Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
In any case, my initial reaction to words that were not in use until 200 years later is to consider what older writings were “updated” just like we update our translations today. I can hear the arguments about not finding copies with alternate wordings. But I thought there were some alternate wordings in many of the various manuscripts ─ but all with a consistent meaning.
|
I have collated dozens of greek new testament manuscripts for the International Greek New Testament Project. Although I have handled manuscripts from the second century A.D., my assignment was with the minuscule manuscripts [that is to say, manuscripts written in cursive], dating from the 8th century to the the 14th.
I found that nearly
every manuscript I collated contains literally dozens of alternate wordings
per chapter! Yet I never found even one variant that significantly changed the meaning of a text.
For example, a verse might read, "Then Jesus and his disciples went into the city." The variants might look something like this:
Then Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
And Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Now Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Then the Lord Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Then the Lord and his disciples went into the city.
Then Jesus and his disciples were going into the city.
Then Jesus with his disciples went into the city.
Then Jesus went into the city and his disciples with him.
Into the city Jesus and his disciples went.
Into the city the Lord Jesus and his disciples went.
Into the city the Lord and his disciples went.
None of these variants offer any change in meaning. I came to feel that the New Testament, rather than being written in stone, with guaranteed word for word accuracy like the Old Testament, is more like one of those 1920's Keystone Cops movies with jerky actions yet a clear delineation of the scene.