# "The best and earliest manuscripts?"



## Romans830 (Mar 30, 2021)

Question for any NT TC Professors here or any with good knowledge of the subject:

What does it mean that the Codex Vac and Sin are the best manuscripts over against the MJ of mss which modern bibles essentially claim?
or what makes the CT(NA/UBS) better than Maurice Robinson's greek new testament?

Thanks!


----------



## Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)



Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Logan (Mar 31, 2021)

I have great respect for Robinson's approach. I think it is very careful and reasoned. It recognizes problems with the textual evidence for some readings in the TR, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater in rejecting the vast majority of well-used and attested manuscripts. It errs on the side of caution.

I think Robinson is right that the approach in the CT, while rigorous, can end up with a Frankenstein reading, where multiple readings are combined such that there is no known natural way of transmission in which they could have arisen. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are important but they don't always even agree with each other and shouldn't be weighted too strongly.

The TR has the problem that one must, at least at some readings, give up on trying to point at manuscript evidence and just take it on faith. It is inconsistent to claim manuscript evidence in support of some sections and excuse the lack of evidence in others. If it's going to be an a priori conclusion that the TR is correct, then it's a faith statement (nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it's not consistently manuscript-based).

So I think Robinson's is a very balanced approach that I wish would gain more traction, but also point out that I truly do not have a problem using a Bible translated from any of those textual bases: the differences are providentially very minor and textual criticism is hard. The transmission of the biblical text is messier than we'd like.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Logan said:


> I have great respect for Robinson's approach. I think it is very careful and reasoned. It recognizes problems with the textual evidence for some readings in the TR, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater in rejecting the vast majority of well-used and attested manuscripts. It errs on the side of caution.
> 
> I think Robinson is right that the approach in the CT, while rigorous, can end up with a Frankenstein reading, where multiple readings are combined such that there is no known natural way of transmission in which they could have arisen. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are important but they don't always even agree with each other and shouldn't be weighted too strongly.
> 
> ...


I would love to see of one the major bible publishers finally get behind a translation based on robinson's work or the Majority Text. It seems that they are convinced that the CT is the best text. There are very good arguments for including many of the verses or passages they reject or claim may not be original. I'm sure the debate will never over. But I think that they should at least clarify their footnotes or have an addendum explaining what they mean by "the earliest and best manuscripts" In not doing that, they cause much confusion and place doubts in the lay person's heart.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Question for any NT TC Professors here or any with good knowledge of the subject:
> 
> What does it mean that the Codex Vac and Sin are the best manuscripts over against the MJ of mss which modern bibles essentially claim?
> or what makes the CT(NA/UBS) better than Maurice Robinson's greek new testament?
> ...



The argument is that the manuscripts are the earliest and the best because they are of better _quality_ than later manuscripts. Obviously, if you do not agree that these manuscripts are the best, you will dissent from that conclusion.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The argument is that the manuscripts are the earliest and the best because they are of better _quality_ than later manuscripts. Obviously, if you do not agree that these manuscripts are the best, you will dissent from that conclusion.


That doesn't explain anything for me....ha. better quality how? Ha.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> That doesn't explain anything for me....ha. better quality how? Ha.



They are presumed to be of better quality than later manuscripts because they are closer to the original autographs.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> That doesn't explain anything for me....ha. better quality how? Ha.



This is off-topic, but what is your name so that we may address you properly?

I am sure your parents didn't name you "Romans830" at birth as your signature applies.

Also, am I reading your church affiliation correctly, non-denominational Reformed Baptist?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> They are presumed to be of better quality than later manuscripts because they are closer to the original autographs.


Just curious, what side you on?


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> This is off-topic, but what is your name so that we may address you properly?
> 
> I am sure your parents didn't name you "Romans830" at birth as your signature applies.
> 
> Also, am I reading your church affiliation correctly, non-denominational Reformed Baptist?


Well that's what I am going by. I'm not interested in sharing my name.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Well that's what I am going by. I'm not interested in sharing my name.


Have you read the signature rules for this forum?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Just curious, what side you on?



The side of objectivity. I do not have any firm opinions on textual criticism - other than going where the evidence leads me.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> They are presumed to be of better quality than later manuscripts because they are closer to the original
> 
> 
> Regi Addictissimus said:
> ...


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

I am just asking out of curiosity.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The side of objectivity. I do not have any firm opinions on textual criticism - other than going where the evidence le
> 
> 
> Regi Addictissimus said:
> ...


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus.

You may carry on with the discussion at hand. My apologies for momentarily derailing the discussion.

I just thought it would be helpful to make known your name so that people can properly address you while dialoguing with you on matters of theology. It doesn't seem that you agree. So be it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The side of objectivity. I do not have any firm opinions on textual criticism - other than going where the evidence leads me.


Ok, What side is the objective one then? 
You think Mark 16:9-20 and the pericope are original or not?


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Regi Addictissimus.
> 
> You may carry on with the discussion at hand.
> 
> I just thought it would be helpful to make it know your name so that people can properly address you while dialoguing with you on matters of theology. It doesn't seem that you agree. So be it.


And Mine is Romans830...ha


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> And Mine is Romans830...ha


Right. How silly of me.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Right. How silly of me.


Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all


It is clearly stated in my signature; my name is Robert.

As I said, carry on with your discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Ok, What side is the objective one then?
> You think Mark 16:9-20 and the pericope are original or not?



I am not getting drawn into this discussion. You asked, "What does earliest and best mean?" I gave you an objective answer as to what the intent of such a statement is. You did not like the answer and thus moved the goalposts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Right. How silly of me.


Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am not getting drawn into this discussion. You asked, "What does earliest and best mean?" I gave you an objective answer as to what the intent of such a statement is. You did not like the answer and thus moved the goalposts.


Not sure why you arguing for a side that you don't seem to be on. The statement you gave is circular and honestly doesn't answer anything.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all.



He's basically wearing an electronic nametag. His name is right there in his signature line.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all.
> 
> Not sure why you arguing for a side that you don't seem to be on. The statement you gave is circular and honestly doesn't answer anything.



You are behaving like a child. Robert's name is clearly stated in his signature. Yours, by way of contrast, is not. I am telling you what the objective definition of a statement is. One does not have to agree with it or like it to understand it. I am not arguing for or against anything, just stating an objective fact.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> He's basically wearing an electronic nametag. His name is right there in his signature line.


This is not a thread about our names.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You are behaving like a child. Robert's name is clearly stated in his signature. Yours, by way of contrast, is not. I am telling you what the objective definition of a statement is. One does not have to agree with it or like it to understand it. I am not arguing for or against anything, just stating an objective fact.


Sure.....


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> This is not a thread about our names.



It was important enough for you to complain about it twice, so I figured I'd let you know. 

As for me, I don't care what your name is. But his name is Robert. It's in his signature. Because, you know, you complained about it twice.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2021)

What are you after here? @Reformed Covenanter answered your question quite directly. You asked:



Romans830 said:


> What does it mean that the Codex Vac and Sin are the best manuscripts over against the MJ of mss which modern bibles essentially claim?



This is a question asking about _the perspective of those who hold to Critical Text position_, which is the what Daniel gave you when he said:



Reformed Covenanter said:


> The argument is that the manuscripts are the earliest and the best because they are of better _quality_ than later manuscripts. Obviously, if you do not agree that these manuscripts are the best, you will dissent from that conclusion.



If you're wanting to debate text-critical issues, then you need to make that clear. The OP made it seem like you were just asking for an explanation of the CT position, which is exactly what was given in response.

And regarding this names thing, what are you even doing? Robert asked you for your name so he could address you. You refused, which is in direct violation of the board rules here (which is why he asked if you had read them). Now you're getting all snarky with veteran members here. You've been here for four days, and you aren't making the best entrance.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Doesn't say you have to use your real name.


It asks for a first name or a nickname. In other words, please give a/the name you are called in real life. I don't believe people in your life address you in person as "Romans830." I understand if your concern is about security. I recently removed my full name from everything here. Now my signature is bare-bones. But, despite all this, a brother was asking for a name by which to address you properly, a request which, given the board rules and the nature of this board in particular, is _entirely_ reasonable, even respectful. Yet somehow this has become a "thing," utterly destroying any usefulness this thread had to offer.

Anyway, I'm not a moderator. I'll let them deal with it if they see fit.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Ok....I read the signature rules. Doesn't say you have to use your real name. What's the point of a user name if those are the rules.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Taylor said:


> It asks for a first name or a nickname. In other words, please give a/the name you are called in real life. I don't believe people in your life address you in person as "Romans830." I understand if your concern is about security. I recently removed my full name from everything here. Now my signature is bare-bones. But, despite all this, a brother was asking for a name by which to address you properly, a request which, given the board rules and the nature of this board in particular, is _entirely_ reasonable, even respectful. Yet somehow this has become a "thing," utterly destroying any usefulness this thread had to offer.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not a moderator. I'll let them deal with it if they see fit.


So your violating the rules but yet calling me out on it.....ha.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> So your violating the rules but yet calling me out on it.....ha.


Brother (or sister, I have no idea), you need to stop.

These is the required format for signatures:

_First Name (or nickname)
Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
Denominational Affiliation
State of Residence_

This is my signature:

_Taylor _(my first name)
[I do not hold church office.]
_OPC _(my denominational affiliation)
_Georgia _(my state of residence)


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Brother (or sister, I have no idea), you need to stop.
> 
> These is the required format for signatures:
> 
> ...





Taylor said:


> Brother (or sister, I have no idea), you need to stop.
> 
> These is the required format for signatures:
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's how my signature looks. But according to you romans830 can't be a nick name. Not my problem. I'm following the rules.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Ok....I read the signature rules. Doesn't say you have to use your real name. What's the point of a user name if those are the rules.



Basic human communication. Your username gives the impression that we are talking to a robot.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Yeah, that's how my signature looks. But according to you romans830 can't be a nick name. Not my problem. I'm following the rules.


@Romans830, please read: “The profile section of your user control panel contains information that must be filled out so that other users of the board can know who you are as a poster on the Board. Screen names are great, but they are confusing and we would like to have the proper information on each member. After all, we are trying to foster a community of Christians who encourage, pray for and help each other.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 31, 2021)

It is incredible how a simple, everyday question can lead to such abrasiveness and confusion. I was not trying to throw a grenade into the discussion at hand—what a curious situation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Yeah, that's how my signature looks. But according to you romans830 can't be a nick name. Not my problem. I'm following the rules.



I don't know, "Romans830" works great as a handle on a Christian message board, but as a nickname? I am not buying it.

"Hey guys, let's go to the lake this weekend! I'll call up Bill, Joe, Mike, Shooter, Lefty, CJ, TJ, Sparky, The Dude, and Romans830 and get this rolling!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Romans830, please read: “The profile section of your user control panel contains information that must be filled out so that other users of the board can know who you are as a poster on the Board. Screen names are great, but they are confusing and we would like to have the proper information on each member. After all, we are trying to foster a community of Christians who encourage, pray for and help each other.”


Hi Jeri, thanks for letting me know. 
But I will continue to use romans 830 as my nickname. It's that's not acceptable feel free to give me one or maybe Regi can give me one


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> It is incredible how a simple, everyday question can lead to such abrasiveness and confusion. I was not trying to throw a grenade into the discussion at hand—what a curious situation.


Regi


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Hi Jeri, thanks for letting me know.
> But I will continue to use romans 830 as my nickname. It's that's not acceptable feel free to give me one or maybe Regi can give me one


I’m not really sure so have posted the question to the other moderators and admins. Someone will get back with you about it.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I don't know, "Romans830" works great as a handle on a Christian message board, but as a nickname? I am not buying it.
> 
> "Hey guys, let's go to the lake this weekend! I'll call up Bill, Joe, Mike, Shooter, Lefty, CJ, TJ, Sparky, The Dude, and Romans830 and get this rolling!"


I'm following the rules.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m not really sure so have posted the question to the other moderators and admins. Someone will get back with you about it.


Thanks.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> I'm following the rules.



I don't care. I think the whole thing is funny.


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I don't care. I think the whole thing is funny.


I think it's funny too that Regi started this whole mess...ha


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> I think it's funny too that Regi started this whole mess...ha



Doing something completely normal and 100% within the usual cultural bounds of this Board like asking a person their name doesn't really count as "starting a whole mess", IMNSHO.


----------



## Logan (Mar 31, 2021)

Despite what seems to be an absolutely pointless back and forth, I will point out (as have others) that Robert does not have "Regi" in his signature line, but very clearly has "Robert". That is a name or a nickname. The Signature Rules (linked at the bottom of every page) specify the following _with examples, _and even call out "screen names" as being excluded.



> All members of the Puritanboard must have a minimal "signature" in their User Control Panel that includes the following items:
> 
> First Name (or nickname)
> Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
> ...





> John
> PCA
> Des Moines, Iowa



I have never heard of anyone insisting that a forum user name is a nickname. There is no known definition that would support that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

Logan said:


> Despite what seems to be an absolutely pointless back and forth, I will point out (as have others) that Robert does not have "Regi" in his signature line, but very clearly has "Robert". That is a name or a nickname. The Signature Rules (linked at the bottom of every page) specify the following _with examples, _and even call out "screen names" as being excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I asked him for his name and he said Regi


----------



## Romans830 (Mar 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Doing something completely normal and 100% within the usual cultural bounds of this Board like asking a person their name doesn't really count as "starting a whole mess", IMNSHO.


I'm not required to share my real name like the signature statement says. You don't have a problem with me but the rules.


----------



## JH (Mar 31, 2021)

Maybe since this thread has been derailed with an entire page of back and forth, we should restart this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 31, 2021)

I will close the thread for further moderator review.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 31, 2021)

Romans830, you are required to put at least your first real name in your signature. Your last name may be withheld if you are a missionary working in a sensitive area, or for a few other case by case bases. Your handle is not your nickname. And yes, you are not behaving in a mature manner.

Reactions: Like 8


----------

