Newer and More Questionable "Older and Better Manuscripts" I read in my Bible margins for many years, and never questioned even once, that if even the margin notes said that "older and better" manuscripts read a certain way, then they must be correct. Through study, one discovers quickly that what modern Bible note writers call "older and better", may in fact be older and in tact because they were never used, and far worse, because they came from unreliable origins. [not 'origens', though I was tempted] The "Older and Better" manuscripts, were not the manuscripts that the Bible was based upon at all, but manuscripts 'found' under 'unusual circumstances' many years later. The issue of the "King James Controversy" is not so much of which translation is best or easiest to read, it is a controversy over WHAT IS BEING TRANSLATED! In the mid 1800s , an antiquities dealer by the name of Tischendorf made several forays into the mid-east. While several of his journeys turned up little, or only minor documents, repeat visits yielded what was to become the textual foundation of the modernized bible translations. The 'finds' around that time are what many bible notes refer to as "the best and oldest " manuscripts, but the real criteria for their selection was that they were the largest intact collations , and they were the 'newest' 'find'. Hardly a criteria for the 'best' manuscripts, there were several serious problems with the texts that are rarely mentioned in modern scholarship, mostly because many who teach Theology, Greek and Hebrew have been trained by those influenced by text criticism which considers the manuscripts oldest and best.note Among the problems noted by scholars with the manuscripts that were found were: PROBLEMS WITH THE "OLDER & BETTER" MANUSCRIPTS Two were missing the entire Book of Revelation All three were found in unusual circumstances: one in a trash pile in Mt. Athos at the Monastery, one near Alexandria in a Geniza or room in a Synagogue for the destruction of errored or worn sacred texts, and the other also in less-than perfect surroundings. The Sinaiticus was thought to have been discarded because approximately 1/3 of it appeared to have been scribed by an incompetent scribe. It included mis-spellings, strike-throughs and evidence of other serious syntax/grammatical errors. One of the manuscripts, the Vaticanus, is not allowed to be seen outside the vatican. Only photostat copies are made available to non-Catholic Scholars. The Sinaiticus was only found after repeated visits to St. Katherine's Abbey, after Tischendorf was told several times, nothing of the sort existed. ON the last occasion he offered to pay a great deal of money. On the next journey, the 'oldest and best' manuscript appeared. At the time, a forger of antiquities, arose, claiming that the Tischendorf documents were works of his, his claims were dismissed and never investigated, and he died shortly afterwards. The claim that the new bibles are based upon "oldest" is not just a judgment call, it is error. The earliest piece of manuscript evidence, called papyrii 6(x) from the Gospel of John matches the wording of the A.V. 1611 KJV ; not the new translations. Over 5000 pieces of manuscript evidence, lectionaries, hymnals, bibles, scrolls, letters/epistles and so on were collated in the collection made by Erasmus,[Textus Receptus, or Received Text] only 20% was included in the Westcott-Hort translations which lead to the Nestle-Aland Greek. The Alexandrian text, found in a Geniza near Alexandria, set for destruction came from an area influenced greatly by an admixture of the original Gospel relayed by the apostles and those of both hellenistic and egyptian secularism: the great University/Library of Alexandria was there: the Gospel translations from there became mixed with Gnostic thinking and myth and corrupted. It is thought with much evidence, that the Bibles Eusebius had made for Constantine came from this direction. There were many omissions and incorrect readings in the three; the omissions have carried over into new translations. (See "A Rose by Any Other Name" While for centuries, the "Catholic" transmission of the Bible: the Vulgate and so forth off these "Alexandrian texts" influenced the catholic tradition of translation, the original manuscripts and evidence continued through a different line. Erasmus became aware of the different line after reading notes from a Waldensian scholar. The Waldensians and Albigenses, both considered heretical by the Catholics, had through great carefulness preserved the original line of the received text. Between these and many other very technical problems, it is a surprize that the three: Alexandrian, Vaticanus and Sinaticus were ever even considered. Instead they became the basis for most new Bible translations. KJV TOPIC SELECTION II. THE TRANSMISSION OF TWO BIBLES III.IS THE BIBLE FOR THE COMMON MAN? SOLA SCRIPTURA VS RATIONALE IV. TISCHENDORF AND THE "OLDEST AND MOST RELIABLE" SOURCES:CREDIBILITY V. THE GREEK AND THE HEBREW VI. THE VATICAN AND THE SCRIPTURES VII. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIBLES"A Rose By Any Other Name...? VIII. WESTCOTT, HORT, & BURGON: UNHOLY OR HOLY HANDS ON THE BIBLE? IX.DID GOD KEEP HIS WORD? THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY & PRESERVATION X. COMMON ARGUMENTS: EASIER TO READ?

Previous Study

Next Study

---

Footnote

^noteScholars, while usually more knowledgeable about their fields than any others, often have one flaw: they are often trained intensively in a mode of thinking about their area, with many points of view, and are often even at the graduate level only occasionally exposed to source documents. It is often these source document that are the key to the truth about a controversy. It is very hard to present source information when it flies in the face of the way 'everyone in the field' sees a certain issue. This is most likely what has happened in text criticism. In psychology, it is the difference between reading "Maslow" and reading about what he said. The two are often very different. In Seminaries, the 'tradition' of Older & Better is so entrenched as to be unquestionable. No idea in academia should be off limits to discussion and discernment. eb.