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

[Eliyahu]

Often I have noticed MV's defenders claim that the Oldest Mss, text, codex are the Best.

Then why don't they omit Mark's Longer Ending ( Mark 16:9-20) and Pericope Adulturae ( John 7:53-8:11) ?

1. Apparently the Oldest Codex Vaticanus B doesn't have Mark 16:9-20. Then why do MV's still keep them in the Bible even if they are in the bracket?

By inserting in the Bible what is not the Bible, they are violating the commandment of God.
When they debate about it, even if 617 mss has the Mark's Longer Ending, they vehemently defend B and Aleph which don't have the Longer Ending.

Then why don't the MV's clearly remove them from the Bible, so that they may be more faithful to their God and with their own belief?

2. As for John 7:53-8:11, why don't MV's eliminate the verses completely?

3. Why don't they follow the Oldest mss P66 in John 7:39 by omitting " Holy" there?

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

Are they afraid that the people may realize their omissions ( Deceptions!) and would not buy their Bibles?

Are they afraid about their business so much when they remove Mark's Longer Ending and Adulterous Woman story?

Why do they betray their own belief for the Business?

Why are they not bold enough to tell the people what they believe?

Why do they "corrupt" their " holy" Bible by inserting what they believe are not the part of the genuine Bible?

Can we or should we trust such people and such translations who do not behave as they believe?

Why do they betray their own belief? for the business? for their convenience?

Many other phrases or words which are controversial are omitted completely without bracket. Is it because such omissions cannot be detected by the common readers, but the big ones like the above mentioned ones are easy to find and therefore it is difficult for them to deceive the readers?

Is it a kind of Deception Technology?

 

[Tater77]

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.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Often I have noticed MV's defenders claim that the Oldest Mss, text, codex are the Best.

Then why don't they omit Mark's Longer Ending ( Mark 16:9-20) and Pericope Adulturae ( John 7:53-8:11)? ...

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).

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

In your logic, they are not sure but they fight against it when they argue with KJV, right? They don't know what to do there!

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.

Then why don't they delete it from Gospel John? Why don't they behave as per their belief?

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.

You better read the preface of Majority Text by Art Farstad and Zane Hodges. There is no doubt that the passage was written by John.
But if they believe that ths passage is not the part of the genuine Bible, why don't they delete it? If they are not sure about it, then why do they argue against KJV?
They are working on the double standard.

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.

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?

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

The main point is that MV's claim something, then they don't keep that principle or argument in reality, which I illustrated above. Therefore, can we discard or ignore the claim that the Oldest is the Best?

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.

Practical reason for the Business ! that's what I was talking about ! Let's run the Business by adding the story into the Bible which is not genuine part of the Bible! Right? Hiow can we trust such people?

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).

I am talking about the Oldest the Best, and KJV didn't claim that it is based on the Majority. Moreover I don't claim the Inerrancy of KJV either.
Again I don't argue whether the Principle, the Oldest the Best, is wrong or not, but what I argue here is why MV's do not behave as per their Belief or as per their claim even if they can do ?

John 7:39 is a small thing, but more than 900 mss support " Holy Spirit" including the Oldest mss p66, while only Aleph and Alexandrinus omit "holy"
, even Vaticanus B has " hagion dedomenon" ( even though it is funny, it has Holy there!)
Why do they follow neither the Oldest nor the absolute majority( more than 99% in this case) ?

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[Eliyahu]

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, do you admit the exception?
Do you think Mark's longer ending is the part of the Bible? Yes or No?

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.

Even if no one can say the rule 100% applicable to all theverses, for 3 passages that I mentioned, what is your opinion?

Is Mark's longer ending the Bible? Simply Yes or No please.
What about Pericope Adulturae, is it the part of the Bible?
What about John 7:39?

If you don't make mistakes, please let me know your clear opnion about those, and please explain why MV's do not behave as per they claim!

Are they proclaiming the Words of God or just continuously researching?

 

[Tater77]

"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.

 

[Deacon]

"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

 

[Pastor Larry]

So, do you admit the exception?

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

Even if no one can say the rule 100% applicable to all theverses, for 3 passages that I mentioned, what is your opinion?

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

If you don't make mistakes

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

please let me know your clear opnion about those, and please explain why MV's do not behave as per they claim!

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.

Are they proclaiming the Words of God or just continuously researching?

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

 

[EdSutton]

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

Ed

 

[jonathan.borland]

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?

 

[Eliyahu]

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?

Are they playing a game with the Bible?
If there was No Longer Ending, shouldn't they have omitted it from the Bible? Why do they add " what is not the Bible" unto the Bible?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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 ?

 

[Eliyahu]

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 ?

I agree with your point. We must admit that our generation is lazy.
I wish we can have an English Bible which is as much colloquial as HCSB, but has the same contents as KJV, with some minor corrections such as what I pointed out about Mark 2:26.

However, in this discussion, I am asking about why MV's do not follow their principle, the Oldest the Best, in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, as they insist on John 1:18 despite the hundreds of mss supporting KJV.

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

There is a thread about John 1:18.

Can you explain why MV's stick to the minority texts in John 1:18, while they still keep Mark's longer ending in their Bible which is not in the minority texts?

Can they not follow the Oldest mss in Mark 16:9-20 as they do in John 1:18?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Can you explain why MV's stick to the minority texts in John 1:18, while they still keep Mark's longer ending in their Bible which is not in the minority texts?

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.

Can they not follow the Oldest mss in Mark 16:9-20 as they do in John 1:18?

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.

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

I know some of their excuses here and there, but they are all the time slick and tricky to escape the impasse in the logical debate.

You are saying the flexibility of the principle, then when do they apply the principle and when don't they? It is the matter of all human business, using the Word of God, right?

I know that they didn't delete the paragraph of many verses, because they don't want to be detected by the readers, as revealing that they omit the Words of God too much. In other spots, they can successfully deceive the readers even if they delete some of the words, or change the words a little here and there.

I don't want to waste much time for studying their paradoxes and stubborn favoritism for the Roman Catholic Texts.

If they are sincere, it is very easy for anyone to answer those questions raised in this thread.

If MV's are sure and convinced that Mark's Longer Ending and Pericope Adulturae are not the parts of the genuine Bible, they should have deleted them all. Otherwise, they should be quiet.

Their conscience must have told them that they are the True Words of God, but their continuous argument was presented just to reject the Words of God, which is a rebellion against God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know some of their excuses here and there, but they are all the time slick and tricky to escape the impasse in the logical debate.

No, not at all.

You are saying the flexibility of the principle, then when do they apply the principle and when don't they?

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.

I know that they didn't delete the paragraph of many verses, because they don't want to be detected by the readers, as revealing that they omit the Words of God too much. In other spots, they can successfully deceive the readers even if they delete some of the words, or change the words a little here and there.

You are assuming a lot here with no evidence.

I don't want to waste much time for studying their paradoxes and stubborn favoritism for the Roman Catholic Texts.

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

If they are sincere, it is very easy for anyone to answer those questions raised in this thread.

I have answered them.

Their conscience must have told them that they are the True Words of God, but their continuous argument was presented just to reject the Words of God, which is a rebellion against God.

What?

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

Again, Human decisions are maded, depending on the situation, and they change the theory from time to time.

So, what is your conviction about those 2 paragraphs? Do they have to be in the Bible? or they should not be there in the Bible?

How do you teach the people? What does the Holy Spirit in you teach you?