Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125507 | ||
Tim You said, "If the first copies are corrupt, how could later copies possibly be accurate? This is the basic difference I would have with your approach. The later the manuscript, the greater the chance of purposeful or accidental error. And I again I would agree with you if they both came from the same discipline or text type as commonly used in reference to family of manuscripts. However the oldest texts are I believe Alexandrine and the later or majority are Byzantine. We further know the TR was incorporated some of the readings from the Vulgate which is believed by many to be the oldest complete NT manuscript although not in original Greek but in Latin. Again I’m not trying to discredit any manuscript in fact just the opposite. What I’m trying to say is what should have been done instead of basing all the new translations on the an assortment of manuscripts they all should have been based on one most probably the TR they could still use their own translational interpretations but noted any manuscriptual differences they deemed important within the marginal or footnotes. EdB |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125516 | ||
Greeting EdB! The only problem with the Vulgate is that it dates from the fourth or five century (which is still pretty old, but four to five hundred years after the originals) and it is based upon other translations, not the originals. The fact that it is a translation lessens it's value for textual criticism. It would be like us using the NIV to determine what the original Greek or Hebrew said. As far as the TR is concerned, why would we want to base our text upon the work of someone who only had about six minuscule manuscripts with which to work. The oldest of them dated from about the tenth century, but because it differed from the other five, he didn't use it much. Yet, it was the more accurate of the six. So, if I were to use only one manuscript (which I don't believe would be a wise choice regardless), why would I base it upon the work of one man using only six manuscripts as his basis, none of them older than the tenth century? Further, which edition would we use? He published about 5, all with changes, additions, and deletions. It is far better to use all the material had our disposal. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125519 | ||
Tim I picked the TR only because of it's wide use, and because to some degree that is what many of the newer Bible translations had already done. As to the Vulgate your right it is a translation into Latin of a Greek copy, but many feel the Greek used was a one off the original that has since been lost. While the "oldest" manuscripts are thought to be copies of copies. Possibly as high 3rd or 4th. As far as which TR your right I think I would go with Eramsus copy. However then many "reformers" would probably screan Catholic bias. :-) I think it is a problem that can't be hung even with a new rope. :-) EdB |
||||||