A simple question

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.