Evidence of textual corruption

Why thank you!

I've been thinking all day about the "best is older" principle of W & H (when I should have been thinking more about pastoring, no doubt). W & H took that principle straight from secular Greek textual criticism. However, there are very, very few mss for secular documents than for the NT. Here is an interesting chart along that line: http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

I believe that NT textual criticism should be approached differently from secular textual criticism.

(1) If there were only 7 mss of Plato, but over 5000 of the NT, then why should they be approached the same way? Seems like there ought to be a very different approach here, yet scholars have slavishly followed W & H in their "older is better" principle.

(2) The NT is a sacred book, read by a much broader spectrum of people and treated differently by its readers than Plato, who was a mere philosopher. Principles of textual criticism ought to take that into account, but the theories of W & H did not.

Just thinking around the problem.

God bless.

 

While the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible and provided no such inspiration for Plato's writings, I don't agree that textual criticism should be handled differently due to the number of manuscripts. Just because the original writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit inspired and guided how the copies were handled. While it makes sense that the majority would probably be more correct if they all came from the same period of time, that is not the case. The majority of these hand-copied manuscripts come from a time period much later than the time period when the older texts were copied. It makes more sense to me that the older texts would be more reliable simply because they were closer in time to the originals and so there had not been as much time for error to creep in.

 

That was a good article you posted by Maurice Robinson.
He presents his conclusions (which quite often disagree with his colleagues) in such a way as not to judge, belittle or demean them.

What a gentleman.
If only I could be so gracious.
BTW, he has recently joined the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog site.

Of particular note in his interview that you posted, he says:

John writes: “Vaticanus and Siniaticus, the two main mss used for the modern Greek texts (UBS, Nestles, etc.) are notorious for having many corrections written in the margins by various different scribes. This says to me that the Greek text of the 4th-5th century was not nearly as solid as Alexandrian advocates would say. On the other hand, Byzantine/Majority mss are much closer together in content. I can vouch for this personally, since I have compared over half of Robinson's Byzantine Textform with the TR texts of Stephanus and Scrivener.”

A couple of points.

Reading various early church fathers makes one realize that there was already a large range of textual variation from quite early on.

Comparing text the 1550 (Stephanus), 1894 (Scrivener) and 2005 (Robinson) and saying they are remarkably similar is not surprising; they come from the same textual families and are all collated texts made from a number of other texts.

I wouldn’t call the textual notes and corrections in Codex Vaticanus and Siniaticus “notorious”.
The science of textual criticism was still in the dark ages then. :laugh:

There are some remarkable ways that Vaticanus identified the questionable text within it's pages.

The various editions of the TR had a similar range of corrections over time.
But by then the advancement in paper (rather than the expensive and labor intensive velum) allowed for a smoother and less identifiable way of changing the text.

Today we have NA27/UBS and the Byzantine Majority text (2002) with their published footnotes!
They are most excellect because they identify these areas of difference.

I’m curious as to exactly what methods you would use to choose between many “sacred” variants.
Why wouldn't older be better?
What identifies the sacred variants from the corruptions?

What are your rules for evaluating the variants in the sacred text.
I don't agree with those that say it's sacred because it’s written in the TR/KJV
…for then around and around we go... I'm feeling nauseus and dizzy.

A Case in Point regarding Sacred Texts:
One of the choices in the English Standard Version is to add the name of Jesus in numerous texts in order to clarify when the referent for a certain pronoun in the Greek text is unclear.

(For example the text in Mark 1:43 reads:
43 "And Jesus3 sternly charged him and sent him away at once,"

The footnote reads: " 3Greek he;")

Would this qualify as a “sacred” English variant?
Some might say that to change the text from "he" to "Jesus" honors his name more.

I personally think the decision was a poor one however I appreciate the footnote when it is done.


As I slowly work through the gospels, I find the textual decisions of the NA27 (and ESV) remarkable... chiefly because they document some of the differences in the text.

Perhaps this is where we can come to an agreement, Both the the current Majority text GNT and the NA27/UBS identify the variants and both bring the original Greek text closer to the reader.

Rob

 

He presents his conclusions (which quite often disagree with his colleagues) in such a way as not to judge, belittle or demean them.

What a gentleman.
If only I could be so gracious.
BTW, he has recently joined the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog site.[/quote]
I was impressed with the article and found that I agreed quite a bit with him. And as you say, he is a gentleman and a scholar, both--a rare combination, certainly so on the BB. :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

From what I've read and seen, there is far more difference between the original and corrections of Vaticanus than there are between the various TRs. But let it pass. It's not important for my points.

The NT text is sacred because of being God-breathed in the original. Since it is sacred, IMO it should be handled differently from a Greek poet or philosopher or playwright for the following reasons:

(1) God doesn't have fans, He has believers. A believer treats a text differently than a fan. See the works of Edward Hills for application to textual criticism based on human preservation of Scripture, which is based on the good Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. In what I've read, I've never read that W & H, Nestle, Metzger and their friends ever take that into account.

(2) As I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not a textual critic, so I don't have any personal rules for evaluating a reading. I like what Hodges does and more and more what Robinson does, but I don't think I could do it at my present level of training. I'm always just amazed at all the amateur textual critics, many of who can't even read Greek, who make their lists of readings and versions and then pontificate!

(3) As to why older wouldn't be better, well that is where the usual answer from the Majority/Byzantine side is that a Bible is to be used. If it is used it wears out. So the continued existence of the old mss means that they weren't used much, meaning there were other mss considered more authoritative. Again, if the churches in general preferred one particular text type, it makes sense that there would be more of that one around. This is where sacred textual criticism should differ from secular, in that someone reading a poem doesn't usually care so much what the original mss said near as much as someone reading God's Word.

This is not really an example of textual criticism but of how to translate. And it is not really a matter of even what method you use (dynamic equivalence, direct equivalence, etc.) but of what the receptor language demands. When I translate a verse into Japanese there are times when I simply must put the name of Jesus in because in the Japanese language context does not always help you learn who the "he" is. This is not a matter of changing the meaning of the text, but of how to communicate. Anyone who does translation work, sacred or secular (business, diplomacy, TV news, literature), does this all the time and thinks nothing of it--nor do the hearers or readers who know what the original said.

Amen. :thumbs:

God bless.

John

 

My view is that God gave into the hands of believers the earthly preservation of the text, as with the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and He handles the heavenly preservation of Scripture. ("Forever, oh Lord, is thy word settled in Heaven.") I believe that the early church did that through the Byz./Maj. text.

The fact that this text was used in the Greek-speaking church clinches it for me. As a missionary who works every day in at least three languages, I realize that even after 25 years I still am learning things that a native speaker takes for granted. So why would that not be true in the early centuries? Why would the Alexandrian text, used in Latin speaking areas, trump the Byz./Maj., common to Greek-speaking areas of the Roman Empire?

 

Mexdeaf and Deacon and Keith, if you are interested here is an online book which influenced me. (I have it in the hard copy.) Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, by Gordon Clark, a Presbyterian scholar.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Bible/clark_textualcriticism.html

 

I only brought this example up because the "Sacred Name" is one of the most easily observable differences between the Byzantine line of manuscripts and the Alexandrian line.
Changing the name (adding to, changing the spelling or form, abbreviating) seemed to be an acceptable change in the text.
It doesn't usually play a part in the expostion a passage.
I often wonder how the memorization of a passage prior to the actual transcription played it's part. Memory plays many tricks on us.

Rob

 

I enjoyed the pamplet you posted re: textual criticism but it's not quite as convincing as it could be.
You may even begin to use the ESV after comparing the differences... well maybe not. :thumbs:


This evening I examined his evidence in the book of Matthew

(I know, I know, I really didn't have much to do anyway).



Matthew 1:16:
16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. KJV

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. ESV

The primary Greek text reads the same in both the Majority text and NA27.



Matthew 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. KJV

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ESV

The primary Greek text reads the same in both the Majority text and NA27.
Gordon H. Clark, provides the answers for the change himself: “…there is no good reason for changing tittle into dot,”. ”The word tittle is, to be sure, an unusual word in English.…”.


Matthew 7:13
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: KJV

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. ESV

The primary Greek text reads the same in both the Majority text and NA27.


Matthew 8:12
“But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: KJV
“the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. ESV

The primary Greek text reads the same in both the Majority text and NA27.


Matthew 9:4:
"And Jesus knowing their thoughts...." KJV
“But Jesus, knowing their thoughts…” ESV

The primary Greek text reads the same in both the Majority text and NA27.


Matthew 18:7
"that man” KJV

“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" ESV

The NA27's apparatus notes Didymus of Alexandria (dated ~398) provides the earliest citation that omits the word, "that".
I don’t find the verse mentioned in Metzger’s commentary, perhaps it was in an earlier edition?


Matthew 21:44
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. KJV

44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”3 ESV [footnote: 3 Some manuscripts omit verse 44]

Metzger’s commentary notes that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. “While considering the verse to be an accretion to the text, yet because of the antiquity of the reading and its importance in the textual tradition, the Committee decided to retain it in the text, enclosed within square brackets.” (p.47).


Matthew 24:6
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. KJV

6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. ESV

The difference is not mentioned in the footnotes of the ESV.
Wieland Willkers textual commentary notes that “The support for the Byzantine reading is not very good.”


Matthew 28:9
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. KJV

9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. ESV

The difference is not mentioned in the footnotes of the ESV.
Wieland Willker calls this a “difficult variant” and after examination concludes, “NA probably wrong or indecisive”.


Rob

 

Since the Greek text reads the same, these are simply very minor differences in translation and don't fit the OP.

Since the Greek for "man" here is anthropos (dative), it can be translated as "person" or even "one" with no trouble. So as is very often the case, the textual difference makes no difference in the meaning.

I always grin a little when UBS/Nestles puts in brackets a reading the Byzantine has but some Alexandrian mss do not. When they do that they are preserving the traditional text. :applause:

Unfortunately, Metzger casts doubt on far too many passages in this way, too often with no more than one or two mss to back him.

The reason Willkers thinks to get rid of the reading is his prejudice for the Alexandrian text. Both Hodges in his Majority Text and Pierpont/Robinson's Byzantine include the reading, meaning it has excellent Byzantine support. So Willkers is simply showing his prejudice. I think I'll show my prejudice in favor of the traditional reading instead of those upstarts, Hort and Westcott.

Another clear case of Alexandrian vs. Majority. Back to square one. :thumbs:

(Don't know how to stop this thing from putting my statements into bold italic.)

 

John, do you think that there's a difference in the way the Bible should be translated as compared to all other translating? I've heard it both ways.

Those who contend for a difference in method want a Bible that has been "interpreted" as little as possible. Their cry is "just translate it and let me see how the author said it, figure out what it means, decide which words are significant, etc."

Obviously a word-for-word translation isn't possible, even as you've testified regarding Japanese. But do you think that Bible translation should follow stricter rules than other translation, or is such an idea just a sentiment proceeding from ignorance of the real issues?

 

In most areas I simply try to be professional in my translation work. I want to give it my best, to do the kind of job I would be proud of if I were doing translation work professionally. However, there are a couple of differences in doing Bible translation work.

(1) In relation to what you have said, a principle of my method is what I call "author intent" as opposed to the reader comprehension principle used by many modern translators. This is a matter of honesty to me. What right do I have to "interpret" something just so the reader can make sense out of it when God may have meant it to be ambiguous, or the Biblical statement is much deeper than my understanding? I like to give the example here of how the Japanese misunderstood the Potsdam Declaration at the end of WW2 with disastrous results--the A-bomb being dropped. They understood it according to their own culture rather than the author's culture.

(2) Interpretation does become more important than in secular translation. Sometimes it is necessary to interpret a verse as one translates it (but this is actually much more rare than some on the BB seem to think). A Bible translator must know hermeneutics and theology well. If he does not know hermeneutics he is likely to translate according to his presuppositions (for example, Calvinist or Arminian) instead of according to the text.

(3) I believe that the style of the translation should be more dignified than secular translation. When Christ speaks He should not sound like a "home boy" or a next door neighbor. He had dignity and power in his words, not the latest colloquialism. :type:

 

I'm reluctant to use this argument. Those who use it never give data about historical weather conditions, they just make a judgement based on the common knowledge that Egypt is a desert country. Was it the same in the 5th century? I don't know.

I know of no valid arguments about the different text types based on their media. Concerning other factors, there is a theory that Vaticanus and Siniaticus were part of a set of mss produced for the Roman Emperor. I'm not sure that there is much evidence for this, but if it is true they would be more of an art object or a library book than a beloved personal or church Bible. That would contribute to the fact that they lack wear.

 

Excuse me for coming in late on the discussion. I read the first and second post and then read quickly through all the others. So not sure if this has been answered or not.
But if the texts vary in every copy, does this mean that actual doctrine has been affected? I ask this because I have people who ask me questions who believe that even if one word has been changed, then we cannot trust in the rest of the Bible to be accurate in its teaching and therefore cannot be considered to be the word of God. For God would certainly preserve His word from corruption. Therefore how do we handle such a question?

 

This may help.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [LINK]
Article X.​

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

E. Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

Some make this logical assumption:

// ... even if one word has been changed,
then we cannot trust in the rest of the Bible
to be accurate in its teaching and therefore
cannot be considered to be the word of God.//

This is a foolish logical assumption which leads nowhere.
This assumption contradicts the Baptist Distinctive:
Soul Competency (that is that all competent people
are responsible before God for themselves).
The Soul Competency doctrine is contradicted by logically
assuming that there is no soul competent (except me
and thee - and sometimes I worry about you )
in the above statement. Here is a better statement:

// Even if one word has been changed,
we can still trust in the rest of the Bible
to be accurate in its teaching and
considered to be the word of God.//

The secret of working in this new logical assumption is that
we are competent to figure out which is right and
which is wrong.- each for ourselves.

Another beginning statement is less ackward and much
more workable:

//The Bible is without error - The Bible is
the Word of God and God doesn't make errors.
If there appears to be
an error within one Version or among versions -
the error is NOT introduced by God but is due to our
own miss-thinking or our own misunderstanding.

(I have used the term 'logical assumption' throught this post.
Don't confuse 'logical assumption' with a 'guess' or 'stab in the dark'.
A logical assumption used to be called an 'axiom' which means
'a truth obvious to all'.)

 

So are you saying that even if there are variations in texts with all copies of all the manuscripts, that none of these texual errors affect Christian doctrine as a whole? In other words, are they just that? textual errors and not doctrinal errors?

 

I didn't say that.
But I wish I had said that.

All the great schisms of the 19th century (1801-1900)
were based on the same KJV1769 Edition Bible
as the mainline churches in the USA: Baptist, Lutheran,
Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian.
It was the understanding of what the Bible meant that
made the difference in doctrine - not the words which were
pretty much the same.

The great schisms of the 19th century are:

1. Latter Day Saints (Mormons, etc.)
2. Christian Science
3. Adventist
4. Jehovah's Witnesses