A simple question about Bible manuscript variants

[Battar Kurdi]

What if there was a lack verse or word .etc in the Alexandrian Text but Exist in another texts. Is this verse are Forged or Original?
What if there was a lack verse or word .etc in the all texts expect Alexandrian Text . Is this verse are Forged or Original?
Very Thanks.

[Peter Kirby]

Great question. The simple answer is: Sometimes it was forged*, and sometimes it was original.

* The favored terms are that it 'was interpolated' and that it 'is an interpolation.' (This is not just a euphemism; the words have slightly different meanings. An interpolation is something that was added to the text during its transmission. A forgery is usually a word used for something more extensive and also something more intentional, but some interpolations are made with the intent of restoring the text, not corrupting it, even if they do corrupt it in fact.)

[Battar Kurdi]

great answer ... very very thanks
What is the best book about this interpolations !

[Peter Kirby]

A famous one is The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman... but that really just scratches the surface. There are lots of books about the whole business of trying to find the original text (called text criticism), but I'm not sure if any of them focus on identifying the interpolations of the New Testament.

Probably your best book would be an interlinear (or at least the text with a Greek-English dictionary) with the manuscript evidence, so you can see them for yourself (the ones we know about from manuscripts).

Novum Testamentum Graece: Greek-English New Testament, 28th Edition (English and Greek Edition)
https://www.amazon.com/Novum-Testamentu ... 1619700352

This edition is more affordable:
https://www.amazon.com/Greek-New-Testam ... +testament

[Battar Kurdi]

very thanks
i asked this question because of some middle-east pastors ... when i talk about some interpolations .. they say it found in byz text !! or a syriac (pashita) !! for example john 8.1-11
they say it is not problem or interpolation if lacked in alexandrian text !

[andrewcriddle]

very thanks
i asked this question because of some middle-east pastors ... when i talk about some interpolations .. they say it found in byz text !! or a syriac (pashita) !! for example john 8.1-11
they say it is not problem or interpolation if lacked in alexandrian text !

FWIW John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original peshitta.
See for example Bible

Andrew Criddle

[Battar Kurdi]

FWIW John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original peshitta.
See for example Bible

thanks Andrew Criddle

what is this ms? i hear they claim it found in this ms!

and syrp(mss) syrh(mss) syrpal

[spin]

FWIW John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original peshitta.
See for example Bible

thanks Andrew Criddle

what is this ms? i hear they claim it found in this ms!
and syrp(mss) syrh(mss) syrpal

The book (NTG) Peter linked to here above will answer most of your questions. I don't know what version the manuscript your picture shows (though it has vowel points), but NTG quite definitely says that the pericope is omitted by all Syriac versions included in the corpus (p.273). Excluding Syrus Sinaiticus and Syrus Curetonianus which are too fragmentary (and so don't cover the pericope), SyrP (Peshitta 4th/5th c.), SyrH (Harklean 508 CE) and SyrPh (Philoxeniana 616 CE) all omit the material. I don't recognize "syrpal"; perhaps it should be SyrPh.

NTG is a relatively small book that contains a vast amount of scholarly information about the biblical text (and by "scholarly" I mean robust and able to stand all scrutiny without letting you down). If you are interested in the subject, you should get it and trust none of the stuff put out on internet from confessional sources. If you'd obtained the book, I would not need to write this answer.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't recognize "syrpal"; perhaps it should be SyrPh.

That is the Palestinian Syriac lectionary.

But the image above looks like it may be from the Khaboris Codex; this is based on a Google Image search, not on my (limited) personal knowledge of the Syriac manuscript tradition.

[spin]

I don't recognize "syrpal"; perhaps it should be SyrPh.

That is the Palestinian Syriac lectionary.

But the image above looks like it may be from the Khaboris Codex; this is based on a Google Image search, not on my (limited) personal knowledge of the Syriac manuscript tradition.

Thanks, Ben C. If your identification is correct, it makes codex too late for the Aland corpus.