REJECTED text, while the corrupted Catholic Vulgate, copied from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, was hidden away in Catholic Churches, available only in Latin to people who did not speak Latin.

It's also my firm belief that anyone who accepts any "Bible" today translated from this corrupt text or defends it is saying, simply, that the Catholic Church and it's corrupted doctrines is the only correct and true church.

Grace and peace

Tony

[CKG]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Origen was essentially nothing more than a scribe assigned by the Emperor Constantine to produce a number of Bibles for the different churches after Constantine allegedly converted to "Christianity".
Tony

I thought Eusebius was assigned the task.

Origen (A.D. 184-254). Constantine didn't became emperor of Rome until 312 A.D

[Tmonk]

Before Origen can be fully blamed I have a few questions. These are practical, non-theological questions.

1. The Latin was finished by 400 AD, how long did it take before it was the primary Bible used? The Latin was made because it was the popular language of the late 300's, Greek was falling out of favor with the common people. The Latin was maintained forcibly by the RC. But my biggest question is about the initial accepting of it. How long did it take after Jerome finished it and did it have an effect on the use of the Greek in the churches in the 400's ?

2. As far as Alexandria goes, how did the rise of Islam effect those churches? Did it cause the Alexandrian texts to be abandoned due to conversion?

3. What hand did the church fathers in Alexandrian mss other than Origen have? What about Clement for instance? Or Eusebius? Or even Tertullian (Carthage)?

4. Did the various Reformation translators even have an Alexandrian mss ? When was the first discovered?

[Tmonk]

Basically asking about the political and religious climate of the region during the 2-7th centuries.