09-05-2004, 07:49 AM
I was reviewing and working with the different texts last night and had this particular mistake brought back to my memory again.
In Matthew 1:18, we read how mary was betrothed to joseph, but in the next line we read:
"Now Joseph her husband,..."
This is incorrect! Mary and Joseph were not married yet!
Ok, which ones were correct in this? None, except C of the OS and the Leige manuscript. Even Mister Trimms hebrew manuscripts have the addition in it, so he cannot claim originality on his either.
Here we see again, that one has to have a discretionary an eye for this sort of work. If any group of scholars just group the manuscripts together and vote on which word should be included in what sentence, or they go with whatever is the majority text of each word, they will be wrong, dead wrong.
In the same light, is the OS without mistakes? Of course not, but they along with all the texts can be utilized together. But that method does not fit the current idea of standing by one particular language.
In Matthew 1:18, we read how mary was betrothed to joseph, but in the next line we read:
"Now Joseph her husband,..."
This is incorrect! Mary and Joseph were not married yet!
Ok, which ones were correct in this? None, except C of the OS and the Leige manuscript. Even Mister Trimms hebrew manuscripts have the addition in it, so he cannot claim originality on his either.
Here we see again, that one has to have a discretionary an eye for this sort of work. If any group of scholars just group the manuscripts together and vote on which word should be included in what sentence, or they go with whatever is the majority text of each word, they will be wrong, dead wrong.
In the same light, is the OS without mistakes? Of course not, but they along with all the texts can be utilized together. But that method does not fit the current idea of standing by one particular language.