Featured When translations are older...

The "oldest and best" mantra was a mess of pottage sold to Christendom by the "textual critics" of the 1800s.

The problem is that the "oldest" are not the oldest and the "best" are not the best.

But they, nevertheless, are still considered to be the baseline manuscripts for translation purposes.

 

Anyone who knows anything at all about manuscript evidence knows that there are manuscripts older than Aleph and B, and that "best" is an entirely subjective opinion.

 

What texts/manuscripts were available to the KJV translators and why are later found manuscripts superior?

 

Erasmus had in his possession 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, & 817.

Miniscule 1 is a 12th century manuscript which contains the entire New Testament except the Book of Revelation. It is an example of the Byzantine textform.

1rK is a 12th century miniscule containing the Book of the Revelation but is missing the last six verses of chapter 22. It is Byzantine.

2e is an 11th or 12th century miniscule containing all four gospels and is representative of the Byzantine textform.

2ap is a 12th century miniscule containing Acts, the General epistles, and the Pauline epistles. It too represents the Byzantine textform.

4ap is a 15th century miniscule containing complete text of Acts, Paul's epistles, and the General epistles. It is Byzantine.

7 is a miniscule dated to the 12th century containing all four Gospels. It is mostly Byzantine with a few Alexandrian readings.

817 is a 15th century miniscule containing all four Gospels but missing the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). It is Byzantine in nature.

And your last statement is purely subjective. And Aleph and B have more corrections and variants than most other manuscripts.

 

<Sigh> Two different readings can't both be right.

When we evaluate a manuscript or text or reading we use these criteria:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

 

So, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.

 

Again, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.