Featured Tricky Variant in Gal. 4:7... Need Help

Hi Greektim, if one follows the W&H theory that the more difficult variant text is most likely the correct text then wouldn't it follow that the more difficult variant solution is most likely the correct solution?

If you respond "no" then of what value is the W&H variant text theory not being a universal principle?

How much better then the Burgon Seven Tests of Truth?

Thanks.

HankD

 

Oh, OK Tim,

I fully agree on the trust issue.

You must know that Sturz authored (perhaps more than one):

Sturz: Byzantine Readings with Early Papyrus Support.
The Byzantine text-type and New Testament textual criticism.

Not that anyone should put all their eggs in his one basket but he has show that there are many Byzantine readings distinctly aligned with the Early Papyri.

As to our passage in dispute, I do not have any of his publications as to its particular alignment.


HankD

 

I agree except for the issue of the geographical spread which I do not see as that much of a problem. However, I believe that it is most likely that Paul wrote δια θεου for his theological reasons , but that many scribes intentionally changed θεου to χριστου (using one variant or another) for their theological reasons rather than by a mistake due to the homoteleteuton or anything else.

Paul’s theological reason could have been simply that he realized that the deity of Christ was an issue that was much less settled in the minds of the Galatians than it was in his own mind. Therefore, he cited God, rather than Christ Jesus, as the source through which the Galatians were no longer slaves but sons (but why did he shift from the plural second person in v. 6 to the singular second person in verse 7 and then back to the plural second person in v. 8?). The scribes copying his letter, however, may have had a firm belief in the deity of Christ and therefore saw no need to cite God rather than Christ Jesus—and therefore changed θεου to χριστου (using one variant or another as they saw fit).

Perhaps, however, a desire for consistency may have had a motivating influence on the part of either Paul or some of the scribes,

4 οτε δε ηλθεν το πληρωμα του χρονου εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου γενομενον εκ γυναικος γενομενον υπο νομον
5 ινα τους υπο νομον εξαγοραση ινα την υιοθεσιαν απολαβωμεν
6 οτι δε εστε υιοι εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος το πνευμα του υιου αυτου εις τας καρδιας ημων κραζον αββα ο πατηρ
7 ωστε ουκετι ει δουλος αλλα υιος ει δε υιος και κληρονομος δια θεου
8 αλλα τοτε μεν ουκ ειδοτες θεον εδουλευσατε τοις φυσει μη ουσιν θεοις
9 νυν δε γνοντες θεον μαλλον δε γνωσθεντες υπο θεου πως επιστρεφετε παλιν επι τα ασθενη και πτωχα στοιχεια οις παλιν ανωθεν δουλευσαι θελετε

Or perhaps, in verse 6, Paul is referring to God having baptized the Galatians in the Holy Spirit, and therefore it was through God that the Galatians were no longer slaves but sons, and if sons then an heirs.

 

At the end of the day, "through God" is the most likely variant. Paul seems to be referring to God sending the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. There is no rational way to see how "of God through Christ" would be changed to "through God."

 

I have an example for all those trying to justify going with the easier reading as a general principle. Take a gander at Deuteronomy 31:1. Somewhere along the line "finished" was inadvertently changed to went. Thus to go with the harder reading (went) is absurd, since the change was inadvertent. However only the dreaded NLT comes close.

 

Sorry, I don't divulge my sources in the area of Greek. I actually know quite a few Greek profs. (And if any of them wanted to be quoted here they would post themselves, I'm sure.)

As one who has translated the entire NT into Japanese and a large percentage into English, and bungled all the way through, let me assure you that any transcription error whatever at any place in the NT is entirely possible.

 

Well, Dr. Robinson said to go ahead and admit that he is my source. Furthermore, he elaborates on the process that could produce the Alexandrian reading here:

"What I didn't say (but what he should know well) is the multiple-step process involved in copying (from Metzger) involving first reading the text, then holding such in memory, then writing etc. -- each of which is subject to its own level of error. So if the text were first misread by homoioteleuton, but the DIA still part of what was held in memory, then the mentally based "repair" during copying easily could result in the Alexandrian reading."

Then Dr. Robinson gives another possibility:

"Of course, it also could be the case that the Alex reading was the result of deliberate editorial stylistic revision, in which case other factors come into play. For example, contextually "God" is primary and occurs frequently within this closely-knit section (Gal 4.4, 6, 7, 8, 9), and God is particularly noted as the source of inheritance and sonship; on the other hand, "Christ" otherwise is basically absent between Gal 3.29 and 4.14. This consideration easily could lead the Alexandrian revisers to think that inclusion of CRISTOS at Gal 4.7 was an interpolation, thus resulting in its excision."