Talk:Alexandrian text-type

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Additionally, some allege that a strange event occurred in the history of these manuscripts. Supposedly, a group of Egyptian Christians believed that the patriarch of Rome (later men holding the same position would have the title "pope") had the New Testament edited. They went to Rome and stole a group of manuscripts which they believed to be the unedited ones. Critics of the text claim that these were, in fact, manuscripts that had been discarded due to known copying errors.

Who alleges this? Is this pure speculation or is there any evidence in favor of this? Stephen C. Carlson 00:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
I was writing from memory. As it turns out, I don't seem to have a reference on that. I do know of one individual who alleges it, and I'm sure he didn't just make it up, but he is not an expert and, unfortunately, he has moved away from where I live, and I don't know how to get a hold of him, so I can't ask him where he got it. I can't point to any expert who alleges this, so if anyone wants to change the wording accordingly that's fine, or if anyone is pretty sure it's false go ahead and delete it. kpearce
OK. It sounds like a very garbled version of T.C. Skeat's speculation that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were to be part of the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned but not completed for it. If Skeat's speculation is accepted (and it not by the majority of text critics), it would be an argument for, not against, the Alexandrian text-type in that it would indicated that Constantine's 50 Bibles were all Alexandrian. Therefore, I'll delete this paragraph, keeping it in the talk page, until someone can document it.

this argument proves too much in that all text-types have been used by heretics.

The actual claim of the argument is not that the scribes copying the text were heretics, but I'm not sure how to reword the it to say that without eliminating the objection. My primary source for arguments against the Alexandrian text-type is online here if anyone wants to read it. kpearce

RE: papyrus 66 favoring Alexandrian texts[edit]

The Papyrus 66 favors the Byzantine not the Alexandrian texts.

Reference: "When the Chester Beatty Papyri were published (1933-37), it was found that these early 3rd century fragments agree surprisingly often with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other types of text. "A number of Byzantine readings," Zuntz (1953) observes, "most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by Pap. 46." And to this observation he adds the following significant note, "The same is true of the sister-manuscript Pap. 45; see, for example, Matt. 26:7 and Acts. 17:13." (5) And the same is true also of the Bodmer Papyri (published 1956-62). Birdsall (1960) acknowledges that "the Bodmer Papyrus of John (Papyrus 66) has not a few such Byzantine readings." (6) And Metzger (1962) lists 23 instances of the agreements of Papyri 45, 46, and 66 with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other text-types. (7) And at least a dozen more such agreements occur in Papyrus 75." From

Hence, the "Best and Oldest " is the Received Text, or Textus Receptus Which the AV 1611 is based upon, not the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Critical because Bible publishers often say the opposite, but even Metzger, who was integral in the Alexandrian texts, acknowledges this.


Unfortunately you did not read Metzger, because link which you gave is not reliable. Peshitta did not originated in 2nd, but in 4th century. Old-Syriac Version used Western text-type. Codex W is from 5th century (not 4th century), because of the Coptic shape of some letters.

P46, and P66 represent an Alexandrian text with some Western readings. Byzantine text existed only on margin notes of P66 (C 2) and was added by later hand. P45 has eclectic text, in Matt, Luke, and John it is mixed Alexandrian-Western text. According some peoples it has some Byzantine readings, because some grammar forms used in classic pattern. It is not sure, because Western text also used classic forms. Why in some places fabricated Byzantine text was used? Because it has better style, better grammar, not much grammar errors, and because of harmonization of Synoptic Gospels. We have several codices in which Matthew, Luke, and John used Byzantine test-type, but in Gospel of Mark Alexandrian (Codex Sangallensis, Codex Athous Lavrentis) or Ceasarean text-type (Codex Koridethi, Minuscule 872). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minuscule 2427[edit]

Apologies Leszek, I should have made it clearer. The reason that 2427 should not be included is not simply that it is a 19th century forgery, but also that it is a copy at one remove of Vaticanus (via Cardinal Mai's edition). It has many minor variants from Vaticanus, or course, but these simply reproduce transcription errors in Cardinal Mai's editing, or printers typos. Hence it is not an independent witness, but simply a repetition of a text that is already noted in the article. I do much appreciate your very assiduous edits on the various text types - keep up the good work!! TomHennell (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

397 and 2561[edit]

Minuscules 397 (text with commentary) and 2561 both should probably be included here. In my own collation of John 11:1-12:2, each of these manuscripts agree with the NA text against the Majority Text nearly as often as 579, and far more often than 20, both of which are listed here as secondary Alexandrian. Looking at how often the witness agrees with the NA text against the MT, here are some for comparison, showing the percent out of the 54 total times the NA reading differs from the MT:

20: 13% (included in the list of manuscripts)
33: 58% (included in the list of manuscripts)
157: 44% (included in the list of manuscripts)
397: 39%
579: 50% (included in the list of manuscripts)
2561: 42%
L844: 45%

The typical Byzantine minuscule usually gets 2% or 4% (1 or 2 examples) at most.

ChickDaniels (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]