Teks Alexandria: Perbedaan antara revisi

: τη προσευχη και νηστεια (''prayer and fasting'') – 330, 451, [[JohnYohanes ofdari DamascusDamaskus]]

Kebanyakan kritikus tekstual Perjanjian Baru yang lebih memilih jenis teks Alexandria sebagai yang paling dekat pada teks aslinya terutama karena naskah-naskah Alexandria merupakan yang tertua yang ditemukan, dan sejumlah [[bapa gereja]] menggunakan bacaan-bacaan yang ditemukan dalam teks Alexandria. Alasan lain adalah bacaan Alexandria dipandang lebih sering dapat menjelaskan asal usul berbagai bacaan varian pada jenis-jenis teks lain.

InSejumlah thekritikus Unitedlebih States,memilih some critics have a dissenting view that prefers thejenis [[Byzantineteks text-typeBizantin]], such asseperti Maurice Arthur Robinson anddan William Grover Pierpont dari Amerika Serikat. TheyMereka assertberpendapat thatbahwa EgyptMesir, almosthampir alonesatu-satunya, offersmenawarkan optimalkondisi climaticiklim conditionsoptimal favoringyang preservationmendukung ofpelestarian ancientnaskah-naskah manuscripts whilekuno, on the other hand,sementara thepapirus papyri usedyang indigunakan thedi eastTimur (Asia Minor anddan GreeceYunani) would not have survived due to the unfavourable climatic conditions. So, it is not surprising that if we were to find ancient Biblical manuscripts, they would come mostly from the Alexandrian geographical area and not from the Byzantine geographical area. The argument for the authoritative nature of the latter is that the much greater number of Byzantine manuscripts copied in later centuries, in detriment to the Alexandrian manuscripts, indicates a superior understanding by scribes of those being closer to the [[autograph]]s. [[Eldon Jay Epp]] argued that the manuscripts circulated in the Roman world and many documents from other parts of the Roman Empire were found in Egypt since the late 19th century.<ref>Eldon Jay Epp, ''A Dynamic View of Testual Transmission'', in: ''Studies & Documents'' 1993, p. 280</ref>