Manuscript evidences on the Gospel of Matthew

Which is older? MSS or TR?
The TR dates to the 1500's. The MSS predates the TR considerably.

The manuscripts do not "support" the KJV or any other translation. The KJV, Geneva, NKJV, Webster, Tyndale, and Young's Literal Translation were all translated from the TR. The ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, and Weymouth are translated from the MSS.

Some bibles, like the NIV, contain footnotes that include text documented in the TR, as well as footnotes that indicate textual differences between the MSS and TR. Arguably, this actually makes the NIV the most complete bible utilizing both sources.

[ January 08, 2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Well, the text type represented by the TR dates as early as what you are calling "The MSS." Of all the manuscript evidence, the vast majority are representative of the text type exhibited in the TR.

Well, not quite.

The ASV was translated from "The New Testament in the Original Greek" compiled by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and published by Macmillan of London in 1881.

The NASB is based on the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament.

The NIV is based on the 26th edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament.

The NRSV is based on the United Bible Societies 3rd edition (UBS 3). However, changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the 4th edition were available to the Committee.

The Weymouth Version is based on the TR.

No English bible currently in print was translated from the Greek manuscripts. All were translated from Greek texts.

 

If the "democratic" method (each manuscript or witness gets one vote) is how textual criticism should be done, then how do you explain numerous other passages where this method goes against the KJV and/or TR, like 1 John 5:7, etc?

Sorry, but neither God's word, nor his kingdom, is established by democracy.

 

The above may be an example of the "MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS" mentioned in another thread. I don't know of any defenders of the Byzantine text type who believe textual criticism is a matter of "the 'democratic' method" with "each manuscript or witness get(s)(ing) one vote."

Those who favor the Byzantine text type use different criteria (which they believe to be less biased) to evaluate the manuscript evidence from the criteria used by those who champion the critical text types.

 

The above may be an example of the "MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS" mentioned in another thread.
</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. I was not mischaracterizing any group. I was responding specifically to Askjo as an individual (who I'm not even sure is KJV-only or what), who seems to be only interested in counting "votes".

 

Did you ask him what criteria he uses to determine the preferred reading?

 

No, but apparently from his post and numerous previous similar posts, simply counting manuscripts seems to be what he is promoting - and thus what I was addressing.

 

So you are acting on your assumption of what you think he might believe based on your understanding of what he posted?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to just ask him?

Please don't think I am picking on you. I am trying to point out that we often fail to accurately communicate our beliefs, and others often fail to understand what we are trying to communicate. I have found that asking a person for a clarification is much more reasonable than making assumptions, often unwarranted, and acting on those assumptions.

I believe if we would listen to what the other side is saying, ask clarifying questions, and calmly discuss our understanding of each other's positions while avoiding the name-calling, pigeon holing, and generally lumping people together based on one tiny criteria we could probably come to a consensus on these matters. But when we adopt an adversarial stance we only invite response in kind. As my grandmother often said, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." (I have no idea why she wanted to catch flies. )

Two proverbs come to mind:

 

What is your problem? Askjo's argument was based on the number of manuscripts. I reply and say that the number of manuscripts isn't the determining factor. Simple post, simple response. There's no reason for this lovely rabbit trial of psychology and philosophy. Askjo is a big boy, if I misunderstood his argument, he could simply reply and explain how.

Too late, that's exactly what I'm thinking.

 

So far, so irrelevant. Now, what are the respective ages of the manuscripts, since that would matter?

 

Far as that goes, the Gospels disagree among themselves in all known mss:

Matthew has both thieves crucified with Jesus reviling Him. Mark has the thieves both reviling Him. John does not write what the thieves said. Luke has the one thief asking Jesus to save him.

How many women visited Jesus' tomb, and what did they do?

Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

The only one in whom the Gospels are consistent in reporting is Mary Magdalene.

These are but two examples in which the Gospels differ among themselves in every known ms and Bible translation, and these are not insignificant differences. Yet we call them all Scripture. There's no reason not to apply this same reasoning to the mss which differ among themselves. Otherwise, it's using a double standard.

 

Perhaps instead of assuming what Brian was doing, you should have gone back and looked at the persistent habit Askjo has of using this type of argument. Brian and several others have been interacting with Askjo for several months. In that time, his posts have clearly validated that Brian is correct in his assessment of Askjo's reasoning.

Isn't that pretty much what Brian did? He did make some assumptions that led to a more detailed query but those are legitimized by previous encounters.

If you take the time to look at the history of Askjo's posts, you will probably see that Brian's assumptions are warranted.

 

Like my Grandmother used to say:
"Older is Better."