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?
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?
I'll get back to you fren. Sorry for the delay, things and such