I read the Greek New Testament, and it is very edifying to me. When I do, it is usually the NA27, because I have more confidence it is the Word of God and not
additions and corruptions made by "high churches" in the dark ages. When I read the Byzantine Text, or the Textus Receptus, I am annoyed by what are
clearly spurious additions from lectionary readings. If I want to read a lectionary, I'll read a lectionary. (I actually don't want to.) But when I
want to read the Word of God, I don't want to read a lectionary, and that is one reason why I don't like the KJV, or the NKJV.
Here is an example. I just finished translating the 2nd Epistle of John from Greek to English. The epistle ends with "The children of your elect sister greet you." Many, many, early and fine Greek manuscripts end it there. (p74 01 A B P 044 048vid 5 6 33 81 88 104 322 323 436 623 642 1067 1127 1243 1409 1735 1739 1846 1881 2127 2298 2344 2464 2492 2541 plus the Vulgate coptic)
But the Byzantine majority adds "Amen." Now come on, why would John say "amen" after that? I am positive that this word "amen" was added because it was part of a lectionary reading, and later got confused as real text.
On the other hand, there is no reasonable TC theory as to why the above fine manuscripts would either purposefully or accidentally delete the word "amen" from the end of this text.
I plead with Byzantine advocates and TR advocates, to start being reasonable, and delete such clearly spurious additions out of their editions and Bible translations. Otherwise, I will never respect the Byzantine editions, or any translations done from them with their clear corruptions to the Word of God.
Here is an example. I just finished translating the 2nd Epistle of John from Greek to English. The epistle ends with "The children of your elect sister greet you." Many, many, early and fine Greek manuscripts end it there. (p74 01 A B P 044 048vid 5 6 33 81 88 104 322 323 436 623 642 1067 1127 1243 1409 1735 1739 1846 1881 2127 2298 2344 2464 2492 2541 plus the Vulgate coptic)
But the Byzantine majority adds "Amen." Now come on, why would John say "amen" after that? I am positive that this word "amen" was added because it was part of a lectionary reading, and later got confused as real text.
On the other hand, there is no reasonable TC theory as to why the above fine manuscripts would either purposefully or accidentally delete the word "amen" from the end of this text.
I plead with Byzantine advocates and TR advocates, to start being reasonable, and delete such clearly spurious additions out of their editions and Bible translations. Otherwise, I will never respect the Byzantine editions, or any translations done from them with their clear corruptions to the Word of God.
. Change your theories. Any
conceptual claim without even viewing the textual situation on the 30 agreements (ie. TR and CT) is simply poor scholarship, awaiting a fuller analysis. The
type of mediocre scholarship and dubious claims we expect from the modern textual critics, those geniuses who give you stuff like the "Lucian
recension" and "primitive corruptions" and will take variants that are based on two corrupt manuscripts and little else. While complaining
about well-supported variants, as here.
