Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins  With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is not even remotely a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore. | In this thread: Do textual variants give us confidence? Mr. Rafalsky posted the following from an article titled "REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" by David Cloud: Quote:
THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT
TRANSLATORS
Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the
manuscript from the Vatican called Codex B, the manuscript most preferred
by Westcott and Hort and the English Revised translation committee. Yet
this manuscript was rejected as corrupt by the Bible publishers of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Consider the following quotation from Benjamin Wilkinson, author of Our
Authorized Bible Vindicated:
"The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the
Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James,
but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the
Vaticanus has been printed since 1587. The third great edition is that
commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope
Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ...
The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the
LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64).
"We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of
the Bible, p. 84).
"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome,
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).
"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).
"Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican
Manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that
the Received Text was correct. ...
"We have already given authorities to show that the Sinaitic Manuscript is
a brother of the Vaticanus. Practically all of the problems of any serious
nature which are presented by the Sinaitic, are the problems of the
Vaticanus. Therefore the [editors of the 1500s and the] translators of 1611
had available all the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected
them.
"The following words from Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia,
will support the conclusion that the translators of the King James knew the
readings of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D, where they differed from the
Received Text and denounced them. Bishop Kenrick published an English
translation of the Catholic Bible in 1849. I quote from the preface:
"`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and
Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the
Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as
a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were
generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a
mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).
"In other words, the readings of these much boasted manuscripts, recently
made available, are [largely] those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of
these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. ...
"On the other hand, if more manuscripts have been made accessible since
1611, little use has been made of what we had before and of the majority of
those made available since. The Revisers systematically ignored the whole
world of manuscripts and relied practically on only three or four. As Dean
Burgon says, "But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which
has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic
libraries from which they were obtained."
"We feel, therefore, that a mistaken picture of the case has been presented
with reference to the material at the disposition of the translators of
1611 and concerning their ability to use that material." <Benjamin G.
Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.>
To this testimony I add one more quote:
"In the margin of this edition [his fourth] Stephanus entered variant
readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one
of which is thought to have been Codex D." If this was not actually Codex
D, at the very least it was another one of that small family of manuscripts
which presents a similar reading that contradicts the majority text."
<Hills, p. 204.>
ERASMUS KNEW OF THE VARIANT READINGS PREFERRED BY MODERN TRANSLATORS
The notes which Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament
prove that he was completely informed of the variant readings which have
found their way into the modern translations since 1881.
Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts
translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to
the variant readings in other ways.
"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the
angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in
adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)."
<Hills, pp. 198-199.>
| |