Im sorry Paul but your dependence on the extra biblical writings is not a idea that I can accept.. The text and the oldest text are the best source of truth we have. Clearly the older text are more accurate and these additions as in Mt and Mark are just that..additions
I could not establish the age of Origens writings as it relates to the oldest known text? Do you have a source that I could look to for your dating?
No my brother, I do not depend on these but as I said they are a powerful witness. For the earliest writers only two generations had passed. Sin and Vat were not even made until 400 years later. Who knows how many variances could have entered into these.
You say, “
With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. “
I’m not sure of that since they differ between themselves in literally 1000s of instances. I am not dogmatic over this point but the modern consensus is not totally honest with lay readers and this is the first reason I am bothered by their perspective. For example you mention P75 which though it does not contain the periscope or the events of Gethsemane, in every other respect it is a match for the Majority Text and in this part of Vaticanus the two agree.
In other places Sinaiticus differs, like with Mark 16:9, if we trust Vaticanus it is either deleted or had not yet written in, as it contains the appropriate empty space for where it should be or was intended. On the other hand, if we trust Sinaiticus, the book stops at Mark 8 abruptly with no post resurrection statement. Alexandrinus on the other hand (from where Mark’s gospel was published) includes the entire text through verse 20. Earlier still, when Jerome wrote
the Vulgate he gathered the best documents in his time and had the unfettered testimony of most church leaders and scholars at the time. He includes verses 9-20. Then in the even earlier fathers, at least one quotes and others infer from these very verses. (?!?)
If you do some digging you will find that there are
3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone (656 in Matthew; 567 in Mark; 791 in Luke; 1022 in John). Which do you suppose is closest to the autographs with such vast distinctions? Obviously they are neither the oldest nor the best, but many of the Papyri
are closer and thus more reliable. Sometimes they agree with one or the other but mostly they agree with the Majority Text.
In some cases Sin and Vat, are in disagreement with the quotations from the earlier Texts quoted by those who received the originals from the Apostles or their immediate disciples. Burgon notes that “
…the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree." So why would I trust these?
Why should I take the word of 2000 year removed moderns, who in addition, against all of the actual history we do possess, try to insist that I should believe Mark was written first (totally contrived without a shred of evidence). You see?
Take this example….Modern biologists tell me it is the
consensus of most biological scholars that at least at one time non-living matter became alive (akin to spontaneous generation)…
so then because it is the consensus of modern scholars I should trust it as correct? I think not…at least not me…
You were correct when you said “
It is to be noticed that all the manuscripts listed above come from Egypt.” The funny thing is it attested as late as Pamphilus Eusibius (who was himself from the west and only later opened a library in Caesarea where he still possessed a Hebrew Aramaic Matthew which was viewed by Jerome) that NONE of the autographs were entrusted to the west, they were all entrusted to the churches of the east with the exception of Mark…Sin and Vat would not be written for another 100+ years…
Origen wrote about 180-250 A.D. and I would not say he is anymore reliable than any other, but he did get to examine all the extant samples of his time and compose a 6 version comparison (a huge scholarly task)...but let's skip him...that's fine, I would not try and force him on you...I also would question a lot of his conclusions but very few of his quotations.
Sorry if I led you away from the OP...so tell me, do you think "
and fasting" should be deleted?
Paul