Favorite Text/Manuscript (Family)

[Blue Moon]

What is your favorite manuscript family. Thinking of Byzantine/Majority, Textus Receptus, Critical Texts, Western (if any), etc. As you know, different translations are based on the various texts, e.g., World English Bible - Byzantine/Majority, KJV/NKJV - TR, other modern versions - Critical texts - primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, etc.

I'll start. I stand with the Byzantine/Majority Text Preferred. Secondly, the TR. My ideal translation (which doesn't currently exist) is a NKJV translation, based on the Byzantine/Majority Text. Even though I favor the Byzantine/Majority Text, I prefer using the NKJV as my primary translation, while referencing the WEB (World English Bible).

If the thread develops, I may get into "why?" later. However, anyone is welcome to state why it's your favored text. Others?

Addendum: For KJVO proponents, it's fine if you state that your preference is the TR, but please don't turn this thread into an evangelism session for the TR. Thank you!

[Blue Moon]

No takers? 

[frienduff thaylorde]

Hey luna Azul.    No takers I guess.   I have read many.  THE KING JAMES outshines by far them all.

Be blessed Luna Azul.

[Blue Moon]

11 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Hey luna Azul.    No takers I guess.   I have read many.  THE KING JAMES outshines by far them all.

Be blessed Luna Azul.

No offense, but I'm not talking about translations. I'm speaking of manuscript families. For example, seeing the KJV as you do, I'm taking it that your favorite manuscript family would most likely be the Textus Receptus (TR).

I posted some of this on another site. I'll post it here too. Although the Byzantine Texts (Majority Texts) are generally referred to as later manuscripts, there is evidence for early references to the Majority Text - fragments from early church fathers. Having said that, just because a source is early doesn't make it accurate - I'm referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are considered by many to be the "oldest and best" manuscripts, primarily "best" because they're early. We don't have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies and copies of copies of copies. You could have an "early" manuscript that is the twenty-third generation copy, and a manuscript that is a couple hundred years later, that is only an eleventh generation copy. In this case the "early" manuscript could contain many more errors than the later manuscript. Therefore, being an early manuscript alone, is not enough to discredit later manuscripts.

Also, there are a few other possibilities. What if the Majority Texts were actually present in the first and second centuries, but they were in such popular demand that they were destroyed by such great use? They were simply worn out. This could explain why no older Majority Texts are found. I don't believe the argument "There are so many of those manuscripts; surely they could have found one or two," would be valid. I wouldn't believe the Majority Texts started out with such huge numbers. They would have started small and grown over time.

Along those lines, look at the climate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (again - the "best" manuscripts) came from Alexandria, Egypt, an ideal climate which would preserve manuscripts beautifully. Look at the location of most of the Majority Texts - Asia Minor, with a climate that would destroy manuscripts upon much exposure. This could also explain the lack of the early Majority texts.

Speaking of location, there's something to be said about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus coming from Alexandria, Egypt, while the Majority Texts come primarily from an area where the original Manuscripts were written/written to, and New Testament Churches were planted and influencing their society. I would think the likelihood of more trustworthy manuscripts would be greater from those in close vicinity to areas where the original manuscripts had been present.

Although this argument would not stand on its own, it does add weight to the whole. There is a huge number of the Majority Text manuscripts. And a very small number of manuscripts that are supposedly the best, on which most modern translations are based upon. I believe this is worth considering as well.

Just points for consideration.