� � � � � � War � what is it good for?� �Absolutely nothing,� many have answered. ����������� And when the question is asked, �What is the Alexandrian text good for?�, quite a few people have responded with...
� � � � � � War � what is it good for?� �Absolutely nothing,� many have answered.
����������� And when the question is asked, �What is the Alexandrian text good for?�, quite a few people have responded with the same answer.� Independent Fundamentalist Baptists tend to insistently subscribe to the Textus Receptus, and some KJV-Onlyists even make it a formal condition of church fellowship to use the KJV or versions in languages other than English that conform to the meaning of the KJV New Testament.
����������� Simultaneously you might think, listening to other folks, that the Alexandrian text is the greatest invention since sliced bread.� The text of the New Testament portion of the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NRSV are all based primarily on the Alexandrian Text � the �critical text� that is published in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS Greek New Testament.� (And why is this compilation referred to as the critical text?� Weren�t all compilations critical, i.e., thoughtfully compiled?� Are we supposed to be given the impression that other compilations are not critical, and merely reproduce the text found in a particular manuscript??)�
����������� I reckon that 99% of American preachers who promote English versions based on the NA/UBS compilation(s) still get their justification for using it, at any given point of variation, from Bruce Metzger�s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament � apparently never realizing that Metzger�s Textual Commentary was made with the intention of promoting the UBS compilation.� (So if you�re looking for an objective textual commentary, Metzger-readers, or for one written by an author who wasn�t writing under the influence of the Lucianic recension delusion, you�re digging in the wrong place.)
����������� Meanwhile, advocates of the Byzantine Text tend to reject the Alexandrian text as a matter of course; if they didn�t, they wouldn�t be majority-text advocates.�
����������� I would argue, though, that the Alexandrian text excels in at least one area:� the preservation of the original grammar.� For example:� there�s a little variation-unit in John 12:12 that doesn�t get attention often, because its effect on translation is so slight:� between ?? ???????? and ?????, did John write ????? ????? ? or ? ????? ????? ? or simply ????? ??????� The Byzantine text has ????? ????? ?, and its allies include Codex Alexandrinus, D K W X ? ? f1 579 700 1424 (etc.) plus the Peshitta, the Sahidic version, and the Gothic version.� Even Origen is cited in the UBS GNT as support for ????? ????? ? � apparently the only patristic reference the editors considered worth mentioning.� Papyrus 2vid, assigned to the 500s, also supports ????? ????? ?.
����������� Bruce Metzger, a few verses earlier, treated support from multiple transmission-streams as a strong indicator of a reading�s genuineness (�the overwhelming manuscript support for the verse seemed to a majority of the Committee to justify retaining it in the text,� wrote Metzger).� That�s a general principle with which I enthusiastically agree.� But in this case, despite the shallowness of the external evidence in favor of the minority reading, there�s a valid reason for favoring it:� the internal evidence.� It�s the reading more likely to have been written by John, and it�s the reading more likely to have been altered by scribes.� ��
����������� Metzger�s colleagues seem to have had some misgivings about the Alexandrian reading here, giving their decision a �C� rating.� Metzger wrote, �The expression ? ????? ????? serving as the subject of a verb [in verse 9] is such unusual Greek (with ????? in the predicate position) that serious doubts arise whether the evangelist could have written it thus.�� The counter-argument should be obvious:� are later scribes likely to have changed the text from ????? ????? ? to ? ????? ????? ??
����������� Granting that some Alexandrian scribes were not particularly attentive in the vicinity of this variant-unit (P75�s scribe skipped the second part of verse 8), I am content to accept the Alexandrian reading, not on the grounds that its external support is stronger, but on the grounds than internal considerations are in its favor. �There are many other examples that could be selected to show the Alexandrian tendency to preserve original grammatical quirks � not errors; just grammatical quirks, like when a baseball umpire correctly says, �That ain�t a strike� � but this one may suffice for today.
��
