How long since significant finds of ancient manuscripts?

One of the common "selling points" I see used as "must have" reasons for owning commentary sets, is that they are based on the "the best" and/or "most recently discovered" ancient manuscripts. Sometimes it's implied, and other times it's explicitly stated, that this results in better/more accurate commentary content.

While reading this common claim again this week for a commentary set I was considering, it occurred to me that I'm not aware of any major manuscript finds since the Dead Sea scrolls, nor am I aware of any manuscript discoveries in the last 40-50 years that would necessarily call into question or challenge commentaries produced since the mid 1960s to mid 1970s because the newer manuscripts weren't available when those commentaries were produced.

Have there been major manuscript finds within the last 40-50 years that result in significant challenges to commentaries produced between say, 1970 and 2010? If so, can you please mention what they are and/or provide any links to articles about these finds and/or the challenges they provide to the content of commentaries produced in that 1970-2010 time-frame because the manuscripts weren't available when the commentaries were produced?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Smith

Rick, I can't answer your questions, nor guess what the publisher might have meant, but think your's is an excellent question for that publisher. Why not try to get an answer from them?

Bad commentaries can be written with new data and good commentaries can be written with old data.

(‾◡◝)

I am certainly not an ancient manuscript expert, but your question(s) might be better asked at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and/or their blog. (Dan Wallace's group)

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930933#Comment_930933

I am certainly not an ancient manuscript expert, but your question(s) might be better asked at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and/or their blog. (Dan Wallace's group)

[Y]

DMB

Rick, you should waste good money on a Kindle volume:

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Text-New-Testament-ebook/dp/B00ARBXCVG

It's edited by Michael Kruger, who sits on the evangelical side of the house. After the intro articles that try to push the evidence as early as possible, it then goes thru each manuscript in detail, discussing its impact on later re-packaging (NA's, etc). Logos has Kruger, but this volume would be such a good fit.

I mention it, because you quickly see where the assumptions are made, and why a very recent manuscript, even if tiny, can be important, relative to earlier finds. Changes things? Maybe. But also can provide a better lock on earlier guesses. Ergo commentaries.

You mention manuscripts, but a lot also can also come from people doing new work on early versions (translations). Metzger's earlier (and dated) 'Early Versions of the NT' is priceless, but not digitized .... Logos has the later concise version.

Rick Ausdahl

Thanks to everyone for the replies! [:)]

Mark,

Sometimes the obvious options (such as "contact the publisher") get overlooked (my bad). Thanks for suggesting it. And yes, you're certainly correct that bad commentaries can be written using new data and vice versa. I considered that when making my original post but was trying not to muddy the water too much regarding my primary interest/question--i.e. wondering if there really was anything "new under the sun" discovered in the last 40-50 years regarding manuscripts that would challenge the accuracy of manuscripts used by older commentaries, and therefore possibly the older commentaries as well. I'm just trying to separate marketing hype from fact. I would like the content I read to be informed by the most recent discoveries possible, but I just couldn't think of any "big" news regarding manuscripts since the Dead Sea scrolls.

My suspicion is that it's more likely that archeological finds in the last 40-50 years may have more impact on commentaries than recent manuscript finds, but archeology is another topic/thread. [;)]

JRS,

Thank you for that link! It sounds interesting and I will definitely check it out.

Denise,

Thank you for the link--I will have a look-see. Also, thank you for the other tips and suggestions. They look to be very helpful as well.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/930987#Comment_930987

Rick, I suspect as you do that archeological findings of recent years probably have more impact on our study of the Bible than recent manuscript finds.

Ted Weis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931022#Comment_931022

Generally speaking, commentaries written after WW2 will have a stronger manuscript behind them, thanks to work such as Westcott-Hort's critical edition of the Greek New Testament in 1881; discoveries in 1920's in Oxyrhynchus Egypt by A.S. Hunt of ancient papyrus writings, including NT pieces; and Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries between 1947-1952.

Such discoveries--which take time to study--have clarified the text of the Bible in a few places, but even more, have enriched our understanding of how words in the Bible have been used elsewhere; those results are in our lexicons and word study books.

As nice as these discoveries are, Dr. Dan Wallace reminds us that "not one Christian doctrine" has been significantly altered because of such advancements. So if you reference a pre-WW2 commentary or dictionary, you'll still profit from it.

Speaking of archaeology, in November, what looks to be a real handy reference will come out: Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology: A Book by Book Guide to Archaeological Discoveries Related to the Bible

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931063#Comment_931063

As nice as these discoveries are, Dr. Dan Wallace reminds us that "not one Christian doctrine" has been significantly altered because of such advancements. So if you reference a pre-WW2 commentary or dictionary, you'll still profit from it.

That's a true, but a naive statement (Wallace). The bulk of doctrines are not to be found in the text, nor for that matter in the early Christian writers (a few who got de-doctrinized). So, one should not be too surprised. It'd be nice to find a truly early NT trove, as happened with the DSS.

Ken McGuire

Often the marketing blurbs do seem like overstatements. That said, the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in their entirety only in 1991. I do remember back when one of the selling points of the Anchor Bible commentaries on Samuel were that the author had access to and interacted with the various DSS fragments that were not all yet public.

JohnB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/931063#Comment_931063

Speaking of archaeology, in November, what looks to be a real handy reference will come out: Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology: A Book by Book Guide to Archaeological Discoveries Related to the Bible

Thanks Ted. Looks interesting.