Keith M said:
In a futile effort to discredit the reliability of older Greek NT manuscripts, Askjo made the comment...
The older manuscripts that form the basis for most modern Bible translations, because of their age, are more reliable than the later manuscripts forming the basis for the KJVs. In "Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts" (
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html] Peter van Minnen,
Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient History, PhD, Leuven University, 1997, said "...in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity."
Askjo, you're wrong again, as is always the case. Where do you come up with some of these ideas you promote? What about the
larger gap between the originals and the
later manuscripts? If the gap between the originals and the older manuscripts is too far, then the gap between the originals and the later manuscripts is
certainly too far!
Does it make one bit of sense to say the gap between the original autographs and the older manuscripts is "too far" while holding that later manuscripts, with an even larger gap, are more reliable? If I'm the only one who sees this reasoning as faulty, let me know.
As I noted on another, now closed, I believe. thread, the 'truth" lies somewhere between the two ends of these positions. It is certainly true that the more times any single MSS is hand copied, the more opportunities there are to introduce mistakes. When it comes to the Bible MSS, I am extremely reluctant to call this any error, for most any Biblical MSS was likely once someone's only personal copy, and this usually only a partial portion, of the recorded word of God.
The position of some is that God providentially preserved certain MSS, which reflect 'purity' and did not preserve others, in like manner. The problem is that this is an undemonstratable position, for it is a simple fact that no two MSS agree to the n
th degree. So how do you pick "the one perfect manuscript" out of all these 10K or do MSS, virtually none of which are complete MSS of Scripture? You can't, just as the KJV translators [and every other serious translator(s) of Scriupture] recognizes, even while reverencing God's written word, to tthe fullest.
However let's consider the real facts, here. A large multiplicity of copies of a particular MSS would likely make that source more discernible, and reliable, as spurious readings could be recognized.
When one copies copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum, the situation is that again, there is more chance for more
errata to enter into this chain, as well.
The problem we have, if indeed there is a problem, is that we do not actually know the genesis of any actual manuscripts, to my knowledge (and virtually every one has its own particular idiosyncrasies). Aside from D
abs1 known as
Abschrift, which is a known intentional copy of Codex D 06 Claromontanus, a MSS of the epistles, there are simply none which can be identified as such.
Even the fairly commonly accepted idea of MSS families such as
f1 and
f13 is somewhat debatable, as to particular identity, I believe. One fairly competent (IMO) textual scholar phrased it somewhat in this fashion. 'There are no children of MSS, only orphans.'
Ther is also enough evidence that no one can say that I do not have the actual words of the Word of God, when I have a particular text, in my hand! There is enough uncertainty, as to wording, that I can never dogmatically say that, this particular copy or version is the exact Way God would have his word translated and honored.
I am now heading into speculation, with this statement I shall make. There is no question that had God so chosen, He could have preserved the copying of His written word, that word that he has magnified above His very name, with no variance, or question of a single word, and that likewise he could have prevented any variance, in the copies. However, it certainly appears that that is not what He, for His own reasons, has chosen to do. Even to the point that the portion of Isaiah that Jesus read, verbatim, is found exactly as He read it, in no extant copy or version of the OT, yet Jesus pronounced this as Scripture.
As I said I am now to the speculation part, as to the why. Because we worship a triune God, subsisiting in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not a quadrune God that is made up (or subsists) of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and a Bible Version. Nor is the Bible (in any version) to become an idol, or "graven" or "carved" image (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1) to stand in the place of our God, just as the bronze serpent, made by Moses, had become for the Israelites, found in Scripture, which was broken by Hezekiah, along with his setting fire to a wooden Canaanite goddess, who then called the serpent (now) "bronze scrap" and Hezekiah is said to be one who trusted in (or worshipped) the LORD, to the point where he stands above all others, in that regard, including, David, Solomon, Josiah, and the other "good kings" of Israel.
As the Anathastasian Creed correctly says,
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
I realize I followed a "rabbit trail;' but this is simply where it led me. This might be a good place to note that the a King of Israel, was required to make by himself, with his own hand, his own personal copy of the Law. (Deut. 17:18-20) Does anyone think that each of these were exacty identical, and that no king ever made the first mistake of one letter in copying this?
I don't and think that any age/reliability is a bit of a false issue, according to the Scriptures themselves.
Ed
