Newer Manuscripts Contain More Errors

Very wise indeed I must say.

 

This is a very wise statement with which I'm inclined to agree.

 

I was just reading today and noticed a number of places where the earliest manuscript available (in this case p45) agrees with the newer copies against the older manuscripts generally considered the best. Here is a sample:

#1: Mark 7:30:
(p45 with most newer copies)
". . . he found the demon cast out and the daughter lying on the bed."

(against Aleph & B)
". . . he found the child lying on the bed and the demon cast out."

#2: Mark 7:31:
(p45 with most newer copies)
"And again when he had come out of the territories of Tyre and Sidon he went to the Sea of Galilee . . ."

(against Aleph, B, D)
"And again when he had come out of the territories of Tyre he went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee . . ."

#3: Mark 7:32:
(p45 with most newer copies)
"And they brought to him a deaf mute . . ."

(against Aleph, B, D, W)
"And they brought to him one who was deaf and mute . . ."

#4: Mark 7:35:
(p45 with most newer copies)
"And immediately his ears were opened . . ."

(against Aleph, B, D)
"And his ears were opened . . ."

 

This argument is sound - all sound, unfortunately, even though it "looks good" at first glance. It does pay to take a second look, you know - the "think on these things" and "Set forth your case" bits, in Biblical phraseology.

How would we know if we indeed held an actual "original" manuscript in our hand? Where is the sample of the handwriting of Moses, Ezra, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul, Luke, Peter or John, et al., with which to compare? Where is this to be found?

Or are we to depend on some "inner witness" as to the authenticity of the autographs? We have those who claim to depend on this to pick texts and versions, and not all are coming to the same conclusions in this, evne when all are claiming to rely on the witness of the spirit..

How about the notoriously unreliable 'carbon dating' technique? This may theoretically work for a 'scientific' guesstimate for thousands of years in aeons of time, but is not very accurate for a period of, say 2-300 years, I do not believe.

Incidentally, I do believe it to be incorrect for some to categorically state (from any position) that the originals no longer exist, have been lost, or have been destroyed, somehow. We simply do not know this to be fact, either, merely that we apparently have not found them, or do not have them in our hands, at this present time. In fact, the year before I was born, one could have categorically stated (and no doubt, some did exactly this) that there were no Hebrew Biblical MSS that were extant for nearly a millennium AD. However God, in His wisdom and providence, literally allowed a young Bedouin shepherd to "shatter" that myth, at Qumran, upon 'chucking' a rock into a hillside cave.

There is, to my knowledge, no record of the autographs having been "lost" or "destroyed" in the known history of the early church, even though there is also no record that the fathers of a century or so after the NT writers were able to produce any such document.

And while it is my personal opinion, that God, for His own reasons, does not intend for any autographs to be available to us, simply because we would wind up making this written word into an idol that would make 'the golden calf of Aaron' look like some child's play-toy, it is simply going way too far to categorically state that the autographs do not exist, or will never be found, IMO.

Ed

 

Uh- wouldn't p46, p66, p75, etc. and most of the other papyri (since most of these are considered the "earliest manuscripts" be the older manuscript(s) here??

As Colonel Sanders replied, when he was asked why did the chicken cross the road, "Did I miss one??"

Ed

 

Hence my very first words. 'If and until...'

 

Ed,

P46 is extant only for some of the Paul, p75 for parts of Luke and John, and p66 for parts of John alone. In the passages I pointed to, p45 is by far the oldest manuscript available, older than Codex Vaticanus (B) by at least 100 years.

In those places I pointed to, therefore, there are only two current possibilities: (a) the oldest manuscript extant in Mark 7 is in fact more corrupt than the later ones (Aleph B, etc.), or (b) the newest ones (i.e., the Byzantine "majority") are in fact more pure than many of the oldest ones like Aleph, B, etc.

All of this is enough to falsify the very logical assumption that in general there will perpetuate more errors in manuscripts most removed in time from the original manuscript than in those less removed in time from the original.

 

Here is what Philip Comfort has to say in his book :Essential Guide To Bible Versions:

In recent years, textual critics have been able to identify some of the very best manuscripts -- with rerspect to textual purity. at the top of the list is p75. It is well-known that the text produced by the scribe of p75 is very pure. The scribe was a trained professional, who made very few errors and who refrained from making intentional changes. The text of p75, when compared to other texts, is obviously superior; it represents the best of Alexanderian scribal workmanship. (pgs.84,85)

... textual critics who have worked with many actual manuscripts, collating and doing textual analysis, and who have thereby seen firsthand the kind of errors, expansions, harmonizations, and interpolations that are present in other manuscripts, are convinced that manuscripts like p75 and B [Codex Vaticanus] represent the best of textual purity. This was Westcott's and Hort's assessment of B, after twenty years of study. This was Kurt Aland's assessment of p75, after many years of study. Scores of other scholars have come to the same conclusion. (p.86)

As has been mentioned previously, on the top of the list is p75 (ca. 175-200), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is p4+p64+p67 (ca.150, the work of an excellent copyist. (p.89)

 

They may be convinced, but they cannot know unless they compare it to the originals.

They certainly make a more educated guess then I do, but it is still a guess.

 

More on p75 by Comfort

The copyist of p75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The scribe's Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the nomina sacra, as well as in his abbreviation of the word "cross." These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.
There are several indications of the scribe's alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the "result of a single force: namely the disciplined scribe who writes with the intention of being faithful and accurate. There is no evidence of revision of his work by anyone else, or in fact of any real revision, or check.... The control had been drilled into the scribe before he started writing."
[The words within the quotation marks belong to Calvin Porter's: Scribal Habits]
(72)

 

Say what????

 

You're forgiven as far as I'm concerned, Baptist4life. But I don't understand why you were trying to "get back at Keith." What did I do to you to make you want to get back at me?

 

Since basically all manuscripts of the NT use the nomina sacra abbreviations, is Porter saying that all scribes were therefore Christians? How can one prove such a claim? What if a non-Christian scribe was simply making a copy of a manuscript that had nomina sacra?

Back to the original post, if by "more errors" is meant more changes from the original text, then C4K is right, and one cannot really know if a later manuscript has more errors than earlier ones, unless one assumes that the earliest ones are the most pure. Although a logical assumption, it is one that can be disproved easily based on comparing nothing but the manuscripts from the 2nd through the 4th centuries, and concluding (as critical editors have done), that p45 (the earliest manuscript in Mark 7:30, 31, 32, 35) is not as pure as the later manuscripts of Aleph and B.

 

There are exceptions to most rules, Jonathan. In Englsh grammar there's the "i before e except after c" rule - but the word "their" is an exception to the rule and it doesn't completely negate the general rule.

 

I'm sure you're also aware of the rule that in general the papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries have more errors than later manuscripts, especially careless omissions, the exception being that a few papyri are considered to have fewer errors than the majority of papyri from that era. That "newer manuscripts have more errors than older manuscripts" is an unverifiable assumption.

 

Based on the statement "older manuscripts are more reliable", why did God allow these manuscripts to be tossed aside for nearly 2000 years? Why did God allow the "inferior" manuscripts to be used for so long, when the "reliable" ones were there all along?

My question doesn't involve human logic, but the sovereignty of God.

 

I have often said,"It appears GOD providentially guided Tischendorf to St. Catherine's Monastery in time to save Sinaiticus from being burned, and caused the Vatican officials not to burn Vaticanus when it was given to them."

If these mss are so corrupt, why did GOD providentially preserve them?

 

I don't know. You tell me. Why did He allow them to be hidden?

Why did He allow the gnostic gospels to be found?

 

The real answer is, he didn't allow the verifiably old readings of these older manuscripts to be lost, since many newer manuscripts also contain the same readings, such as 33, 892, 1739, 1881, etc.