A simple question

Originally posted by C4K:
If that is indeed the case, why was there no serious attempt to compile those MSS for translation until the 19th century?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if this helps, but I'll throw it out for something to think about. I was sent to look for some documents from the late 1940's on some equipment. What I found was two sets of documents, one dated 1945 and the other dated 1949. The document from 1949 had more information on it than did the 1945 document. So, in an attempt to determine which document was the accurate document I compared the drawings to the actual device that was drawn. Interestingly, the device was closest to the 1945 drawings.

In an attempt to try to find out why the other document had added material I went back to the location and continued to dig through drawings. Sure enough I found an engineering file from the original engineer. The 1945 official drawing was stuck in his notes (obviously copied from an old style copier--blue-line, heat or something) along with a bunch of notes in his handwriting clipped to the side. After reviewing his documents it became obvious that he was not trying to add to the original document, but to write notes so he could better understand the complex drawings. After he was gone, someone found his notes and decided to update the 1945 original drawings (which contained everything necessary to build the item without question) and updated them with the new notes.

The point here is the question of which drawing should be considered the original and accurate (since there were no engineering change orders to the device). It was decided by our documention that the original drawings were the best and closest to accurate since they contained the minimum required to build the device; although it was also noted that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the later drawings, they just went further in describing why the device was built the way it was, even though that is not a requirement of the drafting team.

Bottom line, both sets of drawings were original and both sets were accurate. There were no changes between the two sets of drawings, although there was some repetitious writing.

If we were to only have one drawing, either would suffice 100% accurately for the purpose of drawings and that was to build the device.

Just some food for thought based on a real world example that allowed us to actually track the origins of both documents.

Originally posted by Bluefalcon
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.

Click to expand...

Intresting stats; not sure what they mean though.
How'd you do that???

Can you compare word counts of the Byzantine Majority text with the
Stephens Textus Receptus (1550) and/or Scriveners Textus Receptus (1894)?

Rob

I cant understand why all this "evidence" for the MT or Byz is not looked at both ways. Most of these claims can just as easily convict the Byz/MT as it can the CT/Alex.

Oh, in my description above of the drawings in the 40's. We would call BOTH sets of drawings 100% inerrant and either one could be used as the control copy.

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
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?

Click to expand...

Yes. You say that Codex 01 (Sinaiticus) is Alexandrian, no? Well Codex 03 (Vaticanus) has 7665 more words in the Gospels than Codex 01. Did Vaticanus add those words, or did Sinaiticus subtract those words, or both?

The new critical text (Nestle-Aland ed. 27) has 382,465 words in the Gospels. Vaticanus has only 374,970. That means that even the precious Alexandrian, Codex Vaticanus itself, subtracted 7,495 original words from the Gospels alone, or that the new text added those words.

Since NO text contains all the words of the blended eclectic texts used today (either from Erasmus for the AV/NKJV or recent ones for NASB/NIV), can't see the fuss.

No one is claiming that ANY Greek is exact, are they?

And watch the attitude, blue. It doesn't go unnoticed.

Oops, sorry guys. I was counting characters, not words.
Here are the stats for Greek words in the Gospels:

Codex 01/Aleph: 63,408
Codex 03/B: 63,995
NA 27th ed: 64,355
Consensus: 66,134

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
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?

Click to expand...

Yes. You say that Codex 01 (Sinaiticus) is Alexandrian, no? Well Codex 03 (Vaticanus) has 7665 more words in the Gospels than Codex 01. Did Vaticanus add those words, or did Sinaiticus subtract those words, or both? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not talking about one manuscript. We all know that certain manuscripts have clear demonstable copyist errors. The honest scholars discard them just like they do with the obvious copyist errors in byzantine manuscripts.

You seem to have misunderstood my question. I am asking if anything is ADDED by the alexandrian manuscripts that isnt already in the byzantine manuscripts. My question is, what has the church been "lacking" which is of any substance at all?

If the alexandrian manuscripts are closer to the originals, but we didnt have access to them for 1500 years, is God's word not still preserved through the Byzantine, with a few pious additions?

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Inferior? By whose standard, c4k? God gave His Word and man copies and corrupts. No two (of 5500) manuscripts agree in every jot and tittle, so this means only 1 of the 5500 is correct?

No. Compiled together they reveal God's Word in spite of man's additions. And the first texts we see emerging in Christianity (those that were rediscovered but obviously well-known in the first centuries) are of the minority type that now underly most modern translations.

And agree that, in spite of the hype and rhetoric about taking away the deity blah blah, I use BOTH the eclectic blended text of 1555 (St Stephens) and the eclectic blended text of today (Nestles/Aland/Aland) and find NO theological differences of note.

So believe "inferior" is a FLAME word. We have God's Word. Have had it since the apostles; will have it until the Lord returns.

Click to expand...

Inferior is not a "flame word" Doc. "Oldest is best" implies that those that are not oldest are inferior to those that are.

Actually, isnt it just logical? The alternative is that the original autographs were inspired, then it took centuries of copying before they got it right? Doesnt it make much more sense that through the years, the copies became less and less accurate?

The only other alternative is deliberate alteration. Both Byz and Alex can be accused of that, and honestly there isnt any conclusive proof either way.

C4K, would you mind addressing the same question I posed to Bluefalcon, since I orginally posed it to you. Is there any reading the Church would have been without for all these years if the Alexandrian manuscripts do represent the originals more closely?

Sorry, was tied up most of yesterday.

I honestly don't know DD.

My problem I guess is the mantra that "oldest is best" as a pattern for deciding which texts to use. That implies that we had to do without the "best" for 1500 years. If we did not have the bests texts, did we not have "inferior" texts"?

My contention is that we DID have the "oldest is best". They were used for hundreds of years until surplanted by Latin. Then stored.

But they've been around, in monasteries, in libraries. They have been quoted. Someone (I'm old and can't recall the detail) even mentioned Erasmus having access to Vaticanus (or that textual family).

Guess in the "rules" for what is probably most reflective of the original, if you don't go with "closest in time" to the original, you have to go by "weight".

And then the Eastern Orthodox family text, copied and copied and copied and used and preserved 1500 years, would win hands down.

Originally posted by C4K:
If the Critical Texts (discovered in the 19th century) are indeed superior to the texts commonly referred to as the Majority Texts does that mean that God left His people with inferior texts for their translational work for 1500 years?

Click to expand...

Roger, this is not an attempt to hijack this thread, so please allow me to run with this for a moment. There is a parallel I see here. Many times we "freedom readers" as Cranston calls us tell the KJVO folks that just because there are minor differences it doesn't mean that different is inferior or wrong. Would this not also apply to the Greek texts? God did not provide inferior texts for translation work for 1500 years. Nor were inferior texts discoverd at a later date.

Both texts are in total agreement in terms of doctrine, aren't they? Both texts are in total agreement in terms of the Gospel, aren't they? Both texts are in total agreement in relating things that happened and that God wanted us to know (creation, the flood, the tower of Babel, etc.) aren't they?

Then God did not preserve a superior or inferior text for translation purposes for 1500 years. Neither the Majority Text nor the Critical Text, IMHO, is inferior to the other - both are in total agreement on all things of importance. Just because a few words are different doesn't mean anything. Not one item of doctrine, history or the Gospel has been changed. Therefore, the various texts are neither inferior nor superior to one another - the differences amount to a mole hill and we don't need to try to make a mountain of them.

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
My question is, what has the church been "lacking" which is of any substance at all?

Click to expand...

The church has never lacked the Word of God. Even today, the question is which is the best and most accurate reflection of the Word of God.

Originally posted by Keith M:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
If the Critical Texts (discovered in the 19th century) are indeed superior to the texts commonly referred to as the Majority Texts does that mean that God left His people with inferior texts for their translational work for 1500 years?

Click to expand...

Roger, this is not an attempt to hijack this thread, so please allow me to run with this for a moment. There is a parallel I see here. Many times we "freedom readers" as Cranston calls us tell the KJVO folks that just because there are minor differences it doesn't mean that different is inferior or wrong. Would this not also apply to the Greek texts? God did not provide inferior texts for translation work for 1500 years. Nor were inferior texts discoverd at a later date.

</font>[/QUOTE]We are often told that the "better manuscripts", referring to the CT, say this or that. That statement implies that what we had (at least in general use) for 1500 years was not the best. I am not by any means calling the CT inferior, but they should not be regarded as superior just because they are older.

Yes, the basic Gospel message has been written from the gitgo. What do others think of the idea that the comparatively-recent discovery of quite a few manuscripts is part of the increase in knowledge prophesied to Daniel?

I don't think any doctrine has been added from those recent discoveries. What HAS been increased is our knowledge of a few of the details of Scriptural events.

And another thing that has REALLY increased...the vast lead that Scriptural mss have in the overall number of known ancient mss about the same subject. (Scripture, over 5300 ms or fragments vs about 660 for the Iliad.)

But are the mss that have been in use a long time really inferior? I don't think so, they just may not have gone into the same amount of detail that others have, here & there. But every doctrine and event was covered.

Note to other mods and administrators.

See, we can have a discussion where we differ in opinions without getting off track or calling each other names .

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread .

Does anyone know of a TRULY electic English translation that uses the best of all available texts and which uses formal equivelance?

C4K:

If the Critical Texts (discovered in the 19th century) are indeed superior to the texts commonly referred to as the Majority Texts does that mean that God left His people with inferior texts for their translational work for 1500 years?

Click to expand...

No, in fact I might argue it does the opposite. The finding of the Critical Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls, when compared to existing texts, affirm how God has preserved His Word. It's amazing, maybe close to miraculous, really, and somebody else here can overview that much better than I. I agree with the posters in this thread. The primary thing is TRANSLATIONAL issues, which are deeper and more involved than most people imagine.

As an example, I offer this: I have a copy of Oswald Chamber's 'My Utmost For His Highest' written less than a hundred years ago. I also have a copy that was "edited" in recent years to make it easier to read, to 'bring it up' to modern English. Since I was using it in morning devotional I decided to compare the two sentence by sentence, and combine the best of them into one volume, for my own edification.

Not a big deal? I tell you there are certain sentences or passages where the 'newer' version is more clear and almost as many where the 'newer' version gets it wrong, sometimes dead wrong, just misses the idea completely. Now this is a relatively short period of time, less than 100 years, and 'translated' from English to ENGLISH! There is no doubt the Editor of the newer version, or updated edition, is very sincere - and overall he does a very good job - but it is a good demonstration of the breadth and depth of language difficulties.

does that mean that God left His people with inferior texts for their translational work for 1500 years?

Didn't he leave his people with an inferior understanding of salvation for 1500 years prior to Christ?

What God chooses to reveal and when he chooses to reveal it is his prerogative.