Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Words were ADDED to later mss. | Acts 8:37 | kalos | 110833 | ||
Words were ADDED to later manuscripts that WERE NOT IN earlier manuscripts. - - - - - - - - - - 'An additional factor that contributed to the reliability and accuracy of the Greek text was advancement in the art of textual criticism itself. While this important subject can be complicated, its basic aim is quite straightforward. It is important to remember that the original manuscripts of the biblical books, technically called the autographa, have not survived, and the copies made from these original documents contain readings, called variants, that do not always agree with one another. The goal of textual criticism is to formulate and apply rules that enable an editor to select the variant reading to achieve the most accurate text. 'An illustration of the application of these rules of textual criticism may aid us in understanding what an editor does. For example, one of the rules of textual criticism is that a shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading. THE REASON FOR THIS RULE IS THAT A SCRIBE WOULD TEND TO ADD WORDS FOR CLARIFICATION OR EXPLANATION RATHER THAN DELETING THEM.' [Words were ADDED to later manuscripts that WERE NOT IN earlier manuscripts.] 'Another rule of textual criticism is that a more difficult reading is to be preferred to a less difficult one. A SCRIBE WOULD BE TEMPTED TO ADD WORDS OF EXPLANATION that would enable the reader to understand the meaning of a difficult text rather than leaving such a reading unexplained' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0002.html) (Emphasis added). ['A scribe would be tempted to add words of explanation' to a later manuscript -- words that WERE NOT IN the earlier manuscript. Words added to later manuscripts WERE PUT THERE BY SCRIBES, not by divine inspiration.] |
||||||
2 | Words were ADDED to later mss. | Acts 8:37 | mark d seyler | 142493 | ||
"Although most of these papyri are fragmentary, others contain large sections of Scripture and have been given very early dates by paleographers. P75 (containing part of Luke and John) dates from 175 to 225 AD. P66 (containing part of John) and P46 (containing part of Romans and the Pauline epistles) dates to about 200 AD or before. P52, a small fragment containing only John 18:31-33 and 37-38, had been considered the oldest manuscript, dating to 125 AD. However, papyrologist and textual scholar Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede has redated P64 (the Magdalen papyrus) from the early third century to 66 AD. [Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness To Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 124-125.] P64 consists of three small fragments containing Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Thiede has likewise redated P67 from the third century to around 70 AD. This manuscript contains Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28. If his position is correct, these would be the oldest existing manuscripts. The papyri manuscripts mentioned above are very old indeed. The fact that these manuscripts seem to have originated in Egypt, or at least survived there, and were not used by the majority of believers throughout the existence of the church does not carry much weight with textual scholars. But it is something we should consider. After all, why should we think that the majority of believers in church history were deprived of God’s pure word? And, if we make such limitations, what does this say about preservation at any given time in history? It does not seem to bother most textual critics that these manuscripts do not generally agree with later Alexandrian texts. The early papyri, although considered Alexandrian in nature, reflect a mixed text with many Byzantine readings in them. Consequently, Kurt Aland has labeled P46 and P66 as "free" [Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 99-100.] while Bruce Metzger simply calls P66 "mixed." [Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 40.] In his introduction to the Chester Beatty Papryi, Sir Frederic Kenyon likewise observes the mixed nature of these early manuscripts. [Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Fasciculus I (London: Emory Walker, 1933), 16.] There are many places where the oldest manuscripts support the readings of the Traditional Text. Yet, these readings are mostly rejected in light of the later Alexandrian readings. For example, in John 4:1 Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), Codex D05 (sixth century) and Codex Q (ninth century) have the reading Iesous (Jesus). The Traditional Text reads kurios (Lord). This is also the reading in Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), Alexandrinus (fifth century), Codex C (fifth century), and the majority of uncial manuscripts and cursive manuscripts. Both P66 and P75 have the reading kurios, agreeing with the Traditional Text. Nevertheless, this reading is rejected by the Critical Text in favor of the reading found in Sinaiticus. Consequently, modern translations such as the NIV and NRSV forsake the early manuscripts in favor of Sinaiticus. There are many other examples of this sort." Quoting Dr. T. Holland You can read more at http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | Words were ADDED to later mss. | Acts 8:37 | Morant61 | 142511 | ||
Greetings Mark! John 4:1 is an interesting study. :-) In fairness though, it should be pointed out that textual critics decided upon 'Iesous' for a variety of reasons, not just because it was the reading of Sinaiticus. It should first be noted that in Bruce Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" the reading is only given a 'C' rating, which means that the committee had serious doubts about their choice. Secondly, it should be noted that there is substantial textual support for both readings. Contrary to the way in which the author paints the situation, many manuscripts of John 4:1 read 'Iesous' rather than 'Kurios'. Here is a list of the textual support for 'Iesous' and the approximate date of the support. ************************************* Uncials: Sinaiticus (4th century) Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th to 6th) Koridethi (9th) Numbered Uncials: 086 (6th) Family 1 manuscripts: 1, 118, 131, and 209. Minuscules: 565 (9th) 1009 (13th) 1010 (12th) 1195 (1123 a.d.) 1241 (12th) 1365 (12th) Italian or Old Latin Versions: Vercellensis (4th) Aureus (5th) Veronensis (5th) Colbertinus (12-13th) Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th) Palatinus (5th) Corbeiensis II (5th) Sarzanensis (6th) Legionensis (7th) Usserianus I (7th) Vulgate (4-5th) Syriac Versions: (4-7th) Curetonian Peshitta Harclean Coptic Versions (3-4th): Bohairie Fayyumie Gothic Versions (5th): Armenian Church Fathers: Diatessaron (a and n) (2nd) Chrysostom (407) ************************************* So, it is clear that the textual critics who choose 'Iesous' over 'Kurios' did so on more than just the support of Codex Sinaiticus. :-) Personally, I wouldn't have a major problem with either reading. It would be unusual to find 'Kurios' in reference to Jesus when the Pharisees are in view, but 'Kurios' is certainly used of Jesus in John. The word 'Kurios' occurs 51 times in John. Many of them are either OT quotes or greetings like our 'Sir'. However, there are instances where it is used in a more direct sense of Jesus. These would include: John 6:23, 11:2, 20:18, 20:20, 20:25, 20:28, 21:7, and 21:12. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||