Which is the better New Testament Greek text: Textus Receptus, NA27/UBS4, or Byzantine Majority Text?

Question

The Textus Receptus stands behind the King James Version, the NA27/UBS4 is represented in several modern versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, the Byzantine Majority Text is represented in the Analytical-Literal Translation (Gary F. Zeolla).

Answer 1

NA27/UBS4 is the best.



The Textus Receptus was based on only a handful of mostly late manuscripts. It was made during the Renaissance. It was a start, but only a start. Scholarship then was poor by today's standards.



The Byzantine Majority Text is based on the majority of Greek manuscripts. Problem is, most of the manuscripts have a late date. Later manuscripts have a stronger voice than earlier manuscripts, simply because there are so much more of them. This means the BMT doesn't follow the best and earliest texts.



The NA27/UBS4 uses all Greek manuscripts, but considers the older manuscripts to be closer to the original writings. This is a logical position - one that the other two positions cannot maintain.



Some say either the TR or BMT was 'preserved by God.' This is a bad position, since the NA27 is the text that *best* shows that the NT has been faithfully preserved. The other positions claim that God preserved the text in the arguer's favored manner. However, there is no objective evidence for this. God just as likely preserved the text in a way that it would be best represented in a text like the NA27. The NA27 is evidence based, the TR and BMT is (blind) faith based.

Answer 2

The NA-UBS is a critical text including ALL known manuscripts (at the time of publication) as well as the frequency and age of various renderings.



The TR is in a sense an early attempt at a critical text, a combination of several separate texts in an effort to "ferret out" the most likely text. As a primitive critical text, it cannot compare in authenticity to the much more complete and thorough scholarship, source and evaluation that has gone into the NA-UBS.



The BMT is similar in that it is based on the majority of texts, but does not take into consideration the age of the texts used nor include all source texts available. It is, by definition, based on a biased selection of specific texts with irrational exclusion of some of the oldest (and, therefore, presumably closest to the original) texts.





The NA-UBS is clearly the most reliable from the scholarly standpoint: it evaluates ALL the available source texts using scholarly techniques (rather than sectarian bias) and derives a reading based on those scholarly evaluations with the most common alternate renderings plainly identified - and even sort of "graded" so that the translator can determine the value of those alternate renderings in comparison to the primary rendering.



From a purely scholarly perspective, there is little merit in relying on either of the other two sources when such a superlative source is available, except in cases where the intent is to translate one of those other two sources specifically to illustrate the differences between them and the most reliable text.



Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Answer 3

Two lines of argument support the Byantine Majority.



1. Textus Receptus, is a later text, with notable errors, example 1 John 5:7 [Comma Johanneum],

Revelation 1:11, and 1 Timothy 3:16.



2. Early debates with the Arians did not mention these texts, simply because, they did not exist then.





The handful of late manuscript copies, Textus Receptus, must be seen in the light of the errors introduced

in support of the fallacy of the Trinity.

Answer 4

i'd say that the Textus Receptus is the most precise because it is the textual content that became received by the early church. Arguments about those different texts coming from older files do not truly mean a ingredient on the grounds that they were continually making copies to modify old wiped out ones. to boot to that, once you study the Textus Receptus to different files you spot that it would not comprise mistakes like.... Mark a million:2 that is written in Isaiah the prophet: "i will deliver my messenger previous to you, who will practice your way"-- 3 "a voice of one calling contained in the desolate tract, "practice the way for the Lord, make quickly paths for him.'" One verse comes from Isaiah and one from Malachi. The Textus Receptus says "by using the indisputable fact that is written by the prophets" and would not element out Isaiah.

Answer 5

Textus receptus is based on the Vetus Latina which is from the byzantine stream (antioch) passed down from the original Jewish Christian church of the 1st century. For your studies, consider that there are two Latin Vulgates, a Christian one and a Catholic one.

Answer 6

Ubs4

Answer 7

"Better" how?

Since there are no autographic source documents for any bible book (documents actually written by the author himself), there's no way to accurately decide the "accuracy" of any of them compared to the original documents.



Peace.

Answer 8

They are 99.9999999999999% the same except for where they are different and stuff is missing.