Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

Lets get to your points here.

1. Some did omit it and got blasted for it. So it remains because the reasons for it lacking in those is unknown. The ending of Mark is not inconsistent with the others so it could be legit. Missing pages or incomplete mss was a scribal plague in those days, so there is no telling what happened. But the common sense approach is to leave it alone but tell what you know and be honest.

2. This one is wormy but read the following:

John 7:53-8:11:
TEXT: include John 7:53-8:11 here
EVIDENCE: D E F G H K M U Gamma Lambda Pi 028 28 700 892 1010 Byz most lat vg syr(h,pal) some cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV1n RSV2 NASV NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: A to omit

NOTES: omit John 7:53-8:11
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 S A(vid) B C(vid) L N T W X Y Delta Theta Psi 33 565 1241 1333* Lect four lat syr(c,s,p) some cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV1 RSV2n NASVn NIVn NEBn TEVn

NOTES: include John 7:53-8:11 at the end of this gospel
EVIDENCE: f1
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEB TEVn

NOTES: include John 7:53-8:11 after Luke 21:38
EVIDENCE: f13
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEBn TEVn

NOTES: include John 7:53-8:11 after John 7:36
EVIDENCE: 225
TRANSLATIONS: RSV2n NEBn TEVn

OTHER: include John 8:3-11 after Luke 24:53
EVIDENCE: 1333c

COMMENTS: This passage is enclosed in double brackets in the UBS text, which means that the UBS Textual Committee felt that it was not written by John, but that it was old enough and historical enough to be considered as scripture. The passage was known to some third and fourth century writers, although it does not seem to be found in any extant Bible manuscripts until the fifth or sixth century. It possibly circulated at first in oral form and was later written down and added to the text of John or Luke.

The author could have been Luke also:
* The inclusion of the story in some mss. of Luke.
* The use of unique Lukan or Synoptic vocabulary:
o orthros ("early" -- John 8:2; Luke 24:1, Acts 5:21
o "all the people" (John 8:2; appears almost 20 times in Luke-Acts, but only 5 times in Mark and Matthew together)
o paraginomai ("appear" -- John 8:2; appears over two dozen times in Luke-Acts, but only 3 times in Matt, once in Mark, and once elsewhere in John)
o kategoros ("accusers" -- found elsewhere only in Acts, 5 times)
o suneideis ("conscience" -- found only here, and twice in Acts)
o "Mount of Olives", "scribes and Pharisees", "eldest" (8:1, 8:3, 8:9) -- unique to the Synoptics, other than here in John
* The story fits well with Luke's special interest in women.

3. Lets actually read some verses here. I choose the NIV and NASB due to wide usage.

NASB 95
39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

NIV
39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Lets throw in the NLT for fun

NLT
39 (When he said “living water,” he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.)

It appears that "Holy" has been removed !!!!! I don't have a high opinion of p66 that may stem from the fact that I think the handwriting is too sloppy. But real experts read it just fine.

In this verse the "Nomina Sacra" or abbreviated name for the Holy Spirit is there clearly in Aleph ( which has neat handwriting) , referring to the Spirit but the word "Holy" is not present. But keeping with proper English Grammar since the word here is a noun it is capitalized, thus I know it is referring to the Holy Spirit.

As far as the rest of your post goes. Give me a rational question and I will give you a rational answer. Your just throwing accusations and doing some "mudslinging".

Modern versions are not backed by a king and nation like the KJV was. Translation projects cost millions and they need to recoup. As far as rampant marketing goes, that's America !!!!! Copyrights are there to protect the work done. They spent years and decades working on them, they need protection for their that. Last I looked the KJV cost just the same as an NIV from the same publisher.

Remember what happened to the first printings of the KJV, total nightmare that didnt get fixed for over a century and that still resulted in at least 3 text lines. We cant have that happening again can we. But then again the English Crown still holds the copyright to the KJV, us pesky Americans just "pirated" it anyhow for our own usage.

Thats about as much as I can make sense of in your post.

 

First, you grossly overstate this position. I don't know of anyone that completely defers in each and every case to the oldest manuscript as being the 'best' witness. What is generally accepted is that the older MSS tend to show less evidence of conflation; and what is also widely acknowledged is that all MSS have problems and therefore no one MSS can be followed blindly.

Second, there are practical reasons to include these texts even if the publisher's opinion is that they are not original apostolic writings. For example, it allows the reader to follow along among a Bible study group with mixed versions.

Third, to insist that that MVs must do this would be a double standard since those that are KJV/TR advocates often claim that the majority evidence from the manuscripts ought to be followed (but then we know the KJV does NOT always adhere to the majority readings as found in Greek MSS; also the KJV includes a verse in Joshua that is lacking in the 'best' Masoretic Text).

 

You apparently misunderstand the canon. The canon of textual criticism in view is that the oldest is more likely to be accurate, all other things being equal.

So it is not a hard and fast rule that is applied 100% of the time. It never has been.

I would encourage you to do more study to find out what the principles of TC actually are and how they apply. That will help you to avoid this kind of mistake.

 

"You don't trust the Oldest mss, p 66 there, then why do you or MV claim that the Oldest is the Best as you don't trust the Oldest mss P66 in this case?
Reply With Quote"


You left out my next sentence saying the experts can. Quit taking things out of context. TYPICAL KJVO NONSENSE.

I didnt say I didnt trust it. I said I cant read it well.

 

"Can we or should we trust such people… that do not behave as they believe?"

Lets be honest here,
We have God’s word as it has been faithfully passed down through the ages.

From the earliest times those who were skilled in translating God’s word were confronted with differences among hand-written manuscripts.
Decisions had to be made regarding which of the differences were original.

Textual Criticism is the practice of attempting to determine this original text.

These decisions were often hidden in older version like the Authorized Version.
Were they afraid that people might realize there were differences?
It is the modern practice to show some of these decisions to the reader.

Part of the process of determining what the original text was involves weighing the reliability of the manuscripts being examined.

Part of the process of weighing the reliability involves determining the age of a manuscript.

You see,
When you wonder why there is an inconsistency among the modern version translators regarding the principle ‘older is better’, you are looking at only one small part of the decision-making process.

Rob

 

What exception? There is no exception. It is a statement of likelihood, or probability.

I haven't studied those in depth so I don't have a firm conclusion.

I do make mistakes. I just don't make them about what this canon of textual criticism actually proposes.

They behaved just as they claim. They weigh the evidence that God has preserved for us and try to make a decision on it, just like everyone else does in one way or another.

For most, probably both. These two things are not enemies. They are friends.

 

This thread is not worth the effort it would take to compose a response.

Ed

 

Jerome apparently believed the long ending of Mark was not original but included it in his revision of the Bible. Perhaps modern editors are simply following a very old editorial practice?

 

I wonder if no other translations had been done after the Geneva Bible until recently when the internet and the Baptist forum came into being. 50 years have passed and a new translation has come out It's called the King James Version. People needed a newer translation because language changes over time and 50 years have passed!

Now I wonder how these discussions would be going ?

 

Why don't you get out your textual commentary and read why they did it? They explain it there. Surely you have a textual commentary since you are so opinionated about it. Surely you haven't come to these firm conclusions without benefits of studying the facts and the methodology.

Sure they can. But as I have pointed out, textual criticism is not a rigid thing, where the same principle is followed in every case. There are canons of textual criticism that are taken together to render a decision.

I would encourage you to study the issue some and it will help you to understand why these choices are made.

 

No, not at all.

It depends on the situation. The entire issue is looked at, not just the age of the manuscript. There is much more to it than that.

You are assuming a lot here with no evidence.

Of course not, because then you might realize that you are wrong.

I have answered them.

What?