I am very much aware. I am also aware that there are no theological differences between any of these manuscripts and that they preach the exact same Gospel. The vast majority of this differences would be something as insignificant as saying Christ Jesus in one and saying Jesus Christ in another.
But to answer your question, I tend to believe that Byzantine text tradition is the most faithful. However, due to the insignificance of most differences I actually use the Alexandrian texts in most situations simply because most modern English translations derive from this tradition.
Keep in mind that this is one of my favorite topics to study. I read about Textual Criticism for fun.
mindstorm
An entire missing passage is not insignificant; it's huge. It proves that the Biblical text as a whole is dubious. If someone added an entire passage to portray Jesus in a certain light, what makes you think that all of the Gospels weren't created with the same motivations? Perhaps the real Jesus wasn't as he is depicted in the Gospels. Furthermore, did you know that there are other Gospels not in the Bible? Did you know that the ones that are in the Bible are only there because a council of ordinary men decided which books would be included based on their own discretion in regard to how Jesus is portrayed in each of them? The Bible is utterly untrustworthy.
There's also the issue of linguistic accuracy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet the Gospels are written in Greek. Also, unless the Apostles followed Jesus around and wrote everything he said on pieces of papyrus as he said it, everything he is purported to have said was written long after he said them, which leaves room for errors in accuracy. These two facts are further proof of the Bible's dubious nature.
Log in to comment