[quote="Hishumbleservan, post:10, topic:341027"]
I can accept that there are differences between the manuscripts used between the DR and the NAB - minor variations in wording or emphasis are quite understandable and expected.
However, when dealing with dialogue purported to be spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ, I find it very difficult to believe manuscripts could add or omit such important verses from one to another! Wouldn't that amount to borderline blasphemy!?!?
Does this mean, as he was compiling the Vulgate (which the DR is translated from), St. Jerome unknowingly used manuscripts containing "fabricated" dialogue of Jesus within these verses since the manuscripts he used were not as old as the ones we currently use in the newer translations such as the NAB?
Apparently not so for the early Christians. There's of course the accidental copyist's error, but early Christian scribes apparently didn't think it very odd to alter the text on purpose, say to smoothen out grammatical 'errors' and difficult passages too. A scribe might change a bit of say, Mark's text to conform it more to Matthew's wording either out of habit (accidentally) or because he's so used to Matthew's version that Mark's wording doesn't feel 'quite right' to him. Of course for us today what they're doing might sound rather irreverent, but I think that early Christians simply inherited the Jewish mentality of transmitting faithfully what they think is the true meaning of the Scriptures, even if meant 'adding to' and 'tampering' with the text.
For example, when the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews (1.17) retold Old Testament history, he promised that he had reproduced it faithfully without adding to or removing from it. But a close reading would show that he did what we could consider to be the exact opposite of what he said: he had added incidental details that were not originally there in the original narrative and taken out some bits. Apparently Josephus thought he was not lying though: he was intending to transmit what in his view Scripture actually meant, even if it meant playing loose with the original narratives. A second example would be Jewish targumim (singular targum), Aramaic 'translations' of Scripture. For us some targumim doesn't look so much like a 'translation' because they play fast and loose with the original words, but more like a paraphrase. Here's an example:
And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl which are in the atmosphere of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every reptile creeping upon the earth. And the Lord created man in His Likeness: In the image of the Lord He created him, with two hundred and forty and eight members, with three hundred and sixty and five nerves, and overlaid them with skin, and filled it with flesh and blood. Male and female in their bodies He created them.
...] And the Lord God created man in two formations; and took dust from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him red, black, and white; and breathed into his nostils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears.
Compare it with what the original Hebrew says:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
...] Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
You can see that this particular targum added a lot of words, and in addition smoothened out a difficulty present in the original (why does God say "Let us make man in our image"?) But no one thought it was odd - the translator must have simply thought that he was fleshing out the narrative in Genesis.