Bible Manuscript Recently Discovered?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jerome, Apr 30, 2011.

  1. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    So I was perusing the New New International Version and noticed this at I John 5:8:

    Now my Old New International Version says at that footnote:

    So an older manuscript has apparently been discovered relatively recently.

    Does anyone recall an announcement of this important discovery? I sure don't.

    Can anyone identify which newly found manuscript these eminent translators are referencing?
     
  2. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,497
    Likes Received:
    454
    I think you will find that they were wrong the first time and have corrected themselves.

    Steve
     
  3. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Really?

    Do you recall where you read them admitting such?
     
    #3 Jerome, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2011
  4. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    There have been a number of significant textual discoveries over the past two decades.

    We are living in a time of significant growth and refinement of the critical text. Several of the recent discoveries are both affirming previous critical textual work while also disproving a lot of secular theories against the construction of the Bible. It is really making the Critical Text of the New Testament that far, far superior text to use for translation work.

    As far as the NIV point, I'm not certain of the actual issues but it wouldn't be surprising. Keep in mind the original NIV is from 1984 and based on textual work primarily from the 1970s and before. There's been a lot of helpful work done since then.

    I'm not with my resources today, but I do know that there is a recent textual discovery of a load of manuscripts and fragments that when fully surveyed will likely rival the Dead Sea Scrolls impact on textual work.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    New finds are being found in known manuscripts quite often

    Here's one:


    The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript [LINK]
    By Daniel B. Wallace 7/2/2010


    Metzger notes 8 different mauscripts containing the verse:



    [Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994). 647-48.]



    Also the Vatican library contains Minuscule 629 (dated to the fourteenth or fifteenth century), noted to contain the addition.

    * Not so sure of the relability but if you type "Manuscript" and the manuscript number, WIKI provides a brief note concerning the document.

    My guess is that this manuscript is the reason for the change.

    Rob
     
    #5 Deacon, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2011
  6. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the verse and note in question as found on Biblegateway.com

    1 John 5:8 (New International Version, ©2011)

    8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

    Footnotes:

    1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Is it possible that a manuscript which was previously thought to be 16th C. has (upon further examination or evidence) been 'redated'?
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Many feel that the "Greek textual documentary proof" of inserting this text into First John is fanciful at best.

    Wouldn't put much past those Irish monks (the only Greek text to include it were "found" in the margin of manuscripts in an Irish monastery) to win a bet . . [insert tongue-in-cheek icon here]
     
  9. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    My guess is the same as Deacon's. My understanding is that the manuscript in question (minuscule 629) was not included in the UBS apparatus until the 4th edition (1993).

    Minuscule 629, BTW, is a Greek/Vulgate document; the Vulgate, of course, includes the Comma.

    For those interested in such things, it may be worth noting that 629, like Vaticanus, is in the Vatican library and thus is "Catholic" in the same way that Vaticanus is, and in fact is even more "Catholic" because it, like the Vulgate, includes the Comma.
     
    #9 rsr, Apr 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...