"Other", "better" or "older" manuscripts?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jesus is Lord, Nov 30, 2003.

  1. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello!

    I know that there is much division concerning the "manuscript issue" but may be some of you can help me with this.

    I heard that when a so called "Modern Version" says in the margin something like "older manuscripts read..." or "better manuscrupts have..." it can sometimes only be found in one other manuscript although the "MV-margin" uses the plural form.

    Do you have any information about this?
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it's true that some "modern versions" take into account manuscripts that are older, and better (in the opinion of the translators). I don't know off-hand of any places where they use "plural" when there is only one - can you provide an example?
     
  3. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not an expert on this subject... unfortunately I cannot provide an example. I just read it somewhere. A Brother (also not an expert) who is a promoter of "Modern Versions" confirmed this to me (he also heard it).

    So I am looking for more information...
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    You probably know much of this, however...
    This harkens back to the 1800's when two men were commissioned by the Convocation Committee of the Church of England in 1870 to remove "plain and clear" errors in the 1850 Edition of the KJV of the Bible.

    They included an upgrade of the basic Greek Text with variants from several but mostly Aleph and B uncial (handwritten uppercase) mss, hence "others". They favored about 6 uncials all told dated generally from the 4 to 8th centuries. This as compared to the several thousand minuscules (lowercase) but younger (8th to 14th centuries) reconstructed to produce the "TR" (also known by other names such as "Traditional Text" or "Byzantine", though others have specific definitions which include the subtle differences of each of these).

    They popularized the "older", "shorter", therefore "better" theory in the reconstruction of the NT text.

    Granted this is a heavily summarised synopsis.

    Their contemporary, John Burgon (and several other less vocal) complained because of the lop-sidded weight given to Aleph and B.

    Most of Christendom agrees (typically by default -that is they have not studied the issue) with the W&H theory. Personally I agree for the most part with John Burgon.

    His books have been re-published and can be purchased at http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/whowasdb.htm

    Do a web scan for "Wescott and Hort" for their
    history and supportive writtings.

    HankD
     
  5. saul^paul

    saul^paul
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Welcome aboard saul^paul.

    Thanks for the URL many of us are familiar with Burgon's writings.

    HankD
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the "new" nomenclature for:Vaticanus(Rev 17),Sinaiticus(TCV),and Alexandrinus(Ezekiel 29:9).
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Excellent link. Poor Dean Burgon would not recognize the organism that bears his name! Thanks.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Generally you need only read 1 or 2 pages on any of Burgon's work to see that he was NOT KJVO.

    KJVO quote him in a drive by shooting style when it is convenient never to be heard from again.

    HankD
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most modern versions did not tell you - what manuscripts?

    For example, they said:

    "better manuscrupts omitted"
    "better manuscrupts added"
    "older manuscripts did not contain"
    "older manuscripts contained"

    WHAT manuscripts are they? Do you know WHAT manuscripts are in footnotes in modern versions?
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    With this point askjo, I agree with you.

    If version translators/publishers are going to make this kind of call, they should, in an introductory section, define their terms.

    Most do make some kind of upfront statement concerning mss choices but on the other hand most of us don't read these statements.

    HankD
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Most modern versions did not tell you - what manuscripts?

    For example, they said:

    "better manuscrupts omitted"
    "better manuscrupts added"
    "older manuscripts did not contain"
    "older manuscripts contained"

    WHAT manuscripts are they? Do you know WHAT manuscripts are in footnotes in modern versions?
    </font>[/QUOTE]If they did, can you imagine how big that Bible would be. Even in the UBS4 and NA27 only some are listed. The majority of pastors do not even know how to handle the situation with the manuscripts. So just imagine what that would do to a pastor who has no theological education or training in this matter. I think it would draw such attention that the person reading would be more interested in what lies underneath than what is in the text.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    right gb93433, an intro section RE: Manuscripts: where terms could be defined and MSS ID could be named would be a good compromise IMO.

    HankD
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look at the Dakes Bible -- How big? Too many outlines!!!! Too many notes!!!
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    How about The Companion Bible a KJB of 2100 plus pages.

    HankD
     
  17. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent resource! I don't always agree with Bullinger, but he certainly had great knowledge regarding the bible!
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes, great notes for Greek, Hebrew, MSS, etc but a lot of left field theology.

    IMO.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...