The problem is that they do not tend to represent a single text, because of the high amount of variations in each individual copy (at least, this is true for the Sinai and Vatican Codices, which are the two main represenatives of this family).
Dr Thomas Holland wrote, in Crowned with Glory:
Quote:
Sir Alfred Chester Beatty discovered several papyrus manuscripts known as P45, P46, and P47. They date to the second and third centuries, and demonstrate a mixed text revealing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. P46, however, has recently been argued by some to date to the last half of the first century, around 85 AD. The same may be said of the findings of M. Martin Bodmer concerning P66, P72, and P75. These manuscripts traditionally date around the third century. P66, however, has been redated by some to the first half of the second century. If the redating of all these texts holds true it lends support to the thought that most textual changes occurred before 200 AD. It also could suggest that the Alexandrian text-type was in an evolutionary stage only to be fully developed by the fourth century. In either case, we see that the earliest manuscripts reveal a mixed text containing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.
No one would demand that each and every scholar, theologian, textual critic, and church historian agree on everything as it relates to Bible doctrine. But, when we find early heresies mixed with present day false teachings, it should cause us some concern. The concern should intensify when we discover that many who have influenced Biblical transmission held such heresies. At the very least, their influence should be called into question. After all, do we really want to trust the safe keeping of Holy Scripture with those who have proven themselves to be corrupt in regard to Biblical doctrine?
|