"The best and earliest manuscripts?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
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!
 

Logan

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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

Cancelled Commissioner
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!

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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
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?
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Completely sold out to the King
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.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
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
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
Right. How silly of me.
Well, you want mine name but you won't give yours. Not fair at all.
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.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
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.....
 

Taylor

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

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:

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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top