Oldest is best?

[Maestroh]

Hi Hank

According to Burgon, the disagreements are far less and more isolated.

But that still doesn't answer the question about what to do when it happens.

 

[Maestroh]

Thanks for proving my point. Your "overriding principle" is based on the more basic law that the older reading is the best (original) reading. And your overriding principle is not so easy to use when void of external evidence.

Take for instance Mt 5:16, where a MS omits "works" or "deeds" (Gr. ERGA). Or did all the other MSS add the word to make more specific what "good" (Gr. KALA) was referring to? Surely the word was thought to be superfluous to a scribe, since the meaning of ERGA is implied in KALA due to the nature of adjectives in Greek.

Solitary mss. readings are usually disposed of as superfluous. This is simple common sense.

Once you have formed your opinion on that case, look at a nearly identical situation in Mt 5:11, where a few Greek MSS follow most of the Latin, the Old Syriac and two of the Egyptian versions in omitting "word" (Gr. RHMA). Or did all the other Greek MSS add the word? Surely your overriding principle is consistent in the two cases, is it not?

You're mixing apples and oranges by COUNTING mss. and counting them all equally. In general terms Greek trumps the others in the NT because that is the original language.

Or take Mt 7:11, where a few MSS, including an important Egyptian one, omit "gifts" (Gr. DOMATA), since it is implied in the adjective "good" (AGATHA). Surely your overriding principle can guide all of NT textual studies. But if you follow the NA/UBS, it's not even consistent over three simple test cases!

The conclusion is that your overriding principle is not used to tell you which MSS are best, but is only used when it supports the MSS you have already decided are best.

You don't even understand the issue.

You're looking for CERTAINTY in every case; TC simply grants you the 'most probable.' Possibility is not probability and probability is not certainty.

 

[HankD]

But that still doesn't answer the question about what to do when it happens.

Apply the Seven Tests of Truth:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs2771.htm#III. %20Dean%20Burgon's

When arriving at the URL, Go to the Table of Contents and click on :

III. Dean Burgon's Seven Tests of Truth


HankD

 

[Rippon]

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Mr. Noah Webster, because five years after the publication of his dictionary he introduced his revision of the AV. Below is in part what that scholar wrote pertaining to the KJV in his preface (my underscore) --

...But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points mistakes may be very injurious...​

The quote above from Noah Webster's KJV modification is great.

He also said :

...a version of the scriptures for popular use should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common in popular usage, so that the first ideas suggested for the reader should be the true meaning of such words,according to the original languages. That many words in the present version fail to do this is certain. My principal aim is to correct this evil.

A few errors in the translation,which are admitted on all hands to be obvious ...

But all men whom I have consulted, if they have thought much on the subject, seem to be agreed in the opinion, that it is high time to have a revision of the common version of the scriptures...

__________________________________________________________

I agree with this scholar whom Salamander praises.

 

[Rippon]

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Mr. Noah Webster, because five years after the publication of his dictionary he introduced his revision of the AV. Below is in part what that scholar wrote pertaining to the KJV in his preface (my underscore) --

...But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points mistakes may be very injurious...
​

Since the subject of old Noah Webster has come up recently in another thread, I thought I would include the above for reference sake.

 

[Rippon]

Quotes From Noah Webster

...a version of the scriptures for popular use should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common in popular usage, so that the first ideas suggested for the reader should be the true meaning of such words,according to the original languages. That many words in the present version fail to do this is certain. My principal aim is to correct this evil.

A few errors in the translation,which are admitted on all hands to be obvious ...

But all men whom I have consulted, if they have thought much on the subject, seem to be agreed in the opinion, that it is high time to have a revision of the common version of the scriptures...

I think pilgrim2009 would be interested in the words above from that man of God -- Noah Webster.

 

[EdSutton]

Bein' as you asked about a year and a half ago!

How far back does "oldest is best" go?

Uh- I'll try a guess on this one of about 398 1/2 years which would mean

ONLY to Jan. 1, 1611 A.D. maybe?? :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Dr. Bob]

Enough.

10-page limit