Featured Does the Greek Text Matter?

James White is a consultant for the NASB. I would think he would have some practice of textual criticism.

 

Here is the list of supposedly significant doctrinally different texts between NA and Byz.

In Romans 1:16 the NA says gospel, but the Byz says gospel of Christ. But since the one and only gospel is the gospel of Christ there is absolutely no difference in the doctrines taught by these two versions of that verse. And the NA does have the "gospel of Christ" at least 8 times in other verses.

In Romans 8:1, amazingly, there does seem to be a significant difference. In the NA version, there is no condemnation for those with Christ, whereas in the Byz you also need to walk after the Spirit, a works based salvation. Many do not think that doctrine is inspired!

In Romans 10:15, the Byz seems to add to harmonize with Isaiah 52:7 or Nathan 1:15. However, since the "gospel of good things" includes peace with God, nothing has been lost by sticking to the inspired text.

In Romans 11:6, we seem to have an addition to restate and clarify the first part of the verse, but the addition is unnecessary, and does not alter the doctrine being taught, salvation by grace and not by works.

In Romans 14:21 we seem to have another addition after stumble, to harmonize with 1 Cor. 8:11-13. The doctrine, do not do anything that might hinder the spiritual condition of your siblings in Christ remains the same.

Finally, in Romans 15:29 adding "in the gospel" does not alter the doctrine, for the blessings of Christ include His gospel.

In summary, only one Byzantine text verse might be read to teach a differing and spurious doctrine.

At the end of the day, claims of superiority by the NA or Byz seem, to be much ado about nothing or very little.

 

Yeah it's the same James White. You have to scroll past education, which is towards the bottom. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/about/

As far as his education. From reading, listening and watching his work with apologetics. I think his Colombia Evangelical Seminary paid off. I know nothing of their standards, but White is sharp.

 

Yes and no. I understand both side wanting to get as close to the original as possible. However your point is, regardless off which you prefer, it won't change your doctrines. You are absolutely correct. I think both sides of this argument, atleast on this thread, agree with you. JofJ stated similar earlier.

 

Right, we agree there are no significant doctrinal differences between the NA and Byz, and in my opinion, where they might exist, the Byz doctrine is errant, as in Romans 8:1.

 

But that theory has not, in fact been proven. It is an unsupported claim.

And why do Alexandrian papyri, codices containing much of Mark and John not have the Markan ending and PA? Is it just a coincidence? Or is it a distinct possibility that the scribes were going by exemplars that did not have those passages?

You have described Alexandrian scribes as being careless, and sloppy --asleep-at-the-wheel as it were. You have said that "their omissions" were accidental. But that supposition just won't hold water. You'll have to come up with a deliberate scheme on their part to delete --something that KJVO folks have majored in.

 

I'm just addressing English Bible translations --not Greek New Testaments. None of them delete the PA or longer Markan ending. The bracketing is perfectly acceptable. It was not done in a cavalier fashion. a good deal of thoughtful scholarship has gone into the process.

Why do you say that? You sound like a KJVO'er who objects to footnotes on the same page as the biblical text:"It puts doubt in the mind of the reader."

Do you think that a qualifying statement regarding disputed passages such as :"The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have..." is invalid? Do you really think it keeps back part of the whole counsel of God from us?

 

The doctorate program he participated in is rated top 10 in the nation. http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/aboutus/topten.html

 

Would say that it still comes down in the end to the truth that regardless of which Greek text one chooses to use, that they would all allow for us to understand and to teach the cardinal truths of Christianity...

And my take on the Woman if John is that it was probably a real historical event, was known to earth church, but not found in original Gospel of John...
And that the end of Mark was inseted into end of original, as it seemed to end to quickly for some, and that editor added in the known historical events from acts into it to finish and polish it off!

Dies not affect my view on inspiration and inerrancy though...

 

Which do we think is more important, starting with the NA or the Byz, or on the other hand, using a word for word translation rather than a functional equivalent version? Is it more likely we will believe error by using one or the other Greek texts as translated into English (NASB versus WEB) or using the NASB (word for word philosophy) rather than the NLT (functional equivalence.)

I think there is a lot less error in the WEB (Byz) or NASB (NA) than in those versions which arrange the words to say what the translator thinks is being said.

Or, in other words, debates over Byz versus NA are much ado about nothing or very little, but subscribing to functional equivalence is a big deal.

 

I did not say it was. Did I use a personal pronoun? No, I said "that theory."

Well, for instance,on the subject of PA adelph and B do not have the account. Codex Borgianus from the 5th century doesn't have it. Codex Alexandrinus (400-440) which has a Byzantine text in the Gospels doesn't have it. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (450) a mixed-text doesn't have it.

Regarding the longer ending of Mark:

Aleph and B do not have it. Syriac Sinaiticus (from the late 4th century) doesn't have it.

Was it a plot to remove it? Of course not. There is much more of a possibility that Byz. texts have added rather than that the Alexandrian-Text form deleted. Every time you say "omitted" in most cases it just wasn't present in the exemplar.

Were these scribes working in concert with one another? Or were they being faithful to their exemplars?

And that information is supposed to aid you somehow? I am speaking of the work of the scribes who did the work originally on the Alexandrian mss --not later correctors.

On the contrary, you said in post #27 that there was a "very real possibility of accidental omission." You did not cite a scholar for that opinion. Someone once said :"Sorry, such unsupported statements are not textual criticism. You have given no reasons."

 

There is no such strategy on my part. I have simply noticed parallels between the "strategies' of KJVO-folk and your own.

When you claim that doubt can set in for people who observe brackets around disputed texts such as PA and the longer ending of Mark, that smacks of the kind of thing that KJVOnlyists come up with.

I doubt that Maurice Robinson and other scholars advocating Byz. priority would suggest such things.

 

From Post 29

By Alexandrian scribes?

I'd like JoJ to address the above.

 

Does the MODERN Greek text we follow matter?

Here's a simple progression of thoughts regarding scriptural variants.

1. Variants exist.

2. Experts disagree/opinions vary.

3. Original documents are not available.

4. Various approaches to the problem may provide statistical comfort but not a definitive answer.

DOES IT MATTER? – HOW DOES IT AFFECT US?

5. With portions of scripture having great certainty regarding the text, we may have greater confidence and be more assertive regarding our doctrinal conclusions.

6. In areas of lesser textual certainty, we need to exhibit greater humility and be open to other opinions.

Rob