Missing verses

Clint, the NIV omits the verses in question due to its being based on a different textform than the KJV. As the other versions you mention is based on the same textform, they will also omit the verses in question. The versions based on the same textform as the KJV will include the verses. Those verses would be the NKJV, 21st Century KJV, 3rd Millenium Bible, etc.

 

A textform is the form the underlying Greek text takes. There are primarily two major textforms, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. There is a third which has charateristics of both, and probably represents a partially corrected representitive of the Alexandrian textform. It is usually called "Western" and is the basis of the Latin Vulgate.

 

This is not always true. The NASB & ESV include verses in text that the NIV relegates to the footnotes or does not include at all. I have some examples at the office and I'll post those when I'm able.

 

Of course the real question is whether a particular textform has dropped out words, or another textform has added words. As the debate goes, usually the Alexandrian textform is accused of dropping verses or parts of verses. The Byzantine textform conversely should be accused of adding verses. There are ample examples though where the Byzantine textform is split on whether or not words should be included, just as the Alexandrian textform is split. Hence the need for textual criticism to deduce logically whether ommission or inclusion better explains why the other would have happened. Textual critics broadly conclude that copied manuscripts over the years tend to grow rather than shrink.

 

I just spent 45 minutes typing a post giving reference after reference of homoeoteleuton in the Alexandrian textform clearly identifying the cause of their being accidentally dropped from that textform, and when I submitted it, it was gone! The entire thing was missing! Gone! 45 minutes of typing, much of which was in Greek fonts! Gone! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! So much for the "new improved software!"

[ February 24, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dr Cassidy-
For the same reason I use a simple text editor before I post. I have been certified a non-typist by several leading organizations. I really empathize!!!

 

I suffer from a neurological disorder called "BET" or Benign Essential Tremor which causes my hands to shake (along with other body parts) which makes typing very difficult. This is the first time I have encountered such a problem on this forum. On the FFF I usually copy the post before I do anything because the "delete" function is so close to the "view all" button that I have sometimes hit the wrong one when my hands zig when the screen zags.

I will redo the post tomorrow. It was just to good to let it pass.

 

Okay, let's try this again. In response to Chick's post above, allow me to note that only those scholars who ascribe to the "modern scientific textual criticism" based on the "5 Pillars" of Westcott and Hort believe the Alexandrian textform is the correct textform and the Byzantine textform has "added" to the autographa.

In fact, history teaches us that textual corruption is most often caused by homoeoteleuton (like ending). There are several examples of this which I could type in for you, but I will let you do your own homework. I will limit myself to just an example: Luke 2:15. The Byzantine textform reads êáé åãåíåôï ùó áðçëèïí áð áèôùí åéó ôïí ïèñáíïí ïé áããåëïé êáé ïé áíèñùðïé ïé ðïéìåíåó åéðïí . . . whereas the "modern scientific critical edition" reads êáé åãåíåôï ùó áðçëèïí áð áèôùí åéó ôïí ïèñáíïí ïé áããåëïé ïé ðïéìåíåó . . .

It is abundantly clear that the critical edition has corrupted the original via homoeoteleuton. The syllable ÏÉ occurs 6 times in about as many words, êáé åãåíåôï ùó áðçëèïí . . . ïé áããåëïé êáé ïé áíèñùðïé ïé ðïéìåíåó åéôïí. The critical editions leave out êáé ïé áíèñùðïé on the bases of the homoeoteleuton seen in BLÎ.

So, as we can see from the actual evidence, it is much more likely that words will be omitted from the text than added to the text.

I suggest every serious student of the textual issue read John Burgon's "The Causes of Corruption."

I too was educated in the Critical text position, using as my textbooks those written by Kenyon, Metzgar, etc. But after sampling from all the information available, it because obvious that my education had either been done in bias, or ignorance of the true textual situation.

[ February 25, 2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

What mss are you reading, Thomas?

 

The TR and UBS. However, I also know how to work my web browser! If you will go to "View" then to "Encoding" and "More" and select "Greek (Windows)" you will be able to read what the rest of us can see just fine.

 

Never had a problem before. I don't think it's on my end this time. Maybe I should disable the "Garble all Circular Reasoning" function. That would help.

[ February 25, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Hey great! If I knew it was that simple to be able to "read Greek" seminary would have been a lot easier!

 

OK, here is my reply to Thomas,

Thomas said,

You apparently don't know what modern reasoned eclecticism is. Reasoned eclecticism has left behind Westcott and Hort, even though pro-majority text advocates keep fighting their fight as though they were fighting Westcott/Hort. Reasoned eclecticism does NOT hold that "the Alexandrian textform is the correct textform." You miss the whole point of reasoned eclecticism. Reasoned eclecticism operates toward the goal of restoring the original, not with the goal of promoting a particular text-type or particular manuscript as the being the original. You will note that the current UBS text is a product of reasoned eclecticism. There are ample examples of where Byzantine readings are found in the text, and Alexandrian manuscripts are relegated to the footnote (see James 5:4) Furthermore, through reasoned eclecticism, one can conclude that in Luke 9:23 a bunch of earliest Byzantines and the Alexandrians together correctly share a LONGER reading against later Byzantines and Western D. Luke 9:23 is a clear example where the textus receptus and the UBS critical text together agree on a reading that is not in the Majority Text (which advocates the shorter reading). No where does reasoned eclecticism claim that the shortest reading is always the more accurate.

I dispute your notion that homoeoteleuton is the most often cause of textual corruption. Furthermore, while scribes can and did accidentally leave out phrases due to similar ending, this type of error happened in all text-types and is usually easily identified. Reasoned eclecticists like Metzger (not Metzgar as you spelled it) and David Alan Black warn to watch out for this possibility when using the "shorter reading" rule. Also, sometimes the scribe would put his eyes down on the same line thinking it was the next line and commit a dittography.

Having said all this, homoeoteleuton can hardly be called upon to explain textus receptus anomalies like 1 John 5:7-8. It cannot explain the ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery of John 7:53-8:11, etc. It cannot also explain the many times where later Byzantine mss., have a few additional words like "Jesus Christ" instead of just "Jesus".

Finally, if the Alexandrians are erroneous where they are shorter, then you must solve the conundrum of how the errors came so quickly from LONGER (presumed correct) exemplars. You have to have longer correct exemplars in the first two centuries A.D. that then quickly produce much shorter copies in both Greek manuscripts, all early versions, and in the early church fathers. This is real difficulty for you. B and P75 agree so closely, that they almost certainly shared an exemplar only a few generations back. The many differences between Aleph and B is testimony to the fact that their shared exemplar must have been even further back toward the originals. There is simply not enough room to have several generations of longer correct mss producing shorter incorrect mss--and then to have the same process take place amongst the early version and fathers.

I was educated in the MT/TR position, using such silly arguments like the early Alexandrians were purposely buried because they were erroneous, and the Devil himself is responsible for their discovery. I have sampled ALL the information, and it has become obvious to me that my college education was done in bias and ignorance of the true textual situation. Thankfully, my quality graduate education at Maranatha Baptist Bible College has helped me recover.


[ February 25, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Incidently, my TR/MT college professor has since also recovered and now promotes the NIV

 

Non sequiter. We are discussing additions or deletions. The KJV itself is based on eclecticism!

Click on "View" "Encoding" "More" and "Greek (Windows)" to solve your problem.

Read Robinson and Pierpont. Their explanation is masterful.

Then you were not educated in the Byzantine textform position for none of your points above have anything to do with the Byzantine textform superiority position. You are talking about Ruckmanism or radical KJVOism, not textual criticism.

 

And yet you are the one who wrongly inferred that the modern reasoned eclectic approach believes that "the Alexandrian textform is the correct textform."

I have read Robinson and Pierpont and found that they add little (in underlying approach and a priori assumptions) to Hills or Burgeon.

Try reading Dan Wallace (JETS June, 1994, and other articles) Wallace is much more "masterful" and has soundly taken Robinson/Pierpont to task.

My one comment about the Devil getting involved is Ruckman in nature, but my college professor was not Ruckman, he was thoroughly TR/MT. I was taught all the standard Burgeon arguments. Furthermore, all of my points are in answer to your statements which come from a Byzantine textform superiority position. You have indicated that you are non-Ruckman, and I am talking about textual criticism--don't wrongly accuse me of reacting to Ruckmanism. Neither of us have the time to interact with his nonsense.

Chick