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

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?

 

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

 

Yeah if you read Dean Burgon's books you will be well on your way with the "manuscript issue".

Or check out his online stuff http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/issues.htm

 

Welcome aboard saul^paul.

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

HankD

 

While you're at it, check out these facts:

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/burgon.htm

 

This is the "new" nomenclature for:Vaticanus(Rev 17),Sinaiticus(TCV),and Alexandrinus(Ezekiel 29:9).

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Look at the Dakes Bible -- How big? Too many outlines!!!! Too many notes!!!

 

How about The Companion Bible a KJB of 2100 plus pages.

HankD

 

Excellent resource! I don't always agree with Bullinger, but he certainly had great knowledge regarding the bible!

 

Yes, great notes for Greek, Hebrew, MSS, etc but a lot of left field theology.

IMO.

HankD