A simple question

One must also factor in the dark ages after the fall of Rome. Society literally went from having running water, heated water, etc... to huts throwing waste in the streets. I can easily see how some text were lost and others having some additions and deletions.

As far as I'm concerned the older the manuscript the closer it is to the originals. The CT and MT differences amount to nothing when the whole is taken into consideration. People make too much out of nothing.

Name one doctrine in the MT that is missing from the CT.

Name one gospel truth that is in the MT that is missing from the CT.

Since no two manuscripts agree 100% I don't see the problem with people being either MT or CT preferred.

Just my thoughts.

 

I guess by "Critical Texts" you mean Alexandrian-type MSS. Actually Alexandrian MSS have been around at least since the 4th-5th century and continued through the time of the printing press. They were just always in the minority and not given much attention due to a number of factors. One was the assumption that, under normal transmissional factors, it is always more likely that the original form of the text would have the most consistency in the consensus of all of its descendents, and that readings found in a minority of MSS represent later corrections to or adaptations of the original reading reflected in their failure to upset the overwhelming historical and transmissional momentum of the original text.

 

I dont think so. However, there is another angle to this: If the alexandrian manuscripts are older, was the church without God's word for that period of time as well?

Perhaps Doc Cass can help me out here, but I dont think there are very many readings at all ADDED by the Alexandrian manuscripts (only exception I can think of is in Timothy (God vs He who), so in fact there wasnt hardly anything to be "without", right?

 

I think that most would agree that Jerome's Vulgate was inferior . It was the primary Bible for more than a thousand years for the Lord's people . Yes, God willed it .

 

Not everyone had the complete word. The fact that no two text agree 100% proves this point. As a whole we have the complete word of God. God preserved His word in a way to keep it from being perverted.

From 100 AD to 400 AD did these people have inferior text because of their location?

Do you see my point?

It's easy to see that some Christians had better translations than others. Gods word is found in all of these translation and time periods. God gives us what we need and He gave the early Church exactly what they needed.

 

I agree with David.

The issue is still important, though. If the Byzantines are more accurate, those using, say, Vaticanus in the Gospels had 15,074 less words (in Greek) than those using a Byzantine MS. If the Byzantine Textform is original, then Vaticanus in the Gospels is 4% shorter than the original. If every word is important, then, well, you get the point. On the other hand, of course, if Vaticanus more accurately reflects the original text, then the Byzantines reflect a text 4% longer than the original in the Gospels.

 

Back to the OP, Alexandrian type MSS have been around for the 1500 years you mentioned. They were simply always in the minority. There are not a few Alexandrian MSS among the 10th-14th century Cursive MSS available today. They are also scattered among the Uncials through the 10th century.

 

I believe this falls in with the prophecy given to Daniel, that travel and knowledge shall increase in the last days. there are no doctrines found in the later ms discoveries that mankind went without for 1500 years. I believe the newer discoveries are "add-ons" & "embellishments" to what man has already had from the gitgo. And in reality, no doctrines are added. The KNOWLEDGE of God's word has increased, along with the general increase in knowledge.

 

Besides the variant reading of God vs He who, and the addition to Matt 10:8 of "raise the dead", are there any other additions by the alexandrian texts?

It is my understanding that the church wasnt really lacking anything! If all the readings were already there, but just a few extras (if the byz additions are wrong) then Gods word was and is preserved.

 

Your question begs the question, “When were the Majority texts finally compiled?”

Do we have inferior texts?
Conceivably, but adequate and able to equip for every good work.
Surely God has demonstrated that He cares for His people.

Has this ever happened before in history?

Sure, read:
2 CHRONICLES 34:14-21 [LINK]

Rob

 

Would he allow them to be dominated by a progressively more corrupt Catholic church?

I actually believe the MT to be the better choice but I don't think your connection or logic work as a good proof.

 

God never promised you and I would have access to His complete Word. He gave His Word and He preserved it but He did not say that we are entitled to a complete copy of His Words. Those who have it are blessed beyond measure.

Answer this for me Roger:

Why is it that no two manuscripts from different areas and time periods agree 100%?

Even though these manuscripts disagree at some points do they still reflect the accurate message from God?

An accurate translation would only be found in the original manuscripts. When translating from different time periods and langauges there will always be some problems.

One thing we must consider also is the Viking raids. These brutes destroyed many things and when they raided the monasteries who knows what manuscripts were destroyed and/or lost.

You must put history in perspective and take into account that God preserved His message in ways that we do not understand.

 

Arrrrrhhggg, no need to get personal!

Them Vikin' brutes were mys' ancestors

Rob the red

 

Okay, here you go.

Sinaiticus has 367,305 words in the Gospels.
Vaticanus has 374,970 words in the Gospels.

If Sinaiticus is closer to the original, Vaticanus added 7,665 words.

If Vaticanus is closer to the original, Sinaiticus subtracted 7,665 words.