Sponsor Links
| Is Older Better? A Study of Manuscripts |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by David Gaddy | |||
| Wednesday, 31 December 1969 23:59 | |||
|
"Well, ya know, some of the oldest manuscripts don't even include that verse..." Have you ever heard this statement used in discussing the scriptures? It's usually thrown out to take the wind out ...
"Well, ya know, some of the oldest manuscripts don't even include that verse..." Have you ever heard this statement used in discussing the scriptures? It's usually thrown out to take the wind out of the sails of your position based on scripture. Where's the basis for this statement and does it mean anything? To answer these questions we must look to the basis of our translations.
There are around 5000 known manuscripts of the bible available for translation usage. These manuscripts are roughly divided into two groups: The Byzantine Texts and the Alexandrian Texts. About 90% of the known manuscripts belong to the Byzantine Texts and are almost identical down to the exact lettering. The Alexandrian Texts represent the other 10% and do not totally match the manuscripts of the Byzantine Texts. Up until the late 1800s, the Byzantine Texts were used exclusively for translation purposes. So these manuscripts were the basis for the King James Version as well as the other translations of the reformation. But in the 20th century, almost every translation was taken from the Alexandrian Texts. This includes the NIV, NLT, and even the New King James version. The question is why? Well, it's an issue of date. The oldest manuscript in the Byzantine Texts dates back to around 900 AD, but the oldest manuscript of the Alexandrian Texts was discovered in 1859 and dates back to 350 AD. So the idea is that the older the manuscript the better, right? First let's look at this newly found older manuscript that is now called the Codex Sinaiticus. This manuscript was found in a monestary at the base of Mt. Sinai by a historian named Tischendorf. It was found in a burn pile used for fuel for the monks and later removed in full from the monestary. It was the find of the century, finally an older manuscript was found. However, upon close inspection of the texts there are some things to note. First, the only major manuscript that agrees in content with it is the Codex Vaticanus which is highly incomplete in that it does not contain The Revelation or the first 5 chapters of Genesis or many many other verses of scripture that are in the Byzantine Texts. In fact, the Vaticanus was around during the time of the King James translation but was not used because it was considered unreliable. Sinaiticus also contains many corrections and was obviously penned by many scribes. You might say, "well so what?" Maybe we should consider the job of a scribe to answer this. Remember that in ancient times, they had no copy machines or mimeographs. Instead they relied on scribes to maintain the integrity of the texts. A jewish scribe would begin copying a manuscript letter for letter. Hebrew letters also have a numeric value, so at the end of a page the scribe would total those numbers on both the original and on the copy. If the totals were not identical, then the entire page was destroyed (and sometimes the entire manuscript). No corrections were ever allowed and only one scribe was allowed to work on a manuscript. Is it any wonder then that the Byzantine Texts were so close to each other even after almost 900 years of copying? These rules were created for that reason! The Codex Sinaiticus may be older, but was it more accurate? It was obvious that these standard rules that scribes used were not employed in the transcribing of it. In fact, many argue that perhaps the Codex Sinaiticus was in that burn pile for a very good reason. So, when people say that some of the older manuscripts do not include that verse, then you can reply that those older manuscripts also don't include the creation or Armaggeddon. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) This implies to us that every word that God supplies to us is important. Therefore, isn't it safe to assume that you should employ a translation based on manuscripts that include every word that God supplied?
|
