One of the big controversies in Bible translation involves the Greek and Hebrew texts. There are two large compilations. What is the difference? Simply put, one group has more manuscripts, the other older manuscripts. Advocates of the first group have a kind of “majority rules” attitude. In fact they call it the Majority Text. The second group feels that the older the document, the closer to the original, thus the more accurate.
People who go with the greatest number say that the oldest manuscripts all come from Egypt, an area full of heresy and compromise. They say that if it is wrong, it doesn’t matter how old it is, it is still wrong
The non-scholar needs to understand we are not talking about major, faith breaking, theology changing differences. We are talking about spelling differences, a different ending to the Gospel of Mark, verses left out of some manuscripts. They are small differences but if this is the Word of God, you want accuracy. Christians believe that the original documents were infallible but we can’t seem to agree on what the first copies said. This is the goal of both sides of the argument. The disagreement is on method and priority not ultimate goal.
I tend to come down on the side of the oldest manuscripts. I am not impressed by the number of copies. A good illustration that modern techies might understand is the memes that appear on the internet. You hear some great rumors. If you Google it you might come up with a million hits. If you know nothing about the internet you might be impressed but if you do a little work you will find that they all go back to one blog that made the whole thing up. Many copies of an inaccurate original does not make for accuracy.
So I will go with the oldest. They had less time to be changed. I think they are the most accurate.
To be continued...
homo unius libri
I've often wondered, too, if the last "page" was lost. I DO think it's interesting, though, that the only place in the Bible that seems to actually say that Jesus arose on Sunday is in a scripture some say was added after the fact.
ReplyDeleteI remember listening to a pod-cast that was dealing with that. They seemed to be saying that some "scholars" are saying that the crucifixion or resurrection needed to be moved in order to provide for the "three days." Since it is not an issue I didn't do any research on it.
ReplyDeleteTaking a quick look, you are referring to Mark 16:9 which is in the questioned section but it is not the only place. Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2 (not in the questioned section), Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 all refer to the first day. It is hard to believe that it was added "after the fact" in all four gospels.
Grace and peace.