KURT ALAND: Advancing the Avalanche of APOSTASY

WHAT are the REAL , WORKING, 

FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA

WHICH GUIDED  Kurt Aland  and the 

NESTLE-ALAND EDITIONS AND EDITORS ?

We can readily see in their treatment of  1 John 4:3 that they DID NOT FOLLOW their own well-established criterion for choosing manuscripts to follow, when it came to OMITTING the Test Phrase in that verse.

Could it be something OTHER than their beloved “oldest” manuscripts and preferred “NON-Byzantine” minuscules ?

NA 28^TH Standard # 2: FAVORED MANUSCRIPT STATUS

.

The Codex Sinaiticus and Minuscule 33 ( often considered a replica of the Codex Vaticanus )  and Minuscule 81 are give high priority ratings wherever textual variants are involved.  

But for 1 John 4:3, the NA 28^th  discounted all three of them this time from being witnesses of the highest quality. 

The odd thing about this is that Codex Sinaiticus, MS 33, and MS 81 were ACCOMPANIED by several other Alexandrian MSS which ALSO TESTIFIED to the validity of the TEST phrase . 

Thus, we can see that the NA 28^th  editors were

inconsistent  in applying their own rules

[ of antiquity and “favored” manuscripts ]

when evaluating this passage.

ALSO . . . keep in mind that the 1904 NESTLE Greek Critical Text of the ALEXANDRIAN MSS camp  DID INDEED retain this reading, as per https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/4-3.htm .

 

WHY

 did Mr. Aland change this verse in NA 26, 27, 
and ( the editors followed, of the ) 28th editions 
of the Greek New Testament

from Mr. Nestle’s original decision ?

Wilbur N. Pickering states that 2.5 % of ALL THE MANUSCRIPTS available have omitted that TEST phrase. [ See: The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken: New Testament Translation with Commentary, 2016, at www.prunch.org ]

That means, of course,

that 97.5 % of ALL the manuscripts

with this verse in the First Epistle of John

CONTAIN that TEST phrase, which: 

WOULD INCLUDE: Alexandrian manuscripts as well as Byzantine and Mixed text type MSS

WOULD INCLUDE: the spread of centuries – including the 4^th Century 

WOULD INCLUDE: geographic variety and differing church bishoprics from where the manuscripts originated

WOULD INCLUDE: the “respectability” of the manuscripts , i.e., that they were valid copies of the Holy Writ .  Most of these hand-written manuscripts were HUNDREDS of pages long according to the data on these tables. None of them were fragmentary bits that required educated “guesses” as to what the letters --- or parts of letters --- were.  

Many of the MSS have “correctors” which means some Church authority TRIED to ensure the flock would have the best manuscript available to them at that point in history. 

The DATA reveals that goodly a number of bona fide Alexandrian manuscripts do indeed bear testimony to the authenticity of 1 John 4:3’s JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh .

As the DATA tables reveal in the last post ( Why Does the NA 28th DISCOUNT 66 Manuscripts ? ), they certainly did not follow their own criteria when TRUNCATING 1 John 4:3. 

Their OWN CRITERIA would have RETAINED all of the original words in 1 John 4:3.

WHY was their adopted methodology discarded ? Is it rational to discard a working standard or functional methodology AT WILL ?

Perhaps a closer look at the philosophy of their guiding hand for so many years, Kurt Aland, might reveal their REAL, OPERATING CRITERIA in omitting so many words, phrases, and verses from the New Testament, the HOLY WORD of GOD.

. . . A philosophy, alas, that has infected the United Bible Societies ( UBS ) , the American Bible Society of Eugene Nida, and Wycliffe translators, and thus, has afflicted all Christians across the globe, in one way or another, CREATING AN AVALANCHE OF APOSTASY. 

[ See the data tables on the post: Why Does NA 28th DISCOUNT 66 manuscripts  , Plus the testimony of POLYCARP ? ] 

DISCOUNTING POLYCARP AND 66 MANUSCRIPTS in 1 JOHN 4:3