Alright, so here's the deal: that post makes a ton of claims that don’t really hold up when you look at the facts. Let’s break it down:
Textus Receptus vs. Latin Vulgate
The Textus Receptus (TR) was put together by Erasmus in the 1500s. He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century. The Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome way earlier in 405 AD, used much older Greek and Hebrew texts that were closer to the originals. Also, Erasmus made mistakes, like in Revelation where he didn’t have the full Greek text, so he translated it backwards from Latin to Greek. So yeah, not perfect.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR
The TR didn’t even exist until way after the Catholic Church had already figured out what books belonged in the Bible (this happened at councils in the 300s and 400s). By the time the TR showed up, the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
The Vaudois and Latin Bibles
This idea that the Vaudois had some super-early Latin Bible that was better than Jerome’s Vulgate? Yeah, there’s no real proof of that. There were Old Latin translations before Jerome, but they were all over the place—messy and inconsistent. That’s why Jerome made the Vulgate: to clean it up and make one solid version.
Majority Text vs. Minority Text
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest. A lot of Byzantine manuscripts were copied way later and had mistakes smoothed out over time. The Minority Text (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is smaller in number but older and closer to the originals. Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The Catholic Church and Access to the Bible
The claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Bible? Not true. They made rules about translations because they didn’t want random people twisting Scripture to spread fake teachings. It wasn’t about hiding God’s Word; it was about keeping it accurate. And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
Modern Translations Aren’t Based on “Corrupt” Texts
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
The Catholic Church Preserved Scripture
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it. They were the ones copying and protecting it during chaotic times in history. The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened. The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Bottom Line: This whole post is trying to make it sound like the Catholic Church ruined the Bible and the TR is the only good version, but that’s not true. The Church worked hard to preserve Scripture, and modern translations aren’t based on “corrupt” texts—they’re based on the best evidence we have. History is way more complicated than this post makes it seem.
Thanks for the reply. I do have a habit of stating my understanding of things as matter-of-fact. You're reminding me not to do that on matters with murky details. That said, from my understanding:
He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century.
The fact that Erasmus only had a handful of manuscripts when preparing the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the texts underlying it and no scholar should dispute the fact that he studied variant readings of the NT throughout his life prior to publishing it. The truth was there, in the underlying texts, waiting to be compiled and to take its rightful place of prominence!
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest...
When it comes to matters like this it isn't so much to say that "what's popular = what's true", but rather to say "where the majority of non-collaborating witnesses all testify to the same things = historical fact". I believe this is a key framework to verifying ancient texts. That said, I agree that the number of manuscripts does not matter as long as God providentially provides the manuscripts for a time of spiritual revival. Josiah saw the hand of God in preserving a single copy of the OT canon and never doubted its authenticity or integrity. (2 Kings 23:2).
The difference here is that we've had manuscripts all the way back to the first churches, and 95% agree with one another while 5% differ greatly and had dubious discoveries (at best). It's very fishy that the Vatican produces an almost completely in tact copy of the NT, and Tischendorf's story is even fishier. I'm talking pope hat fishy!
The Vatican is notorious for forgeries. Donation of Constantine, Renaissance art forgeries, book forgeries, I would also argue manuscript forgeries as I am in this thread; I would also argue that the Jesuits in fact penned the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Scion' just as they likely did 'The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine', which was used to discredit the followers of Jansenism, who, at the time, via prominent Jansenist Blaise Pascal, who in his 'Provincial Letters' was highly critical of the Jesuits, were a subject of papal ire.
I would also like to posit that the Jesuits were the authors of Martin Luther's 'On The Jews And Their Lies', with a similar tarnishing agenda. No first edition copies of that book exist and it was attributed to Luther after he died. How very convenient. The language used also doesn't really vibe with Luther's other works, but, as with both the Protocols of Scion and the Secrets of Bourg-Fontaine, it most certainly does vibe with the bloody, perfidious Jesuit Order, in both speech and in the deeds which are so sugguested... moving on,
...Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The differences pale when compared to the number of differences (many of which are substantial, so being copied by hand is hardly a good reasoning for them) between the Alexandrian and the TR. Also, many errors in the first edition TR were corrected by Erasmus in later editions.
Despite the back-translation (Latin to Greek) issues in the final 6 chapters of Revelation, Erasmus included a reading in 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate: "αμην ναι ερχου” is used instead of “amen veni", which omits the phrase 'Even so'. This means that he couldn't have been limited to the few texts set before him during his editing of the 1516 edition, as you said, those chapters were missing.
At the very least, he consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR.....the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
The Catholic church most certainly has a history of suppressing and persecuting those who used the TR, especially after the Protestant Reformation. They even put their Bibles on the "Forbidden Books" list! How can this not be considered suppressing the TR itself, if they were forbidding the Bibles based on it?? Those Bibles were opening the eyes of a multitude of different nations and tongues. Why limit the spread of God's words?
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
Alexandria was a gnostic hub full of pompous Platonic philosophers, afaik... Much of what we know today of the secret societies' beliefs can be traced back to it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not "oldest and best" either, as my earlier posts addressed already, and idk where you're gettting that they are closer to the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses?
...And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
(super low end) Estimated 50million martyrs total at the Catholic church's hand, not to mention all the non-lethal yet horrendous torture, for more than merely owning a Bible, yes, but owning a Bible was for sure a reason. To deny this is absurd. Imagine Jesus telling His desciples "and one day you will design what we call the Iron Maiden, a metal box full of spikes which you will stick people who don't agree with you in!" 😱 A quote from ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER
KILLED BY THE PAPACY IN
THE MIDDLE AGES AND
LATER::
"....This is especially true because of many millions, perhaps 45 million, killed in Europe in
the Counter-Reformation after 1517 and before 1700. Therefore the population figures
permit, and even invite, the conclusion that the death toll due to persecution in the Middle
Ages is astronomical, and many times larger than 50 million."
Add to that the "excommunications", public shaming (had real consequences), restriction of commerce, theft of property even to your next of kin, on and on we can go with this...
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
You speak as if you don't think scholars can be compromised and working ulterior motives. I'll have to agree to disagree with this whole quote..
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it.
Even if this is true, which I doubt, God used ancient Babylon to fulfill His purposes, so why couldn't He use modern Mystery Babylon? I see no reason to argue it.
The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened
Yes, it was settled before the Catholic church existed; before the Roman government married Christianity and turned into Phase II beast.
The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Yes, some 3 centuries late. They made the game of false, works-based faith and idolatry as we know it today. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles made the real faith, and won that game before these anti-christs even started playing it!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate how passionate you are about this topic, and I think it’s awesome that we’re both digging into the history of the Bible. I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one and explain where I’m coming from.
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
You’re absolutely right that Erasmus was a smart and hardworking guy who devoted himself to the study of Scripture. But the fact that he only had access to a handful of Greek manuscripts from later periods does matter. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with only a few pieces—especially when the manuscripts you’re working with are from the 12th century or later, as his were. That’s why modern textual scholars rely on thousands of manuscripts, including ones much older than those Erasmus had, to get a fuller picture of what the original texts might have said.
Yes, Erasmus added to his notes and made corrections in later editions, but his work was still limited by the resources available to him at the time. This doesn’t make the Textus Receptus bad or unimportant—it was groundbreaking for its time—but it’s also not the final word on the New Testament text. We now have access to earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which help us go back even closer to the originals.
The Majority Text Argument
I hear what you’re saying about the Majority Text—that 95% of manuscripts agreeing should count for something. But here’s the thing: it’s not just about numbers. A lot of those Byzantine manuscripts come from a later period when scribes had already made corrections and adjustments over time. That’s why they tend to agree more—they’re part of a shared tradition. But that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.
Imagine you had 95 friends telling you the same story, but they all heard it from a single person who made a mistake. The numbers don’t guarantee the truth; you’d want to compare their story to an earlier source. That’s why older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so valuable—they were copied closer to the time of the apostles, so they preserve details that might have been smoothed out or lost in later copies.
Doubts About the Canon
It’s super important to remember that it wasn’t the Catholic Church that first tried to remove books from the Bible—it was Martin Luther. Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation because they didn’t fit neatly with his theology (he famously called James an “epistle of straw”). He even moved those books to a separate section called the “Disputed Books.” Other reformers had doubts about books too. This kind of proves the Vatican’s concerns—they had warned that if people started translating the Bible on their own, they might try to change it, and Luther kind of proved their point.
The Catholic Church had already finalized the canon by the 4th century, at councils like Hippo and Carthage, and they’d worked hard to protect it. The Reformers challenging books of the Bible centuries later shows that the Church’s concern about unauthorized changes wasn’t baseless.
Alexandria and Antioch
I see where you’re coming from about Alexandria being tied to Gnosticism and philosophy. But Alexandria wasn’t just a hub for weird ideas—it was also home to some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. People like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria were based there, and they played huge roles in fighting heresies and shaping Christian doctrine.
Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus aren’t "corrupt" just because they came from that region. In fact, their differences from later Byzantine manuscripts often show that they’re closer to the original texts. The differences between text families are just part of how hand-copied manuscripts worked. Copyists weren’t perfect, but having different traditions actually helps scholars figure out what’s most likely original.
Suppression of the Textus Receptus
I understand why it seems like the Catholic Church was suppressing the TR or translations based on it, especially during the Reformation. But it’s important to look at the context. The Church wasn’t trying to stop people from having the Bible—they were trying to prevent heretical teachings and bad translations from spreading. At the time, there were groups creating their own Bibles with altered texts, so the Church took steps to protect what they believed was the true faith.
Even before the Reformation, the Church encouraged translations, like Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to make Scripture accessible. They weren’t against the Bible being read—they were worried about people misinterpreting it or spreading errors. And let’s be real: Luther moving books to the “Disputed” section probably didn’t help calm their concerns!
Modern Bible Translations
I get why you’re skeptical of modern translations like the NIV or ESV, but they aren’t based on just a single text type like Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars today use thousands of manuscripts from all over—Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and more. They don’t just go with the oldest or the majority; they compare everything to figure out the most accurate readings. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s a lot more thorough than just relying on one tradition.
God’s Hand in Preserving Scripture
One thing I think we can totally agree on is that God has preserved His Word through history. Whether it’s through the Catholic Church, the Reformers, or modern scholarship, God’s hand has been there to ensure His message reaches us. Even when people like Luther or others tried to change things, the Bible as a whole remained intact. That’s something we can both celebrate.
The truth is, the Bible has always been a team effort—from the early Church councils to translators like Erasmus and the scholars working on modern versions today. It’s not about which group is better; it’s about how God has worked through all of them to give us His Word. I think the world would be a better place if everyone consistently read and followed the teachings of any of the Bible, any translation!
So while I see where you’re coming from, I think history shows that the Catholic Church, the Reformers, and modern scholars have all played roles in preserving Scripture. Instead of focusing on who got it wrong, maybe we can just be thankful that the Bible has survived everything it’s been through and is still changing lives today. What do you think?
Alright, so here's the deal: that post makes a ton of claims that don’t really hold up when you look at the facts. Let’s break it down:
Textus Receptus vs. Latin Vulgate
The Textus Receptus (TR) was put together by Erasmus in the 1500s. He only had a few late Greek manuscripts, some from like the 12th century. The Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome way earlier in 405 AD, used much older Greek and Hebrew texts that were closer to the originals. Also, Erasmus made mistakes, like in Revelation where he didn’t have the full Greek text, so he translated it backwards from Latin to Greek. So yeah, not perfect.
The Catholic Church Didn't Hide the TR
The TR didn’t even exist until way after the Catholic Church had already figured out what books belonged in the Bible (this happened at councils in the 300s and 400s). By the time the TR showed up, the Church wasn’t suppressing it—they were just sticking with what had worked for over 1,000 years.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
The post makes Antioch sound like it was perfect and Alexandria like it was evil. That’s not how it worked. Both cities were big Christian hubs. Alexandria is where some of the oldest and best manuscripts come from, like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These are closer to the originals than a lot of the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses, which are from way later.
The Vaudois and Latin Bibles
This idea that the Vaudois had some super-early Latin Bible that was better than Jerome’s Vulgate? Yeah, there’s no real proof of that. There were Old Latin translations before Jerome, but they were all over the place—messy and inconsistent. That’s why Jerome made the Vulgate: to clean it up and make one solid version.
Majority Text vs. Minority Text
The post says the Majority Text (Byzantine) is better because it’s 95% of manuscripts, but that’s like saying the most popular story is always the truest. A lot of Byzantine manuscripts were copied way later and had mistakes smoothed out over time. The Minority Text (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is smaller in number but older and closer to the originals. Sure, they have differences, but that’s just how ancient manuscripts work—they were all copied by hand.
The Catholic Church and Access to the Bible
The claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Bible? Not true. They made rules about translations because they didn’t want random people twisting Scripture to spread fake teachings. It wasn’t about hiding God’s Word; it was about keeping it accurate. And no, they didn’t kill “millions” of people for reading the Bible. That’s a huge exaggeration with no evidence.
Modern Translations Aren’t Based on “Corrupt” Texts
Modern translations like the NIV and ESV aren’t just based on Alexandrian manuscripts. They use all the evidence—Byzantine, Alexandrian, and more—to figure out what’s most accurate. Scholars don’t just blindly pick the oldest texts; they carefully compare everything.
The Catholic Church Preserved Scripture
Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have the Bible as we know it. They were the ones copying and protecting it during chaotic times in history. The canon we use today was settled by the Church long before the Reformation even happened. The idea that the Catholic Church "came late to the game"? Nah, they were the ones who made the game.
Bottom Line: This whole post is trying to make it sound like the Catholic Church ruined the Bible and the TR is the only good version, but that’s not true. The Church worked hard to preserve Scripture, and modern translations aren’t based on “corrupt” texts—they’re based on the best evidence we have. History is way more complicated than this post makes it seem.
Thanks for the reply. I do have a habit of stating my understanding of things as matter-of-fact. You're reminding me not to do that on matters with murky details. That said, from my understanding:
The fact that Erasmus only had a handful of manuscripts when preparing the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the texts underlying it and no scholar should dispute the fact that he studied variant readings of the NT throughout his life prior to publishing it. The truth was there, in the underlying texts, waiting to be compiled and to take its rightful place of prominence!
When it comes to matters like this it isn't so much to say that "what's popular = what's true", but rather to say "where the majority of non-collaborating witnesses all testify to the same things = historical fact". I believe this is a key framework to verifying ancient texts. That said, I agree that the number of manuscripts does not matter as long as God providentially provides the manuscripts for a time of spiritual revival. Josiah saw the hand of God in preserving a single copy of the OT canon and never doubted its authenticity or integrity. (2 Kings 23:2).
The difference here is that we've had manuscripts all the way back to the first churches, and 95% agree with one another while 5% differ greatly and had dubious discoveries (at best). It's very fishy that the Vatican produces an almost completely in tact copy of the NT, and Tischendorf's story is even fishier. I'm talking pope hat fishy!
The Vatican is notorious for forgeries. Donation of Constantine, Renaissance art forgeries, book forgeries, I would also argue manuscript forgeries as I am in this thread; I would also argue that the Jesuits in fact penned the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Scion' just as they likely did 'The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine', which was used to discredit the followers of Jansenism, who, at the time, via prominent Jansenist Blaise Pascal, who in his 'Provincial Letters' was highly critical of the Jesuits, were a subject of papal ire.
I would also like to posit that the Jesuits were the authors of Martin Luther's 'On The Jews And Their Lies', with a similar tarnishing agenda. No first edition copies of that book exist and it was attributed to Luther after he died. How very convenient. The language used also doesn't really vibe with Luther's other works, but, as with both the Protocols of Scion and the Secrets of Bourg-Fontaine, it most certainly does vibe with the bloody, perfidious Jesuit Order, in both speech and in the deeds which are so sugguested... moving on,
The differences pale when compared to the number of differences (many of which are substantial, so being copied by hand is hardly a good reasoning for them) between the Alexandrian and the TR. Also, many errors in the first edition TR were corrected by Erasmus in later editions.
Despite the back-translation (Latin to Greek) issues in the final 6 chapters of Revelation, Erasmus included a reading in 22:20 that exists in the Greek and not in any edition of the Vulgate: "αμην ναι ερχου” is used instead of “amen veni", which omits the phrase 'Even so'. This means that he couldn't have been limited to the few texts set before him during his editing of the 1516 edition, as you said, those chapters were missing.
At the very least, he consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla.
The Catholic church most certainly has a history of suppressing and persecuting those who used the TR, especially after the Protestant Reformation. They even put their Bibles on the "Forbidden Books" list! How can this not be considered suppressing the TR itself, if they were forbidding the Bibles based on it?? Those Bibles were opening the eyes of a multitude of different nations and tongues. Why limit the spread of God's words?
Alexandria was a gnostic hub full of pompous Platonic philosophers, afaik... Much of what we know today of the secret societies' beliefs can be traced back to it. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not "oldest and best" either, as my earlier posts addressed already, and idk where you're gettting that they are closer to the Byzantine manuscripts the TR uses?
(super low end) Estimated 50million martyrs total at the Catholic church's hand, not to mention all the non-lethal yet horrendous torture, for more than merely owning a Bible, yes, but owning a Bible was for sure a reason. To deny this is absurd. Imagine Jesus telling His desciples "and one day you will design what we call the Iron Maiden, a metal box full of spikes which you will stick people who don't agree with you in!" 😱 A quote from ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER KILLED BY THE PAPACY IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND LATER::
"....This is especially true because of many millions, perhaps 45 million, killed in Europe in the Counter-Reformation after 1517 and before 1700. Therefore the population figures permit, and even invite, the conclusion that the death toll due to persecution in the Middle Ages is astronomical, and many times larger than 50 million."
Add to that the "excommunications", public shaming (had real consequences), restriction of commerce, theft of property even to your next of kin, on and on we can go with this...
You speak as if you don't think scholars can be compromised and working ulterior motives. I'll have to agree to disagree with this whole quote..
Even if this is true, which I doubt, God used ancient Babylon to fulfill His purposes, so why couldn't He use modern Mystery Babylon? I see no reason to argue it.
Yes, it was settled before the Catholic church existed; before the Roman government married Christianity and turned into Phase II beast.
Yes, some 3 centuries late. They made the game of false, works-based faith and idolatry as we know it today. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles made the real faith, and won that game before these anti-christs even started playing it!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I really appreciate how passionate you are about this topic, and I think it’s awesome that we’re both digging into the history of the Bible. I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one and explain where I’m coming from.
You’re absolutely right that Erasmus was a smart and hardworking guy who devoted himself to the study of Scripture. But the fact that he only had access to a handful of Greek manuscripts from later periods does matter. It’s like trying to solve a puzzle with only a few pieces—especially when the manuscripts you’re working with are from the 12th century or later, as his were. That’s why modern textual scholars rely on thousands of manuscripts, including ones much older than those Erasmus had, to get a fuller picture of what the original texts might have said.
Yes, Erasmus added to his notes and made corrections in later editions, but his work was still limited by the resources available to him at the time. This doesn’t make the Textus Receptus bad or unimportant—it was groundbreaking for its time—but it’s also not the final word on the New Testament text. We now have access to earlier manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which help us go back even closer to the originals.
I hear what you’re saying about the Majority Text—that 95% of manuscripts agreeing should count for something. But here’s the thing: it’s not just about numbers. A lot of those Byzantine manuscripts come from a later period when scribes had already made corrections and adjustments over time. That’s why they tend to agree more—they’re part of a shared tradition. But that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.
Imagine you had 95 friends telling you the same story, but they all heard it from a single person who made a mistake. The numbers don’t guarantee the truth; you’d want to compare their story to an earlier source. That’s why older manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are so valuable—they were copied closer to the time of the apostles, so they preserve details that might have been smoothed out or lost in later copies.
It’s super important to remember that it wasn’t the Catholic Church that first tried to remove books from the Bible—it was Martin Luther. Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude, or Revelation because they didn’t fit neatly with his theology (he famously called James an “epistle of straw”). He even moved those books to a separate section called the “Disputed Books.” Other reformers had doubts about books too. This kind of proves the Vatican’s concerns—they had warned that if people started translating the Bible on their own, they might try to change it, and Luther kind of proved their point.
The Catholic Church had already finalized the canon by the 4th century, at councils like Hippo and Carthage, and they’d worked hard to protect it. The Reformers challenging books of the Bible centuries later shows that the Church’s concern about unauthorized changes wasn’t baseless.
I see where you’re coming from about Alexandria being tied to Gnosticism and philosophy. But Alexandria wasn’t just a hub for weird ideas—it was also home to some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith. People like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria were based there, and they played huge roles in fighting heresies and shaping Christian doctrine.
Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus aren’t "corrupt" just because they came from that region. In fact, their differences from later Byzantine manuscripts often show that they’re closer to the original texts. The differences between text families are just part of how hand-copied manuscripts worked. Copyists weren’t perfect, but having different traditions actually helps scholars figure out what’s most likely original.
I understand why it seems like the Catholic Church was suppressing the TR or translations based on it, especially during the Reformation. But it’s important to look at the context. The Church wasn’t trying to stop people from having the Bible—they were trying to prevent heretical teachings and bad translations from spreading. At the time, there were groups creating their own Bibles with altered texts, so the Church took steps to protect what they believed was the true faith.
Even before the Reformation, the Church encouraged translations, like Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, to make Scripture accessible. They weren’t against the Bible being read—they were worried about people misinterpreting it or spreading errors. And let’s be real: Luther moving books to the “Disputed” section probably didn’t help calm their concerns!
Modern Bible Translations
I get why you’re skeptical of modern translations like the NIV or ESV, but they aren’t based on just a single text type like Alexandrian manuscripts. Scholars today use thousands of manuscripts from all over—Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and more. They don’t just go with the oldest or the majority; they compare everything to figure out the most accurate readings. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s a lot more thorough than just relying on one tradition.
God’s Hand in Preserving Scripture
One thing I think we can totally agree on is that God has preserved His Word through history. Whether it’s through the Catholic Church, the Reformers, or modern scholarship, God’s hand has been there to ensure His message reaches us. Even when people like Luther or others tried to change things, the Bible as a whole remained intact. That’s something we can both celebrate.
The truth is, the Bible has always been a team effort—from the early Church councils to translators like Erasmus and the scholars working on modern versions today. It’s not about which group is better; it’s about how God has worked through all of them to give us His Word. I think the world would be a better place if everyone consistently read and followed the teachings of any of the Bible, any translation!
So while I see where you’re coming from, I think history shows that the Catholic Church, the Reformers, and modern scholars have all played roles in preserving Scripture. Instead of focusing on who got it wrong, maybe we can just be thankful that the Bible has survived everything it’s been through and is still changing lives today. What do you think?