Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the mas'sora. Referring to the Masoretic Text, masorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Jewish scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which ...
Additionally, multiple of the agreements between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text are very significant, such as the reading of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the inclusion of the Story of the Adulteress. [47] [48] Sometimes the Textus Receptus contains readings which are present within the Byzantine text-type, but form a minority therein ...
It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament. The "Majority Text" methodology effectively produces a Byzantine text-type, because Byzantine manuscripts are the most common and consistent. [1] Bible translations relying on the Textus Receptus: KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops ...
Textual criticism has been practiced for over two thousand years, as one of the philological arts. [4] Early textual critics, especially the librarians of Hellenistic Alexandria in the last two centuries BC, were concerned with preserving the works of antiquity, and this continued through the Middle Ages into the early modern period and the invention of the printing press.
Byz: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550, Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894, RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005, Greek Orthodox Church [14]. Compare Matthew 3:11; John 1:26. [13] ἐν ὕδατι (in water) inserted after λέγων in Mark 1:7 – D it a it d it ff2 it r1 [13] Mark 1:8 π̣ν̣ι αγ̣[ιω] (the Holy Spirit) – 𝔓 137.
He was the first to distinguish the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. Scrivener compared the Textus Receptus with the editions of Stephanus (1550), Theodore Beza (1565), and Elzevier (1633) and enumerated all the differences. In addition he identified the differences between the Textus Receptus and editions by Lachmann, Tregelles, and ...
The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text-type (eastern), of which the newest example is the Textus Receptus and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. The Western text-type is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability.
The New Testament is based upon the Textus Receptus and Majority Text, although the translators consulted other manuscripts: "in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek)." [1]