My thoughts exactly

I would have to admit, I might have overspoke that point...

The link's in the description :)

Great book just been reprinted

I think this question is faulty for a number reasons. One is that "Majority text tradition" is not synonymous with the Byzantine Text tradition. The the Byzantine text represents the VAST majority of manuscripts, the determination of a Byzantine reading is not necessarily based on a majority count. See my video "The Majority Text is not really what it sounds like it is". To say that there are no scholars on the Byzantine side of things (No shcholar I've heard ever advocates for a pure majority), is quiet wrong. Let me give you some examples: Arthur Farstad, Zane Hodges, Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, Paul Anderson, Jonathan Borland, James Snapp Jr., Adam Boyd (who's also produced an English translation), and Harry Sturtz. there's certainly more as well! Interestingly enough, there are fewer CT scholars than one might think, and all through the history of Textual Criticism there's been a tension between the Critical Text and the TR/Byzantine. Consider Burgon, Scrivener Why don't we have mainstream translations? Why is that a requirement? Why are English translations the determiner of what the original text is? Adam Boyd just recently finished a translation project using the Byzantine Textform to create a translation in Enga, a language spoken in Papua New Guinea. It'll be their only Bible in that language, which would be pretty mainstream for them!

It would also seem that not a lot of thought was given to the Byzantine Text as such in the early days of modern English translations? Thus, the so called TR was the basis for those early translations. And when King James commissioned the English translation which came to bear his name, it became the dominant English version until the Revised Version, which of course used neither the TR nor a Byzantine text. Thus, it would seem that a combination of historical circumstances related to power-and-church politics had a lot to do with the lack of attention to the Byzantine Text as related to modern language translations.

@@Dwayne_Green I appreciate your input. I believe the reason why it matters that there are no mainstream ENGLISH translations of the Byzantine tradition is because English is the most widely spoken language in the world today. And the fact of the matter is: if there isn’t a common translation in the tongue of the people of God, and it’s the most reliable set of manuscripts then something is wrong. Either the scholars are lacking (either in understanding, or in producing a translation from the Byzantine tradition) or maybe God in His providence hasn’t given a Byzantine translation to His English speaking people for some reason. I also believe it’s safe to say that majority of scholars agree with textual criticism and would prefer the critical text being that there are more translations that can be named or counted (essentially) that include it in their translation. EVEN IF there are some, or even many that don’t hold that position. I’m clearly not as educated as you are on the subject but I have honest questions. And I’m just searching for honest and true answers. Because I can see that the Textus Receptus adds to the text. (I.e. 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37) And the Critical Text (I believe) disputes, or removes from the text. (As we see in Mark 16:9-20) I’m simply trying to make an educated guess on which textual tradition I prefer. But a lot of it just seems like speculations and guesswork to me. I don’t know. I’d love to hear back from you. And I enjoy your content by the way! I also wanted to mention, so from what I understand the TR is the from the same family of Byzantine manuscripts, but it’s not a complete witness of that family of manuscripts. And the TR contains readings from the Latin, (I.e, 1 John 5:7, as well as backtranslation from Latin commentary in the ending of Revelation) Is that true?

Influenced from early Latin translations?

haha... I did in fact help with getting his second edition in print. I learned a tremendous amount during that time, but I'm not sure I'm quit there as far as F35 theory is concerned.

That's really not the point... The point is that the Antiochan and Alexandrian manuscripts are independent of each other with little if any 'cross talk', sturtz argues and I think rightly that there was little or no comparison made between the two.

I think the manuscript tradition as a WHOLE testifies to the general trustworthiness of the overall message, and that it's geographical dispersion speaks that as well. There is an element of making wholesale changes that becomes impossible when manuscripts (even imperfect ones) are spread all over. With that being said, as we get geographically closer to the places where writings were addressed to, I think the finer details are more likely to be kept, which I believe was kept in the Byzantine Tradition. So, I don't think I would be 'more comfortable', but it would make Byzantine / Majority more certain.

@@Dwayne_Green Even if I come to disagree a bit , I think what you have said has some teeth to it

It's generally close, but the Byzantine Text does not contain a few verses found in the Textus Receptus (Luke 17.36, Acts 8.37 and 15.34, 1 John 5.7, and several parts of other verses). Those readings are substantiated more by Latin copies than by Greek manuscripts.

I've started a project where I go through every variant between the TR and the Byztext. I've completed Matthew so far. You can see the playlist here: kzfaq.info/sun/PLSyCP8Mw_CQyTTcrVCdexvVzMr_liaqnZ

They are about 98-99% identical. M.A. pointed out the most significant differences.

This is an interesting thought!

Thank you sir!!

Yes however Apollos was a skilled and trained oral rhetorical speaker but not a writer ✍️

@Miroslaw-rs8ip I didnt make my initial comment in regards to his oratory or writing prowess, I was just mentioning where he was from since Alexandria was mentioned, but since you brought it up, Martin Luther believed it was Apollos that wrote the book of Hebrews because of his firm grasp on the Old Testament scriptures.

I agree, I wouldn't call it proof, but perhaps evidence. Harry sturtz assessment is that textual streams from Alexandria and Antioch are independant streams likely to not have mingled with each other so to speak. This could account for the Byzantine tradition being separate from the Alexandrian. I think it would be fair to say that there were heretics in all parts of the ancient land! It seemed good to WH to posit an Antiochian start to the Byzantine Text with the suggestion of a Lucianic Recinsion (Lucian of Antioch late 3rd/early 4th century). Of course this has been debunked and no serious scholar today holds to a Lucianic recension, but nonetheless, apparently it was believable for the text type in the masses to have at least passed through Antioch.

It's true that many of Paul's letters to the churches were written while he was in prison in Rome, but not all of them were. The book of Romans was written in Corinth. 1st and 2nd Corinthians was written from Philippi. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians were written from Rome. 1st and 2nd Thessalonians were written from Athens. 1st Timothy was written from Laodicea, while 2nd Timothy was written from Rome. Titus was written from Nicopolis, and Philemon was written from Rome. Hebrews was also written from Rome. Athanasius was born in 296 AD, and he was a strong defender of the deity of Christ. He wrote " On the Incarnation", an excellent defense of Christ being God in flesh. But the deity of Christ was well established by the writers of the New Testament and the early church fathers long before Athanasius was born. Remember that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch- Acts 11:26. There's no speculation about that.

​​@@jamestrotter3162agree brother! Blessings! The KJVO crowd has this Alexandria evil Antioch bad mentality. That is what I am mainly referring to. They like to say God called Jesus out of Egypt but they never say He told Joseph to go there in the first place. I brin in Athenasius because their mindset is everything Egyptian was bad so the KJVO crowd use that to slander the Alexandrian text type.