Question about textual difference

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by mcgyver, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 8:1 (KJV) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." (emphasis mine)

    Luke 4:18 (extract KJV) "...to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives..." (emphasis mine)


    The KJV and the NKJV retain the sentences in italics above, however the NASB and NIV omit them.

    My question is two-fold: Firstly, does the Nestle-Aland omit these phrases?

    Secondly if so; Our Lord in Luke 4:18 is quoting Isaiah 61, which includes the phrase to heal the broken-hearted. Why then in your opinion would this be omitted in the Nestle-Aland?

    Please don't turn this into a KJV vs MV debate...I am interested in the opinions of those who are familiar with textual criticism as to the differences above. Thanks
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Romans vrse, the belief is that the phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit" is a dittography, accidentally duplicated from Rom. 8:4.
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Yes, the NA/UBS omit both phrases.

    Because the primary manuscripts NA/UBS is based on omits the phrase. Aleph, B, D, L, W, Xi, family 13, 33, 579, and 892 (correctors hand), omit the phrase.

    A, Delta, Theta, Psi, 010,2 0233, family 1, 28, 157, 180, 205, 565, 597, 892 (corrector), 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, and all the Byzantine manuscripts of Luke (including the great Byzantine Uncials E, F, G, and H), contain the reading. And, of course, the OT from with it is quoted contains the reading.

    As to Romans 8, the phrase is missing from the original reading of Aleph but it is present in a correctors hand, B, C (in the hand of the second corrector, the original being damaged and illegible), D (original, but corrected), F and G but both of them leave space to contain the phrase, 6, 424 (correctors hand), 1506, 1739, and 1881.

    The reading is present in A, D (first correctors hand), Phi, 81, 256, 263, 365 (with a variant), 1319, 1573, 1852, 2127, in the second correctors hand of Aleph, D, 33 (but it is poorly preserved and the reading is not certain), 104, 424 (before correction), 436 with a variant, 459, 1175, 1241, 1912, 1962, 2200, 2464, and all the Byzantine manuscripts including the ancient Byzantine Uncials K, L, and P.

    If you would like my opinion on the reliability of the readings I will gladly give it and the reasons for that opinion. [​IMG]
     
  4. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I would be extremely interested in your opinions, as I have need of answers to these questions.......(maybe when I get to glory I'll know all the answers, until then I'm willing to learn!) :D
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    These guys only had info about the Romans passage.

     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Well, at least somebody is!

    I believe both the phrases are canonical and belong in our English Bibles.

    I have several reasons for believing so.

    1. Number. The majority reading will most likely be the correct reading and both phrases are in the majority of manuscripts.

    2. Age. A & D are both 5th century and they contain the phrases, and John Chrysostom cited the passage in his writings in the 4th century.

    3. Acceptance, or historicity. The churches all down through the ages of church history have accepted the phrases as part of the canon as evidenced by the writings of the church fathers which include, in addition to Chrysostom cited above, Victorinus (Rome), Jerome, Pelagius, Speculum, Cyril.

    4. Geography. The churches in the region the book of Romans was addressed to accept the reading as canon.

    5. Agreement. The variety of witnesses concur with the readings. There are almost as many Alexandrian witnesses that include the phrases as there are that omit them.

    6. Credibility. The witnesses to the readings are more credible than the witnesses that omit the readings.

    7. Context and other internal considerations. And this is an overwhelming testimony to the inclusion of both phrases.

    The Luke phrase, which is a quote from the OT, includes the phrase simply because it is in the OT canon and has never been contested as being part of the OT canon.

    The Romans phrase is in keeping with the context. In Romans chapter 7 Paul is lamenting his inability to live his life as he knows the Lord would like him too. He says that which I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do. Then he really beats himself up for not living the Spirit filled life by saying "Woe unto me! Who will deliver me from this body of death." He was saved but powerless, joyless, and useless (in his own estimation) to the Lord. Paul is engaging is self-condemnation for not being able to do as he knows he should.

    Chapter 8 answers his question! "There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

    The solution to Paul's problem of self-condemnation is 2 fold. Be in Christ and walk in the leading of the Spirit. In chapter 7 he only had it half right, he was in Christ. But in chapter 8 he got it all right, he was in Christ and he was walking after the Spirit. [​IMG]

    The evidence is, in my opinion, overwhelming, but, just look down to verse 4 where Paul repeats the formula for successful Christian living, "So that the righteous demand of the law (which he was not able to do in chapter 7) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (he now, through the power of the Holy Spirit, is able to do)."

    [​IMG]
     
  7. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy,

    Thank you for your insights, and thanks Gold Dragon for the links.
    In keeping with the same idea, (and I shudder to ask this based on what happened last time it was brought up...); In your opinion(s) should the "Johannine comma" in 1 John 5:7 be kept as canonical?
    Curious as to your opinions on the matter....
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    1 John 5:7-8.

    This is one of the really tough verses to deal with. As you know, if you read the other thread in which I posted my personal guidelines for doing (lower) textual criticism, I have some things I look at to help me understand why a reading is present or absent in the published texts.

    1. The first thing I look at is the number of witnesses. It is clear, at first glance that the comma is only represented by about 10 witnesses, the oldest of which, 221, is a 10th century mss with the comma included in the margin as a variant reading. 2318 can be disregarded as it dates to the 18th century. 61 (16th century) and 629 (a diglot containing both Greek and Latin versions and usually dated to the 14th or 15th century) contain most of the comma but omit part of it. That leaves us with 88, which only contains the comma as a marginal variant, 429, which does the same thing, and 636 which also contains the comma as a marginal variant. 918 contains the reading in the text but with minor variants. The reading is contained the some lectionaries as published in Apostoliki Diakonia, and is in the Clementine Vulgate. The comma is also contained in the Arminian version as quoted by one of the Patristics. It is also found in the Latin lectionary q and is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Priscillian and other Patristics. That is not a lot of manuscript evidence, even bearing in mind that copies of 1 John older than the 12th century are some of the rarest mss of any book. So, on "Number" the jury is still out and will probably come in as a hung jury.

    2. Age. The most ancient cites date to the 4th century but none are older than that. Still no verdict.

    3. Historicity. Also mixed. No compelling evidence.

    4. Geography. Both the majority of the Byzantine mss and the majority of the Alexandrian mss omit the verse. No compelling evidence.

    5. Agreement. Mixed. The Greek Patristics omit it and the Latin Patristics include it.

    6. Credibility. Again, mixed.

    7. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context. This is where the most compelling evidence in support of the comma is found. There are three nouns in the Greek which are all neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). But, they are followed by a masculine participle. Verse 6 has the same participle, but it is neuter, which, in the context of verse 6 is correct Greek grammar. But, to have a masculine participle in verse 8 and three neuter nouns is an error in Greek grammar. However, if you include the two masculine nouns from the comma, "Father" and "Son," followed by the neuter noun "Spirit" the participle rightly follows the masculine gender of the two controlling nouns and is masculine. And this is not a new argument being used as far back as the 4th century AD. In my opinion, the first 6 guidelines present mixed evidence, but the 7th is the clincher. Either the comma belongs or God made a grammatical error when He inspired 1 John.

    (And I know that John seems to have deliberately violated this rule of Greek grammar in John 16:13-14 but that is, in my opinion, not a violation but John is referring back to verse 7 and using "'o paraklhtos" in verse 7 as the antecedent, not "pneuma" of verse 13. This is a classic example of the principle of "the remoter antecedent" at work in Greek grammar. Such is not the case in the comma for no such remoter antecedent exists.)
     
  10. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    In reference to above item #2, given your well reasoned response as to grammar, syntax, and immediate context; How would it be explained that the comma is not in evidence prior to the fourth century? I am asking from the standpoint (perhaps mistaken) that the Greek language would still have been more common and widespread than it is now, and that such a lapse in grammar (if this were the case) certainly would have been noted, and questions asked as to "what was missing".
     
  11. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    I re-read the post a little more closely (it's been a long day!)
     
  12. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tcassidy,

    Just curious why you would make this statement:

    [Emphasis added]
     
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Because, with just a couple minor exceptions, the oldest Greek manuscripts all date to the 4th century. And even then those exceptions don't contain 1st John. P9 (3rd century) only contains parts of 1 John 4. The epistles of John are the least represented in the oldest manuscripts.
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Because it is true?
     
  15. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think El Guero wondered about your including Pelagius*, a heretic among the churchfathers.

    *the great propagandist of salvation by works.
     
  16. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    That there is a grammatical problem with the passage, with the missing words, is all too evident to those who know Greek grammar. But, admitting to it is completely another thing. This problem which was known back in the days of Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD), is also known today. But, how many textual scholars who are aware of this, would even bring it up, since they consider the disputed words themselves to be not the work of the apostle John. Gregory wrote:

    ". . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" (Theological Orientations, Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit)

    Gregory noticed the problem with the grammar, but yet we do not find him actually quote the words in his writings.The Greek grammarian, Dr A T Robertson, who should have picked this up, does not even mention it in his Word Pictures of the New Testament. Thats because his mind was already made up about the genuineness of the words. Likewise Bishop Thomas Middleton (1769-1822), noted in his excellent work on the Greek Article: "The Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, that the presence of the Greek article "to" in the sentence "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin", would call for the disputed words to be part of the text. This is because, the use of the article "to" here with "hen" (one), would be for the purpose of "renewed mention", when a word in the Greek (in this case "one") was mentioned earlier. However, apart from verse seven, where we see "hen" used, it is not found in this chapter at all. Even though Dr Middleton saw this, he yet did not accept that the disputed words were part of the epistle.

    Make what you will of the evidence.
     
  17. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus, thank you for your answer. Both you and TCassidy make a good case for inclusion of the comma based on the problems evident with the grammar, should the comma be excluded.

    How is it then, (and I am asking your opinions) that the comma is not more in evidence in those manuscripts that are extant today? It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), that the majority of of MSS that we have today omit the comma (which I personally think is a shame).....Yet the question remains as to why.
    Please understand that I am asking these questions as one who is earnestly seeking to understand the dynamics of textual criticism and the translation process.
     
  18. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, It is true that the oldest Greek manuscript that is in existence today thatb has the disputed words, dates from around the 15th or 16th century, too late to be used, in my opinion to establish the genuineness of the words.

    However, in the field of Textual Criticism, the manuscripts are only one of the sources to establishing a reading. We must also consider the evidence of the early Church fathers who quoted from the versions that were available to them, and to the versions of other languages, like the Old Latin, which is from around the 2nd century. It is a puzzle that the only evidence that we do have for these words, is from the Latin. We have a very clear reference to these actual words in the writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Cartidge, in North Africa, around 240 A.D, which predates the oldest Greek manuscript for this epistle, which is about 100 years later. the evidence of Cyprian has been disputed, espacially since he was from the Latin Church, where it has been said that he did not have access to any Greek New Testaments, and that he knew no Greek himself. Both these assumptions are wrong. Cyprian had a Greek education, and his writings show that he did use the Greek NT. He actually translated an Epistle from a Bishop to himself that was written in Greek, into Latin. The reading of 1 John 5:7 was also known to the heretic Priscillian (4th century), who altered it to suit his Christlogy. There is also a "Prologue" to the "Catholic Epistles", which, I am convinced was the work of Jerome, which I have also seen in the Latin text, where he complains of unfaithful translator's leaving out these words from verses 7 and 8.

    As for the manuscript evidence. I shall give one good example for their relialability. The famous passage in John's Goepel of the Woman found in adultery (7:53-8:11), is attested to by the oldest Greek manuscript, the Codex Bezae, a Greek and Latin Mss of the 5th or 6th century. However, Jerome, who lived about 100 years before this Mss, said of this passage in John, that it was found "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C.Pelag.ii.17). What became of these "many manuscripts"? Augustine says that "enemies of the faith removed the passage". I have shown elsewhere, that many of the Greek and other language manuscripts were copied by the heretics, many of those baing Arians, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and also the Holy Trinity. We also know that the Gothic version of the NT, was corrupted, for example in Philippians 2:6, where, instead of reading "ibna guda" (being in very nature God), it reads: "galeiko guda" (similar to God). This is because the version was made by Ulfilas, who was an Arian, and who denied that Jesus was God. Likewise the Greek gramnmarian, Dr G B Winer, when commenting on Titus 2:13, "our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ", admits that grammartcally the sentence in the Greek refers to one Person, Jesus Christ. But then says, that "theologically" he could not allow for this, because he was a Unitarian.

    You see, when it comes to the making of a version, or the copying of a manuscript, if the persons doing the work have their own predisposed theology about Jesus Christ, that is clearly heretical, then the outcome of the work is very doubtful. I fill conclude with just one more example, if I may. For the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifested in the flesh...", (which has the evidence of manuscripts, ancient versions, and Greek Church fathers), was changed to "He who", because the reading "God" was strongly objected to by Dr Vance Smith, who was on the Committee of the Revised Version (1881-1885). Dr Vance Smith, you will be interested to know, was a Unitarian! The list goes on...
     
  19. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mioque

    Based upon his calling a heretic a Church Father, can we ask which church he belongs to?
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

    So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

    There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

    1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

    2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

    3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

    4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

    5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

    6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

    If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

    As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

    But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

    The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...