Bad stream of NT manuscripts?

BlueFalcon, aren't you making an assumption that homoioteleuton is a cause of an error, while in fact the other manuscripts may have derived from mother documents with exactly the opposite problem?

I'm not really debating the issue here, but I am questioning how you arrive to your conclusion that the documents you mention are indeed the documents in error?

 

Philip, studies have been made (by Colwell, Royse, Head, and others) regarding the scribal habits of the early papyri and uncial manuscripts, deriving their results from the "singular readings" (i.e. those found in no other manuscript) found within each manuscript.

On the basis of this type of examination, certain types of scribal errors pertinent to each particular manuscript are recognized. In general, the conclusions unanimously reached by the various studies show that the scribes of the early manuscripts were far more prone to omit than to add, and that accidental omission by homoioteleuton was a very frequent cause of omission.

So on this issue, BF does seem to have a point.

 

Sooooo, does this mean that the Alexandrian manuscripts are NOT the best manuscripts?

(. . . dare I say this and have a KJVo jump in the middle. )

 

Uh, another question. . . Don't most modern versions add the missing portions anyway, although they may footnote it?

For example, the ending of Mark is in every new version I have, even though the footnote may say that "the best manuscripts may or do not contain...blah, blah, blah.).

Or, in the case of the Lord's prayer, it may not be in the body, but it is mentioned in the footnote as "some manuscripts say.....this.......".

Don't most modern versions try pretty hard to at least make a notation of the differences?

 

Bluefalcon: ...in Mt. 6:13 where they omit a passage of 15 Greek words ("...for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen.").

Wonder if the same words were left outta Luke 11 in the Textus Receptus?

 

Okay, Bluefalcon, you appear to be a good scholar of ancient manuscripts. I admit that I am not a scholar of ancient manuscripts, but in my understanding there are two main streams that we are considering here (correct me if I am wrong) and that is the Alexandrian (supposedly older and better, by many scholars) as opposed to what we would now call the "TR" (from Syria)? (which other scholars such as yourself feel are better due to words lost in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Is this a decent summary or am I simplifying it too much?

If so, then it would be your opinion that those translations deriving from the Syrian manuscripts would be more accurate to the original manuscripts. In other words, the KJV, NKJV and any other "TR" based New Testament? Right?

Maybe I'm just totally confused, but when we start naming specific manuscripts that is where I get lost because I do not have a single listing of most of the manuscripts and their sources (except maybe in the back of my TR interlinear).

I realize this is not KJVonlyism. I understand that you are simply looking for the most accurate source manuscripts that we have available today.

Are my thoughts. . .
Right? Wrong? Indifferent? or totally Idiotic?

 

I know I sound like a third grader to you, but bear with me one more time if you would.

I believe I understand your attack of the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Are not most compilations of manuscripts today (including Nestle's, etc.) based primarily on these Alexdrian manuscripts?

Is there a legitimate compilation that is available to the public of non-Alexdrian manuscripts, by name (with the exception of the TR, which you seem to cast doubt on due to its mixture of manuscripts)?

Is there a modern translation that IS using the manuscripts that you consider to be better?

Sorry, don't know enough to debate you on the subject, just trying to learn something. I hope you can bear with me. Thanks.

 

bf: "How can the same words have been left out in Lk. 11 if they were never there to begin with? Not even one scribe of thousands even attempted to add the words there, which doesn't make sense if they were so willing to add them in Matthew, and such is just another reason to accept the words as genuine in Matthew."

At this passage BF has a real point -- the doxology in Mt 6:13 is *claimed* to have been added by Byzantine scribes "in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church" (Metzger).

Yet in Lk 11, nearly all Byzantine longer readings within the Prayer are similarly claimed to be expansions designed "to assimilate the Lukan text to the much more familiar Matthean form" (Metzger).

But -- *if* the Byzantine scribes indeed had done as Metzger claims, and harmonized on various phrases in Lk 11 due to a desire to make the text equivalent to Mt 6, it is passing strange that those same "harmonizing" scribes utterly failed to add the *same* doxology which they were blamed for creating in Matthew.

Bottom line is that something is inconsistent within eclectic praxis on this point.

 

bf: "there's no official translation based on the Original New Testament according to the Byzantine Textform"

Besides the Nelson-based EMTV that BF mentioned, the online WEB Bible NT and the ALT NT are based on the Byzantine or majority text. The quality of translation in all three could stand some improvement, however.

 

I have a question that may be kind of dumb, but if the Catholic church had charge of these earlier Alexandrian texts for so many years, why did they choose to copy their Latin translations from the Byzantine Greek texts. Could someone please shed some light on this as it has puzzled me for some time.

 

If the verse is present only in later texts, it is incorrect to say that they "omit" the verse. The only conclusion one can make is that later manuscripts have inserted the verse.

Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls support very closely the OT of the MSS over the TR. That lends credence to the claim that the NT portion of the MSS is likewise as reliable.

 

I don't know this for a fact, but the books I have concerning manuscripts say that they were found in old library/monastary buildings at a much later date. The evidence shows that the manuscripts far exceed the age of the Byzantine manuscripts which makes some scholars feel that "the closer to the originals, the more accurate, among other factors". One the other hand, those such as BlueFalcon feel the manuscripts were more corrupted due to location and apparently the scribes that kept them.

It was understood that Jews who moved to Alexandria to avoid the Roman empire were in charge of these documents and many say they were just as careful-if not more so, than scribes up North in keeping the documents faithful. However, as you can see this is what is being debated.

On one hand, BlueFalcon and others claim parts were left out, while on the other hand other scholars claim the other documents had parts added which may have started out as margin notes and became scripture through years of copy. Or well intended scribes tried to either harmonize the gospels or clarify the text.

THIS is the essence of the arguments. Many of the Alexandrian manuscripts are relatively recent finds compared to other manuscripts, but were kept well preserved by the dry Egyptian climate. Same as the Dead-Sea Scrolls. Relatively new finds of quite old manuscripts.

 

[/QB]I don't know this for a fact, but the books I have concerning manuscripts say that they were found in old library/monastary buildings at a much later date. The evidence shows that the manuscripts far exceed the age of the Byzantine manuscripts which makes some scholars feel that "the closer to the originals, the more accurate, among other factors". One the other hand, those such as BlueFalcon feel the manuscripts were more corrupted due to location and apparently the scribes that kept them.

It was understood that Jews who moved to Alexandria to avoid the Roman empire were in charge of these documents and many say they were just as careful-if not more so, than scribes up North in keeping the documents faithful. However, as you can see this is what is being debated.

On one hand, BlueFalcon and others claim parts were left out, while on the other hand other scholars claim the other documents had parts added which may have started out as margin notes and became scripture through years of copy. Or well intended scribes tried to either harmonize the gospels or clarify the text.

THIS is the essence of the arguments. Many of the Alexandrian manuscripts are relatively recent finds compared to other manuscripts, but were kept well preserved by the dry Egyptian climate. Same as the Dead-Sea Scrolls. Relatively new finds of quite old manuscripts. [/QUOTE]

Ok, so did the Catholic church use these texts in their later translations, and does anyone know which ones? Also, isn't Alexandria the area where the texts known as the lost gospels came out of, and wasn't these writers considered gnostic heretics by the early church? This is what I read someplace.