Changes

==The text==

==The text==

The text of the TR follows a [[Byzantine Text|Byzantine]] reading. Most modern scholars believe the [[Critical Text]], which follows an [[Alexandrian Text|Alexandrian]] reading, to be superior. The Byzantine text is thought to be a recension of Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, possibly done by Lucian of Antioch around 300.

The text of the TR follows a [[Byzantine Text|Byzantine]] reading. Most modern scholars believe the [[Critical Text]], which follows an [[Alexandrian Text|Alexandrian]] reading, to be superior. The Byzantine text is thought to be a recension of Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, possibly done by Lucian of Antioch around 300. The Western text is known from Codex Bezae. It was quoted in writing of the Church Fathers as early as the third century.

According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors. In 1720, Richard Bentley proposed that TR be replaced with a Greek text based on ''Codex Alexandrinus'', a fifth century manuscript.<ref>Bentley, Richard, ''Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament'', 1720.</ref>

According to supporters of the Critical Text, the TR is defective because it is based on later manuscripts. Manuscripts wore out over time and had to be copied by hand to preserve their text. Late manuscripts are likely to be the product of multiple copying cycles, each one with the potential to introduce errors. In 1720, Richard Bentley proposed that TR be replaced with a Greek text based on ''Codex Alexandrinus'', a fifth century manuscript.<ref>Bentley, Richard, ''Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament'', 1720.</ref>

In the early 19th century, Karl Lachmann developed a methodology which allows a critic to determine which manuscript variants are most likely to be closer to the original. He assigned manuscripts to various text types. In 1850, he published a Greek New Testament based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. In 1881, Westcott and Hort published a critical text based on ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', then recently discovered, ''[[Codex Vaticanus]]'', a manuscript in the Vatican Library, and ''Codex Alexandrinus.''

In the early 19th century, Karl Lachmann developed a methodology which allows a critic to determine which manuscript variants are likely to be closer to the original. He assigned manuscripts to various text types. In 1850, he published a Greek New Testament based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. In 1881, Westcott and Hort published a critical text based on ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', ''[[Codex Vaticanus]]'', a manuscript in the Vatican Library, and ''Codex Alexandrinus.''

Supporters of the TR (notably the majority of the [[KJV Only]] position) counter that these codices survived so long because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See [http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable ''Are older manuscripts more reliable?''] at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>

Supporters of the TR, notably the [[KJV Only]] movement, counter that these codices survived because Christians knew them to be defective and therefore did not use them. Good manuscripts would be used and copied more and would therefore wear out more quickly.<ref>For more on reasons older manuscripts may not be more reliable. See [http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Document/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable ''Are older manuscripts more reliable?''] at Textus Receptus Bibles.</ref>

The Chester Beatty Papyri, papyri 45, 46, and 66, date to the second century or earlier. They contain both Western readings and Alexandrian readings. The Magdalen Papyrus, papyrus 64, dates to AD 66 making it the oldest New Testament fragment. Its has not been classified by text type. The Peshitta of the second century and a Gothic translation of that dates to 350. They are of the Western or Byzantine type. Alexandrinus, a fifth century manuscript and one of the three manuscripts used by the Critical Text, is Byzantine in the gospels.<ref>Holland, ''Crowned With Glory'', 13.</ref>  

The Magdalen Papyrus, papyrus 64, dates to AD 66 making it the oldest New Testament fragment. Its has not been classified by text type. The Chester Beatty Papyri, papyri 45, 46, and 66, date to the third century. They are classified as Alexandrian. The Peshitta of the second century and a Gothic translation that dates to 350 are of the Western type.

 

Text critic Bruce Metzger cites the Bodmer papyri, papyri 67 and 75, as strong evidence that the Alexandrian text type predates other varieties.<ref>Metzger, Bruce, (1994) ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament''. "With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P66 and P75, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century.</ref>

 

Alexandrinus, a fifth century manuscript used in the Critical Text, is Byzantine in the gospels. This is the oldest known manuscript with Byzantine text.<ref>Holland, ''Crowned With Glory'', 13.</ref>  

There are almost 6,000 differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text, while there are only 7,959 verses in the New Testament.<ref>Holland, ''Crowned With Glory'', 13.</ref>

There are almost 6,000 differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text, while there are only 7,959 verses in the New Testament.<ref>Holland, ''Crowned With Glory'', 13.</ref>